Tuesday, 10 December 2024
Continued to Friday, 13 December 2024 — Volume 780
Sitting date: 10 December 2024
TUESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2024
TUESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2024
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Obituaries
Hon Nicola Laura Kaye
SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 23 November 2024 of Nicola “Nikki” Laura Kaye, who represented the electorate of Auckland Central from 2008 to 2020. She was the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee, and then held several ministerial portfolios, including Minister of Civil Defence, Minister for Youth, Minister for ACC, and Minister of Education. In 2020, she became the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand and observe with me a period of silence as a mark of respect to her memory.
Members stood as a mark of respect.
Privilege
Conduct of Members—Disruption During Vote
SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received letters from the Hon Shane Jones, Suze Redmayne, and Todd Stephenson asking that I consider actions that may be considered a breach of privilege that took place following the debate on the Treaty principles bill on 14 November. I previously named Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for interrupting a vote, which should be considered a serious matter by every member of this House. Taking an action to prevent votes being completed is completely unacceptable. At this point, however, naming has been the only action I’ve chosen to take on that matter. The letters I’ve received name a number of members who participated in a haka in the House, and, in particular, four members who left their seats to stand on the floor of the House, with three of those members advancing towards the seats of another party. That is disorderly and cannot be considered anything other than disorderly. I do not make any ruling in this decision about the appropriateness of haka and its place inside the tikanga of this House. That is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee and will be discussed in a meeting later today.
However, the issue of members leaving their seats to participate in an activity that was disorderly and disruptive to the procedure of the House is something that should be considered further. The House may treat as contempt an act, or any act, which obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions. Standing Order 418 lists “Examples of contempts”, which include “threatening, or intimidating a member … in the discharge of [their duties]” and “threatening, or disadvantaging a member on account of [their] conduct in [the House]”. It is my decision, therefore, that this is a matter the Privileges Committee should consider. I have determined that the actions of the Hon Peeni Henare, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Rawiri Waititi, and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, in participating in disruptive activity on the floor of the House on 14 November, gave rise to a question of privilege which stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Urgent Debates Declined
Health Workforce Plan—Release
Marsden Fund—Funding for Humanities and Social Sciences
SPEAKER: I’ve received a letter from Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release of the Government’s health workforce plan. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However, not every Government announcement warrants an urgent debate. Even though the announcement may be important, there must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. I do not think that this application reaches that threshold. The application is therefore declined.
I’ve also received a letter from Hon Dr Deborah Russell seeking to debate the removal of funding for humanities and social sciences from the Marsden Fund. While this is also an important matter, it’s not of such urgency that it warrants setting aside the business of the House today. This application is therefore declined.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: There have been 11 petitions delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of Raewyn Harrison requesting that the House ban the public sale of fireworks
petition of Ponsonby Chambers requesting that the House expand the scope of discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993
petition of the New Zealand Values Alliance requesting that the House hold an inquiry into China’s foreign interference activities in New Zealand and the Pacific
petition of Alan Peacock requesting that the House pass legislation that limits any increases in regional or local council rates and levies to a maximum of the current rate of inflation
petition of Geoffrey Mortlock requesting that the House pass legislation to require the Government to specify and publish more comprehensive performance metrics for Government agencies
petition of Patrick Rooney requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure any Cook Strait replacement ferries are rail-enabled
petition of Helen Duyvestyn requesting that the House urge the Government to reallow the sale and distribution of micronutrient formulas for those experiencing mental distress
petition of Charlene Whyte requesting that the House urge the Government to require primary and secondary schools to provide education on social media
petition of Geoffrey Mortlock requesting that the House urge the Government to specify more detailed comprehensive performance requirements for all the Reserve Bank’s functions
petition of Leah Hawkins requesting that the House urge the South Wairarapa District Council to cap its rates increase at 3 percent
petition of Kylie Whellan requesting that the House urgently establish a subject select committee that considers Government-funded business related to all New Zealand children’s rights, care, and wellbeing.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 49 papers.
CLERK:
2023-24 annual reports for:
Accreditation Council
Children and Young People’s Commission
Civil Aviation Authority
Climate Change Commission
Commerce Commission
Education New Zealand
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
Fire and Emergency New Zealand
Health Quality and Safety Commission
Independent Police Conduct Authority
Ministry of Education and Student Loan Scheme
New Zealand Blood Service
New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd
New Zealand Lottery Grants Board
Pharmac
Radio New Zealand
Social Workers Registration Board
Takeovers Panel
Taumata Arowai
Te Papa
Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand
Tertiary Education Commission
WorkSafe
2023-24 statements of performance expectations for the Children and Young People’s Commission
2024-25 statements of performance expectations for:
Children and Young People’s Commission
Health Quality and Safety Commission
New Zealand Blood Service
Pharmac
Social Workers Registration Board
Sport Integrity Commission
Te Papa
Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand
statements of intent for:
Health Quality and Safety Commission
Inland Revenue
New Zealand Blood Service
Social Workers Registration Board
Sport Integrity Commission
Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand
strategic intentions for the Ministry of Transport
Government response to the petition of Leonie Morris
report of the Justice Committee on the petition of Liya Lupala
report of the Justice Committee on the report of the Ombudsman Kia Whaitake Making a Difference: Investigation into Ara Poutama Aotearoa Department of Corrections
Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2024
Agreement on Climate Change, Trade, and Sustainability, together with the National Interest Analysis
Agreement on Climate Change, Trade, and Sustainability revised
US Tuna Treaty Amendments to Annex II of the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America, together with the National Interest Analysis
reports of the Climate Change Commission on advice on Aotearoa New Zealand’s fourth emissions budget, November 2024, and review of the 2050 emissions target including whether emissions from international shipping and aviation should be included
Ngāi Tahu Ancillary Claims Trust, annual financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2024.
SPEAKER: I present the strategic intentions for the Parliament sector for December 2024 to June 2029. I also present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to previous returns and of initial returns. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Twenty select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:
review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd
review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd
report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill
report of the Health Committee on the briefing on the implementation of regulations to limit youth vaping
reports of the Justice Committee on the:
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill
Parole (Mandatory Completion of Rehabilitative Programmes) Amendment Bill and Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Privacy Commissioner
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill
reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:
briefing on the visit from the delegation of the Speaker of the Canadian Senate
inquiry into learning support for ākonga Māori
report of the 2022-23 annual review of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori
review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi
reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Bronwen Jones, Entrust, Greg Rzesniowiecki, Kristine Hayward, Steven Price, and VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai
report of the Primary Production Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill
reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the petition of Veronica Turketo, and report of the Controller and Auditor-General Leading New Zealand’s approach to housing and urban development.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The inquiry, review briefings, and the report of the Controller and Auditor-General are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been advised of the introduction nine bills.
CLERK:
Racing Industry Amendment Bill, introduction
Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, introduction
Social Security Amendment Bill, introduction
Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, introduction
Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, introduction
Māori Purposes Bill, introduction
Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, introduction
Local Government (Water Services) Bill, introduction
Gene Technology Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Points of Order
Conduct of Members—Privileges Committee Referral
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I waited for the end of the House business to be able to make this. In your response to the privileges complaints earlier, you mentioned four members, and you distinguished between the actions of three, who approached other members in leaving their seat, and the other member, who did not. In referring all four members to the Privileges Committee, are you distinguishing between those actions?
SPEAKER: That’s not for me to distinguish; that’s for the Privileges Committee to determine. The point I’d make is that the disorderly aspect is leaving the seat, where you are privileged to speak from, to conduct activities on the floor of the House while we should be in session. That’s a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that there were a number of MPs who participated in the haka who did not leave their seats. They stood, they participated in it, but they did not leave their seats. How have you determined which members have been referred to the Privileges Committee and which haven’t?
SPEAKER: Well, as I’ve just said, I think the action of leaving your seat to move on to the floor of the House to conduct an activity that I certainly considered to have been disruptive is quite a different matter. I’ve also said that the issue of haka, which is not disallowed currently but the circumstances in which it may be allowed as part of the tikanga of the House, as opposed to the celebration that it normally is or has been up to this point, is also a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. Referring people one after the other to the Privileges Committee I don’t think is particularly useful given that we had very much only a bare-majority vote on the naming, and I think it’s now up to members to start making decisions about what they find acceptable in the House, as opposed to relying on past rulings.
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 actions to rebuild the economy, given the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. This is a Government that is on the side of working New Zealanders. And the progress that we are making by offering tax relief for the first time in 14 years, having inflation at 2.2 percent to have wages growing faster than inflation for the first four quarters of this Government versus 13 under the last one where it went backwards, having the official cash rate and interest rates down, having actually business sentiment and confidence up and consumer confidence up—we’re making good progress. A long way to go, but we’re on the right track.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his claim, “We haven’t had a single rent increase; it’s been stable rents over the last 12 months.”; if so, how does he reconcile that with Statistics New Zealand’s annual rent inflation figure of 4.5 percent over that time, over twice the rate of headline inflation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because that is the case. We have actually had stable rents under this Government versus $180 per week under Labour. Our source of data, from memory, is the tenancy bond data.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is he saying that Statistics New Zealand is just wrong?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m saying that we’ve had stable rents based off the data that we’ve been using, compared to the $180 per week increase under his Government.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Given he promised New Zealanders rents would decrease as a result of reintroducing interest deductibility for landlords, how is rents going up 4.5 percent during his tenure as Prime Minister something for New Zealanders to celebrate?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I find it ironic, from that member, getting lectured about rent increases, don’t you think? It’s $180 per week that it went up under his Government. We have stable rents under this Government. Why is that? Because we’ve taken the costs off landlords, we’ve actually got the balance right between tenants and landlords, and we’ve pulled the brightline test back to two years. I’ll just say to that member: rents are stable. They went up $180 under his Government. We’re doing the opposite.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister please define what he means by “stable rents”, and if that includes increasing rents at double the rate of Consumer Price Index inflation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure where you’re getting your data from as the member. I’ll just say to you, I’m getting my data from the tenancy bond data—
SPEAKER: We just should, right at the beginning of today’s question time, establish that we’re going to be a little bit more cautious about the barracking and interjection. Interjection: rare and reasonable; outright barracking: not acceptable. The Rt Hon Winston—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Crikey! Will he guarantee that the new inter-island ferries Cabinet has agreed to fund will cost less than the $551 million contract with Hyundai that his Government cancelled; if not, why not?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can guarantee that member they will cost less than the $3.2 billion he let that project grow out to. It’ll be less than that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister tell us whether there’s any connection between the fall of the 50-year dynasty in Syria and so many Opposition members having a Damascus experience from their own parties’ war on this country?
SPEAKER: As much as that might be a fascinating answer, we’re not going to hear it. When the House is ready.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: Yeah, just when the House settles itself.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he assure the New Zealand public that his Government will not liberalise the sale and supply of military-style semi-automatic weapons; if not, why not?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t had that conversation in Government, but I can assure you we are focused on improving public safety.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, that he is struggling in the job of Prime Minister, and, if he doesn’t, why should New Zealanders respect his leadership when his own deputy clearly doesn’t?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I don’t agree with that, but I’ll just say to you members: the New Zealand public can see that this is a Government that’s getting the work done. They can see that inflation’s down, they can see that interest rates are down, they can see that crime is down, and—compared to the ungodly mess that that Government left us—they can see we’re making progress. That’s why they think the country is heading in the right direction, not the wrong direction as it was under your Government.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on banking?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the Government announced it is proceeding with plans to provide Kiwibank with access to more capital. The Treasury and Kiwibank’s parent company, Kiwi Group Capital, will talk to New Zealand KiwiSaver funds, New Zealand investment institutions, and New Zealand professional investor groups about a potential investment of up to $500 million in the bank. Additional capital would enable Kiwibank to compete more vigorously against the “big four” Australian-owned banks. As the Commerce Commission reported earlier this year, the banking sector is a “highly profitable, two-tier oligopoly”, and New Zealanders are not well served by what could be characterised as a cosy pillow fight between the “big four” banks.
Sam Uffindell: What benefit would there be in providing Kiwibank with access to more capital?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Kiwibank has been growing faster than the market average for six years, but it is still a relatively small player. To keep growing, it needs more capital. I’ve been advised that an additional $500 million of capital could support up to $4 billion of business lending or $10 billion of home lending. That is sufficient to add competitive pressure to the market. Treasury calculates that even a 0.25 percent drop in personal and business lending rates across all banks would save customers $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year.
Sam Uffindell: When will the Government make a decision on access to additional capital?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Around the middle of next year, Kiwi Group Capital and the Treasury will report to me on options. Cabinet will then make a final decision on whether to proceed with a capital raising. If a decision to proceed is taken, it is expected that Kiwi Group Capital will launch a formal offer to raise new capital from suitable New Zealand investors between October next year and June 2026.
Sam Uffindell: Will Kiwibank be floated on the open market?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A future Government may consider the possibility of a public share offering at some point, but, at this stage, the potential offering would be limited to KiwiSaver funds, New Zealand investment institutions, and New Zealand professional investor groups. I’m advised that Kiwibank would not be in a position to conduct a public offering until it has completed upgrading its systems and technology. That is not scheduled to happen until 2028. Therefore, the Government is not considering a market float during this term of Government.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement that “We have a responsibility to ensure the public gets value for its money”; if so, is she confident that the Government’s alternative ferries will be less than the $551 million contract with Hyundai that was cancelled?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I stand by the statement which was referring to the Government’s decision to decline a request from KiwiRail to contribute additional funding to the iReX project. And, yes, I’m confident that the Government’s alternative ferry solution for the Cook Strait will cost less than the iReX project that was started under the previous Government and which blew out to a cost of at least $3 billion.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice. It was not a question about the whole of the iReX project; it was a question specifically about the cost of the ferries. It wasn’t a question about the whole project and it’s a primary question on notice.
SPEAKER: The Minister might like to respond to that.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member may like to pretend you can have ships without berths and you don’t need to consider the cost of port-side infrastructure, but we here in the real world understand that the two must come together. So we have considered project costs in their totality. I can also say that the likely cost of ferries and other infrastructure needed to support them cannot be disclosed due to commercial sensitivity.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she set aside a tag contingency of $900 million for the procurement of two smaller, non - rail-enabled ferries?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do not believe it is in the public interest to answer that today. The member will just have to wait until an announcement is made later this week.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she undertaken a cost-benefit analysis to understand the increase in cost to users, freight operators, port operators, and the wider transport system as a result of her decision to not support rail-enabled ferries?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That question contains speculation which I think I do not have a need to respond to. What I can say is that Cabinet, in considering a ferry replacement option, has had in mind safety, reliability, resilience, compatibility with rail, and value for money, not just for freight users and passengers but for New Zealand taxpayers as well.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister explain how it was that a commission of $400 million to buy two ferries ended up at $3.2 billion, and 80 percent of that money was not to do with the ferries but with infrastructure that was not required in the first tender that was put out in 2020, when somebody who knew what he was doing was running the outfit?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member makes a very good point. It should be remembered that by the time we came into Government, the cost of the ferries—the ships themselves—was just 21 percent of the total cost of iReX. That is to say, four in every five dollars was going towards costs that weren’t even ships, with the blowout having been overseen by members who were in that Cabinet and sat by while New Zealanders’ money was recklessly put at risk.
SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that current Ministers are not responsible for what happened or how it came about; they’re responsible for the portfolio in its entirety over a duration.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, sir, coming to that conclusion, why did you not stop the Minister from answering? Surely you didn’t wait till the end to make your mind up on that matter.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. Your ruling is correct, with one exception: if the Minister’s trying to wrestle to explain how the costs got out of hand, and that deals with a previous Minister, then this is the entitlement of the House to hear the facts; not just one side of the story but the full story. This started off at $400 million for two ferries—
SPEAKER: Yeah, look, that’ll do. Because that’s the point that—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, no, and it goes to $3.2 billion and it won’t do because we can’t afford that sort of rubbish.
SPEAKER: That’s the point I was about to make to the Hon Kieran McAnulty: that the question started by asking for confirmation of a figure. The question, then—I must confess—did slide into an area that it perhaps shouldn’t have. I think that was an oversight on my part, but I don’t think it rules out, entirely, the question that was asked, which was, “What was the start price?”
Hon David Seymour: Is it the Minister’s understanding that the whole point of ferries is to transport people and goods between points on the land, and therefore focusing on the price of the ferries without thinking about where they would dock is not only totally impractical but grossly fiscally irresponsible?
SPEAKER: Well, insomuch as the answer will relate to the primary question, the Minister may make a comment.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. It may be the case that some members might like to pretend that you can buy ships without caring about supporting infrastructure, but I would say that is as fantastical as promising 100,000 KiwiBuild houses—
SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough. Look, sorry. If that happens again, the question time will be terminated for members who speak that way.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she set aside $300 million to cover the cancellation cost with Hyundai?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The negotiations with Hyundai are yet to conclude. The details of those negotiations are highly commercially sensitive. It is my responsibility to protect the taxpayer and so I won’t be disclosing details about that.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she regret making the political point by refusing additional funding for KiwiRail now that her alternative deal for the new, smaller ferries could cost $900 million, the sunk costs on winding up the project are around half a billion, and the break fee could be upwards of $300 million?
SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that if the Minister were to answer that question, the Minister would be free to range very, very broadly across anything relating to this at all, given the speculative nature of the question. If you read the Standing Orders, that’s how it works. If you’re going to ask for a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders in one breath, then you’ve got to expect that the response might be similar in a further consideration.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I regret and will always remember an incoming Government being faced with a situation where they were set a deadline of a matter of weeks to determine whether we would shovel more cash into a failing project that had had multiple cost blowouts, that had gone completely off the rails, and that the last Government had not acted on. For an incoming Government—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —to be faced with such a situation is regrettable, and I do hope that Ministers—
SPEAKER: No, sorry—hang on. I’m not—just, you can finish your answer, but we’re not putting up with that constant barrage from this side of the House and some sort of endorsement coming from the back of the House. It’s unnecessary. Please finish.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: And I would hope that members opposite would reflect on the mess they left behind them and the extraordinary efforts our Government has had to go to to clean it up.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a good deal for Kiwis that around half a billion dollars has been written off the Government’s financial statements and potentially a $300 million cancellation cost as a result of her Government’s decision to cease the iReX project?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said, it would not have been a good deal for New Zealanders to have shovelled more cash at a failing project which had blown out to more than $3 billion in cost, and I would say was destined to blow out even further; where there were still questions about whether the ships could pass through the Tory Channel; where there were still questions about whether berths would be delivered on time. It was a failed project, and the member’s defence of it tells me that she does not take value for taxpayers’ money seriously.
Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. 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.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his message to the one in eight tamariki who will not be having a merry Christmas this year as their whānau can barely afford kai, let alone Christmas presents?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I acknowledge that’s an incredibly tough situation. There are many New Zealanders that have had a very difficult year and continue to do so, and that is directly a function of economic mismanagement over the previous six years. When Government spending goes up 84 percent, when inflation goes up to 7.3 percent, and when interest rates go up 12 or 13 times and you end up putting an economy into recession, people start losing their jobs—it’s tough.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his message to the hundreds of tamariki who, according to Variety’s Kiwi Kids Sponsorship, have asked for kai instead of presents in their Christmas wish-lists this year?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I refer the member to my former answer.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order.
SPEAKER: We’ll take three, first—oh, point of order, the Hon David Seymour.
Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I’d just seek your guidance. The member has asked a primary about statements and actions of the Prime Minister, and then asked a series of questions about circumstances within New Zealand that may not relate to anything the Prime Minister has done or said, but imputes that those circumstances are somehow his fault. I think that’s out of order and, frankly, unfair.
SPEAKER: Yeah, look, I’d—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: All right.
Chlöe Swarbrick: The Child Poverty Report from the Budget said that this Government was knowingly making decisions to put thousands more kids in poverty.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s the interpretation you’re putting on it. I’m merely saying that we’ve ruled that “Does he stand by all his statements and actions?”—almost everything the Government does can be attributed to something somewhere, good and bad, and, therefore, questions of this nature are not out of order.
Hon David Seymour: Well, speaking to that, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: What is this—sorry?
Hon David Seymour: Is it not then incumbent on the questioner to identify the statement or action?
SPEAKER: Well, certainly, the questions relate to statements that have been made; we’ve just had that pointed out to us. But, look, if the House wants to go down to a very pedantic way of dealing with questions, we’ll do the same with answers, and that won’t suit everybody, either.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How much did the Prime Minister profit from untaxed capital gains this year?
SPEAKER: No, that question is out of order—that question is out of order. The member can try another question, if she wants, but not that one.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is it fair that everyday New Zealanders are paying over 20 percent in tax while the richest 40 percent get away with only paying 10 percent through untaxed capital gains?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What’s not fair is that 23,000 children were put into poverty in the last year under the Labour Government. Thanks to our Budget actions, 17,000 children are being moved out of poverty, and that is because we’re offering tax relief, that’s because we’re getting inflation relief, that’s because we’re getting interest rate relief, and we’re actually building confidence in this economy so that it can grow and keep people in jobs.
Hon David Seymour: Has this Government ever made any statements or will it make any statements to the effect of telling people that their problems are caused by other people’s success and dragging down other people for being successful is somehow the solution to their problems?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that believes we should celebrate people who have been successful and that are working incredibly hard to get ahead. If you care about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you are a fiscal conservative, unlike the last Labour-led Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister concerned about how much Te Pāti Māori were enhanced by the abuse of the charities legislation of this country?
SPEAKER: No, no, that’s not something that the Prime Minister can answer. We’ll move to question—
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: Oh, a supplementary.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Did the Prime Minister declare any conflicts of interest when he became the Prime Minister of a Government that is actively passing laws to line the pockets of landlords like himself while taking away renters’ rights?
SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, that question is out of order. The member knows that there is a pecuniary interests document and that all members declare their interests in that.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many houses could we build over six years with $200 billion, which is the amount of additional revenue we would gain from a capital gains tax?
SPEAKER: Look, I think the point made by the Hon David Seymour earlier is a correct one when you start getting that far away from statements and actions of the Government. There are different ways to ask that question without losing the question. Have another go at it.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I’ll go on to another one if that’s OK with you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: That depends whether it’s in order or not.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. What urgent, tangible actions is the Government taking to protect the livelihoods of the 230 workers facing the axe at Kinleith Mill before Christmas and prevent Tokoroa’s economy from spiralling into intergenerational hardship?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I want to acknowledge how difficult it is for the workers and the families impacted by the closure of the mill. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who has made sure that the Ministry of Social Development is in there working with that community to look at opportunities for people in employment. But I also want to say that Oji, the company that is behind the mill, is a large multinational corporation with billions of dollars of investment. They have said for some time that the paper mill is unprofitable, and it hasn’t been helped by the Labour-Greens energy policy, which ended up creating high electricity wholesale prices, because the Green Party thought it was a great idea to import Indonesian coal rather than to use domestic gas, and that is a contributing factor to what has happened here. So we are a Government that is focused on rebuilding the economy, and that means actually good financial and fiscal discipline so that we lower inflation, so that we lower interest rates, so that we grow the economy, and so that we get people into high-paying jobs.
Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of if not the greatest inputs to such a mill is electricity, and does the Government have any policies that will make it easier to build generation capacity, which happened to be opposed by Te Pāti Māori?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would encourage Te Pāti Māori and the Greens and Labour—if they cared about the environment, if they cared about our energy policy, they would back us in ending the oil and gas ban. They would back the legislation around fast-track legislation that is building 30 percent more renewable electricity into this country. There’s a lot that they should be supporting in this Government, because we are delivering on the economy, making sure that people are doing better, and making sure the environment is going ahead.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. David Seymour has been raising a number of points of order today about questions from the Opposition which he regards as being out of order. That question asked the Prime Minister to speculate on Opposition parties’ support or otherwise for a piece of legislation. The question itself was therefore out of order. All of the Prime Minister’s answer was out of order as well, because he has no responsibility for that. I’m surprised that you ruled neither the answer nor the question out of order.
SPEAKER: Well, the question was not out of order, because I heard that in silence. Therefore, I did hear it. It was not out of order, because it was a follow-on from the matters that were brought up by the primary questioner in an earlier supplementary. I heard very little of the Prime Minister’s response, largely due to the noise in the House. We’ll come now to question No. 5.
Question No. 5—Prime Minister
5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming below 1.5 degrees?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re going to work incredibly hard to deliver on our climate commitments and goals.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that a yes or a no answer to whether his Government is committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution?
SPEAKER: Well, the member will know that yes or no answers can’t be required. So without losing the supplementary, try again.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister and his Government committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re going to do everything we can to meet some very ambitious goals.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that answer to be taken that this Government is not committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.
Chlöe Swarbrick: What, then, are we to make of answers from the Prime Minister, refusing to give a yes or no answer as to whether we will meet our nationally determined contribution out to 2030?
SPEAKER: Well, the problem is, even asking it that way requires a yes or no answer. That’s not how the place works. So the member could ask that question again without penalty, because it’s Christmas time—end of year, great generosity; all that sort of thing—and try and ask the question in a way that brings it into line.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury last year forecasted that we could be on the hook for up to $24 billion to pay other countries to reduce their emissions if we refuse to do it here at home under our nationally determined contribution?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government’s very committed to delivering on our net carbon 2050 goals and doing everything we can to deliver on NDC 2030.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us which party’s Minister on this issue incurred us a potential of $22 billion being owed offshore, and for how long was he here?
SPEAKER: Ah, no—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, come on, we all know the story—
SPEAKER: Yeah, well, look, it’s a great general debate line; it’s brilliant. But it’s not particularly useful for question time and directed at the Prime Minister.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that is the fourth question from a Government Minister—the third from the Deputy Prime Minister—that you have ruled to be out of order. Is there going to be any attempt to try and curtail this or is it just going to be allowed to continue all through the remaining two years of this term?
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t know, because I don’t know how many further out-of-order questions there’ll be. But I previously have stated that if it continues, then the question lines will be terminated. So I’m being a bit flexible today to both questions being asked and answered, but that question was out of order and not required to be answered.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Should the New Zealand public be concerned that the Prime Minister of this Government is refusing to commit to meet our nationally determined contribution out to 2030, only promising that he is hopeful that we will do so?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this Government is committed to net carbon 2050. That’s our commitment. That’s what we’re working towards. Our emissions budget 1 puts us on track to do that. Emissions budget 2 puts us on track to do that, and you’ll hear more about that with the emissions reduction plan announced this week.
Chlöe Swarbrick: The NDCs, Christopher. It’s $24 billion.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member, if you actually cared about the environment—
SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on, wait. Please, just listen to the answer to the question that you’ve asked. If the question was important, listen to the answer.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member, I think she and her party should get behind the fast-track legislation. We are looking at a 30 percent increase in renewable electricity generation from those 22 fantastic renewable electricity projects. We want the benefit of renewable electricity sooner rather than later. It’s a good idea. Why don’t you support it?
Question No. 6—Children
6. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the Military-Style Academy Pilot and young offending; if so, why?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which I said and did them; in particular, my statements that Oranga Tamariki does not have the ability to restrict the movement of these young people, or the choices they make once they leave the residence and return to the community, and also my statement that we have already seen success with the military-style academy, including involvement for the participants in jobs, education, and training.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the young serious offenders legislation that “Then we can actually have a more intensive programme where it’s not just three months in, nine months out; it’ll be 12 months in, 12 months out with the option of extra time if the young person still needs it.”, and, if so, why?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The new legislation will allow the ability for a judge or a court to decide on the level of intensive response that is needed for a young person based on their needs. It is to be no less than three months, but no more than 12 months. Each young person has their own issues that they are dealing with and may need a different level of intervention.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she rule out any involvement of the New Zealand Defence Force or Corrections in any future military-style academy?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not responsible for Corrections or Defence.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in relation to the military-style academies; I have asked if she will rule out their involvement in the military-style academy.
SPEAKER: From the point of view of the Minister for Children, I think the Minister could expand on that answer.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is a pilot that is ongoing that has worked with Defence and has worked with multiple agencies to make sure that we get the best outcomes for these young people, and those will be future discussions to be had.
SPEAKER: Laura Trask.
Laura McClure: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s Laura McClure now.
SPEAKER: Yes, OK, I got that wrong, sorry.
Laura McClure: No worries. What would the alternative be for these 10 young people if they hadn’t been on the military-style pilot programme?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: These young people were already in a youth justice facility, on a supervision and residence order from a judge. If they were not on the pilot, they would still have been released back into the community at the end of their order. However, they would not have had the extra support the pilot provided, such as intensive case management, a one-on-one intensive mentor, psychologists, social workers, and other service providers that were working with them to help keep them on track.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many participants, in total, have allegedly reoffended, including offending not involving police, or breached the conditions of their in-community transition plan?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There’s some questions in there that I may not be able to answer because they may not be to my knowledge, but there have been three young people that have had accusations of reoffending.
Laura McClure: What recent statements has she seen about the military-style academy pilot?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There’s been many statements that have been put out into the public, and I think there’s one in particular that needs to be clarified. It was suggested that a young person had died in the military-style academy pilot. This is simply untrue. A young person has tragically died in the community whilst in whānau placement. The attempt to use the death of a young person for political gain is absolutely shameful and disgusting, and that statement was actually shared on social media by someone who should have known better, and that was Green MP Tamatha Paul. [Interruption]
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: Let’s give the House a few seconds to settle itself down. Now would be good.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In relation to the previous question I asked, has Oranga Tamariki advised you of any other incidents?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nothing that was in the public interest currently that I can speak to.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: If she sees any harm being done to children in the military-style academies—in residence or in the community—will she promise to shut them down?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In all seriousness, I came into this role to make the lives of young people better. Children and young people have been hurt and harmed for over 20 to 30 years. The royal commission report has brought this to our attention. What I can say is I will put all safety mechanisms that I can in place to keep these young people safe, but we cannot continue to do what we were doing, which was absolutely nothing.
Question No. 7—Transport
7. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on restoring democratic accountability to transport in Auckland?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): On Friday, I announced, alongside Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, that our Government is restoring democratic accountability to transport decision-making in Auckland, ensuring voters can hold their elected representatives accountable for the city’s transport policies. The changes we’re making will ensure that transport policies have democratic legitimacy and democratic accountability, something that has been sorely lacking in Auckland.
Cameron Brewer: What reforms are the Government making to transport decision-making in Auckland?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our reforms will return regional transport policy and planning to Auckland Council; establish a new Auckland regional transport committee, which will develop a 30-year integrated transport plan for Auckland, designate Auckland Council as Auckland’s road-controlling authority, and empower Auckland Council to have control over its council-controlled transport organisation.
Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government restoring democratic accountability to transport in Auckland?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Aucklanders have become increasingly frustrated with how transport decisions are being made and how little their views have been taken into account. Even Auckland Transport’s recent annual report highlighted that only 29 percent of Aucklanders felt the organisation listens and responds to their needs. To address these concerns, we’re restoring democratic decision-making for transport in Auckland, and if Aucklanders continue to feel the transport system isn’t working for them, they can hold their local elected representatives to account at the ballot box.
Cameron Brewer: What do these important reforms mean for Aucklanders?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, these reforms will mean there’ll be greater long-term planning between central and local government, with a 30-year integrated transport plan; focus on delivery with a transport council-controlled organisation focused on delivering transport services and infrastructure; and accountability over decisions made in local communities, such as removing car parks, installing speed bumps, putting cycleways in place. Aucklanders will be able to hold their elected members to account at the ballot box.
Question No. 8—Science, Innovation and Technology
8. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: Is she comfortable with her decision to cut social sciences and humanities research from the Marsden Fund, and, if so, why?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): Unsurprisingly, yes, I am. Last week’s changes to the around $78 million Marsden Fund ensure our limited funding is focused on the areas of science research with the greatest potential to grow our economy while enhancing quality of life for New Zealanders. The Marsden Fund will continue to support blue-skies research, but will now focus on those core science areas more likely to lead to scientific breakthroughs.
Scott Willis: Does she stand by her statement that the Marsden Fund should “focus on core scientific research that helps lift our economic growth and contributes to science with a purpose.”, and, if so, is she confident that the science system will still be able to address the most pressing challenges facing Aotearoa today, when it is simply funding a narrow and politically manufactured definition of a science system, based purely on economic gain?
SPEAKER: Now, there’s a whole lot of that question that was out of order, but the substance of it can be answered by the Minister.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m very confident that we’ll be going to be doing even better science than what we have been doing. And, certainly, it’s wrong to say that the entire focus will be on economic gain; only 50 percent of the applications, or around that, will need to show that they can actually start to grow the economy and they have potential to do so. There is still blue-skies research, but it will be on science.
Scott Willis: Is she saying that research on housing, homelessness, poverty, poor achievement in schools, racial hatred and terrorism, crime rates, violence, discrimination, the marginalisation of groups in society, social cohesion, mental health, addiction, and poor health outcomes does not “contribute to science with a purpose.”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I don’t want to pick on any particular area that the member’s raised, but I will say that most of those that he’s named are not science. They are, however, very important, and many of those are already funded through the funding that the universities get—if I think about things like, for instance, the Performance-based Research Fund, the centres of research excellence, and tuition subsidies. In addition to that, many Government departments commission research to support policy objectives, including some of those that the member’s raised, social and cultural outcomes—for example, the Treasury; the Reserve Bank; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Ministry for Primary Industries; the Ministry for the Environment; the Department of Conservation; and others. In essence, this is targeted funding for science, and it will be staying with science while I’m the Minister.
Scott Willis: Can the Minister explain what she means by “science”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think it’s really important to go back—so, I mean, when I was at school, we learnt about maths; so we learnt chemistry, biology, physics. We learnt about science. We also understood that in order to deal with some of the big issues of the world—whether it’s climate change, whether it’s pollution, whether it’s those sorts of issues—we need to go to science. So, you know, when I look at some of the things that I would like to talk to him about, and you mentioned some of the things that I consider science, that have been funded this year through Marsden—“Mapping how viruses get into and travel around B cells and lymph nodes”; that’s science. “Producing next-generation materials that can capture methane”—that’s science. “The molecular mechanisms driving gastric cancer survival rates: understanding the role of nuclear immune systems”—yes, no, no, that’s science. “Unleashing the potential of titanium as a replacement for precious metal catalyst by fixing it to solid supports”—yeah, no, that’s science too. And I’d also say that there’s quite a lot of science that’s currently being funded, but I do not think $360,000 of taxpayer money to look at what are the implications of policing climate justice activism—nah, that’s not science.
Scott Willis: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: We’ll just—just quiet, thank you.
Scott Willis: Does she stand by her statement regarding social sciences and humanities research that “There is actually no payback at all for the New Zealand taxpayer.”, or does she see value for taxpayers in research which helps Aotearoa avoid costly climate change adaptation impacts by combining modelling and science with social research?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I think I made it really clear that social sciences—research into those—there’s already loads of funding for that. It’s in various areas but it’s not going to be coming out of my science budget; I want to make that really clear. These are the things I’ve listed off what I think is science—I do actually accept that they need to be funded. I’m not happy with things like $360,000 going for Big Things, Complex Shadows: Investigating Intersecting Stories Of Place, Identity, And Erasure Through Aotearoa’s Large Roadside Sculptures in Aotearoa. And this is all about, basically, the carrot outside Paeroa. No, I don’t think that’s science, sorry.
Scott Willis: How do these changes to the Marsden Fund align with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi to actively protect and promote Māori knowledge and development?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Look, what I think is really important to realise is that if there are science applications or science research applications that are relevant with Vision Mātauranga policy, that’s fine, too—they’re still relevant—and I think that’s really important. But I don’t think that Māori or anyone else in New Zealand, apart from a few, might be that excited about the fact that they want to look at the history of big things that were put outside towns in the 1980s. I mean, next thing the member will be suggesting that we fund a study into those great big pou that are around those wonderful roads of national significance, but I actually don’t think that’s science. It might be interesting—ain’t science.
Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that many Māori happen to view science as a method of building knowledge by testing falsifiable hypotheses through empirical observation, and to suggest that we don’t get that and are into superstition or that the Treaty requires us to be into superstition instead of science is, frankly, offensive?
SPEAKER: Well, it’s a great statement but not a question.
Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment
9. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding new work-focused support for people on jobseeker benefits?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m pleased to say that we have recently expanded the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) phone-based case management service to support 10,000 job seekers. This has increased the total number of people who are being supported by an MSD employment case manager at any time to 70,000. All 70,000 will now be eligible to receive a new, more comprehensive needs assessment of the challenges that might be holding them back from finding work and a personalised job plan to overcome them. These new supports add to the ever growing suite of welfare initiatives that we have introduced in our first year and demonstrate our commitment to delivering better public services and supporting more people to move off welfare and into work.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: How do individual job plans work?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Individual job plans will begin with a comprehensive work-readiness needs assessment that will go beyond someone’s work experience, availability, and career aspirations. It will examine any barriers to employment that they may have, such as their reading and writing skills, childcare needs, driver-licensing requirements, and how comfortable they are with digital technology, as well as any physical or mental health issues that they may have. Their case manager will work with them to come up with a personalised plan to address these issues and for a time line to complete them. The job seeker will then be referred to any training programmes or support services as required.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does the Government consider new work-focused support necessary?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Slowing benefit exit rates in previous years has contributed to a significant increase in the amount of time people on benefits are predicted to spend on welfare. For instance, people under the age of 25 who come on to a main benefit are currently forecast to spend an average of about 20 future years on welfare over their lifetime. This is a 49 percent increase over the figures in 2017. We also know that many people on jobseeker support have complex backgrounds, and not being able to read instructions properly or take the company van out to run errands because they don’t have a driver’s licence is holding them back from finding work. We want MSD assessing the needs of job seekers early so that they can identify issues and get the help they need to overcome them faster.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the benefit of having more people in employment case management?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Case managers provide greater opportunities for job seekers, but the most important is the regular one-on-one support that people on benefit get to help them in their job search. Case managers know their communities and how to use local networks to find the work that is available. They help job seekers to upskill and train, to create a CV or cover letter and get connected with any wraparound support that they might need. I’m really pleased that our Government’s focus on delivering better public services has seen MSD’s phone-based case management service rapidly grow from assisting 1,500 people in July to 10,000 today, meaning significantly more people are receiving one-on-one support.
Question No. 10—Police
10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, “Having considered my performance over the last year in Government, I believe that I have delivered on my promise for New Zealanders to see change in my first 12 months as Police Minister”; if so, why?
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, I do: victimisations are down, ram raids are down, aggravated robberies are down, serious assaults are down, burglaries are down, crime in the Auckland CBD is down. Foot patrols are up. Police are back on their core role, keeping communities safe. Gang patches are banned. The gangs have found out that they’re not above the law, and police do outstanding work every day reminding them it’s them who control the streets. Earlier this year, TVNZ polled the public and asked if they felt safer; they did it again last night. The good news is more people feel safer. I recognise that there’s still a lot of work to do. We’ve inherited, as an incoming Government, a terrible situation left by the previous Government, and it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get on top of that, and we acknowledge that, but we’re seeing good movement in the right direction. There was one poll that was taken when the previous member was Minister of Police—
SPEAKER: Yeah, hang on—hang on, wait on. I think the question’s been answered.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the Deputy Commissioner of Police correct about the delivery of 500 more police at the annual review when he stated, “When that wing graduates on 26 June 2026, we’re projected to have achieved that by that date.”; if not, why not?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, he was correct in stating that the funding by this Government goes through to June 2026. That’s how appropriations work. But he would also agree with me and say that under this coalition Government, an excellent recruitment policy brought by our partners New Zealand First for 500 additional police officers is to be delivered in November of this year, unlike the previous Government, who promised 1,800 and only delivered 1,500.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the Commissioner of Police wrong when he told One News that he was confident that 500 more police would be delivered in 2026; if so, why?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because he knows that there’s going to be a lot more police on the street in 2026. But the reality of it is that the commissioner agrees with the deputy commissioner and agrees with me that our target is to deliver 500 additional police officers in November of this year.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Do you agree with the Commissioner of Police’s statement “if it takes us a little bit of extra time to produce the best men and women of our organisation for the front line, then we’ll take that [time].”; if not, why not?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think we’ve got an outstanding Commissioner of Police, and we were very, very pleased to make that appointment. I think that he recognises, as do we, that standards are extremely important. That’s why the Police College is now delivering a 20-week course instead of a 16-week course. The commissioner agrees with me that we have our target, an aspirational target, a very good target, delivering 500 additional police officers in November.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Who is correct: Casey Costello, who said, “I think it’s really important to get the context of what the commissioner was saying.”—and it was that he had said there was no deviation from the commitment to achieve November 2025—or the Commissioner of Police, who publicly stated on the national news that Police will have 500 more police in 2026?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, they’re both right. Casey Costello’s absolutely 100 percent correct, as we are committed to delivering 500 police officers in November of this year. The Police Commissioner is also correct in saying there’ll be 500 additional police officers in 2026, because there will be—they would’ve been delivered in November 2025.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Who is correct: the police Minister on 30 January, who said it would take three years to deliver the 500; the police Minister, who said, the next day, after a phone call from Winston Peters, that the 500 would be delivered in two years; or the Commissioner of Police, who said just last week it would take three years?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: The problem the member has is she’s got no credibility around her information sources and figures, so that’s a whole lot of rambling mumbo-jumbo. I just want to say that on this side of the House, in this coalition Government, we are deadly serious about public safety and we are focused on making sure that we’re a safer country. We inherited a shambles from the previous Government that wasn’t focused on that. We are laser-focused on it, and we’ll deliver our police officers and we’ll make New Zealand a safer place.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister taking a very cautionary tone because the record is of a former promise to deliver 1,800 but we delivered 2,338, only to see a massive reduction in those numbers under a Labour-alone Government?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Well, look, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point, which is that the previous Government promised to deliver 1,800 police officers. They missed their target three times—I think it’s three times—
SPEAKER: We’re not here to discuss the previous Government. It’s the rules of the House. You want to change the rules? Turn up to the Standing Orders Committee and have a shot at it there—not in the House.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he regret not fronting up to scrutiny week and showing some leadership now that he is left with no other option but to gaslight New Zealanders about the broken promise to deliver 500 more police in two years?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh no, don’t worry. I front up all right—don’t worry about that. I get around the country and I constantly get asked, “Where’s that Chris Hipkins and Ginny Andersen that walked around with—
SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. Thank you.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the police are successfully implementing the gang patch ban, and have there been any commentators or other members of this House who’ve had a road to Damascus experience on that one?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Very good question. So after 12 months of hearing from those commentators and others that the police didn’t have the capability and the gangs were too strong, I think the police have answered that one in the last two weeks. They’ve done an outstanding job in policing the new gang legislation, and they’ve let the country know—and the country’s responded to it—that they are controlling the streets, not the gangs.
Question No. 11—Building and Construction
11. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has he made around reducing the cost of building?
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): We’ve made many such announcements, but yesterday we announced that we’re proposing sensible changes to the installation standards for energy efficiency that will enable a more flexible approach to be taken to achieve the same standards but in a more nuanced fashion that will have the added benefit of reducing cost.
David MacLeod: Why was change needed?
Hon CHRIS PENK: The context is that since 2019, the cost of construction increased by 40 percent. That was due to many different factors, including additional costs imposed by the rules in the form that they were imposed that came into effect late last year. So our approach was to consider ways that we might be able to achieve the same standards in a more flexible or nuanced way, relying on the calculation and modelling methods as opposed to the more prescriptive schedule method in the building code.
David MacLeod: What changes are being proposed to the installation standards?
Hon CHRIS PENK: I’ve referenced the proposed removal of the schedule method, meaning that in different parts of the country with different climactic conditions, we will allow designers and builders to take account of the requirements in those areas in a way that makes sense for those conditions. We are adjusting the minimum R-values in the installation, for example, in the walls, so that the overall building design can get us to the place that we need to be for the purpose of energy efficiency, respiratory health, energy efficiency and therefore cost, all without increasing the additional cost that had been imposed in the rules in the form that they had been introduced last year.
David MacLeod: What impacts will these changes have on building costs?
Hon CHRIS PENK: We hope and expect that they will reduce the cost considerably in many cases. The figures provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in relation to the first part of the consultation ahead of the public consultation that will now take place indicates that up to $15,000 may be saved in the case of each new build. So we think it’s a very positive result and we’re grateful for the engagement that’s got us to this outcome.
Question No. 12—Energy
12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Energy: What recent announcements has he made regarding fuel security?
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): Fuel security is at the apex of our concerns in terms of our economy. Sadly, the security was undermined as the closure of the Marsden Point refinery was green lighted by the Labour Government. To reverse that imperilment, what we have done is announce that new rules are about to be put in place to ensure that we have at least 10 days of jet fuel at the country’s busiest airport. Sadly, this was due to be implemented over the last three to five years and has taken the arrival of the matua to address this problem.
Jenny Marcroft: Why is fuel security important?
Hon SHANE JONES: Fuel security is an important part of broader energy security, and no one, sadly, when that unwise decision to cancel the oil and gas industry, ever imagined it would depend on Indonesian coal. We cannot afford to recreate a situation where jet fuel supply was undermined and we had planes diverted, reducing our connectivity with the rest of the world. A 2019 Government inquiry into the fuel supply disruption concluded that regulations and a remedy needed to be found in a rapidly short period of time. Sadly, this lingered. That has undermined perceptions about our resilience. Consequently, we will no longer allow our energy sector, in relation to fuel security, to be imperilled further.
Jenny Marcroft: When will the new rules come into place?
Hon SHANE JONES: The new rules will be in place by November 2026. This is to ensure that no indiscriminate decisions are made which have unintended consequences, as was the case with the Labour Government’s closure of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. Therefore, we are working with the fuel companies, but they know that there is no time left—no opportunity for wriggle room. They have to respect that if they want their social licence to be esteemed in New Zealand, they have to step up to the plate and not further undermine our fuel security, as, sadly, was the legacy of the Labour Government.
Jenny Marcroft: What other actions is he taking to ensure fuel security?
Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously the oil and gas industry is about to be re-established, but I’m confident that the 21-day cover for diesel or for jet fuel as a stockholding rule will boost our resilience. We are also completing an independent study on the options as to how Marsden Point may further play a role in respect of fuel security, and indeed whether there’s a case for a bespoke set of planning regulations to protect the strategic importance of that site, given it was trashed over the last three years.
Urgency
Urgency
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to the introduction of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, the introduction and passing through all stages of the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill, the first readings and referral to select committee of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, the committee stage of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the remaining stages of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, the third reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2), the first readings and referral to select committee of the Social Security Amendment Bill and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill and the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill.
The Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill needs to be passed tonight so that these dogs are protected. The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill is being introduced so that it will be available for debate next week. The Racing Industry Amendment Bill, the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, the Social Security Amendment Bill, and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill are all having their first readings and are being sent to select committee so that the submission process can get under way. The Fast-track Approvals Bill committee stage will take the time so that this will allow for the House’s consideration of this important piece of legislation. The smoke-free bill is a quarter four commitment to pass and is partway completed, and this Government is committed to seeing it passed before Christmas. Urgency is also required to have the following legislation in force by the end of the year: the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill, and the Therapeutic Products Repeal Bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Bills
Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce two bills.
CLERK:
Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, introduction.
Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill is set down for first reading next sitting day. The Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately.
Bills
Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on Parliament’s website.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move, That the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
As announced today, it is intended that the greyhound racing industry in New Zealand will close by 1 August 2026. It is important, first, to acknowledge that this news is not the decision those in the industry wanted. There are approximately 1,054 people directly and indirectly supported by the greyhound racing industry, who work in and around the six tracks across the country. It is because of these people that this decision has been a very hard one to make. However, it is the right one and comes after serious consideration.
Successive reviews over the last 10 years have reported animal welfare concerns in the greyhound racing industry. In 2013, 2017, and 2021, different reviews all came to the same conclusion that things needed to change. In 2021, following the review into the New Zealand greyhound industry by Sir Bruce Robertson, the industry was put on notice. Since my returning as Minister for Racing last year, the greyhound racing industry has continued to be carefully monitored, with particular focus on greyhound injuries.
Consideration was given to whether stricter regulation could improve greyhound racing in a way which would allow it to continue safely. However, this was not convincing and showed that injury rates would not improve to a level which could be socially acceptable. The industry has made genuine efforts, particularly within recent years, to address the animal welfare issues, and this should be acknowledged, especially in regard to dog deaths. However, despite the multiple safety initiatives by Greyhound Racing New Zealand, injuries and serious injuries persistently remain too high.
In addition to these realities about injuries, public support for greyhound racing in New Zealand has declined. A poll commissioned by the SPCA, and updated within the last month, showed that 75 percent of New Zealanders would vote for an end to greyhound racing in a referendum. Worldwide, greyhound racing is also on the decline. We are one of only five countries where commercial greyhound racing remains legal. It is for these reasons and against this backdrop that the Government today has made this tough but correct decision.
A two-stage legislative process has intentionally been chosen to close the industry. Two bills will, collectively, ensure that the animal welfare of the greyhounds is protected throughout this transition period through to closure and that licensed persons and stakeholders are supported through the closure process. This first bill today is to ensure that dogs are not needlessly put down. A second bill will follow next year and will be concerned with winding up the industry the right way. This will cover all remaining operational aspects of the closure.
This will give affected persons an opportunity to submit at the select committee process to have their say on how best to support them and greyhounds to transition out of the industry. The transition to closure will be complicated and will require careful consideration. This is why the Government has appointed a ministerial advisory committee to oversee and provide advice on the remaining operational aspects of the closure. For the near 3,000 greyhounds leaving the industry, the advisory committee will work with charities concerned with rehoming greyhounds to support the greyhounds moving from the track to the couch, so to speak.
I now wish to speak to the details of this first bill. This bill, as I say, amends the Racing Industry Act 2020 to prohibit the destruction of greyhounds that are registered with Greyhound Racing New Zealand unless it is done by a veterinarian and for the reasons in accordance with this bill. The Government expects most, if not all, people in the industry will do the right thing by their dogs. However, there is a risk with the announcement of the Government’s decision today that some otherwise healthy dogs could be destroyed for no other reason than that they are no longer economically valuable. This bill will ensure their safety.
This applies Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s comprehensive euthanasia policy to currently registered greyhounds, regardless of whether their owners choose to exit the industry, as well as puppies born to breeding females, to ensure that they too are protected. Under this bill, a main reason a greyhound may be euthanised is when a veterinarian certifies that the greyhound is suffering from a condition or injury that causes significant pain or discomfort or worsens their quality of life so that it is inhumane or would otherwise compromise the welfare of the greyhound to delay euthanasia. This bill is, essentially, to put in protections for greyhounds as the operational plan for the closure is worked through with the industry as it winds down.
This industry has run its course, and this bill is the first step in the closure of the greyhound racing industry. It is a quick but necessary step, and could I thank, across the political divide, the other parties in Parliament—all the other parties in Parliament—for their committed support for this action. Thank you very much.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s my opportunity as Labour’s racing spokesperson to take a call on this. It’s the first piece of legislation in the racing portfolio that has come to the House. I want to acknowledge the comments that the Minister has made in concluding his contribution and indicate what is already known, and that is that members on this side of the House in the Labour Party will be supporting this bill. This bill is vital. This bill is a core step in ensuring that there is a humane level of treatment for greyhounds, alongside consideration for ethical standards and also for animal welfare as well.
The Minister has touched on the potential impact that this decision will have for participants within the industry and, yes, he is correct in that particular space. It is hoped that by signalling a particular time frame through to August 2026 that that does provide some runway for those industry participants to do the right thing. This particular bill that the House is progressing tonight is the first part in, basically, bringing an end or a conclusion to greyhound racing in New Zealand.
The second part, as the Minister has said, will be subject to a full select committee process, but it is this particular bill that is progressing through urgency to ensure that there is an absolute form of protection for dogs as this bill comes into effect overnight.
There have been a number of reports over the last decade that have looked into greyhound racing: the suitability, some of the decisions that have been taken, the way in which that operation has gone about their business. The most recent of those are the Hansen report in 2017 and the Robertson report in 2021. I’ll talk more about those specifically in perhaps my second reading contribution. Fundamentally, they touched on issues of transparency but also real, strong concerns around animal welfare considerations.
Throughout this whole time, members on this side of the House—members in the Labour Party—have shone a spotlight on this issue and the concerns that we have. We have agreed with the view that the industry participants and the industry itself, when it comes to greyhound racing, have been on notice. There has been a need to do better, and we have now got to that point where the social licence that has been given to that particular component of the industry is no longer valid. It is on that basis that we very happily support this piece of legislation this evening.
It also aligns with the community expectations that show a very clear and real desire to not just cease greyhound racing but to ensure that we are, when we look around the world, also doing the right thing. The Minister has touched on the number of countries that still have greyhound racing within their particular boundaries or confines, and some other members may choose to touch on that. I do think it’s worth noting that the whole consideration about whether regulation would be a more appropriate way—absolutely, I think this Parliament does need to turn its mind as to whether that was appropriate or not. Clearly, we have got to a particular point in time where regulation is not an option. It was an option, but it’s no longer an option, simply given the state of affairs that we find ourselves in.
The focus needs to very clearly be on transitioning this industry and its participants in a safe way to signal a very clear desire and an absolute willingness to rehome as many greyhounds as is possible. What this bill does is it, basically, provides an additional layer of protection involving a veterinarian—a professional in this particular space—alongside the existing policy framework that exists within Greyhound Racing New Zealand to ensure that that transition process is a smooth one but also it can be a timely one in terms of giving a runway in that regard as well.
We do support all stages of this particular bill being progressed to provide the certainty that participants will need as part of this decision that has been taken by the Government and will be supported by the Parliament. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House currently and through the remaining stages this evening.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very good day for the welfare of greyhounds; they have a right to live without suffering. After years of advocacy by animal welfare experts and veterinary experts and the Green Party, we are very happy to hear the Government has listened to the voices of animal lovers country-wide and taken a long-overdue decision to bring an end to greyhound racing on 1 August 2026. I will be glad, today, to remove my bill to ban greyhound racing from the ballot—a bill that I inherited from the honourable Chlöe Swarbrick, who also advocated for a long time in this space.
I particularly want to acknowledge the decisive decision by the Minister for Racing, the Hon Winston Peters, to take this action today. Minister, this is an important decision and it is a very special one, as you said in your statement earlier today. We acknowledge, also, the willingness of the Minister to have his office involve us in discussions about how best to achieve an outcome in the best interests of the animals, and it’s good to see today he has the assurance that the entire House will be supporting the legislation.
Racing is inherently dangerous for dogs. On any given day at a greyhound race, dogs risk suffering from broken bones, dislocations, ruptured muscles, spinal damage, and wounds. Some dogs are left permanently disabled, and others suffer injuries so catastrophic they need to be euthanised. Multiple investigations in the industry reveal countless issues beyond injuries, including poor kennel conditions and methamphetamine exposure, and—even under intense scrutiny—the industry’s efforts have not been sufficient to address these fundamental problems.
I do, however, want to acknowledge that the industry and some members of it have made significant efforts in recent times. We met with Edward Rennell from Greyhound Racing New Zealand, and I came away from that meeting convinced that he had a genuine commitment to trying to achieve the best outcomes for dogs. I would appeal to Greyhound Racing New Zealand to do all in your power to ensure that we centre the welfare and the protection of greyhounds in this time, which, no doubt, will be a difficult time for the industry. In the winding-down of greyhound racing in New Zealand, we must ensure the dogs are kept safe, and we must also rightly acknowledge the impact it will have on workers and those who depend on the industry.
We will certainly be supporting this legislation before us at this moment, which is to ensure that any euthanising of dogs is done for the appropriate reasons, not done purely because they cease to be of economic value to the owners. This is a sensible move to pass this particular and specific first move fast through the House, in the cause of protecting the welfare of animals, and we will be commending this bill to the House. Thank you, Minister.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge what the Minister for Racing has said: that this is the first bill in two pieces of legislation, with his announcement today that the Government has agreed in principle to end greyhound racing in 20 months—that is 1 August 2026. I want to acknowledge that this transition will have a major impact on those involved in the greyhound industry, and so I think that it is good that we are going to have that transition period and a full select committee process around the other bill which the Minister spoke to.
As has been already acknowledged in this House, the vast majority of dog owners do care for their animals, and I want to stress that. However, this bill—which we are putting through under urgency and we’ll have all stages of reading today—is to ensure that there are no unnecessary deaths from the announcement that was made today. I am comforted that the actual Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s own euthanasia policy is actually referenced in the bill, and so I think that shows that the industry has done some thinking on what is appropriate in this area. There is much work to be done in rehoming the around 2,900 racing greyhounds, but I know some groups have already put up their hands to work alongside the Government and Greyhound Racing New Zealand in that project. This is a bill that does need to be put through under urgency—it is a piece of public policy which needs to be done to ensure there are no unintended consequences from what the Government has announced today. ACT will be supporting it and commends it to the House.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): The National Party strongly supports the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill and its passing under urgency today, taking effect very, very soon. This is a good day for the 2,900 greyhounds—approximately—that are out there up and down New Zealand. The welfare of racing dogs is a priority for this Government, and, as we’re hearing today, across this House. This 20-month transition period, as we wind down the greyhound industry, ensures an orderly process, including support for affected individuals and the rehoming of racing dogs. This will enable us to collaborate with animal welfare organisations and to establish rehoming programmes and to save the welfare of those dogs. I commend the bill.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei, ā, e kaha tautoko ana mātou i tēnei o ngā pire—I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in support of this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister and his party for bringing this into the House. I will be taking a short call today to make sure we don’t prolong this process and to enact this bill as soon as possible.
Greyhound racing will be phased out in Aotearoa New Zealand over the next 20 months. Urgent laws will prevent the unnecessary killing of racing dogs during this transition. The sport won’t stop immediately but will be phased out gradually over the next 20 months to allow time to rehome the estimated 2,900 racing dogs in the industry.
Urgent laws are also being passed to prevent racing dogs from being killed amid moves to end the sport. In the most recent 2023 to 2024 season, Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s animal welfare report said nine dogs were euthanised because of injuries suffered during a race, up from seven the season before; 224 dogs suffered serious injuries; and a further 672 had injuries classified as minor or medium in the past season, according to the report. The SPCA has called this decision a great day for the greyhounds.
Nō reira, e tautoko katoa ana mātou Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā pire. Tēnā koutou.
[Therefore, we in Te Pāti Māori wholeheartedly support this bill. Thank you all.]
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Like many children of the 1980s, my first experience of greyhound racing came through the first ever episode of The Simpsons and Santa’s Little Helper some 35 years ago. Over those 35 years, I’ve gradually learnt more about the animals involved and about the welfare of these greyhounds. Indeed, I think that, over that time, many New Zealanders have learnt more, and, indeed, attitudes have changed to the point that now our Government is the first Government that will phase out greyhound racing in New Zealand.
Of course, animal welfare is first and foremost, and that’s why this legislation is so important. As simple and short as it may be, it puts the welfare of these almost 3,000 animals in New Zealand first and foremost, and so this Christmas, Santa’s Little Helper is our Government. I commend it to the House.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased that we have arrived at this point, and arrived to the extent where the entire Parliament supports this move. I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Racing, and I thank him for the acknowledgment that he made of the work that was done to lead up to this. Actually, if you look at today, it’s one of those rare moments people keep asking us for, where the whole Parliament works together and we don’t take political potshots at each other; we acknowledge the work that our opponents have done to lead to this.
The fact is it’s not an easy decision to close an entire industry, because there are good people who will be affected by this decision, but as the various reviews showed—and the review period that greyhound racing was put under by the last Government, at the end of which I was the Minister—greyhound racing is inherently dangerous. It doesn’t matter how much attention and how much care and how much love people have for their animals; if the task itself is so dangerous that it leads to unacceptable levels of injury and unacceptable levels of death, then this was the only conclusion that we could reach.
There was a tremendous amount of work that went in by the industry to try and improve things, and they did make improvements, but, again, when 70 percent of the injuries occur on the corner and even now we don’t have the level of infrastructure to get around that—we have no real choice but to race them around on tight tracks—we weren’t making the improvements that would’ve been necessary for greyhound racing to maintain its social licence.
It was a difficult situation for me to be in, as a lifelong racing fan. Being Minister for Racing was my personal dream in politics—alongside others, obviously, but that was one thing I wanted to achieve—and what I faced was the prospect of banning one of the three codes, but the evidence was so clear that, as I say, despite the efforts, there really was no other option.
Now, I do have a regret. I regret that because Cyclone Gabrielle hit when it did, and the direction was that cyclone-related pieces of legislation would take priority and other things would need to take a step back, this could’ve happened before the last election. I personally regret that it hasn’t, but I’ve been reflecting on the speeches so far, and, actually, if we’re honest, if the previous Government introduced the legislation, I don’t think the whole of Parliament would’ve supported it. Leading into an election, I’m not sure that every party represented in Parliament would have got behind that piece of legislation. But we are today, and that has to be seen as a positive, because that is as clear a message as possible: that animal welfare is of the utmost importance to this Parliament and to this country.
As a proud owner of a greyhound, I would like to take the opportunity to encourage anybody that is considering taking on a dog and introducing a dog into their family: please consider a greyhound. They are the most gentle, loving, caring, fun animals anyone could ever imagine. Anyone that lives in an apartment and says, “I don’t have the space for a dog.”—try a greyhound. They are all the things I’ve just mentioned, but they are also incredibly lazy. Give them a walk in the morning and they will curl up in the corner quite happily, and when you’re not looking—well, this is the case for my greyhound anyway—they will jump on the couch; and when they hear you coming back to your office, they will jump off the couch. They are smart as well. You could not ask for a better pet to introduce to your family, as a companion for an elderly relative or a friend to a young child. They are simply the best pet you could ever hope for.
That’s what I think we should focus on today, acknowledging the difficulty that’ll be faced by those that are impacted by this decision, but, essentially, what we are collectively doing today is committing to a good life for a good animal that will be a loving part of any good family. I couldn’t support this bill more.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I may not be a greyhound owner like the previous speaker, being the owner of a Jack Russell instead, but I know just how vital dogs in general are to us as New Zealanders. Today is a great day for greyhounds—it’s a great day for greyhounds.
Yes, it is a difficult decision for us to make as a Government, and it’s great to have the support from across the House, but it’s the right decision. We’re making the right decision, and we’ll be working through this legislation as it comes through the House and as it progresses today. I just commend the Minister, and I commend the bill to the House.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real pleasure to take a call today as Labour’s animal welfare spokesperson in support of the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill.
Can I begin by acknowledging and thanking the Minister for Racing who has brought this bill to the House today and for his announcement. As previous speakers have said, this is a great day for greyhounds. I am well known to be a dog lover and dog owner, but I am sorry to disappoint my colleague Kieran McAnulty that I think my husband would probably seek some legal proceedings himself if I took on a greyhound in addition to the two labradors I’ve brought home from the SPCA. Can I just acknowledge him for looking after those dogs while I’m here. It’s a burden and a joy.
I think the bill that we’re bringing forward today that the Minister’s introduced to the House is a fantastic bill to ensure that while the industry is transitioned through a process, we can do everything we can as a Parliament to ensure the safety of greyhounds who are currently racing in the industry. This specific bill will ensure that there are safeguards in place for dogs who may be at risk of being harmed as a result of today’s announcement. I’ll have more to say in future readings around, I guess, how we got here, but I just wanted to focus specifically on the animal welfare clauses in the bill today, just to note those.
The Animal Welfare Act doesn’t create a right to life or restrict owners from killing healthy dogs for solely economic purposes, so what this bill will do is create an offence of imprisonment of up to 12 months or fines of up to $50,000 if someone were to breach the law that we’re going to pass today. What the bill does is it incorporates Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s own euthanasia policy. Others have spoken about that, but, essentially, euthanasia of a greyhound that is registered as a racing dog would need to occur within that policy and with the oversight of a veterinarian, which I think is a very, very good thing to ensure we don’t have any unintended consequences from today’s announcement.
Like other speakers, I do want to acknowledge the industry. I have also met with Edward Rennell of Greyhound Racing New Zealand and I do want to acknowledge there have been some improvements to the industry over the past few months. We have seen a reduction in deaths. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen a big enough reduction in the number of injuries that are occurring to dogs. One of the things that we saw was—and I’ll talk to it a little bit later in a future contribution—a beginning of some work around straight tracks. I was part of the select committee that looked at the petition of Steve Cross during the previous Parliament. One of the things that frustrated us as a committee was that for many, many years there had been talk about straight tracks, that these were safer for dogs, but we hadn’t seen any introduced.
I understand that people, like Edward, were working and had introduced a trial of a straight track at Whanganui, but in my view it didn’t go far enough—it didn’t go fast enough—and we hadn’t seen enough change to say that this industry had changed, had done everything it could to protect the welfare of dogs, and, in my view, it has lost its social licence to operate.
Today’s decision is a very, very good decision. It needed to have the appropriate analysis; robust analysis provided to it. I want to acknowledge previous racing Ministers Grant Robertson and Kieran McAnulty, who did a lot of that initial work, and now the Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has taken that step. We support you in your decision. We will support you through the process over the next couple of years as we work with industry and work with animal welfare organisations to rehome these dogs.
Today’s legislation is very, very needed to ensure that there are no unintended consequences for these dogs, who do make wonderful, wonderful pets. It’s a fantastic announcement, a fantastic bill we’re passing today, and I commend it to the House.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill, as has been previously stated today, will ensure that a transitionary period for those in the greyhound racing industry is enacted and that the welfare of the dogs in the industry is ensured. We should also acknowledge the significant impact that this decision will have on the workers and their families within the industry, and it’s really important that they are supported. That’s why a dedicated ministerial advisory committee has been established to oversee a transition and to provide targeted advice to all those that have been impacted. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Second Reading
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): Now, look, we’ve got to save a bit of time, and it’s quite possible we could have the second reading just like that and go straight to the committee of the whole House stage, and people can make their extended, elongated speeches in the third reading—it’s only a suggestion, but don’t forget where it came from!
Thank you to the members across the House today for their support in progressing this bill to the second reading. It was, as outlined—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Apologies to the Deputy Prime Minister, you have to move—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, I just did that! I move, That the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Right, as was outlined in the first reading, this is a small-scope and targeted bill designed to protect greyhounds during the closure process. It is a preventative measure and is expected most, if not all, people within the greyhound industry will do the right thing by their dogs. This bill recognises that with the industry closing, these dogs are no longer as economically valuable, and some are, therefore, at risk of being unnecessarily being put down. That’s why this is an urgent bill. It’s in this spirit of urgency that I commend this bill, second reading, to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I will in a small sense take the Minister for Racing’s lead in making a briefer contribution. I did, in my first reading speech, sort of touch on the couple of reports that I did want to reference, and usually in a second reading contribution, we would have heard back from the community around that, so I do want to just touch on two. That’s the Hansen report, but more timely is the Robertson report that was done by Sir Bruce Robertson back in 2021, and I know that Sir Bruce had spent a bit of time actually meeting and engaging with industry to pull all of that intel, shall we say, together.
One of the interesting things was that the outcome of those reports in terms of the context was that there was no real oversight as to the specific reasons for euthanisation, which meant that many healthy greyhounds were euthanised, and this is the exact point that this bill, under urgency, is seeking to mitigate and address. The proposition that some greyhounds would, effectively, be destroyed for no other reason except, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that they might no longer have at some point in the future any economic viability or benefit is something that does not sit well with members of the House. I do think that the report from Sir Bruce, which identified not just that but some of the issues around the breeding component—which is also part of the Minister’s bill—was also very, very important.
I note that the consequence, if you like, for this—and perhaps we’ll talk about that briefly in the committee stage. The penalty is one of up to 12 months’ imprisonment alongside, potentially, a $50,000 fine, and so we are talking about quite a stiff deterrent, which it needs to be. I mean, there needs to be a stiff deterrent for this, and I think what it needs to signal is that there is an expectation of Parliament that the industry might come to an end in August 2026, but until that point in time, there needs to be active efforts that are taken to rehome the many greyhounds that would be otherwise in a state of limbo until then. I’ll take the Minister’s lead and take my seat.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Yes, I’m also going to take a very short call on this and perhaps prosecute some more specific details in the committee of the whole House stage, but I just wanted to speak from the explanatory note, which I think very well outlines the importance of this particular bill.
The Greyhound Racing Association actually already has a policy on ensuring proper veterinary involvement in any decision to euthanise a dog—it has to be done for specific reasons—and because we’ve got a 1 August final closure date, it’s important that we enact legislation in a timely manner to protect the welfare of the animals. Reading from that explanatory note, “While most people in the industry will act in good faith in keeping or rehoming their greyhounds during the closure period”—and I think that’s a very important thing to acknowledge—“there is a concern that a small number of owners may take steps to dispose of their greyhounds only because they have become less economically valuable and, with closure imminent, [Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s] current euthanasia policy will no longer be an effective deterrent to the unnecessary destruction of greyhounds.”
That’s why this legislation is so important and we commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll also keep my contribution very short, because we support this bill. Greyhounds, as many people have said, are lovely, wonderful pets. This is a bit of a pledge out there for those homes that are looking for a furry friend: they’re low-shedding and apparently quite lazy—but my colleague over here said not so much sometimes, so, hopefully, you’ve got a little bit of space somewhere for them to run around. I commend this bill to the House.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just think it’s important, at this stage, to outline the explanatory note as to what this bill creates. It’s creating “a new offence of intentionally destroying a greyhound that is or was registered with [Greyhound Racing New Zealand] or the offspring of a breeding female that is registered with [Greyhound Racing New Zealand]. A person who commits the offence will be liable in terms of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $50,000, or both”—unless, and there are provisions within this legislation, it’s by a vet for a very specific reason as per Greyhound Racing New Zealand’s euthanasia policy. Those are the consequences for those that dabble with this law. I commend this.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Kia ora e te Pīka. Kāore he kōrero i tua atu i te tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire—there’s nothing that we are adding to the contribution that we’ve already made, other than we support this bill.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I just want to make the point that although we are rushing through this legislation, it is to safeguard the welfare of animals and not because we inherently believe that all greyhound owners are bad people. Of course, there are a large number that will be wanting to look after their animals, but we want to ensure that every animal has the highest welfare standards. There is the provision, as Mr Brewer outlined, for euthanasia where it is done by a vet within the specific guidelines. This is an important step to take, it’s considered, and I commend it to the House.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill. I would like to agree with my colleague to the left here. It’s really fantastic to see this bill come to the House, but, I don’t feel like I’d necessarily be adding anything to the conversation that hasn’t already been said by previous speakers. I think, in kind of potential preparation for us getting into Government in a couple of years’ time and seeing how short some of the Government MPs’ calls tend to be when it’s a Government bill, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I’ll just take the opportunity to say a few words on a bill that has been a long time coming. As a former Minister for Racing, I want to acknowledge the current Minister, who’s taking this bill through—one of two bills, I understand. This is to protect, I guess, the welfare of sentient animals.
These animals involved in the greyhound industry and the racing, the greyhounds themselves, have been bred to race with good intent by owners and people who have been part of an industry that has quite a history. We have to acknowledge them; they’ve worked within the law. But they’ve seen this coming, and the social licence to continue, I think, has been pushing up against it for a number of reasons—the injuries in particular. While there have been trials—and I, as Minister, visited the greyhound tracks and saw some of the, I guess, challenges that have been there—ultimately, the call to close this down is quite a tough one; it’s the right one. I acknowledge the Minister. We’ve just got to make sure that we, in this bill, deal with the sentient animals who want to race, who like to race, and now won’t be able to, so we’ve got to make sure that they have a good life.
For those people involved in the industry, we also have to acknowledge that they’ve committed themselves, their livelihoods, their incomes, taking a chance—the racing industry is not an easy one to be involved in, but it’s been part of our heritage. It’s been part of the communities around New Zealand—less so greyhound. There is a lesson in here for the horse racing industry: to make sure that we do everything we can to look after the animals and give them a good life.
To finish off, I acknowledge the decision by this Government to do the right thing, and we in Opposition will support that. Kia ora.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. A couple of points I just want to raise in this second reading: firstly, New Zealand is one of only five countries in the world that still permit commercial greyhound racing. This bill specifically does focus on the unlawful destruction of specified greyhounds, but also, as we go through that transitional period, a ministerial advisory group has been established, chaired by Heather Simpson, which will oversee that transition process. Today, we’re focused specifically on the unlawful destruction of specified greyhounds, and as I just said previously, it’s a great day for greyhounds. I commend it to the House.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too stand in support of this bill and want to acknowledge the Minister for Racing and the work he has done to lead such support across the House on something so important.
I make the point that I, for one, have been, in the past, along to watch dog racing. For those of you who know Tāmaki-makau-rau well, you’ll know where Manukau is and you’ll know where the dog racing track was. It was quite the place to be in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Interestingly enough, now it plays host—and has done for a number of years—to the Polyfest. Now I think it’s a good move as we look towards the future, if you will, of those kinds of places whereby our tamariki are now standing up in those places and representing all of us into the future.
I want to acknowledge, though, that, for many, they have invested their lives into this particular sector and into this particular area. I acknowledge the Minister in his work about having a runway, if you will, to make sure that we can do this and remain vigilant on these matters as we give them the time frame that’s been afforded with this particular bill. I’ll leave my contribution there and say that we support this bill.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a tough decision to make for so many people who are going to be impacted by the banning of greyhound racing in New Zealand, particularly those who’ve done a really good job of looking after the animals. It’s not easy doing the right thing, I suppose, sometimes. That is that there are too many animals injured, too many animals that needed to be euthanised, and a number of—a small number, I might add—contributors to the industry that weren’t doing their part. I do want to acknowledge those that have contributed to the industry in a positive way over many years and the stress and the unknown future in front of them. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to make a short contribution and just correct something I said in my first reading speech. I mentioned the petitioner who has taken a number of petitions to ban greyhound racing, but I said “Steve Cross”, who’s a well-known agitator in Nelson who stands up for fairness. I meant to say “Aaron Cross”, who is also an agitator and stands up for fairness, but this time for dogs.
Can I just acknowledge all of the work that Aaron has done over many, many years to continue to bring petitions to Parliament. I know it has at times been a tense conversation between himself and other organisations, and can I just acknowledge everyone who has been involved to date in this process to continue to put the welfare of dogs first. This is an excellent bill, as many of us have already spoken about, because it will ensure that the welfare of dogs is upheld as we then go through the transition process as we ban and end greyhound racing in New Zealand. Today is a great day. I commend this bill to the House.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a sheep and beef farmer, my life’s always involved dogs, whether they’re huntaways, heading dogs, or the odd ankle-biter. they’ve been an integral part of my life, and they still are. Not only are our four-legged friends great workers, they’re also great mates and loyal, and I’d urge New Zealanders to think about rehoming dogs from the industry as the transition occurs because they could become integral in their lives as my dogs have become in my family’s. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Clause 1 Title
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We will now come to clause 2. The question is that clause 2 stand part.
TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are no objections. The question is that clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve only got a couple of questions for the Minister. In looking at clause 4, which inserts the new Subpart 5, in new section 53A(1), it basically identifies “A person (other than a veterinarian or a veterinary student). Further down, in new subsection (2), there is a reference to “a veterinarian” as well but not the veterinary student. I was just wanting a comment on the consistency or otherwise of the term. Is it that the primacy of it sits with the veterinarian, so, basically, this student is not surplus but that’s covered?
The other question was around the penalty provision of “not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $50,000, or both.”, and whether that’s consistent with other offences—I know it’s within the section, but where that kind of sits in the wider scheme of things.
The final question from me was just the role, if any, of the ministerial advisory committee in any of this work, or is that only sort of related to the additional piece of legislation that will come next year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): Perhaps I could answer those three questions. The first one is as to the class of person that can be responsible for euthanising the animal. Well, clearly in the veterinary practices, the vet is able to assign qualified people within his organisation—not necessarily veterinarians but oversight is still his or hers, and that’s how the job’s done.
The second question that you asked was whether the level of offence was about where it should be. Now, I don’t know how you’d liken other offences, but a year in prison, or $50,000, is a pretty stiff fine and enough to be a serious consideration if someone’s thinking about offending. As to where it fits into the criminological code, well, who knows—it depends who you’re talking to and which side of the House you’re on on this matter, so I don’t want to go there at this time of bipartisan approach.
The last one: yes, those three people on that committee, including one who’s a veterinarian, I think that those people will be having oversight as we go through, and that’s why such a senior, respected group has been chosen.
STEVE ABEL (Green): I’m talking about the commencement time. My understanding is that it is possible in exceptional circumstances for a bill to come into effect at the time of it passing—at the time of Royal assent rather than a day after Royal assent. I wonder if the Minister for Racing is comfortable that the day after Royal assent is sufficiently rapid for the purpose that we’re trying to achieve here, which is to get legislation on the books as quickly as possible, or whether the Minister might be open to considering an amendment to bring the Act into force at the time of Royal assent, acknowledging that that should be a thing—if it was an amendment put up, and I’d be happy to put that amendment forward, that that would be something we would want the full support of the committee for also, we have for the rest of the bill.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): There is only one slight complication: the Governor-General is on the Chatham Islands—right?
Hon Member: It’s still New Zealand.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Just our luck! I know it’s still New Zealand, even though over there they refer to “going to New Zealand”. We’re constrained by that, but we’ve set the date and the date starts when this bill passes its third reading today.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Motion agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I move, That the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
As has been canvassed today, this bill is one of two to close the industry by August 2026. This bill is concerned with protecting greyhounds through the closure process, and it has been very difficult for the members here to come to this decision because there are many in the industry that they know and many in the industry whom they regard as responsible. Members across the House are thankful for their recognition of ministerial urgency to progress this bill to its third reading today.
A second bill will come next year and it will be concerned with the remaining operational aspects of closure. Greyhound racing participants and animal welfare stakeholders are encouraged to submit on the second bill at the select committee process. At the appropriate time, suggestions on how to best phase out the industry will be seriously considered and concerns listened to.
As the industry heads towards closure, participants will be leading at their own pace, and it’s expected that while some licensed persons will choose to keep their dogs as pets, many, if not most, of the nearly 3,000 greyhounds in the industry will be put up for adoption throughout this period. For those dogs that will be rehomed, the advisory committee will be working alongside key rehoming organisations such as the SPCA to transition the dogs out of the industry.
In 2006, when previously the Minister for Racing, I launched the first Greyhounds as Pets adoption scheme, and that was 18 years ago. Because these dogs make great pets and deserve to have a good life beyond the track, those watching and listening today should consider adopting a greyhound. Ultimately, this bill being passed by the House today aims to ensure dogs are not needlessly destroyed, giving them the best chance at a successful rehoming and a happy life post-racing. It’s the right thing to do, and I want to thank members from all sides of the House, in often a very, very difficult political climate, for understanding that it’s Christmas and doing the right thing altogether might be just a good idea. Thank you very much.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. The Minister is right: it is the right thing to do, and that’s why we on this side of the House have supported the bill through all stages today. As was indicated earlier, this is a vital and a core step in ensuring that there is an ongoing level of humane treatment for greyhounds moving forward, but also that really important issue of animal welfare that Rachel Boyack has touched on.
There have been numerous reports over the years that sought to try and paint a picture around what some of the issues were for the industry and what needed to happen to mitigate some of those risks and concerns moving forward. It is unfortunate that the social licence no longer is in a position to be given to the greyhound industry because of the concerns that have now eventuated.
I want to thank the Minister for his brief time in committee stage identifying a few things. I do think that the 12-month imprisonment period or a $50,000 fine is a significant deterrent. Obviously, we would expect that those who wish to trifle with this piece of legislation would be made aware that that is a significant impost upon their liberty or their financial capacity, and it should serve as a deterrent.
In the last week, the Racing Integrity Board have issued a decision that relates to a participant within this industry. Just reflecting on the written decision that has been issued by the racing integrity board, it talks about the fact that, in this particular case, there was a failure to meet requirements around verification of rehoming of greyhounds within the sector. It talks about the sense of uncertainty as to what ultimately happened to the dogs in question. It talks about the challenges to welfare rules and compliance which are fundamental to the integrity of the system.
This is exactly what this piece of legislation and the one that will follow next year is all about. It’s about integrity in the system, it’s about protecting animals, but it’s also about ensuring that we continue to uphold our status around the world as someone who values integrity in all sports codes and what that might mean. As Labour’s racing spokesperson, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): Point of order. Could I make a correction of something I said at the committee stage, as I need to do it right now if I can. I said that the Governor-General was in the Chatham Islands and therefore couldn’t sign the document today. Her flight got cancelled, so she can sign the document. Ha, ha!
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you for that clarification. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealanders do value animal welfare, and New Zealanders do not want to see animals suffer unduly. They do not want to see them injured in the cause of sports or in the cause of animal production or in any instance unnecessarily. Surveys on the specific support for greyhound racing show that there is a very low level of support. One in 10 New Zealanders does not support a continuation of greyhound racing. This is an industry that has lost its social licence.
I do want to reiterate that we as the Green Party advocate strongly for the highest animal welfare expectations of our society, but in no way are we suggesting that there are not many members of that industry who do not also love and care for their dogs and want to ensure their welfare. That is something it is important to acknowledge, and I just want to lean into those of you in the greyhound industry today and call on your better instincts and your good instincts for protecting the welfare of your animals. I am sure that 90 or 99 percent of people in the industry will be doing that, but this legislation is to protect from that small percentage who may not be.
I also want to acknowledge those organisations who have advocated so long and hard for the protection of greyhounds—Save Animals from Exploitation, Helping You Help Animals, Veterinarians for Animal Welfare Aotearoa, Dogwatch, and the SPCA—and I want to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who first put the ban on greyhound racing bill into the ballot in 2022 and made appeals to the then Minister, Grant Robertson, to act on the reports that were coming in showing that the industry was inherently dangerous. I was very happy to take that bill on board when I became a member of Parliament last year and to have kept it in the ballot since then.
This is a very good day for the welfare of animals, and I would call on the Government to consider that what underlies that loss of social licence in this industry is a fundamental New Zealand value that animals should not suffer unnecessarily, and in other matters of legislation that will come before this House, we will be calling that principle out and highlighting it.
In terms of the rapidity of the passing of this bill through the House, for those of you watching to understand, this is because we are lined up in unanimous support for the principle of bringing an end to this industry, and for looking after the welfare of the animals. This legislation makes sure that they cannot be euthanised unnecessarily. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won’t leave this too much longer, but I do want to actually acknowledge the industry, and, like other speakers have said, most of them have done quite a lot of work in the space around animal welfare, and this will be a really tough day for them. Once again, go out and rehome a greyhound. I think it’s a great thing to do. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Again, the National Party is very strongly in favour of this legislation now that we got to its third reading. For those that may have just tuned in or flicked on Parliament TV, and looking at the Minister for Racing, the Rt Hon Winston Peters’, legislative statement, again, this legislation is required as a preventative measure following the announcement of the Government’s decision to close commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand in principle decision from 1 August 2026—20 months away.
Following this announcement, it has been well canvassed that there will be a heightened risk of some otherwise healthy dogs being destroyed for economic reasons. Thanks to this bill, anyone that breaks the law will face the consequences. As has been already put, the penalties are large and, in most cases, the only person that will be able to euthanise a registered dog will be a vet for very specific reasons under very strict guidelines.
Again, as my good colleague Tom Rutherford, MP for Bay of Plenty, has said, this is a great day for greyhounds. We are protecting those greyhounds. It’s great that this will be passed for Royal assent. Given that the Governor-General is ensconced at Government House in Wellington, thanks to a cancelled flight, this will take effect almost immediately. That is great news for the 2,900 greyhound dogs that will be protected as this wind down for the next 20 months of this industry continues. I commend this third reading.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Kia ora e te Pīka. E āpiti ana mātou i te tautoko o tēnei pire, rawe te kite atu i te kaha tautoko o ngā pāti katoa i tēnei o ngā pire, hakoa ngā pēhitanga nui o te ao tōrangapū i tēnei wā. e hākoakoa ana au ki te kite e kaha tautoko ana ngā pāti katoa i tēnei o ngā horopaki.
[We would like to add our support of this bill. It is amazing to see the huge support from all parties on this bill, despite the pressures brought upon by politics at this time. I am delighted to see the immense support by all parties on this bill.]
Again, we’d just like to reiterate our support for this bill. I acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister and all parties that have supported this bill, to enact the significance and importance of this bill as soon as possible. Nō reira, tēnā rā koutou.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Kia ora. Thinking about this bill, I’m also reminded of some good friends of mine—Marc and Inge—who have a lovely rescue greyhound called Lily. Lily is one of those dogs that you really do become attached to, even though greyhounds have a very small brain. But they are also quite endearing, and I am reminded of Lily, who at one of our book club meetings bumped her foot just on a bit of furniture, and the screech that she put out meant everyone leapt out of their chairs thinking that this dog had come to some great damage, and it was a bump.
This dog is a great companion, has retired from racing, and provides a real support to our friends. She likes to go for walks but not too, too far and she’ll chase things occasionally, and I particularly like it when she comes to book club. What I’m really, really pleased about with this bill that needs to pass today is that it offers an opportunity for others to rehome a greyhound, to look after a greyhound, and have something that might not be very bright but is very endearing.
Mark Cameron: That’s rather unbecoming, Scott.
SCOTT WILLIS: Well, come on—come on. We’ve got to be frank about this. They’re not the most intelligent of animals, but they’re also very endearing. I think this bill is really about the welfare of dogs, of animals, to make sure that they can be looked after and to do the right thing by them.
I don’t think we need to spend a great deal of time on this. This is a very commendable bill and it is fantastic to see such support across the House. I would wish that we could do more of this and have more support generally for positive bills across the House. With that, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I’m not going to besmirch the intelligence of these animals; this is about the welfare of them. Look, I want to acknowledge that the next 20 months will be a difficult time for many in the greyhound racing industry as we phase it out. However, that does not mean it should be a difficult time for the animals that have been involved—that’s what this bill does. It is about protecting their welfare, having clear standards in place to protect them from unwanted or unnecessary euthanising or destruction. That’s why this bill puts in place a 12-month prison term or a $50,000 fine, or both, for anyone found to be doing that. There is a provision that vets on medical grounds can still euthanise animals, but there are clear guidelines for that, which I think strikes an appropriate balance.
Those watching at home might be asking, “Well, what can we do? We want to help with this situation.” One easy option is to rehome one of these beautiful dogs. Good friends of mine have done this. I want to give a mention to Meredith Marsone, a great artist from Foxton—in fact, her art has been hanging in the Beehive foyer for the last few months. Her and her husband, Grimmy, have rehomed them and have found it to be a great thing. That’s something that we can all do. For the House today, of course, it’s about putting this legislation through. In the spirit of Santa’s Little Helper, we all have a part that we can play. For me, I commend this bill to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak on this bill, which is one of two, as the Minister for Racing has said, to close the greyhound racing industry by August 2026.
In this call, I would like to acknowledge the advocacy of South Aucklanders who have long been opposed to greyhound racing at New Zealand’s only stand-alone greyhound racing track, which is the Manukau Sports Bowl. It’s worth acknowledging the long history that the industry has in South Auckland, which began in 1987 with the construction of both the velodrome and the greyhound racing track alongside each other. Those facilities were made in preparation for the 1987 Commonwealth Games, and in 1989 became the Manukau City Council’s property—it had paid for a quarter of that for those two facilities to be designed, and it was a public facility that had long attracted advocacy not only around the use of that space but also for the industry that was greyhound racing.
It’s right for us to be able to have some time in the House to acknowledge the importance of this bill, which is about the protection of the greyhounds which exist within the industry. It’s also right to acknowledge how this has come to be and the kind of support out there that our many and diverse communities have for taking this step. This is something which is really important to a huge number of working South Auckland families in Manukau who live around the Manukau Sports Bowl. It’s worth just setting out for the House what this will mean, because the lease for the greyhound club came to an end at the end of last year. It was part of the transformation of Manukau plan—longer than the works by not only the Auckland Council but the legacy council before that Manukau City Council, about how the people within the boundaries of Manukau City wanted that space to look.
You might have been to the Manukau Sports Bowl, Mr Speaker, and never realised, because it is the venue for Pasifika—it’s also a venue for the new Manukau AFC club for football; it’s long been a club for rugby; it’s a place where high school athletics and competitive athletics is held—but it has always been burdened by the fact that a large part of it has been, effectively, privatised by use by the greyhound club there. To be able, today, to see not only the end to the industry of greyhound racing throughout New Zealand but also the end of the industry’s use of that public space that South Aucklanders want to be using for athletics, they want to be using for concerts, they want to be using for clubs and sports, to be able to get the maximum use out of what is a public facility, is really important.
There are a number of people who have been strong voices in this debate who I want to acknowledge today, in leading to this outcome that the Government has been able to take. The chair of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, Apulu Reece Autagavaia, has long been an advocate in his community, not only in the South Auckland community and Papatoetoe but also in the Samoan community, as a voice for change, as a voice for humanity towards the dogs who have been involved in an industry which he felt had long outrun its social licence and had become exploitative. I want to acknowledge councillor Lotu Fuli, who was also a strong voice within the community about using that space as one where young Pacific people, young Māori people, young South Aucklanders could see themselves represented and enjoy a community facility that should always have been theirs to enjoy, as something which they could practise sports in, go for a run, and use at high school events.
Since it was built as a Commonwealth Games facility, the Manukau Sports Bowl has passed through the ownership of not only the Manukau City Council, which contributed that quarter of the cost of building it—which at the time was $4 million, a significant investment in the late 1980s—through to now a mixture of Auckland Council ownership and those trusts which continue on sports in South Auckland. It’s a great day for them, because the closure of this industry gives a real sense of clarity around what the future use of that facility can now be, which is hugely important to the future of Manukau. The Manukau Sports Bowl is an absolute anchor stone for not only tourism but cultural events in South Auckland. It’s somewhere that is crying out for more use, and this is a real opportunity for South Aucklanders and the South Auckland region to benefit from further investment in and further public use of what is a great facility.
I’m happy to commend this bill. I’m happy to acknowledge those South Aucklanders who have worked hard to really raise this issue up, not only in our local politics at the Auckland level but also at the national level, as a working people’s issue, as South Auckland working people coming out and saying, “We want to be able to use these spaces and see ourselves represented in this public space which should be ours.” Also, I want to acknowledge a long history of advocacy from members around this House to end this practice in New Zealand, and I commend it now.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve made a quick call to the boss of the Rutherford household to see if we could adopt one of those 2,900 greyhounds that’ll be looking for a home—that’s a work in progress. I may wear the pants in that household, but she tells me which ones to wear! We’ll be working on that.
One thing that is for certain: today is a great day for greyhounds—it’s a great day for greyhounds. Having that ministerial advisory committee that I spoke about in the second reading is really going to help with the transition that we’ve seen.
As many speakers have also mentioned, it’s a difficult day for those that work in that particular sector, and those greyhounds that we’re talking about, as well. Ensuring that we’ve got good transitional planning, that we’ve got the necessary services and support there for them and the greyhounds, is really, really important too.
This, as I’ve said throughout, is really great day for greyhounds; we’re going to be protecting them; we’re going to be looking after them here in New Zealand. I’m really proud to be in support of this legislation. I commend it to the House.
Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand up and take a call on this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge the Minister who’s brought it to the House, and I want to acknowledge the members of this House who’ve come together to pass this—from what I can understand, is going to be unanimously. When I was the Associate Minister for Agriculture with responsibility for animal welfare, greyhound racing and the welfare of the dogs was one of the things I heard most about—probably quite likely from some of those South Aucklanders that my colleague referred to earlier. I’m not going to hold this process up any longer. I commend this bill to the House.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is, as has been mentioned by many people in the House, quite an historic day. It is certainly something that is nice to be part of with a unanimous decision around the House. I’d also like to do a callout to those that are involved in the industry who are facing some difficult times over the next 20 months, and I encourage not only their communities but the country to wrap around them and help them out by adopting a dog. With that, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a final call on this important piece of legislation in this third reading. Just noting a number of colleagues from across the House have, I hope, put their hands up to adopt a greyhound. I am going to suggest to my old friend Tim Costley that he has three daughters, so he could take three. I’m sure that those of us who are sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee, when the second bill comes through—hopefully to us—I’m sure that throughout that time, we will do our bit to try to promote the adoption of greyhounds across New Zealand, because there are around 3,000 dogs that are going to need rehoming. We will need a number of people in New Zealand to step up and adopt one of these remarkable animals—they are very smart—and take them on as a family pet.
I said in an earlier contribution I wanted to make a few remarks about the select committee report into the petition of Aaron Cross that we—our committee, the Petitions Committee—reported to the House around two years ago in November 2022. One of the things that was common about that report and today’s debate was that there was a unanimous view across the committee about the social licence that the greyhound industry was losing and that a number of steps needed to be taken if the industry was to continue. I just wanted to point out a few things, particularly from an animal welfare perspective, that came up in that report.
I’ve already mentioned today about straight tracks, that one of the biggest causes of an injury to a dog is when they’re turning around the corners on an oval track. Despite the Hansen report in 2017 stating that there needed to be straight tracks, when we presented to the House in 2022—five years later—there were still no straight tracks. Now, the industry has put one straight track on trial in Whanganui, but, in my view, that’s not enough. It’s now seven years since that report in 2017. The industry should have moved by now to having all of those tracks being straight tracks in order to reduce injuries to dogs, and they haven’t done so, and we haven’t seen enough pace in terms of the changes needed.
Another comment we made in our report was about the focus of the industry on reducing greyhound deaths. While that was a good thing, we didn’t see a similar reduction in injuries or focus on reduction in injuries to the dogs. Ultimately, even if they weren’t killed while racing, a lot of those dogs did end up having a shorter life and were unable to enter the rehoming programme. We have, I acknowledge, started to see some change there, but, again, it has not been enough change and it has not been fast enough.
I just wanted to talk a little bit about rehoming. At that stage around two years ago, we couldn’t see a long-term plan for rehoming dogs, and so the dogs do get to the end of their racing life. We have a number of organisations, like Greyhounds as Pets, that do a great job working to rehome greyhounds, but we weren’t seeing enough movement there. Over the next 20 months, there’s going to have to be a big piece of work—and I know that the Minister has already commented on this—between Government, industry, and animal welfare organisations to rehome a large number of dogs. I do want to acknowledge the SPCA and Save Animals from Exploitation and Helping You Help Animals have already this year put their hands up to assist with that, but we’re going to need a lot more than that. This is going to be a huge effort.
When I met with industry earlier this year, alongside my colleague Tangi Utikere, one of the things we did talk to industry about was rehoming dogs into other countries. I’m actually quite open to that, but I would want to see the animal welfare standards of dogs being taken by aeroplane and knowing that they were going to go into a safe home overseas. There is actually quite a large demand for greyhounds as pets. I think we’re going to need to look at all of those options. We need to make sure they’re safe options, but those are the kinds of things we’re going to need to look at over the next few months.
What I will say is the Government has Labour’s full support in that process. It is going to take a lot of work, and so it’s not straightforward to just implement a ban tomorrow. We need to actually go through a transition process like we did with live cattle export—maybe Government could change their position on that too. We actually need to go through a transition process to ensure that the dogs’ wellbeing is upheld.
One of the other things we noted during that report was just a lack of good data. There has been, again, attempts to improve the data in terms of injuries, in terms of tracking dogs, for a process, but again, just not enough progress to ensure that this industry can continue.
The last thing I wanted to note from that report was we have had a lot of operators in this industry who have been good operators—and I do want to acknowledge them; it’s going to be a very tough day for them. A lot of these operators love their dogs and care for their dogs, but we have had some very bad actors—a small number—and they bring the rest of the industry into disrepute. One of the things we saw was methamphetamine was found to be present in the dogs. It was called an accident by the industry when they came to select committee. I’ve reiterated that to industry again: that they actually should have said at the time, “No, that occurred and it wasn’t good enough and we’re taking steps around that.” Instead, it was minimised and the select committee at the time was not impressed with how it was dealt with by industry.
I do want to acknowledge, again, Edward Rennell. I do believe he has had good intent here and I enjoyed talking with him. I know that he has tried to improve things—but, again, it’s just not enough. This industry has lost its social licence to operate, and so it’s going to be good to be able to scrutinise the second bill that the Government introduces to our committee.
Today’s bill is a very important bill to ensure that we don’t have any unintended consequences. It’s really important that there is a strong deterrent so that anyone who might be tempted to take matters into their own hands and harm their dogs gets a very strong message from this Parliament today that we are unanimous that that must not happen and if it does happen you will be punished.
Today is a great day for greyhounds. A lot of people have done a lot of work—Government, officials, animal welfare organisations—and I want to acknowledge everybody who has done that work, especially today the Minister. Thank you for taking this important step. I commend this bill to the House.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would again just acknowledge the impact on all of those in the industry. Today will be a very tough day, despite what’s been inevitable over a period of time. I would also acknowledge those that are involved currently in the sector of the rehoming of the greyhounds. I would just thank them for the work that they currently do, and I’ve heard very recently—yesterday, in actual fact—of the successes that they’ve had. I want to thank you for all the work that’s ahead of you and for others as we have a transition out of the industry occur. I would again encourage all Kiwis to participate in the rehoming of the dogs involved. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Racing Industry Amendment Bill
First Reading
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move, That the Racing Industry Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.
In this environment of cooperation, let’s press on and get as much as can be done as fast as we can, bearing in mind that the industry that I inherited is what I’m trying to fix up. I’m not making any complaint about it, but this is what I did. We had Entain there, which I inherited, and you’ve got to make the most of it now.
This Government moves that the committee consider the bill for a period of 19 weeks and report it back to the House on 30 April 2025, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).
This Government is pleased to introduce an amendment to the Racing Industry Act 2020 that will protect the long-term financial sustainability of New Zealand’s racing industry. The Act established TAB New Zealand and sets out legislative purposes, including to provide funding to the racing industry on which its products depend. As part of this revenue purpose, the Act sets out TAB NZ as the only authorised land-based sports and race betting operator, and today TAB NZ continues to provide over 90 percent of the three racing codes’ revenue—now two racing codes, very shortly after 1 October 2026. The Act also provides for revenue gathering from international providers of wagering who offer odds to New Zealand punters and on New Zealand events. These offshore charges were designed to offset the revenue lost to betting operators who do not otherwise pay profits to the sporting and the racing industries of New Zealand.
The scale of offshore operations has grown since the last time I held the racing portfolio and brought the Racing Industry Act to this House. Despite entering into a partnership with a global betting operator as part of the efforts to develop a competitive edge, the tide of money from New Zealand punters has steadily turned. Offshore operators are consolidating a significant market share of New Zealand betting, and the revenue which New Zealand’s racing industry relies on is certainly not guaranteed. This Government is introducing legislation today that will stem that tide. Once enforced, it will prohibit any operator other than TAB NZ from offering sports and race betting to a person in New Zealand. In effect, this Government is extending the existing sole authority of TAB NZ to include online wagering.
This Government is not just betting on the success of the racing industry; this Government is in the pole position and creating the odds for success. To use racing phraseology. “Success for who?”, you might ask. As this Minister says, it’s for all who are willing to place a bet. While this bill seeks to persuade the tides, it does, effectively, reduce the market to one sports and race betting operator, and this Government knows that Kiwi punters want a desirable Kiwi-run option that puts New Zealand and its economy first. The bill introduces regulation-making powers that will allow us to set the conditions on which TAB New Zealand may exclude or limit Kiwi punters, ensuring that New Zealand’s eager punters have a reliable and trustworthy operator to stake their bets with.
This bill secures more than one good success—a real daily double, one might even say. TAB NZ—I get it; somebody who’s got a sense of humour wrote this. TAB NZ’s agreement with Entain includes a one-time payment of $100 million if TAB New Zealand’s monopoly is expanded to online wagering in New Zealand. This bill secures that payment for TAB NZ and, by extension, the racing industry. This prohibition is a very good thing for the racing industry and for New Zealand.
The Act provides for revenue recovery from bets placed by people in New Zealand with providers other than TAB NZ. This point of consumption charge is known as the “POCC”. However, as this Government is amending the bill to prohibit such operators from participating in New Zealand’s market, this change will no longer be necessary. Therefore, the bill removes the POCC from the legislation after 24 months. This period is to ensure that the POCC can still be recovered in the period following enactment while operators still have bets pending on future events. This Minister for Racing has been around the track enough times—
Tangi Utikere: “False Start”.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, actually, that was a racehorse’s name, but way back in the 1950s. The other one I’m talking about is Rising Fast—he won the Melbourne Cup, Rising Fast did. But back to the point.
The Minister for Racing has been around the track a few times, and increasing the market dominance of TAB NZ is a bold expansion of their prerogative on wagering in New Zealand. This Government’s bill seeks to oversee that expansion with the appropriate rigour. This bill introduces powers for the Minister for Racing to request information from TAB NZ at any time. This is a broad power but a necessary one for oversight of a statutory entity for whom the Government is granting a great deal of fortune in the competitive market. These are sensible changes.
Also to that end, this bill will appoint a regulator to monitor compliance, with the new prohibition in addition to the reporting done by TAB NZ to the Minister for Racing. Compliance with both rules is set to be a top priority. The civility of the racing industry depends on it, and this legislation codifies that expectation.
Mr Speaker, thank you, I commend this bill to the House. I just suggest to my parliamentary colleagues from across the House that this is not party political, so to speak. We have to, if we’re going to turn our economy around, go to industry after industry after industry and do so much better. This is one where we can do a whole lot better, as evidenced from the fact that we recently were in Malaysia and decided we’d have an afternoon where we could go out and see a famous racecourse there getting under way. The consequences of that visit was that they came to the Ready to Run races at the end of this year at Karaka and must have bought about 35 horses, and they’re coming back—those same Malaysians—at the yearling sales at the beginning of next year, at the end of January. It’s by doing that in so many industries that we’re going to lift this country’s performance. As I said, it’s hardly political; it’s just plain common sense. Let’s make sure this horse can run.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, racing as a portfolio is certainly getting some exposure in the House today. As the racing spokesperson for Labour, I can indicate to the Minister that we will be supporting this bill through to select committee, although it’s disappointing that the Minister didn’t get to introduce this bill sooner. If he had, then the much-needed revenue that flows from this would have been in the pockets of industry participants much sooner than is the case, which would mean that the revenue could be reinvested here in New Zealand much sooner.
What this bill does is it creates what we refer to as a “legislative net”. It, basically, provides an opportunity to ensure that the revenue that has wagered on an online basis, overseas and the like, is, basically, retained or captured here in New Zealand. What does that mean? Well, it means that the money does not go offshore; it’s retained here domestically and can be reinvested into the industry. If the Government had made that decision much sooner, following up from the work that was initiated under the Labour Government, that revenue would have flown in the form of investment and reinvestment into industry participants much sooner than is the case.
We’re talking about an industry here—I know the Minister knows this, and I know he knows it well—that, basically, is around 14,000 full-time jobs here. If we take into consideration the number of volunteers and other participants, that sort of skyrockets beyond 40,000. We’re talking about a significant amount of individuals who are associated within the racing industry here in Aotearoa New Zealand that generates close to $1.9 billion in value-added contribution to our economy. We’re not talking about any small sense of coin in that regard.
Many of us will have spent time visiting race courses not just in our electorate but beyond that. As we head into summer, there will be a number of racing opportunities where rural communities really rely on participation and involvement to help with community spirit. If we all reflect on opportunities that exist, that’s just a wonderful opportunity that is there.
We’re also known globally as a world leader when it comes to breeding—our thoroughbreds. I know the Minister in jest talks about particular runners in the Melbourne Cup and the like, but we are well known around the world for our sense of breeding and also in terms of the equine component—the particular approach that we have in that space, as well.
The issue with this bill being delayed in terms of its introduction means that the additional turnover, which may be around about $180 million extra that could be circulated into the industry, is going to be further delayed. The $100 million payment that will come as a result of the Entain arrangement, which is a 25-year arrangement working with TAB New Zealand, also could have been received much sooner. It is disappointing that that is not the case.
One of the real benefits of this bill is the focus on harm prevention and harm minimisation. That is something that is happening all around the world. Earlier in the year, I was able to visit Kempton Park, where they were talking about, as part of their race day approach, the various approaches to harm minimisation and what that means. The problem that we have at the moment, of course, is that the TAB is only a land venue monopoliser. What this will do is it will, basically, extend that to an online offering—or oversight on an online sense. It is a good move. I know that there will be a number of issues that we will still look forward to teasing out as part of the select committee process. We look forward to that.
This is actually identified in the departmental disclosure statement—removing that point of consumption charge that the Minister talks about. That really is no longer a viable charge if the TAB is going to be the monopoly of it. The point of the consumption charge is to, basically, be able to clip the ticket and gather some revenue on any operators that are offshore, so that the domestic market is able to fare its sort of share as part of that. I did question why there is a 24-month delay. I understand it’s because there still needs to be an opportunity to capture that charge for future betting—stuff that happens into the future, into 24 months.
Look, we look forward to progressing this through the select committee, where we will tease out a few of the things that we would like to. On this basis, at the moment, we commend the bill to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): This legislation will support New Zealand’s racing industry by making TAB New Zealand New Zealand’s sole provider for sports and racing betting, both on land and online. It thereby ensures gambling profits are returned to the domestic racing industry.
The bill makes several other changes, including new oversight powers for the Minister to seek information from TAB New Zealand; the regulatory oversight and the prohibition on other operators; and extends regulation-making power for harm prevention and minimisation. As my colleague Tangi Utikere has just mentioned, that is something of significant importance. It will extend those regulation-making powers for harm prevention and minimisation to online TAB platforms, and it will create regulation-making powers to specify circumstances in which the TAB exclude customers from using their online platforms and other consumer protections. The net profits of the TAB are distributed to the racing industry and, through grants, to sporting organisations, so minimising competition protects gambling revenue for the domestic racing industry.
The Green Party has a policy specifically that says we wish to prevent new forms of gambling—they’re associated with harm—and regulate all existing forms of gambling to minimise harm. This bill does prohibit online betting services by offshore operators, and online gambling is one of the risker forms of gambling due to its easy access and easiness to conceal, for those who do have issues with problem gambling. Offshore operators are also not covered by New Zealand law and the protections provided by our regulation. We previously supported legislation in 2019 to introduce offshore betting changes with revenue distribution among the racing codes, which we determined was sensible given that the current racing industry provides a service to offshore vendors for no compensation. The same justification applies to prohibiting offshore betting.
The primary point of the bill is to protect the financial sustainability of the racing industry. There is some question over whether that sustainability is a good thing—for those who are concerned with issues of animal welfare, animals used for entertainment, and across racing codes. We cannot but acknowledge the very important decision that has just been passed this afternoon to protect greyhounds from racing harm, in the prohibition of that industry. Our party policy, however, seeks to regulate racing and does not explicitly call for its abolition—in terms of horse racing, obviously, and other forms of racing. The primary point of the bill is to protect the financial sustainability. There is the risk that protecting TAB’s monopoly in limiting competition will increase TAB profitability at the expense of betting consumers. However, we do not want the industry to grow and expand in a way that is potentially harmful for consumers.
In that regard, we will be supporting this bill to the select committee. We will be seeking opportunities to make further potential amendments once we understand and review how best this bill can accommodate our objective of reducing the harm and improving community outcomes in regard to gambling. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the House for the opportunity to speak to the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. Suffice to say, this is a good piece of legislation. We did grapple with some of the thoughts and discussion about how it would bleed into creating the right profit streams for the industry. We were a bit unsure about where the bill would land in its future but, equally so, I think it’s incumbent upon us to allow it to go to select committee.
We’re interested to hear, obviously, what the industry thinks about its own future, and we are, evidently, somewhat concerned about the creation of a monopoly in the private sector. That I say all that, this bill is an amendment to the 2020 Racing Industry Act and creates the right environment for long-term financial sustainability for New Zealand’s racing industry.
There’s a couple of key points I just want to canvass with the House if I can. Obviously, this is an extension to the monopoly and extends TAB New Zealand’s existing land-based monopoly to include online sports and racing betting reality. I think we’ve ever heard today a couple of salient points. Obviously, that speaks to the investment that the industry can reinvest in harm minimisation and issues to do with gambling addiction. That was notable and I think you can’t canvass that point enough, as was raised by Steve Abel.
The economic impact: the racing industry generates significant economic benefits to New Zealand. I think that was well canvassed: 13,000 to 14,000 people and I think the wider number for the industry at large by extension to those associated with the industry was near on 40,000, and worth a couple of billion dollars. Suffice to say, I think that can only be a good thing.
The strategic partnership: the bill supports TAB’s new strategic partnership with Entain, which is expected to deliver substantial financial benefits to the racing industry.
I don’t want to over-litigate the point. We are a little bit concerned about the potential monopolisation of the industry and there will be some unintended consequences, I think, that the select committee will have to grapple with: economic impact to offshore operators, regulatory challenges, consumer choice—where will that sort of bleed into.
Overall, without overplaying my hand, we look forward to the findings from the select committee process and how they litigate the positives and the negatives of this legislation. Suffice to say, in the art of collegiality, we will be supporting it through this first reading, allowing that natural process of select committee scrutiny to go ahead. Thank you.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure to rise for the Racing Industry Amendment Bill first reading, and we look forward to it working its way through select committee and hearing the submissions on it. A great day for greyhounds and a great day for the New Zealand’s thoroughbred racing industry here and its long-term sustainability. This legislation, as has been canvassed, will enhance that sustainability by making TAB New Zealand New Zealand’s sole provider for sports and race betting, both on land and online. I commend this bill.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. We take these things seriously, and this is one of those bills that we welcome, as introduced by the Minister, as a look towards the current and the future state of the way that people bet—in particular with respect to horses, but, of course, other sports betting online.
We acknowledge the partnership that’s been entered into and, in particular, the goodwill monies, if you will, that has been given towards the sector and, broadly speaking, sport—which is why it’s one of those opportunities where we’ve got a chance now to look towards how we might support right across the board and not just the specific part of online gambling. The reason I say that is because while that’s important in this particular bill, we know that online gambling—whether it’s pokies or—is already in our communities. I acknowledge the attempts at trying to minimise gambling harm in this country, and communities have taken steps towards doing that. For example, pokies in places like South Auckland; stopping the proliferation of those kinds of forms of gambling are important. But, of course, all that has done with new technology is shift gambling online.
With respect to this particular bill, it’s good for sports betting—in particular, horse racing. The Minister has spoken to that and we will be supporting it, but I want to caution the House here and say there are other things that we need to look at with respect to online gambling to make sure that what we’re doing here is something that we can cast a lens across online gambling in other spaces that our communities are already engaged in.
I’ve noticed recently, for example, there are online influencers who promote online gambling to their communities, and that’s a serious issue that we’re yet to confront, but what we are doing with this bill is making sure that, “OK, we can allow this sort of thing, but we’ve got to have an eye on the ball”—or an eye on the horse, as it would be. We’ve got to make sure that it doesn’t get away on us. We’ve got to make sure that there are regulations here that will allow us to make sure that we don’t see the horse getting away on us, if you will. That’s why we support this bill.
We will interrogate a number of the matters as it goes through the select committee to make sure that the deal—and that was engaged in by TAB and Entain—was one that benefits the sector correctly and also doesn’t, as members across the House have already mentioned, the way you create monopolies in these kinds of sectors. It’s always something we’ve got to be aware of and make sure that we aren’t, by dint or doing something good here, simply creating monopolies for the sake of creating monopolies. We’ve got to be very clear about why we’re doing it.
I acknowledge the comments by the ACT Party member Mark Cameron, because this is where the select committee is going to be really important as we scrutinise this particular bill as it goes through, but from what we can see—and the fact that the sector is already changed and has changed in the short number of years where online gambling and online betting has been in our communities—one might argue that this has been a long time coming and it’s been a little bit slow with respect to its introduction into the House. Having said that, we support it. We’ll make sure we interrogate it through its processes. I take the Minister’s word that we will be going through the full committee stage process, which I think is a good thing and welcome for such an important thing—an important bill—in our communities.
Finally, I want to acknowledge just the work that’s been done on racing. Why I say that is, of course, COVID impacted communities and sectors right across the country—in particular, horse racing, and racing and sports in general. We know that COVID had a significant impact on it. What it did do, however, is it gave the industry the opportunity to push the reset button, to say, “OK, what do we look like in a post-COVID world?”—
Hon David Seymour: Opportunity.
Hon PEENI HENARE: —it’s an opportunity—“How might we be able to modernise ourselves? How might we be able to continue to reach our existing markets while looking towards other opportunities in this space?” An acknowledgment to the industry, because it hasn’t been easy; it has been a difficult time, and if there’s one thing certain—it’s not to do with betting—it is that technology will continue to change the way we operate. Let’s just remind ourselves as regulators and lawmakers that we must remain nimble on the matter as well.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I want to support this bill. I think that establishing the Department of Internal Affairs as the sole regulator for sports gambling in New Zealand is a positive step. I also think closing that loophole that’s been exploited by overseas operators, so that the revenue stays in New Zealand, not just providing additional revenue for racing but for other sporting codes as well—that’s got to be a positive thing for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Like my colleague Tim Costley, I’ll keep it short and sweet. Let’s be clear, this bill aims to counteract the growing influence of offshore betting operators and ensure continued funding for the racing industry in New Zealand, ultimately keeping money raised through the TAB here in New Zealand. It’s a good change; it’s a smart change. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I’m looking forward to being a part of the consultation and listening to the submissions we receive. I commend this bill to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. As you’ve heard from my colleagues, it’s an important step but it’s also important that we fully understand that the Government’s proposal here is to be able to interrogate this bill through a select committee process. I understand that the Minister, when giving instructions to select committee, will be giving a full allocation of time to the select committee to move through that process, and that is a good thing. For the Governance and Administration Committee to be able to really drill down into what the industry needs and some sensible reforms there, it’s going to be important that all parties represented in the Parliament are able to make their views clear.
I’ve heard, for instance, from the Green Party today that their party policy is not to restrict all racing but that they would see a significant downsizing of the industry. I’ve heard from my colleagues here that the industry is important to the regions, particularly some of the regions represented by the members who have spoken today, like Tangi Utikere. This is something that deserves proper consideration. It’s very useful that we are not rushing this through. Without needing to prolong the debate here, I thank the Minister for his interest and his work on this. I thank him for the opportunity for my good colleague Tangi Utikere to be able to speak in his racing portfolio. It’s a real enthusiasm of his, as it is for many of the Labour members who have held that portfolio, and I commend this bill.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you. The TAB is the backbone of New Zealand’s racing industry, and the racing industry itself is a significant contributor to our economy. A day at the races is a cultural institution in rural and provincial New Zealand. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Kevin, Angela, Jason, Luke, and Caley Myers of KT Racing in Turakina, in the mighty Rangitīkei, who run a fantastic racing enterprise. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Racing Industry Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Instruction to Governance and Administration Committee
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Racing: I move, That the Racing Industry Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 April 2025.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: I present a legislative statement on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 22 April 2025.
The Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill reintroduces the ability of employers to make pay deductions in response to partial strikes. This change to collective bargaining settings will provide a far more effective and efficient bargaining environment where rights and consequences are more balanced and which minimises potential disruption to public services.
We have seen partial strikes result in patients facing delays to receiving medical scans and treatment due to medical staff limiting the number of scans they completed each day, and kids missing out on education due to teachers refusing to teach certain year groups on certain days. However, in spite of these inconveniences created by the withdrawal of people’s work, there were no pay packet consequences for the medical staff or teachers involved in these partial strikes.
Earlier this year, train operators in Wellington undertook a work-to-rule industrial action, including refusing shift changes, which led to disruption for travellers. Currently, the New Zealand Defence Force Public Service Association union members are working to rule. They’ve been taking coordinated breaks and stopped working at heights or off site. The Minister of Defence has responded by authorising uniformed personnel to cover civilian work in selected areas. Needless to say, this is a rare move from the Minister of Defence, and it’s a shame that it’s been made necessary by this industrial action.
On the other hand, when a full strike occurs, employers can respond by suspending the employees and not providing pay. In this situation, there are negative consequences for both sides: the employees lose pay; the employer loses output. This provides an incentive for both sides to cease industrial action and return to the bargaining table as soon as possible.
The same cannot be said for partial strike action under the current rules. If an employee is engaged in a partial strike, the employer’s options are to either accept the partial strike action or to lock out or suspend the employees for the duration of the strike. Employers who do not want to be so heavy-handed in their response have no choice but to continue to pay the partially striking workers in full. There is currently no provision to allow a more nuanced or proportionate response, as would be normal in a society where people believe in cause-and-effect thinking.
The ability to make pay deductions in response to partial strikes was introduced in 2014 as part of a package of amendments aimed at ensuring a flexible and fair employment relations framework for both employees and employers. In 2018, the previous Government removed employers’ ability to reduce pay in response to partial strikes. Now, once this bill becomes law, an employer will not have to make a pay deduction in response to partial strikes. Under this bill, it will be an option for an employer involved in a negotiation. Employers will again be able to respond to partial strikes by being able to either reduce an employee’s pay by a proportionate amount or deduct 10 percent of their pay. The ability to make a fixed deduction of 10 percent gives employers a choice in situations where it may be difficult to calculate a proportionate pay deduction. For example, for a large workforce, without the option to make it a fixed deduction, the administrative costs of calculating the proportion of work impacted could mean that it is not practical for some employers to make a deduction.
Restoring employers’ ability to make pay deductions for partial strikes could help incentivise both parties to return to the bargaining table and reach agreement sooner. This will reduce the impacts on communities that result from ongoing industrial action. I consider that enabling employers to make partial pay deductions provides the opportunity for a more balanced and appropriate response to partial strikes. It’s also more consistent with the approach used in Australia and the United Kingdom.
While I recognise the entitlement of employees to strike in support of their collective bargaining claims, they should not be able to do it at no cost to themselves, effectively putting the cost on to the employer and, as we heard in the case of school children and their parents and those patients waiting for vital medical scans, actually putting the cost on to the customers or the patients or the students of their employer.
In conclusion, this bill will provide employers with a specific response to partial strikes by reintroducing the ability to make pay deductions in response to partial strikes. It is sensible, proportionate change that should minimise potential disruption to public services. All New Zealanders will be able to have their say on the bill when it goes to select committee.
I just hasten to add that I have brought this bill and taken this speech on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, the Hon Brooke van Velden. I have to say that, while she could not be in the House today, she is doing a superb job across the portfolio of making our labour laws make sense—
Camilla Belich: A lot worse—constantly attacking workers; taking workers backwards.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —for contractors with holiday pay, with personal grievances. I hear Camilla Belich, the one-time employment lawyer, braying away there saying she’s constantly attacking us. Actually, she’s not, and it says something about Camilla Belich’s attitude towards the workers that she believes something like this bill—the idea that if you work, you get paid; if you don’t work, you don’t get paid. If you work less, you get paid less; if you work more, you get paid more. To most New Zealanders, this kind of logic is common sense and first nature. To the Labour Party, they believe that you should be able to go on strike, inconvenience patients, inconvenience students, inconvenience parents, and still get paid the full amount, all the while creating incentives to continue industrial action.
Well, once upon a time, there was a Labour Party that actually believed in public services for the public. Their interest was in equal opportunity for every child to get an education; for every patient, whether or not they had the means, to get healthcare. And what do you have today? You have a Labour Party that’s going to stand up and complain and say it’s an attack on workers to say that if you don’t work, you don’t get paid, and if you do work, you do get paid, and if you go on strike, you are withholding your work—
Camilla Belich: Does it just apply to work—does it just apply to work?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and not working, so you don’t get paid. And then they’ll say—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Belich, I note that you’re the next speaker. That might be the better opportunity than yelling across the House.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, I’ve seen Ms Belich give many speeches, and I’d never contest your ruling, but I’m not entirely sure about that one. The thing about it is—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Yeah. Mr Seymour, sit down. Camilla Belich.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): You’ve criticised the Speaker’s ruling, so I’ve curtailed your speech. If your point of order is in relation to that, don’t bother.
Hon David Seymour: Well, actually, Mr Speaker, it is, because it was clearly in jest. I was facing significant barracking—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): On which, Mr Seymour, I had intervened. You didn’t need to do that—sit down. Camilla Belich.
Hon David Seymour: Well, actually, Mr Speaker, I’ve got a right—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sit down, Mr Seymour.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish I could say it was a pleasure to take a call on this bill, but it is absolutely not. The harmony that has presided over this House in relation to this urgency motion has well and truly ended with this terrible bill, which does attack workers’ rights and does take working New Zealanders backwards, both literally in the sense that this was the law that used to apply. Does the ACT Party have no new ideas apart from rehashing things that were tried and tested and found to have failed? There is no evidence for this bill to go ahead at all.
Not only that—not only does this bill take workers backwards—but there is absolutely no evidence provided in the regulatory impact statement on the effectiveness of this bill or the fact it is actually needed at all. In fact, the regulatory impact statement goes into great detail on the fact that there couldn’t be proper assessments done on this bill and the bill itself only partially meets the quality assurance standards of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the very ministry who drafted this bill. Why is the ACT Party deciding to, at every attempt, bring ideological changes to this House which simply do not work in practice, do not take New Zealand workplaces forward, and actually have no evidential basis and not only to bring them forward but also with not sufficient time for their own officials to actually scrutinise them and put them through the proper processes?
This is absolutely terrible and I want to speak—I don’t have much time, as this is first reading; five minutes—to the real heart of the problem of this bill, and that was, in essence, the interjections that I was making to the previous speaker, the Hon David Seymour. This is a bill that does not just apply when people do not work; partial strikes are often situations where people have things like a union T-shirt on, a badge, a sign on their fire truck. These are all examples of partial strikes that would be covered by this bill. In those circumstances, at the passage of this bill, an employer would be able to deduct 10 percent—or more, possibly, if they use the other type of calculation of an employee’s wages—when they have done their job, when they have fulfilled their contractual entitlement, and the only thing that they are doing is taking action to support their bargaining that they’re having with the employer.
Now, this bill, I would even go as far to say, goes against the object of the Employment Relations Act. The object of the Employment Relations Act is to promote collective bargaining. We’ve seen the Council of Trade Unions state this today—that this bill would do the exact opposite of promoting collective bargaining. This will actually, possibly, encourage the use of the full withdrawal of labour from workplaces—so encourage more strikes, so be more inconvenient to the public, meaning that people can’t access the public services that we all want them to see, because they don’t have the option of a partial strike without financial penalty.
This is a ridiculous proposition to put forward that people should, and employers should be able to dock people’s wages—their hard-earned wages—when they have done the job they contracted to do. This could include things like coaching at schools—that would be impacted by this. If you decided not to do that, if you weren’t paid for it, that could be considered a partial strike and you might actually be paid less as a result of that.
Hon Simeon Brown: Doing what, sorry, at schools?
CAMILLA BELICH: Doing extra duties, attending a rally during your lunch break—that would be considered coaching. Yeah, you know? Like a sports coaching team. It’s something that happens quite often in schools, and schools do have industrial action. The coaching that people might do is an additional thing to their job.
Now, I do note the bill—and I’m grateful that it does—excludes partial strikes for things like health and safety. That is correct; that is the way that it should be. But there are so many other different types of ways that people could be political in their role, supporting the role of their union, their right to collectively bargain, which is protected under the Employment Relations Act, which would be covered by this bill. This is a bill—and I’m looking at members opposite—that stops people being paid the minimum wage if they have a deduction for a partial strike. This is what you’re passing today. It could be people who do their entire contracted duties, who do not breach their contract, who do not get paid the minimum wage because they are taking part in their union action for better pay and conditions.
This is taking New Zealand workplaces literally backwards to a different time when the law came into place. There is no evidence. There are actually mistakes in this legislation. It is being rushed through—I know that we are having a select committee, and I feel silly saying that I’m grateful for it but I am. I do not commend it to the House.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, this Government is the Grinch that stole Christmas. Here we are just a couple of weeks out from Christmas and the workers are getting another kick in the teeth from this Government.
This legislation is appalling. The Government is introducing legislation that will make it easier to penalise workers fighting for better pay and conditions. It is dire, Draconian, and outright disgraceful, even by this own Government’s standards. The ability to strike, organise, and collectively bargain is a democratic right. These are critical tools that have empowered workers to contest and challenge unfair working conditions in the uneven playing field between them and their bosses.
We did hear comments about concerns about interruptions to public services, and I think we all share that, but do you want to know something? If you want to minimise disruptions to public services, you pay people properly—you pay the nurses, you pay the teachers, you pay people properly. What’s the count now of the number of people across the public sector that have lost their jobs—6,000 or 8,000? I’ve seen numbers up to 10,000.
Everybody across the House likes to talk a big game about the brain drain, but where do you think these people go? Where do people go when they lose their jobs? They get on a plane and they get out of here to find better work and conditions.
The Government is also getting ahead of the collective bargaining in the big public sector workforces next year to undermine their ability to strike and try to frighten the workers into accepting their miserly offers that are coming. It is so important that we protect workers’ rights, that we protect the right to strike as well. Acknowledging the comments of my colleague Camilla Belich as well—all of those different ways that are expressions of frustration with workers. If you are wearing a T-shirt as a part of the partial strike, that will count as your pay getting docked; the different ways that people find to express their frustrations.
This is something that should be opposed across the House. The Greens will continue to fight this legislation every step of the way. Just to reiterate that point again, that if we do want to see fewer strikes—if we do want to see fewer strikes—you have to pay people properly. You have to pay the nurses properly. You have to pay the teachers properly. You’ve got to pay those people that do all of those different bits and pieces.
We have this wonderful saying in te reo Māori, which goes “Ko te amorangi ki mua ko te hāpai ō ki muri”, which, if I can translate that into English, says, “If you take care of the front and you take care of the back, that’s when everything comes along in a good way”. Particularly on the marae, if you look after the paepae and you look after the kāuta, the marae is well.
What we have with this Government is a commitment to gut the back office without any concern with what that means to the front office. This bill is Draconian, it is dire, and it is diabolical, a couple of weeks out from Christmas. This is a kick in the teeth for workers. Workers should be getting ready to organise against this Government and make them a one-term Government. We oppose this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I think it’s important to clarify for the House what partial strikes mean and how disruptive they are to the community. I have worked in transport for most of my career, and I have seen examples where bus drivers will turn up for work and they will drive around the route with the door closed and refuse to let passengers on, or they will refuse to take revenue to subsidise the ratepayer-funded public transport. Not only do all of these things detrimentally impact the bottom line of a regional council or a business but they also affect the customer, the very person that every business and employee or public service and public servant purport to support and be there to work for.
At the very end of the day, the purpose of this bill is to introduce balance to a situation that is currently out of balance. We are reintroducing a piece of legislation that was revoked in 2018, which is not saying that nobody can strike, which is not saying that nobody can partially strike; it’s to say that there actually has to be a consequence for the impact that this has on a business, on the Public Service, on the customer, on the member of the public that is entitled to that public service or to that service that they are expecting to pay for.
Another example is where partial strikes have been in the healthcare system, where, yes, people have turned up to work, but they’ve taken half the number of, let’s just say, MRI scans that they are supposed to. Now, again, not only is this actually putting more pressure on the future workforce, it’s actually really a critical healthcare concern. There are examples of this across all sectors. It’s not just public transport, it’s not just health; in some cases, it’s education, where the teachers, yes, are on site, they’re at the school—and they do that to avoid taking full strike action, which has its own repercussions—but they aren’t taking class or they aren’t teaching certain things. Now, who does that disbenefit? It disbenefits the public.
We are here to reintroduce the balance, and that is what this is about. It’s all about limiting the effects that strike action takes on the consumer, on the communities, and on the Public Service, because, ultimately, businesses and the Public Service don’t have the resources to respond to every single strike action—in this particular case, partial strikes. They have no ability to have recompense for what happens. In so many cases, actually, the Public Service or businesses have to put on additional staff that aren’t part of the strike action and pay them additionally to the person they’re still paying. Again, in this case, partial strikes, they might be on site, they might be reporting for duty, but they’re not performing the duty, and so all of this has a cost.
At the very least, to expect businesses and the Public Service to be able to take some of that, in this case, 10 percent—up to 10 percent—and take that as compensation, whether it’s for the logistics involved in the disruption, the additional cost of having to put extra staff on, the compensation required for customers, the follow-up that’s required when that partial strike action is complete and we have to put extra staff on to cover the backlog of work. All of these things cost. Actually, that is absolutely a disadvantage to the very people taking partial strike action, because they are bargaining for better terms and conditions or pay. If it’s costing more to cover that strike action, what is that doing? Again, that’s disproportionately affecting those people that are taking partial strike action.
Again I will summarise what I have said today, which is that, in the end, this is about putting balance back into a system and a situation where it is disproportionately disadvantaging those people that are entitled to a public service—for the most part, it’s people in the Public Service that are disproportionately impacted by this situation. The reintroduction of balance is bringing something back that we had prior to 2018, that is in step with the rest of the world; it is the norm around the world to be able to take this kind of consequence. It’s a very simple thing to expect—that that is what we would do in this case—so to be throwing our arms in the air, saying that this is sending us back into the dark ages, is absolutely untrue.
This is a proportionate response to something that has a disproportionate impact on the public, and I think that when we go through the select committee process, we will hear just that. I look forward to that process. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First supports the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. We have always believed in the egalitarian principle that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, but both of those things need to go together. To get your fair day’s pay, you do have to do a fair day’s work, and to be able to withdraw your labour and still get paid doesn’t balance, in our view. There should be some consequences, and we absolutely support the right to strike and withdraw your labour, but it cannot be done at the expense of your employer who you’re bargaining with. That’s a disproportionate balance of power and exactly the opposite of what the previous bill purported to do.
We do think that this rebalances and is proportionate, and it does incentivise both parties to settle. The employer, if there is a partial strike going on, is still paying a price—they’ve lost that productivity during that period—and the chance of a spurious walkout is mitigated because there are consequences for people withdrawing their labour, workers withdrawing their labour. It’s sensible to us, it’s balanced, and it will hopefully save the nuclear option of having to have a lockout or full strikes, because it will incentivise both parties to come to the table. That seems fair to us.
We have seen the consequences of this on a number of occasions since the law that we’re repealing came into place, particularly, I know from personal experience, the teachers’ strikes under the last Government, where the teachers were just striking and striking and striking, and the inconvenience to the general public was enormous. We didn’t have the flexibility and the parents didn’t have the flexibility and had to work around all those scenarios. It was tremendously disruptive to the broader community, and the teachers were able to strike with impunity at that point. That was under the previous administration.
All the dire catastrophising over there from the Green Party, saying, “Just pay people better.”, well, they were in confidence and supply with a Government that conceivably would have wanted to pay them as well as they could, but there are real-world consequences. Everyone and every Government has got a budget they’ve got to keep to. Every employer has got a budget they’ve got to keep to. This balances that out. We’ve got consequences on either side. It is a sensible bill. It is a balanced bill. New Zealand First will commend it to the House.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): We continuously hear from and see from the Government for the elite, by the elite, from the elite; out there to make sure that they’ve demonised every hard-working person, every community, anyone that wants to fight for their rights—what we’ve continuously seen from this Government. While I heard my colleague on the right calling them the Grinch, I just think that’s way too kind.
What we have here—and I think probably about this time last year we were speaking to the reintroduction of the 90-day trials. That really should be of no surprise that we’re here today again, talking about why people shouldn’t strike, pretending that we’re worried about the services. Actually, what you’re worried about is the shareholders’ profits—the shareholders’ profit margins—because that’s, effectively, what productivity is turning around for you. Let’s just remind ourselves what we’re here about. This Government’s whole tough on crime, now tough on employees, seems to be really the key message.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you might draw the member speaking’s attention to Standing Order 112. She’s so far spoken for a minute and hasn’t actually addressed the bill. She has made a number of imputations about the motivations of the Government to which you might draw your attention—to Standing Order 121, I think it is.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, that’s also the purview of the Chair. Thank you for that advice. Carry on, Ms Ngarewa-Packer.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you. What we see here is, sadly, a bill that’s been put forward—a bill called the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. What we see is it’s been brought forward here to demonise workers—to demonise—and enhance and help bad employers. It’s always been that a good employer will not want to see things carry on—they will not want to see their staff strike and they will want to mitigate it and come together and negotiate and settle as fast as possible.
I just want to give a list in respect to this bill and how it relates to marginalised workforces. Wāhine Māori and Pasifika are, effectively, working for free for the rest of the year when they compare the pay to the average Pākehā man’s salary. Over a lifetime, Māori women will have earned over $400,000 less than Pākehā men. Discrimination in the workplace—because this is why we fight for rights: discrimination in the workplace. We know that Māori are adversely affected. Approximately 93 percent of Māori have experienced some form of workplace discrimination, as disclosed in findings released just last year. This is why we have strikes. Māori are often—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Ngarewa-Packer, some references to the bill would be good around now, and some speaking about the bill.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Yep, sure. Māori are often represented in sectors including agriculture, construction, and hospitality. These types of working environments are notorious, and why they are part of the partial striking environment. When we strip workers of their rights to protest and strike against these types of realities, these types of working conditions in place put bad employers ahead and use the balance of power—because that’s really what this bill is about. It’s about the balance of power and those in workplaces that are unsafe, those that are sitting there fighting for their rights to be paid better, to be recognised better, to end discrimination.
The right to strike is a fundamental democratic right, one that we’ve been very proud of having in Aotearoa, especially when working conditions become so dire that there is no other means by which to make their voices heard. The amendments to this bill absolutely revoke the democratic rights of workers. In this Government, particularly the ACT Party, these amendments expose their true agenda—the agenda to support and look after the profits of the shareholders that we see from entities like, I don’t know, Atlas, revealing not a democratic party but rather one that would prefer to silence the voices that advocate for change. In this case, better working conditions.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Point of order, David Seymour. This had better not relate to the current speaker and her reference to the bill. That, again, as I’ve reminded you, is the purview of the Speaker.
Hon David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, you acknowledged my previous point of order, and the member appears to have completely ignored what you’ve said. I would argue that she’s now trifling with you and perhaps you could be a bit consistent and sit her down too.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, you can argue all you like. Carry on, Ms Ngarewa-Packer.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you. This bill is not about protecting workers or the general public; it’s about protecting unfair, bad employers from any consequences. Really, what it comes down to is being able to make sure that those workers are able to deliver these services and that they are working for good employers and that they are able to strike and demand better conditions that cannot put themselves and their jobs at risk. It’s simple. A broken workforce means broken services—whether it’s healthcare, education, or public safety. Te Pāti Māori do not support this bill.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can’t help, as we speak this evening on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, to listen to the irony that’s coming from the other side of the House. On the one hand, they want us to create employment relationships here in New Zealand that are fair and reasonable, but on the other hand, if we make a change that is fundamentally about fairness to both parties, they’re worried about people going to places like Australia. Well, I want to remind you of the speaker from the Green Party—Teanau Tuiono—who spoke about them getting out of New Zealand and heading off to Australia.
Well, it’s interesting, if we go to the regulatory impact statement on this bill, it says in paragraph 32 that “Enabling employers to make partial pay deductions in response to partial strikes would be consistent”—would be consistent—“with the approach in Australia (from 2009)”. The Australians didn’t repeal this in 2018—unlike some Government that wanted to take New Zealand backwards that happened to be in these seats then. It goes on to say, “and the United Kingdom (UK)(in case law from the 1980s).”
The Opposition want to argue this concept of fairness, and when it’s not fair in their eyes—because they have a one-eyed view of fairness. They think fairness all relates to one party in a relationship. They don’t understand the concept that fairness is about both parties coming to the table and determining a relationship that works and is appropriate for both parties. If it’s not fair in their eyes, “Send them off to Australia. Send them off to the UK”. Actually, they’ll just find that not only are the rules the same over there, or very similar, but they’re going to those places or they’re looking to go to those places because they’re more productive.
Unlike the view of Te Pāti Māori, which thinks that productivity is all about shareholders making money, productivity, fundamentally, is about these workers earning money at a value for the roles that they play. Now, it didn’t fall on deaf ears—it did not fall on deaf ears when Te Pāti Māori referred to the work that is being done, that these employees are partially striking from, as being the “bits and pieces”. Now, I don’t know about you, Cameron Brewer in Upper Harbour or Mike Butterick there in Wairarapa, but I reckon the teachers in Whanganui, the nurses in Whanganui, the doctors in Whanganui, the police in Stratford, the tradies in Hāwera, the MRI operators at Whanganui Hospital, the kindergarten teachers, the bus drivers, even here in this precinct, the Parliamentary Service staff, would be offended by their work being referred to as the “bits and pieces”.
I think the Opposition needs a dose of realism as we come to Christmas, needs a dose of realism when it thinks about the relationship between employees and employers, because, fundamentally, the relationship has to be based on fairness. This legislation is going to rebalance it. It’s going to ensure, as we had prior to 2018, a relationship that recognised that, if you did a good day’s work, you got a good day’s pay, but if you choose not to do a good day’s work, if you choose not to help the health sector deliver, if you choose not to help your employer earn some money, then there’s going to be no money to pay you.
Both the State, who employs people, this economy, the Crown here, has to be financial, and that’s why we’ve been making the changes that we have, but companies need to be as well. Money doesn’t just materialise out of thin air; you can’t just appropriate it. We need to ensure that our employment laws here are consistent with those around the world as we build a nation of productivity that can pay the sort of incomes that these people deserve.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): That was a shocking speech—absolute shocker—and par for the course from an ill-informed National Party, who, sadly, are being led around by the one and only David Seymour over there, who is taking all their votes at the moment, as you can see. The puppet master is leading them.
Now, in terms of this Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, just for Mr Seymour, I wanted to quote that bill for him, because we had a hīkoi the other day. Mr Seymour, he’ll recall it; he was bravely standing three kilometres from the hīkoi with all his police escorts around him, but the very brave and courageous David Seymour was there and he was looking out at the hīkoi. Why I’m mentioning the hīkoi is because thousands of workers were participating on that hīkoi—thousands. That’s why this is so relevant.
It wasn’t just about Māori; it was about New Zealanders participating and protesting against Mr Seymour and his useless, rotten ACT Party and a National Party that has walked away from their principles and what they stand for. This is, as Camilla Belich said, yet another shocking attack on workers’ rights.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, you’re not going to complain about me calling your party—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sit down, please.
Hon David Seymour: I shouldn’t need to do this, but I wonder if you might draw the member’s attention to the Standing Orders I referred to earlier, particularly 112, about relevance to the bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I wonder if the member considers, when he stands on his feet to do this, whether he actually might be buying another minute or so for the person who’s speaking, but I’ll let him consider that. Carry on. As I’ll point out, that is a job for the Speaker. Carry on, Mr Jackson, but please don’t take that as an invitation.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, no, that’s all right, Mr Speaker. That’s all right. But I do have to make it clear to Mr Seymour that on that hīkoi, 60,000-plus—so many workers were protesting against his dirty, rotten ACT Party and this coalition. It’s important that we make the point today that workers are sick of it. This is a day when nurses are walking out—they’re walking out.
This is a cynical move by the Government. They’re amending our work from 2018, and it weakens workers’ ability to ask for better conditions and pay; that’s just the reality. It’s part of this wider Government’s strategy in terms of rolling back workers’ rights, including getting rid of fair pay agreements, 90-day trials. It just continues and continues.
You have to ask, what is driving this coalition Government in terms of their agenda? It’s very upsetting for us when we think about workers who could get docked or penalised for nonsensical things. It’s already been mentioned by Camilla Belich—wearing a T-shirt, losing their wages. Going by this particular agreement, if they went on the hīkoi, I mean, they’d be in their own time, but Mr Seymour and this—
Hon David Seymour: Totally irrelevant.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely relevant, because so many of those workers hate you, and absolutely relevant that I put on the table that thousands of people are not just protesting against the breach of Māori and Treaty rights but they’re standing up for their rights, for their workers’ rights.
As Camilla Belich said, this doesn’t stack up. It doesn’t stack up on the regulatory impact statement, it doesn’t stack up in terms of what the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions is saying. In fact, we had the president, Rachel Mackintosh, calling on political parties to vote down this terrible piece of legislation. She said that it will undermine the ability of workers to engage in industrial action and may even lead to workers losing pay for simply doing their job.
What I’m saying here is that on the job they can lose money. They can be docked for wearing a T-shirt. They can be docked for anything, all in the name of productivity, as the brilliant member from Whanganui talks about, and I’m actually talking about Tariana Turia, certainly not that member over there. They can be docked for nonsensical things, all in the name of productivity. What is that? We know what it is, but the other side have a different view in terms of how productivity works. Market flexibility is not the be-all and end-all in terms of workers’ rights in this country.
I say today, on behalf of Labour, we are disgusted by this bill that Mr Seymour and his team are putting up. It’s yet another attack on workers’ rights. It’s another attack on basic rights that every worker in this country should be entitled to. We just ask the question: when is this going to stop, Mr Seymour?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break. The House will be resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill, despite what we’ve heard from the other side of the House, does not take workers backwards. There actually seems to be an inherent distrust of employers on that side of the House. Who are employers? They’re mums and dads that work hard.
We’ve also heard about people heading across the Ditch for the brain drain. Well, you’ve got to ask yourself: why are they going? It’s because of a recession forced by the administration. It’s a bit rich.
This bill’s about restoring proportionality and balance between an employer and employee. I commend this bill.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Well, once again we’re here in this House as the National Party and its coalition partners chip away steadily, progressively undermining the rights of workers and of unions to negotiate on their behalf. This bill is manifestly both unfair and impractical. It’s unfair because it is diminishing the rights and the bargaining power of workers in this country to negotiate and get a fair share of the wealth that they contribute to producing. It’s also completely impractical. The apparent, professed intent of this bill is that it will incentivise people to settle their industrial disputes.
Well, let me tell you why it’s unfair, first. It’s unfair because the simple act of, for example, a nurse who’s part of industrial action wearing a union T-shirt, which includes a demand for better pay, for example, instead of their uniform at their place of work, could actually be penalised, could have their pay deducted by 10 percent or whatever it would be under the formula in the bill. Teachers taking industrial action, partial industrial action, by, for example, declining to do things that they normally do, like teaching sport, that are not in their collective employment agreement, but doing things like that as a way of actually protesting against their employer as part of a bargaining process could have their pay deducted. That’s not an incentive to settle a dispute—it’s actually an incentive to go all the way and not protest by a partial withdrawal of labour, but it actually incentivises a full withdrawal of labour. It’s completely impractical. It doesn’t do what it says on the tin.
I want to say also that this just once again really exposes the doublespeak that we constantly get from the National Party and their allies on questions of collective bargaining and industrial relations. They say from time to time that they want to see incomes increased and they shed crocodile tears about people going to Australia so they can earn more money, but every single time—every single time—a bill comes before this House that has the potential either to increase incomes or to diminish them, that side of the House always votes to reduce the incomes and the bargaining power of workers in this country. We saw it in the demolition of fair pay agreements earlier in the term. We saw it in the minimum wage increase that wasn’t actually a real increase; it was a real reduction in the minimum wage. We saw it in the restoration of the 90-day, fire-at-will trial legislation, and now this.
Why is that? It’s because for that side of the House, wages are a labour cost for them. That’s how they see it. It’s a cost—of course they want to drive it down. They don’t see and they don’t understand that actually low pay is a scourge in this country. It’s at the root of so many of the social problems that the State spends all of its time and money trying to fix. Why do they want to actually take away and constrain the ability of workers to partially withdraw their labour as a way of showing protest in a bargaining process? It’s because they actually believe and they favour low wages. They don’t support increasing the wages of working people in this country. They take every opportunity to undermine the bargaining power of workers and to drive down wages, because for them labour costs are just that: they are a cost.
I look forward to digging in a bit deeper in the select committee on this bill, and learning just how pathetic and tawdry and undermining it really is.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the final call in the first reading of the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. A very simple principle in life: if you want to get the full pay, do the full day. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Bill read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Instruction to Education and Workforce Committee
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: I move, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 April 2025.
Motion agreed to.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Preliminary provisions
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, members, the House is in committee on the Fast-track Approvals Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedules 1, 2, and 3A.
Before we begin, I draw the committee’s attention to the Minister’s amendment to listed projects in Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238. Advice I have considers that it is out of order as being in the nature of private legislation. Many of the projects are listed under authorised persons in a private capacity. The effect of being listed appears to be of benefit to the specified persons, which would differ from other persons who apply for fast-track approval. Provisions that are for the particular interest or benefit of a person or persons are classified as private legislation by Standing Order 257(1)(d). As a result, the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 may not be debated and no question will be put on it. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, on this side of the Chamber, we take a different point of view in terms of the advice that you have received from, I presume, the Clerk, and I seek now your confirmation: are you accepting the advice of the Clerk to rule out the schedule?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I have.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: In that case, I would ask that the Speaker be recalled to further adjudicate on this matter, because this is an important principle and an important part of this legislation.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, we have a request that the Speaker is recalled. Is that a vote? That is a vote. The question is, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Speaker Recalled
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, I’m directed by the committee to obtain a ruling from you on the admissibility of the Minister’s amendment to list projects in Schedule 2, as set out on Amendment Paper 238.
When commencing the debate on Part 1, I informed the committee that Schedule 2 is debatable with that part. I told the committee that the Minister’s amendment to the schedule is out of order as in the nature of private legislation. This is because many of the projects are listed under authorised persons in a private capacity, and the legislative effect would appear to be of benefit to the specified persons, which would differ from other persons who apply under the bill or fast-track approval. On that basis, I informed the committee that the amendment was out of order.
A point of order has been raised, and I have been asked to obtain your ruling on this matter now.
SPEAKER: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to the point of order?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Speaking to the point of order, the Government profoundly disagrees with the ruling, and it is our submission that the amendments in Amendment Paper 238 in my name are matters of public policy as described in Standing Order 257 and, therefore, more than appropriate for consideration as an Amendment Paper. I would point you, sir, to the example of the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill considered by the last Parliament, which also included a list of projects in its schedule, with some promoted by private entities. Projects were also added to that bill via Amendment Paper, like the Government is proposing here. That bill was accepted as a Government bill and passed by Parliament.
Rather than focusing, sir, on whether or not the amendment in question confers a private benefit, I would submit to you that Standing Orders require the focus should clearly be on whether or not this is a matter of public policy. The intent of the Cabinet and the Government is clear. The projects have been listed for their ability to deliver significant regional and national benefits, and the overall value of them in terms of economic and social benefit. The Government is listing these projects, or attempting to list these projects, in order to generate significant regional and national benefits to the country. That is clearly a matter of public policy.
Private bills are an ancient parliamentary power that have enabled Parliament to address private wrongs that are done to people or where a private individual or company sought to be exempted from compliance with a law that caused them acute hardship. But maintaining this form of direct access to Parliament by private individuals should not come at the expense of Parliament’s sovereign power to legislate upon matters like this. The Government’s strong view is that if the position is taken that the Government is unable to propose legislation like this to Parliament, it will set a dangerous precedent that will fundamentally undermine the executive’s power to progress matters of public policy through legislation and will potentially lead to perverse outcomes.
To give you an example, sir—and this illustrates the silliness of the current proposition—if this interpretation is correct, a wind farm listed in the Fast-track Approvals Bill by Government-owned Meridian Energy would be able to be listed because it is a 51 percent - owned Crown mixed-ownership company; however, a hydroelectric power scheme seeking to be listed in the bill by privately owned Contact Energy, notwithstanding the fact that it used to be Government-owned, would not be able to be listed because it is a listed public company, despite the reason for the listing being the exact same reason, which is the benefits that accrue from having renewable energy.
Past Speakers’ rulings support the Government’s position; I’d refer you to 109/5: this concerns a Government bill relating to the Bank of New Zealand Inc. Speaker O’Rorke ruled that, despite the bill benefiting a private corporation, because the bill was an amendment to a public bill pertaining to a measure of public policy, it was therefore not ruled to be a private bill. In the past, it is clear the same public policy test that the Government holds to has been used in determining the classification of bills under Standing Order 257.
For example, the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Act 2017 and the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Act 2016 dealt with privately owned buildings, land, and facilities. Perhaps a more apposite example that members will be familiar with is the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Fonterra Capital Restructuring) Amendment Act 2022, which supported the introduction of Fonterra’s new capital structure. These were all deemed to be Government bills as per the Standing Orders.
The Government’s profound view is that the Government is entitled to put legislation of this nature before the House, and we ask you, sir, to overturn the ruling of Madam Chair in the committee of the whole House stage.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We profoundly disagree with the position of the Leader of the House, particularly his statement that if this ruling by the presiding officer were to continue, that that would set a precedent. That is incorrect. We have three instances here—in 2003, 2006, and 2018—when this ruling was made and upheld.
In fact, we would put to you that if you were to rule against the presiding officer—and then, in doing so, against the advice of the Clerk—that would actually be unprecedented. For a Speaker to be recalled and say that both the Clerk and the presiding officer have this wrong would actually have significant consequences to this Parliament and indeed raise the question whether a private bill could continue to be one of the three types of bills that this House considers.
We are unable in this Parliament to consider hybrid bills. They do in the House of Commons in the UK, but here it is quite clear that it is either a member’s bill, a private bill, or a Government bill. In fact, Speaker Mallard made a detailed ruling on this in Speaker’s ruling 108/2, referring to Speakers’ rulings 118—and others, in fact—which state that matters that should be in private bills cannot be introduced into public bills by way of amendment.
It’s quite clear that the distinction here is when a bill will materially benefit an individual or an organisation. That is the Clerk’s advice, and it was outlined very clearly in Speaker Mallard’s ruling around the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, that matters that should be in one kind of bill cannot be introduced to another—and it appears that is the basis of the Clerk’s advice.
To rule against them, sir, we’re very concerned about what impact that would have on the role of private bills moving forward. We’re concerned about what that would say about your stance on the Clerk’s advice—given that I’m not aware of any instance, our researchers aren’t aware of any instance, ever in the New Zealand Parliament where the Clerk’s advice on matters such as this, when the Speaker’s been recalled, has been overruled.
We have other points that we wish to make, sir, but I’m not sure we need to go on right now. That’s all I wish to put forward at the moment. Others may wish to have other points to make.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I do want to just speak relatively briefly on the importance of the question before the House today, because if we are going to today decide that matters of a private nature which confer private benefits can be lumped into public bills, we are fundamentally changing some of the constitutional precepts which underpin this Parliament. The Hon Kieran McAnulty has alluded to the fact that there are very distinct bills and the twain do not meet, but the really important thing here is that this Parliament has developed a procedure where if there is a petition of a private person to right some wrong or to confer some benefit, then there is a very clear private bill procedure.
The Leader of the House alluded to the ancient origins of private bills, and he’s right, and they actually come from the ability to have judicial questions determined in this House, which is actually very apposite for this bill, because there are a number of private interests in that schedule who have gone through the courts and have been declined permission. I know a development in Ōhoka in Canterbury is one of them. They have lost in the courts, and by coming into this schedule, they are, essentially, trying to use this House as a final court of appeal to confer a private benefit. Now, that is possible under a private bill. This House should thoroughly interrogate whether there are good reasons to change the law for a particular person in that instance—that’s what a private bill does. A public bill is separate for a reason; it changes the law for everyone.
For the Leader of the House to loosely wave at the private benefit of hydro projects, it doesn’t answer the real question. If we want to go through that schedule one by one and say which belongs within a public bill and which belongs in a private bill, we are prepared to do it, but to slip in private projects which have been declined by the courts, and to overrule the courts in a private contest is more than just procedurally poor, it changes what we do here.
I’m reading here from Professor Philip Joseph’s text on constitutional and administrative law, where he makes very clear the fact that private issues are quasi-judicial, because they affect a private right, not the law for all of New Zealand. It would be procedurally an outrage, frankly, to accept this schedule, but that is the least of the problems, because constitutionally it would shake the very foundations of what we do in public bills. That’s why Dr Wilson gave the advice that he did, and that’s why the Chair of this committee agreed with Dr Wilson. My very clear view is that both procedurally and constitutionally, a separation is needed between private interests and public interests, and this has been muddied horrifically in this schedule. I implore you, Mr Speaker, to uphold the Chair’s ruling in this case.
SPEAKER: Before I call any other member, can I just ask that contributions are confined to the question that’s in front of us. Matters of public policy, or concerns about particular items that might appear in the schedule, are not relevant to the question that I’m being asked to judge today. While I’m sure some of the views that have been expressed are deeply held, I’m not particularly swayed by the emotive aspect of them.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you. You have been recalled to give a ruling on the admissibility of Amendment Paper 238, and that is what I’m speaking to. New Zealand’s Parliament has the fewest veto points of any Western Parliament. The Speaker is one of them, and you are being asked to use that power today to preserve the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand’s democracy. It’s right that we are able to contribute to this debate now.
SPEAKER: I think it’s good for you to contribute to the debate, but don’t presume to give the Chair a lecture on the constitutional arrangements of New Zealand. Some of those claims are just claims.
ARENA WILLIAMS: The point I wish to make is about the Ngāti Mutunga bill in 2006, the debate of which you were a part. I’ve read that debate carefully and understand the difference now between what was being alleged there, which was, essentially, that was a hybrid bill between the public function of the iwi organisation that was receiving a benefit, and the private benefit which was being received by the existing trust structure in settlement of its assets. That’s a useful precedent to consider here because there is a mixture of private and public benefit in this bill, but where the Speaker was returned to the chair in that case and backed the ruling of the chair of the committee, it was because the private benefit conferred at an amendment stage went to the heart of what a private bill is meant to be, which is promoted by the promoter so that there is sufficient public scrutiny that has been invited by that promoter, and that the private benefit was well understood. Neither of those two things were met in that case.
I’d also drew your attention, Mr Speaker, to the fact that that was about a creature of legislation. A number of the examples that the Hon Chris Bishop has presented to you are about entities which were creatures of legislation that were created by law. That was also the case in the Ngāti Mutunga decision, but what made that a private benefit was not that it was a creature of legislation; it was because a private trust with private members and private capital was receiving a benefit through this process, and it wasn’t adequately promoted. That is the same situation here. That is the precedent we should be continuing, and overruling that precedent would create a huge problem for the way that we continue with pieces of legislation like that in future.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I appreciate I’m a little late to this particular debate and I’ll keep my points relatively confined. You’ve been here longer than me, but I’m still a relatively longstanding member, having been here for 16 years, and the points that I would make are this. I have never seen the ruling of a presiding officer, a Chair of the committee of the whole House, on the admissibility of an Amendment Paper, or what we used to call Supplementary Order Papers, overruled by the Speaker during the time that I have been here. We would be entering into very rare, if not new, territory for the House were you to overrule the decision of a presiding officer. In the whole time I have been here, all of the Speakers that I have served underneath have taken the view that they will not undermine the standing of the presiding officers of the committee of the whole House on a recall overruling decisions that they have taken. This would be new territory for that to happen.
The second is that, of course, does rely on the committee Chairs following the advice of the Clerk of the House, which I understand has happened here. The Clerk of the House’s job is to provide impartial advice to the presiding officers to ensure that the Parliament acts within the confines of its own rules.
Hon Chris Bishop: It doesn’t mean he’s right.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is a point of order.
SPEAKER: We’ll have no comment during points of order.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Clerk is here to determine that the Parliament acts within its own rules, within its own precedents, and makes decisions that are consistent. If the Clerk has advised that this Amendment Paper should be ruled out of order, and the committee Chair has ruled that the paper should be ruled out of order, it would be unprecedented for the Speaker, on recall, to reverse that decision, and would create a whole series of precedents I’m not sure you would want to get into, because you’ll find yourself recalled very, very frequently if that becomes your practice.
SPEAKER: I’ll take the Hon David Seymour and then one other call.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I just feel that someone should point out that the question of whether the benefits given by this bill is public or private is actually moot. It doesn’t give any benefit. It doesn’t take from one and give to another. It simply allows people to use their property rights with a little bit less bureaucracy and rigmarole than they’d otherwise face under laws made by this House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I have four brief points to make. The first deals with the precedent that Minister Bishop raised in respect of the BNZ reference in Speakers’ rulings—quite different. I agree with the ruling, of course, that is in the Speakers’ rulings. That is, as a matter of public policy, the Government of the day chose to issue a guarantee to the BNZ as a matter of public policy to protect the banking system and the depositors—clearly a matter of benefit to the public and a matter of public policy. I don’t think that’s a precedent that the Minister can rely upon, because it wasn’t conferring a private benefit to the BNZ; it was conferring a benefit to the banking system and to the depositors.
The second precedent that was raised was in respect of the COVID-19 legislation. That legislation was quite different from this legislation. That just changed a process in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; it didn’t change legal rights. This legislation changes the Conservation Act, the Resource Management Act, the normal protections in the Wildlife Act, and many other pieces of legislation, for the benefit of the people that get that special leg-up. In a way, that is a private benefit, which, in my suggestion, would be quite different.
The third point I would make is that, with respect, sir, I think you should take cognisance of the fact that this hasn’t been raised at select committee. There has been controversy that this been dropped on the House late in the piece, and there were people wanting to make submissions, maybe because they wanted to make the very points that the Clerk of the House has made to the House—that there are issues here that we should be concerned about that go to probity—which is one of the reasons why we have rules against this sort of thing being done in a public bill rather than a private bill. Indeed, that’s the reason—and I was the Minister responsible for the overseas investment legislation, where the exemption that was given to a development up North was ruled out by the Speaker. I accepted that ruling as being proper, and I think the same principle applies here.
The fourth point: if this ruling of the Chair is upheld, it’s not the end of the world for the Government. They still have the ability to push these projects through—the legislation, if it passes. It’s just that they’re not listed in the schedule, because that creates a private benefit from the legislation, rather than the process that subsequently flows from the legislation. Although the Government might not want that to happen, they still could avail themselves of this legislation when it is passed to, if they want to at that stage, avail themselves of the process under the Act that will then exist.
Hon Shane Jones: Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: OK, look, this had better be short and preferably not the sort of lecturing comments I’ve heard from most speakers so far.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a significant issue, and I don’t want to trifle what you’ve said before; you didn’t want to hear from anyone else. Most of what we’ve heard pertains to a private benefit. I endorse what has been said, that these are broad impacts upon society. I respect the role that the Clerk of the House has and I respect the role that his fellow workers have, but this has a broad impact. It is not correct to analogise it to a singular recipient of a private benefit, as my dear friend on the other side of the House—Mr Parker—has referred to. I don’t want to rehearse the arguments in relation to the first fast-track bill. This has such a widespread impact. It is not sustainable to continue to argue that the impact of this schedule will be enjoyed by a narrow range of New Zealanders. It is profound. It is not inconsistent with the public welfare, which this bill seeks to produce.
Lan Pham: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: Well, look, I did say we’re at the end of it, so this will be the very last contribution. Lan Pham.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to rise just to respond to what has already been raised by the Government member, particularly about these being broad aspects across society. These are not broad impacts. This is about a specific set of 149 projects that specifically impacts quite a narrow group of people, and I want to give one example, being the Waimate waste incineration plant. This is an entirely private company. It impacts one school, a very set amount of farmers—
SPEAKER: Sorry, look the question—
LAN PHAM: It’s narrow.
SPEAKER: With all due respect, the question here is: is the amendment in or out, tested against what has been the advice from the Clerk? Go again to the projects—we could do it one by one, but it won’t make any difference to the thinking.
LAN PHAM: Thank you. The reason I’m responding to this is because we absolutely support the view of the Clerk, and we think that this amendment confers an unacceptable threshold of private benefit afforded to a few, compared to the general public. Thank you.
SPEAKER: It won’t surprise members that I’ve done a great deal of thinking about this particular issue, as it’s been on the cards for a number of days. I want to, at the outset, thank the Clerk for the advice that he has provided and acknowledge the Chairperson for her taking that advice and presenting it to the committee. In the end, though, a decision about this lies with me as Speaker. I thank members for their contributions to this particular debate, and if I was to summarise it, it is in favour of policy on one side and in favour of precedent on the other.
Generally, it’s the role of the judiciary to decide how law applies to particular cases. It is undesirable, in principle, for Parliament to make law that is only for the benefit of specific private persons. Where the House does consider such law, it does so carefully. We would not want to permit a situation where members and Ministers could simply propose bills and amendments to benefit particular private interests without proper scrutiny under the House’s rules. The issue here centres on what it means for a provision or amendment to be private legislation. There are three tests to apply. If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the proposed provision is private legislation and should not be included in a Government bill.
The first question is: does the proposed provision affect a particular person or body in a private capacity? Clearly, this is not the case where the entity concerned is a public body. If the provision affects a private entity but relates to a public function carried out by that entity, then that may be a matter that can be dealt with in a Government bill. There are clearly some persons listed in the Minister’s amendment that are affected in a private capacity. It’s worth noting, though, that there is virtually no bill passed in this House that doesn’t have some private benefit, or at least have it claimed to be part of its legislative arrangements.
The second question is: does the proposed provision affect the person or body but not affect all others belonging to the same category or class? Under the bill, a person listed in Schedule 2 would be affected differently from the rest of the very broad category of persons who may apply for fast-track approval—that being that they are in the schedule; others need to come to the Minister to seek approval to get on that fast track.
The third question is: does the proposed provision have a legislative effect that gives rise to a particular benefit or interest to a person or body? I agree with the Chairperson’s assessment that there could be a beneficial effect from being listed in Schedule 2. However, this legislative effect needs to be considered in the broader context of the bill. On the one hand, a listed project would not need to go through the initial process of applying and being considered for referral under the bill, and would not be subject to the same criteria as a referred project. On the other hand, if the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 were adopted—I should add, too, that when it—well, just go back a little bit, and say considered for referral under the bill and would not be subject to the same criteria as a referred project. Those referred projects listed in the bill have been through a process, although that is not something the House can consider. On the other hand, if the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 were adopted, a listed project would still need to undergo a substantive application process, with a number of requirements in common with any other referred project. Approval for the project could still be declined or conditions imposed, as for a referred project.
It differs in some ways to some of the points that are made, quite correctly, by members of the Opposition; where the argument from the Government seems to be that a bill should be able to benefit a particular private entity directly, as a matter of public policy. That is not unusual. This is not a sustainable position, though, in reference to Standing Order 257(1): to a matter of public policy, make a distinction between that sphere and matters that are of interest to or benefit to particular persons. It is what is meant by “the interest or benefit to a particular person” that is the issue here.
We’re looking at admissibility. The presiding officer considered the text of the proposed legislation without regard to process carried out within the executive branch; that is appropriate. The fact that the Government deems the proposal to be a matter of public policy is not the presiding officer’s concern. Subject to the Standing Orders, the presiding officer treats all legislative proposals the same way, whether they are put forward by a Minister or another member.
I therefore consider, with all the remarks that have been made, taken in the context of the other amendments set out on Amendment Paper 238, the legislative effects would not be sufficiently clear as to give rise to a particular benefit for an authorised person for a listed project, as distinct from a referred project. On that basis, I’m not satisfied that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 would fail the third test as I’ve set out. It’s finely balanced, but that is my conclusion. Depending on the amendments agreed by the committee before reaching Schedule 2, my view is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2, set out on Amendment Paper 238, is admissible. However, on account of the potential beneficial effects the amendment may confer, the Chairperson would be justified in allowing a more considered and lengthy discussion in the committee stages.
I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the bill.
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. So, members, we are back in committee stage for the Fast-track Approvals Bill, and the question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I want to clarify a couple of things with you, Madam Chair, before we really get into this, and that is, of course, we’ve now had that ruling from the Speaker. Schedule 2 is in Part 1, so we will want to be discussing those projects, probably project by project, and we are also very interested in going through every clause of this bill. Now, of course, that Schedule 2, as we’ve just heard, has not gone to select committee. This is our only opportunity to scrutinise the projects contained in that, so we will want to spend some time going through it.
I do want to start on clause 3, before we get to the schedule, because clause 3 is the most important clause in this piece of legislation. It is the purpose clause, and why it’s so important is because of the mechanics of the rest of the bill, and particularly in the schedules further on that will be in the Part 2 debate. That is because when decision makers are making decisions on any approval, they have to give greatest weight to this purpose clause. It’s very important that we look at what the purpose clause says. That is that the “Act is to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.”
You will note that, unlike other resource management or conservation legislation, there is no reference to anything to do with the environment. There is no reference here to sustainable development. We know—we have the supplementary analysis—that, in fact, officials recommended that there should be such a reference. This goes to the heart of why we on this side thought that those private projects in Schedule 2 should have been ruled out, because this purpose is totally different from all the other environmental legislation and because this purpose has the greatest weight, that means that the projects listed get a benefit that normal applicants do not get. That benefit is to pollute, and it is a disgrace.
Now, my question to the Minister is if he will consider an amendment in my name, Amendment Paper 129, and that is that the purpose is amended and amended on a number of fronts, to read: “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the delivery of public infrastructure, housing, or aquaculture with significant regional or national benefits while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources for current and future generations.” That change to the purpose does a number of things, and it was reflected in a number of submissions from people who think a lot about resource management and environmental legislation, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Rt Hon Simon Upton; such as the Environmental Defence Society; and many others.
That is to not only include that reference to sustainable management that would solve lots of the problems I’ve just addressed but also to constrain this fast-track bill to projects that are going to be helpful to the public: public infrastructure, also housing. We acknowledge that there are housing issues in New Zealand—nobody has an issue with that.
Hon Shane Jones: Well, what did you do about it?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m being asked what the previous Government did about housing. Of course, one of the things was a Spatial Planning Act that this Government repealed a year ago.
Hon Shane Jones: Kāinga Ora’s gone broke.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Medium density: something that the National Party agreed to and then reneged on.
The Minister heckling will be interested to know that I’ve also included aquaculture in here. There seems to be a lot of want for aquaculture, but, of course, I’m very open to other amendments where that may or may not be included. The point is that, for something to benefit from this bill, it should be in the public’s interest. There should be a public policy reason for doing it and it should not be for the private profit of individual companies being allowed to pollute.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. The first one is to clarify a recent change to committee stage rules that allowed for an Associate Minister who isn’t sitting at the Table to sit near the Table and make themselves available for questions. The question I have is: is the Hon Shane Jones—albeit in his normal seat—given his responsibility relevant to this bill, here in the committee available to answer questions? If he is, then he should not be allowed to heckle as the Minister in the chair isn’t allowed to heckle, otherwise they’re having a bob each way. I’ll come back to my second question if you wouldn’t mind responding to that.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Thank you. Could we just clarify if Minister Jones is here in fact to answer questions?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): No.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The answer I had is no, he’s not here to answer questions.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): OK. Further to the point of order.
Hon Chris Bishop: We’ll tag team it.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, you’re going to—
Hon Chris Bishop: We’ll tag team it.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’re going to tag—
Hon Chris Bishop: We’ll alternate in and out.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He’ll be sitting here when he answers questions?
Hon Chris Bishop: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, that raises claim to the rule that says you can’t change seats in order to heckle. If they’re going to be tag teaming in and out, then surely there must be a restriction.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, I think it really is inappropriate if there’s a Minister who’s going to be sitting in this chair who will be heckling from the sidelines too, so that’s fair.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The second question is much more substantial. [Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Can we have the point of order in silence, please.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: We’ve just had a ruling from the Speaker that is unprecedented. That was established, and I’m not doing a point of order to challenge that. There are other avenues in which for us to talk to the Speaker about that. However, by virtue of being unprecedented, we haven’t had it before, and so we don’t know what this means in terms of how the House runs. At the end of his ruling, the Speaker—this is the only point I’m going to focus on at this moment—indicated that due to the nature of this amendment and the nature of his unprecedented ruling, the House can expect an extended and broad-ranging debate on this matter. Now, we don’t have other rulings to rely on to give us clarity here, so I think it would be in the committee’s interest for you to clarify how that is going to be applied in practice during the remainder of this committee stage debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, in practice, if the questions that are being asked refer to parts of the bill and are not repetitive and asking genuine questions, not repetitive and exactly the same as any other committee stage, then there is the ability to ask those questions.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Further to this point of order. Exactly the same as any other committee stage doesn’t really sound consistent to me with—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, speaking to the member’s point of order, we’re under urgency, which is a feature in itself—that when we don’t have a select committee, we have the ability to ask more questions—
Hon Chris Bishop: This was at committee for six months.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —but it’s under urgency right now, and so we—yeah, sorry, it was at a select committee.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Not the schedule, though, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But the schedule has not been at select committee.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And that’s what the Speaker was ruling on.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The bill itself has been at select committee but the schedule has not been at select committee. All I’m saying to you is that if the questions are relevant and not repetitive and specific to the bill, then I welcome your questions.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: With the utmost respect, my only concern with that is that is no different to any other committee stage, and when the Speaker does a ruling of that nature and gives the House an undertaking that there will be a broad and ranging debate on the schedule—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On the schedule.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, I accept that. That’s my only point: it is on the schedule, which hasn’t been to select committee, and in the context of that, I was hoping for an undertaking from you for clarity to the committee how that would be applied. You’ve given that, but it is no different to how it would be applied in any other committee stage, and that, to me, seems an inconsistency.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. The answer to that is that it still cannot be repetitive but it was a warning to the Government that the committee stage would be longer than usual.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to deal with the couple of remarks made by the Hon Rachel Brooking. Firstly, on the purpose clause, clause 3: no, the Government won’t be adopting her amendment, for the simple reason that we are comfortable with the purpose clause as described, because it does what it says on the tin: “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits.” That is literally the reason why the fast-track bill is before Parliament and why the Government is attempting to pass it. We are comfortable with the purpose clause, and we won’t be amending it.
On the broader issue about the alleged difference between public infrastructure and private, the Opposition seems to be of the view that everything private: bad; everything public: good. As I pointed out in my remarks in the debate that we’ve just had, that ignores the fact that much infrastructure in New Zealand is privately owned—for example, wind farms and hydro stations up and down this country that are owned by Contact Energy, a private company. It can’t be the case that something is OK because it happens to be 51 percent owned by the Government and listed on the stock exchange, and not OK when it happens to be privately owned by a group of investors across New Zealand and Australia.
I would also point the committee to private housing developments. Now, Rachel Brooking makes the point that we need more housing. Well, most housing in New Zealand is not built by councils or the Government. If it was, we would be in some significant trouble. Most housing in New Zealand is built by the private sector. Do they do it for profit? Yes. Do they do it to make money? Yes. Do they do it to provide houses for people? Yes. Are there public benefits from the provision of widely accessible, affordable housing? Yes, of course there are, but the capital deployed to build that housing is not public capital. If the solution was Kāinga Ora, then we would have no housing crisis any more, because under the last Government, they had billions upon billions upon billions of debt given to them, or allowed to borrow, and billions of dollars of operating subsidies, and the public housing waiting list quadrupled. It can’t be the case that the solution is always public.
Here’s the reality that seems to have escaped the Labour Opposition: we live in a mixed economy. We live in an economy where public and private capital is deployed to create jobs and growth. Clearly, the Government has a really important role in doing that; equally, so does the private sector. The projects listed in this bill, and indeed the whole purpose of this bill, is to utilise public and private capital and reduce the red tape that allows that capital to build the type of prosperous New Zealand I think everyone in this House supports. There are public projects on this list. The New Zealand Transport Agency is listed on a range of the roads of national significance projects. There are council projects, which are clearly public in nature because they are council projects. There are private sector projects led here, but the point I’m making is that it is wrong to try and create a false distinction between the ownership of an entity doing a particular thing and separate that off from the benefits that accrue.
Meridian Energy is publicly owned but creates benefits across the economy. Contact Energy is privately owned but creates benefits across the company. Lines companies in the electricity sector have a variety of ownership structures—Vector has some. Wellington Electricity is a privately owned company; most Wellingtonians probably think it’s owned by the council—it’s not, thank God. It is in fact owned by a private, foreign-owned company, and they deploy their capital and provide electricity to Wellingtonians.
We live in a mixed economy is my point, and just the ownership of a particular entity is irrelevant to the issue of benefits that accrue to the economy in a regional and national way, whether or not they’re jobs, whether or not they’re growth. That is why the Government took the position we did on the Amendment Paper. That is why we’re listing the projects in the first place. This false dichotomy that the Opposition seeks to draw between public and private benefit, as I’ve demonstrated through repeated examples, breaks down when you actually apply your mind for more than five seconds to the issue at hand.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we do need to go through a number of the examples that are listed in the schedule in Part 1 of this bill, to see that we on the Opposition are not talking about false dichotomies; we understand the complexity of the interaction between public and private benefits. But what we have with some of the examples is actually the head-on collision of private benefit and why this bill did need to be examined in more detail around where those private benefits were accruing.
I want to talk about the Trans-Tasman Resources application that is listed in the schedule. There’s, of course, some potted history that some members of this House know very well—the history of this claim. It had been overturned by the High Court, had gone to the Supreme Court, and it had not been allowed. What we have is a listing of that project in the schedule of the bill. Sitting alongside that is that we have another form of private benefit leaving New Zealand, taking their capital in the form of an offshore wind development company, citing the inclusion in the schedule of this bill as one of the reasons why they are withdrawing their investment in New Zealand and taking it to jurisdictions where it is more welcome.
For the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to stand up and say that we just don’t see that there’s any place for private investment is naive; of course we do. We understand that private investment in infrastructure is absolutely necessary. The contention we have with this bill is the fact that we have such clear accrual of private benefit through the schedule, and sometimes meaning that they can leapfrog other private benefits—other people seeking to invest capital that will have public good for New Zealand in the form of more energy and electricity generation in the form of offshore wind. The Minister needs to actually grapple with the concepts that we’re talking about here, engage with them in a mature way, rather than just dismissive headlines that we saw in that last contribution, which, although I’m giving a very specific contribution in this call, I will note how broad the Minister just took the debate in that one contribution that he gave—an already broad stage of this bill got even broader with that Minister’s contribution.
The Minister has to explain to the committee why it is appropriate that we are here under urgency, legislating for the private benefit of a single entity that have been denied by the courts, over and above another form of private investment in the form of offshore wind, which has explicitly cited the inclusion of Trans-Tasman Resources’ application in this bill as a reason why they’re withdrawing their capital.
Now, one of the things that we’re making very explicit—and my colleague Rachel Brooking was at pains in her contribution, and always is at pains to emphasise—is that, obviously, in the Labour Party, we are not opposed to a process to expedite projects that we need to: infrastructure, housing. We put one in place when were in Government and we did it for a very good reason. We saw housing developments occur. We saw renewable energy projects go through. We saw a number of good infrastructure projects be progressed. But there is a fundamental difference with the bill that is on the Table today, which is contained in the purpose statement, and it is one of the most fundamental unbalancing of how we think about our environment and our economy in New Zealand in decades. I think we need to be very clear on what we’re doing there. We saw the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment say that this goes further than the notorious National Development Act 1979 in terms of that great unbalancing.
I would encourage the Minister in the chair to explain to this committee why it is that it is appropriate for this committee to be legislating and giving the regulation-making process, under 61B, which gives the power to grant exemptions from the Act—why it is, in Schedule 2, that Trans-Tasman Resources is listed. He can’t say it’s because we just don’t like any private benefit, because what we’re asking is: what about other private investors who are seeking to bring their capital to this country to invest in important infrastructure like offshore wind but have been driven out, in no small part, by the inclusion of a project that has been overturned in the courts time and time and time again? That is an example that we do need an explanation on.
Hon Member: Point of order. [Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Point of order over here from—[Interruption] Are we sure?
Hon David Parker: He wasn’t even calling.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He did call. Someone over here called a point of order, I believe it was—thank you. The Hon David Parker.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): In regard to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop’s comments about public or private, can I refer him to the first listed project from the Amuri Irrigation Company, which is an application that’s described as being “to construct and operate a ring dam providing approximately 10 million cubic metres of water storage and to divert approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of water from the Hurunui River.” I don’t know how often—what the period is on that, whether that’s over a year or whether it’s per month, or per week, but how can the Minister justify that sort of application being included in Schedule 2, given that the provisions of the Act deliberately exclude the participation of any environmental interest?
I would have thought that the Minister, even if he wanted to push through developments, would want to hear an environmental perspective in respect of an application to store 10 million cubic metres of water, diverting 1.5 million cubic metres of water from the Hurunui River, given that that must, surely, have an environmental effect. Why is it that unlike the earlier version of fast track, where there were some listed environmental groups who could make a written submission to the decision-making panel, such as the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Greenpeace—Greenpeace didn’t actually often choose to do it, but EDS often did.
Steve Abel: We did.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Greenpeace did, often, thank you. How can the Minister justify that—that there is no environmental voice being listened to—whereas the development interests of the applicant in line with the purpose of the legislation is given such weight?
Secondly, in respect of that, am I correct in my understanding that even if that was found by the council to be in breach or found by people looking at the application to be in breach of the regional or district plan—either of them—does the panel have the right to override the plan and give them a consent anyway, notwithstanding the provisions of the Resource Management Act which are intended to protect the river ecosystem, and, if so, how can the Minister justify that, and how can he further justify that without an environmental lobby group having the ability to even make a written submission?
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. And just briefly clarifying the comment made by the Hon David Parker: you’re right that Greenpeace did not commonly—
Hon Scott Simpson: Never.
STEVE ABEL: No, there’s not never. In fact, we’re part of Ngā Hapū o Ngāruahine in opposing one of the projects on the fast track—that ended up going to court, but it was not often. That’s an important point to make—that, in fact, there is a challenge with the onerous burden of putting on a non-governmental organisation the expectation that they can scrutinise a multitude of applications. In the case of Greenpeace, which is the biggest environmental NGO in the country, it was even a challenge for the capacity of that organisation to take on that responsibility. There was only one primary piece of that fast track in the previous iteration challenged.
Now, I wanted to speak to the purpose clause, as Rachel Brooking had raised earlier on, and to the point of why is it so much of a revulsion, should we say, for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to consider the environment as part of that purpose clause? As the Hon David Parker rightly pointed out—he should know; he drafted the legislation—the previous version said that significant regional and national benefits “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” There is a very useful and important qualification to it simply being about things that are in the national interest, projects of regional and national significance.
The environment is the foundation upon which all of our endeavours are built. It is indeed the basis of life on earth—and I’m not trying to be dramatic about that; it is a scientific fact—and we came into existence through the thriving means of environmental ecological activity. Indeed, if we compromise it in such a manner as it is unable to provide us with those necessities of life, it is certainly not in the national or the regional interest—such as clean water, such as a stable atmosphere, such as fertile land, such as a healthy marine coastal environment. All of these things are serious and vital considerations, foundational considerations, in this century, in this era, when we know just how much harm we are capable of doing in the Anthropocene to that foundational cause of our existence—indeed, all our endeavours and activities as a species on this planet.
We have, in Part 1, clause 3, a very simple amendment that comes under my name. After “regional or national benefits”, page 6, line 11, it inserts “, in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes.”—in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes.
Now, why is that important? Because, in the words of the other interested Minister, Shane Jones, we have far-ranging projects here, across a multitude of regions, across a multitude of activities, across the country. It is important that we have some basic principles of environmental protection upheld and considered, as well as democratic processes, because, as in the case of the Waimate waste incinerator—and I just speak to that as an example—this is an instance where you have a community that has roundly expressed their opposition to this project. The local council has expressed opposition. Even the local member of Parliament has expressed opposition. On every count, if this project is to have any licence at a public level, at a democratic level, it should have to take into account the feeling at that local level.
Under the current iteration of the purpose of the bill, there would be no requirement, there would be no hint of a requirement, under principles of democratic participation for those making determinations on a given project—[Time expired] Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel. It would be helpful if members that were speaking to amendments tonight would actually quote the number of the amendment, because there’s quite a number of them.
STEVE ABEL: It’s Amendment Paper 148; thank you, Madam Chair. It’s vital, in terms of any show of respect to principles of democratic participation, that those people in the region where the project is going to occur should have some right to have a say—by whatever means. There is an exclusion already, in the fast-track legislation, of public participation. The public will not be allowed to make submissions, but there must be a taking into account of that. That is what this amendment would facilitate. That after “regional or national benefits”, the Minister inserts the wording “, in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes.”
This also clarifies that those pieces of legislation, or those processes under the existing Resource Management Act which set in place the conditions on which any project should proceed, are going to have a framework for their being applied to any given consent given through the fast track. The framework is facilitated by recognition of existing environmental protections, thereby a determining panel can search out the precedents set in previous consents by existing protections.
This is the sort of simple and principled amendment to the actual purpose of the bill, which takes us some little way towards making this a piece of legislation that is not merely a wrecking ball through the environment, an utter disregard for everything that has been established over the preceding decades in terms of our attitude towards protection of the environment, an utter disregard for all pieces of legislation that pertain to the environment. You are going to rule them out through this legislation, but this simple clause would allow there to be some recognition and some acknowledgment that existing environmental protections and democratic processes matter. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I’d just take the time to respond to a few of the questions and comments raised so far.
In terms of the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ comments around Trans-Tasman Resources, perhaps if I answer that particular project in the way that I’ll answer all of them, which is that the Government ran a robust process in order to select projects—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Your mates.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —for inclusion in the bill. You need to be careful about making comments like that, Ms Brooking. It’s the second Labour Party MP this week in Parliament to say scurrilous things.
Ministers deliberately insulated themselves from the advisory group process and we set up an advisory group made up of experts who then facilitated a process with the Ministry for the Environment to have a look at projects. It’s fair to say, we were inundated with applications—too many, if anything. There are even now people who are upset that they’re not listed in the fast track, which I think speaks to the wider issue about the stultification of our economy through red and green tape, but that’s why we’re here, for the fast track. The Trans-Tasman Resources project, like all of them that were listed in the schedule, were recommended by the panel and therefore it will go into the bill.
The second point to make is a really important one, which is the bill, as introduced, essentially expedited the granting of consents and allowed the troika, as we became known for some time—myself, the Hon Shane Jones, and Simeon Brown—to, essentially, decide the consents. It’s fair to say that that was a bold call. That was pushing the boat out, so to speak, through the hydro dam. The Government decided, after listening to comments, including from the Opposition and others in civil society, that instead we would revert back to a model similar to the Labour Government’s COVID19 fast track, where the panels made the decisions.
This bill does not grant consent for projects and there has been this constant call from some that sort of fast track is automatic consent. It doesn’t do that. In relation to the 149 listed projects, it will allow those project sponsors to apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for referral to the expert panels and it sets up a more generic pathway for other projects and other project sponsors to apply. It doesn’t grant consent.
In response to the Hon David Parker’s issues, there is the ability for environmental NGOs to be involved. I’m advised that the Minister may direct parties to be consulted. The panel has discretion to invite people. In response to some of his points around conservation, it is true in the bill that relevant statutory bodies can be invited to comment on conservation appeals—for example, New Zealand Fish & Game Council, conservation boards, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and the New Zealand Game Animal Council.
In response to Mr Abel’s point around the Waimate waste-to-energy project, he seems very worked up that the local council is opposed to it. Well, the local council, as per the bill, must be invited to comment on the bill. This idea that’s sort of been put about that there is no ability for anyone to be involved and there’s no ability for the council, no ability for the public is just not accurate. It is true that there are fewer participation rights and less ability than in the past as per the Resource Management Act, for example, but that is precisely the point. That is one of the purposes of the bill. That is why the bill has been drafted the way it is. Members can oppose that, but the Government stands firm in our proposition that this will make it easier to build things.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, I just say at this stage, I’ve been listening to the debate from the start. I say this every time we come into this, but if members are prepared to ask questions and the Minister answers them, then I’m happy to stick with a line of questioning and then move to someone else. You also heard the Speaker say there’s going to be plenty of time in this debate. Everyone will get that opportunity, I can assure you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will take you up on that kind offer, sir, and see if the Minister is of a mind to follow that approach as well. I am still on clause 3, the purpose clause, and that is because the Minister has rejected my Amendment Paper 129 and gave some speeches about the imaginary difference between private and public projects in his mind.
My question to that point is: does he consider that that whole point would be fixed—any distinctions wouldn’t have to be made—if, of course, there was no Schedule 2 and no listed projects, as suggested by the Hon David Parker in the debate at the outset about whether or not the amendment bill should be set aside or not?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, of course that is true, but the Government wants there to be a schedule. That’s why we’ve moved the schedule and that’s why we’ve listed the projects. Of course, that point is true, but it doesn’t take you very far, because we don’t agree with that proposition.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Still on the purpose clause, has the Minister considered the submissions of Straterra and the advice of officials that there should be in a clause, a subclause, referring to the environment—in my amendment, I’ve called it “sustainable management”; it could be something else—and the submission that without such a reference and because of the mechanisms of the Act that I’ve already talked about, that this will enable cowboys?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, “cowboys” is a pejorative term; so, no, I don’t accept that. I’m not even sure what the member means by that.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: The member calls them friends.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: So, no. Well, again, you know that former Minister needs to be careful about the language she uses around that.
As I’ve already said, we’re sort of re-litigating the point around the purpose clause. It’s not our intention to add a reference to sustainable management, as the member suggests, to the purpose clause. We’re comfortable with the purpose clause as it is because it does what it says on the tin, which is to “facilitate the delivery of … projects [of] significant regional [and] national [significance].”
It’s not to say that the environment is not important—it is important—and there’s a variety of mechanisms that are scattered throughout the bill in order to give effect to environmental considerations; make sure that the conditions upon which the projects we are talking about will be done in an environmentally friendly way, or at least a way that takes account of the environmental effects of particular projects. That would vary, obviously, depending on the particular project being talked about, but the Government has worked hard to make sure that all of those considerations are factored into the decision-making process throughout the bill.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Of course, what the Minister just talked about I will want to ask questions on when we get to Part 2 and, particularly, the schedules, where I very strongly disagree with the Minister when he says that there are environmental protections there when this purpose is given the greatest weight.
Now, I have a further question for the Minister to consider, and then I’ll be done on this particular point. We’ve heard a lot from the Prime Minister—and we heard it in question time again—that the Opposition should be supporting this bill because it’s going to be good for climate change, because it’s going to enable renewable generation, and, of course, he then doesn’t mention any of the other projects. Given that great commitment to renewable energy generation and given the difficulties that the Minister has referred to already about the ownership models of many of our generators—some Government-owned, some part Government-owned, some private-owned, some council-owned—would he consider putting in a specific reference just to fast tracking renewable electricity generation, rather than specifically naming them project by project, and being clear about that in the purpose clause?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): No. The projects listed in the schedule are renewable projects. There’s a whole mixture of solar; from memory, there’s some wind; and there’s a whole variety of different projects which are really, really important. Without relitigating the point, we’ve an energy shortage in this country, and anyone who knows anything about the energy industry will tell you that one of the reasons why it’s so difficult to fill that gap, or that shortage, is resource consenting. It takes for ever to get consents.
That’s not to say, by the way, that renewable projects are in and of themselves extremely popular. For example, there are plenty of people up and down the country who are opposed to solar farms, including the Environmental Defence Society, which used as a paradigmatic example of why this bill was, apparently, a bad idea that it might fast track a solar development down South. There are plenty of developments over the years, without relitigating all of them, that members in this House—including two former energy Ministers who are in the House—know have been held up for years, and they’re renewable. Actually, in a funny sort of way, for quite a long time it was probably easier to get a consent for a coal-fired power station or a gas station than it has been for wind farms—or geothermal, in particular, which is one that has really struggled to get consent.
Anyway, without relitigating the point, the answer is, no, we’re not going to do that. One of the reasons why we’re trying to get on the fast track is to get these projects away so we can get on and fill this energy shortage.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. A question for the Minister in the chair: he said one of the problems that New Zealand’s energy sector faces that this bill is seeking to rectify is the fact that it takes so long to get a consent for a renewable energy project. Could the Minister, please, tell the committee how many megawatts of consented but unbuilt renewable energy projects there are in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, it’s nothing to do with the bill, but I’m happy to answer it. As the member Megan Woods knows, there are thousands of megawatts that are consented but unbuilt, but, as she and I have had discussions about before, (a) some of those projects will likely never be built, because they’re not economic in the current form they are in, or the consents have expired or they are very old conditions—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, they’re currently consented.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: They are currently consented, but just because something is consented, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it gets built. The point is—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, but it’s not the consent that’s the problem.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, but as I’ve just said, the conditions on the consent may render the project so uneconomic that it may never be built. The point is you need a massive pipeline of thousands of megawatts of consented pathways into the future. It is impossible to build that pipeline under our current Resource Management Act (RMA) settings.
It’s not just me who thinks this, by the way. In fact, under the previous Government, the Infrastructure Commission commissioned a report, done by Sense Partners, from memory—I think it was 2022—which makes the point that under our current environmental resource consent settings, it is impossible to meet the electrification pathway that we could otherwise be on as a country, in which we transform the economy through mass electrification of industrial heat and transport and all of the things that we all want to do in this Parliament. It is impossible to do that with the current RMA. There is widespread consensus around that. The answer is to fix the RMA. I agree with you; fast-track is an important part of that. It’s not the only answer, but it’s an important part of that.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Of course, the Labour Party fully acknowledges the importance of having renewable electricity projects in fast-track legislation. In fact, I think we put through our fast-track legislation more than the equivalent of two Clyde Dams’ worth of renewable energy projects. My question for the Minister in the chair is: how many of the consented but not built renewable energy projects fall under the umbrella of “unlikely to be built”?
We fully acknowledge the need to have a large pipeline of projects that come through and to be continually filling up that pipeline. That is exactly why we set up our COVID fast-track legislation to be able to do that. But it is possible, as we demonstrated, to not completely ignore the environment when you’re doing this—to have proper environmental protections in there. The Minister is claiming that one of the reasons we need to do this is to keep filling the pipeline, because there are so many consents that are there that can’t be built, because they may be out of date, or whatever—what is the number of that? What is the problem that he is working to rectify?
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s been some time since I’ve been seeking to take a call on this, and I want to speak to the purpose clause. As we’ve discussed earlier, we have had an unprecedented decision here, with the Clerk’s Office and the Chair previously ruling the Government’s Amendment Paper out of order, and then it was back in order.
What we have here is a clause in Part 1 that certainly is presenting some problems and some challenges to us, as we’ve heard, and I think can do with some improvement. I think I have a solution for the Minister because we do want to give assurance to the community that if we are going to have to live with this dog-awful legislation, we can at least make some improvements to it and make it something that will deliver some benefit to the communities.
I’ll refer back to the Minister’s claim that the Waimate incineration plant, the council which opposes it can simply be invited to discuss this with the fast-track committee. In fact, the council, iwi, the school, and the local community have asked it to be removed from the fast-track legislation because this is clearly a case of direct private benefits in a public bill. The council recognises that and they want it taken out; so do iwi. This is just one example—one example—and there are so, so many more examples.
I have an amendment, Amendment Paper 146, which proposes that “In clause 3, after ‘delivery of’ (page 6, line 10), insert ‘public’.” This Amendment Paper amends the Fast-track Approvals Bill to ensure that only public infrastructure that has a public good—not private development—is included in the purpose of the bill.
It’s like a “get out of jail free” card for the Minister. Instead of brassing off regional Aotearoa, rural communities; instead of dumping waste to toxin plants in out-of-the-way places; instead of digging up our natural resources, our coal, our parks, our conservation estate, the Minister could look to the public benefit. And this is what this amendment proposes.
It’s a really simple amendment, but it gives the Minister a “get out of jail free” card. I’d invite the Minister to consider it and make some hay with this. Let’s at least improve what is a really awful bill with something good to make sure that we get some public benefit out of this. Certainly I do want to see more State control in renewable electricity generation and I do want to see more State control of our assets like bridges and like ports. I want to see public good. I want to see them delivering for our communities.
This gives us the opportunity, and it gives the Minister the opportunity that he wants the same thing. It gives the Minister a way of saying, “I’m not just here to provide for my donors or the private interest; I’m here to provide for the community.”, and that’s the invitation that I’d put to the Minister. There is a really clear amendment here. It is Amendment Paper 146 and it asks the Minister to insert “public” in clause 3 after “delivery of” to ensure that we are building public benefit infrastructure that has a public good, not private development—and it’s public infrastructure. I’d like the Minister to respond. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, firstly, I’ve given about 10 minutes about the illusory distinction between public and private. The member should have listened, so I don’t intend to relitigate that, because I’ve dealt with that issue at length.
Secondly, I won’t repeat what the member said in his speech, but it is against the Standing Orders to imply, directly or otherwise, that a member is doing something influenced by donors or other outside interests. I know the member is new, but he shouldn’t do that, and I take offence at that.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, also, I remind the Minister in the chair that that’s a job for the Chair, and was noting that—
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s a good point, sir. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Sorry, my apologies.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon—
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Duncan Webb, mate!
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —Duncan Webb. And it’s only 9 o’clock!
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kia ora. I’m interested that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform chose to stand up and make that statement, given that the media is full on with statements about donors in this bill. It’s in the public domain. I’ve spoken about it in this Chamber before, and so we should. But I have two questions—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just warn members to be very careful about going towards individuals—it is where you will start to get some kickback from the Chair.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Unrelated to that point—not for the Minister to tell us what our debates are—is two distinct points. One is: do we know who the people on this fast-track list are, and, in particular, who the ultimate owners of the private entities are? There are three ways in which I’d like to know this. I’d really like to know that the Government has done its due diligence and know who actually owns these projects. Firstly, there are a number of limited companies, and that’s really normal; nothing concerning about that, in and of itself. What I want to know is: has the Government gone through and tracked back to find out who the owners are, to make sure that there’s transparency there?
Which brings me to my second point. There are numerous limited partnerships on this fast-track list—Beachlands South Ltd Partnership, to name one; Blackmans Creek Holdings Ltd No. 1 Limited Partnership. Now, one of the troubling aspects of limited partnerships in New Zealand is that general partners are secret—that there is no public register of the general partners in an unlimited partnership. What I want to know is: in respect of each of the limited partnerships there, has the Government required transparency so that we know who is actually getting on the list? Who are the parties not only who, on this side of the committee, we argue, are getting a private benefit from this legislation, but also who are expected to complete this project—whatever it may be—in a responsible and compliant manner? That’s just good due diligence.
I also note there’s one there in respect of a development in Rangiora, a residential development of 780 dwellings, and it’s just Ben Dormer. Now, it may be that Ben Dormer is actually the person, but he’s listed as an authorised person, and it’s not clear to me—and the Minister may be able to clarify—whether that means he is the owner of the development itself; I mean the owner, in law, of the property. That’s my first point: transparency.
The second point, which is quite distinct and it occurred to me as the Hon David Parker spoke, is that this bill has a number of projects in the South Island. I’ve read it before, and I was reading again the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act goes through and recognises grievances and sets out protections. Two struck me, in particular. It lists significant rivers—rivers of significance; that is to say rivers of significance to Ngāi Tahu, and te Hurunui River is one of them. The other thing it does—and it does many, many more things, but just by way of example—it identifies taonga species; species which are at risk and are of special value to Ngāi Tahu. In respect of both of those things, as part of their settlement, Ngāi Tahu were given particular rights to be consulted in things like these projects. Now, I can understand the Minister might say, “Well, we are still able to do that.”, but the contract in the settlement bill was that you’re obliged to do it.
My question is this: whether it is consistent with the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill, not only with its words but also with the good-faith obligation of the Crown to now not be obliged to consult on rivers of significance and on the impact on taonga species. I’d really appreciate it if you could answer those two themed questions.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some very specific questions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, so I’ll just wait till he’s finished his advice. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You’re welcome to wait while the Minister is listening.
LAN PHAM: Thank you. Thank you for allowing us to step very carefully and deliberately through the bill, because that is of utmost importance. I’m going to get really specifically to my amendment, which is Amendment Paper 147. I want to ask the Minister and hear from the Minister about where environmental outcomes actually sit within the purpose clause of the bill. It’s a really genuine question, because this amendment proposes that after regional or national benefits—and this is page 6, line 11 of the bill—we actually insert a part of the clause that says, “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”
I’m interested in the Minister’s consideration of this, because this is not a high bar. This is not talking about explicit protection of all environments everywhere. We’ve seen that with the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’ve seen that the evidence, time and time again, in every domain report that the Ministry for the Environment and Stats New Zealand are putting out across air, ocean, fresh water, biodiversity, is that our environment is in decline. That is an undisputable fact, so why is it seen as such an unimaginable thing that we have a very basic reference to the natural environment in the purpose clause, again, given the RMA has still been enabling development and, essentially, the decline of the environment? Is it that the Minister has such a low expectation of the operations of these companies and the activities that they will carry out, if ultimately approved under fast track, that he thinks that they cannot meet very basic bars of environmental enhancement, of environmental protection of some form within their development?
I wanted to vocalise one of the submissions that we heard at the Environment Committee. It was from a housing developer in Selwyn who had been working over many years very closely with Ngāi Tahu and the Selwyn District Council and Environment Canterbury to get houses built very efficiently and effectively in Selwyn while not destroying the environment. He talked about how it’s been really simple. It’s been good processes. What is wrong with having a very basic reference in the purpose clause that actually does, in some very basic way, provide for environmental considerations?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’ll just deal with Dr Duncan Webb’s issues. I’m advised that the legislation does not override the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, so the Treaty obligations as per that Act remain extant. In relation to his—I found it a somewhat confusing point, but I think he is, basically, making a point around how do we know who the people are. I’m advised by the officials that all of the companies or people listed in Schedule 2 are either the owner of the project or have an access arrangement for it, so then it deals with his point.
The more substantive contribution was made by Lan Pham. I won’t relitigate what I’ve said; the Government is not going to change the purpose clause, for the reasons that I’ve already given. I was intrigued by her remarks that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is an enabling piece of legislation. That was the view when it was passed in 1991. I think, actually—and I don’t think I’m going too far as to say this—the RMA has been one of the biggest public policy failures in New Zealand history, because the RMA is almost directly responsible for the fact that over the last 20 years we have had the fastest house price growth in the OECD.
The Infrastructure Commission, again, has done really interesting research on this that shows that since the inception of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, which layered on zoning and introduced the modern-day form of zoning in town and country planning—the clue’s in the name. Then, accelerated by the RMA in 1991, we have endured—I was going to say enjoyed—extremely high house price growth, rental price growth, and have now the affliction of a housing crisis that, in a country that has a landmass the size of the United Kingdom but yet only 5 million people in it, it should not have to endure. It is one of the great tragedies of New Zealand history over the last 30 years that kids live in cars and motels, and students and young families pay exorbitant rents, and people can’t get their feet on to the property ladder, because we have not zoned enough land—in a country the size of the UK. I’m intrigued by the idea—what’s that?
Steve Abel: You brought the RMA back.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, while we fix it fundamentally and we change the fast track. The Natural and Built Environment Act would have been way, way, way worse. That’s why we got rid of it: because it was a 10-year transition window and everyone was going to have to start getting on with it. The member knows exactly why.
I’m intrigued by the comment that the RMA has been enabling. Actually, the RMA has helped directly contribute to the infrastructure crisis. Again, research shows over a billion dollars spent per year on consenting costs for infrastructure. It’s the $785 million of road cones—that’s the health and safety stuff. It’s the same when it comes to resource consenting: endless time and money for Bell Gully and Russell McVeagh and Buddle Findlay and all of the top-tier law firms to spend time arguing, up and down the country in councils and the Environment Court and the Court of Appeal and beyond—2½ years to find a Supreme Court decision about whether or not the East West Link can go ahead. Endless arcane arguments about what the word “avoid” means. We’ve spent 20 years of jurisprudence on the word “avoid”, in the coastal policy statement on King Salmon, and all that other malarkey.
Part of the problem with this country is a myopic focus on the environment at the expense of nearly everything else. We are humans; we live in an environment. We need houses, we need roads, we need rail, we need public transport, we need renewable energy, we need mines, and we need quarries. It is nearly impossible to consent a quarry. We have a shortage of aggregate—you can’t consent a quarry. The further a quarry is from a road you try and build, the costs go up astronomically. This idea that the RMA has been enabling—I’m sorry, that idea is fanciful. The RMA is a straitjacket on the growth of this economy, which could be so much wealthier, so much more prosperous, and so much more renewable and clean and green, if we could only untrammel ourselves from the straitjacket of dumb planning laws that have a myopic focus on environmental effects above all else.
We are humans; we live in an environment. We should take advantage of it and protect it, but it does not mean we need to have a myopic focus on every single environmental effect.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I guess that’s the end of my quick question, quick answer attempt, but I will warn the Minister: doing a general debate speech as part of a committee stage does open lots of areas for questioning. But be it on his own head.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you for the call, Mr Chairman. I will endeavour to cover a number of points that I’d like to hear the Minister respond to. Can I for a start say that I agree with much of what he said in the last speech, but not everything, and I agree that one of the reasons house prices went so high was having too strict rules around land markets. We addressed that as a Government in part, with the cooperation of that member—initially, without that member—through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and then, through the mixed-use zone introduced by an amendment to the Resource Management Act (RMA) and through our version of fast track, which consented thousands of houses. We don’t disagree with that; we’re just saying that in respect of this, you’re going a step too far by excluding environmental concerns to the extent that you are.
In respect of the points the Minister made in an earlier contribution in respect of geothermal—with respect, that’s a wee bit cute, because the longest period for those geothermal consents relate to renewals, and they were appallingly long. Some renewals took seven years, but once you applied for a renewal, your old consent kept running anyway, and so there was no incentive on either the applicant or the council to get on with it. In truth, since the central North Island came up with rules relating to field pressure, it has been relatively easy to consent geothermal, and I don’t think we’ve had a problem consenting geothermal.
My first question relates to the pass rate, if you like, under the existing fast track, which didn’t override the RMA, the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, etc., but, despite that, 95 percent of the applications were granted approvals. In fact, the last time I counted, about a hundred approvals had been given, and other people have recounted the breadth of those. I would have thought having five being turned down is not too bad. My understanding was that one of the ones turned down was a wind farm that the consent panel—and, I think, rightly—said was in the wrong place.
In respect of the aquaculture one that was turned down, did the Minister consider whether a spatial planning approach would have been preferable there to dealing with these on a consent by consent basis? We have had a problem consenting aquaculture in New Zealand, and there is room for it in some places; we just don’t seem to get approval to put it anywhere because everyone gets turned down. That’s my second question.
My next question relates to the exclusion of people having a right of participation, and their proxies, on the environmental front, and I want to read an email here that I have in respect of the application which I think is listed in Schedule 2, on page 123, relating to Matakanui Gold Ltd. It’s the Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project to “Establish, operate, and remediate an open pit and underground gold mine”.
Now, for the benefit of members, I want to put this in context. The Macraes Mine is the second-largest hard rock goldmine in Australasia, and Australasia has some big mines. This proposed goldmine in Central Otago, which is called Santana, even though the application here is by Matakanui Gold Ltd—it must be one of their companies—is bigger. It’s bigger. This is the—sorry, my laptop has just closed. If the—sorry, I—
Hon Chris Bishop: The password is “Labour”—no?
Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s right! I had this letter come in from a Hayden Johnston—and he’s happy for me to read it out—from Tarras Vineyards Ltd. He’s on the Bendigo Loop Road, and you’ll see that Bendigo is one of the areas that’s listed in the schedule: “The reason for this email is I hold a resource consent hard fought for at the Environment Court to operate The Canyon”—which is a wedding venue—“at Tarras Vineyards, located 5 kilometres from the proposed new greenfields opencast goldmine listed in Schedule 2. Even the talk of a mine next door has resulted in lost venue bookings, and I just lost $800,000 from an investor, with the sale and purchase agreement falling over at due diligence, directly because of fears about the effects of the goldmine. I’m very concerned the expert panel will fail to identify and consider the effects on my business and the local community because my title isn’t immediately adjacent to the mine site.”
I suggest to the Minister that this is an example of how there are interests to be balanced here. In respect of projects like this mine, which would be bigger than Macraes, which is already the second-biggest hard rock mine in Australasia, how can it be justified that that application for something that vast could proceed without public input from the likes of that person there, who says he’s already suffered an $800,000 loss?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I think the Hon David Parker makes a good point. The laptop issue distracted me, but I think I heard him say that he was an adjoining landowner. Adjoining landowners are—
Hon David Parker: No, he’s not; he’s 5 kilometres.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK. Well, there is the ability for people affected by projects like that to be part of the expert panel process.
Hon David Parker: They’ve got no right to.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It would be my expectation that someone in that situation would be involved in that process.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Amendment Paper 130 in name of the Hon Peeni Henare. The Minister will have had a chance to consider this. It’s about clause 3, which is the purpose clause, which Opposition members are still on, because, as the Hon Rachel Brooking pointed out at the beginning of this debate, the purpose clause is in fact the part which Labour members have raised real concerns about as being a real departure in this legislation from other empowering provisions like it in the past. New clause 3A, proposed by Amendment Paper 130, is to bring this in line with other empowering environmental legislation, to introduce the requirement for people exercising public power under this bill to do so with recognition to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is a power that is well understood. The first provisions like this were introduced in 1975 and 1986 in legislation before the House. They are well understood in our law and in practice.
My questions to the Minister—there are four. The first is in relation to: given that there is not a provision like this already in the bill, what considerations have the Minister and other Ministers responsible for this legislation given to the Cabinet Manual 2017 guidelines on how our Cabinet Ministers should give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? I’ll read him the part that I want his response to. The Cabinet Manual 2017 says, “The law may sometimes accord a special recognition [for] Māori rights and interests such as those covered by Article 2 of the Treaty. And in many other cases the law and its processes should be determined by the general recognition in Article 3 of the Treaty that Māori belong, as citizens, to the whole community. In some situations, autonomous Māori institutions have a role within the wider constitutional political system. In other circumstances, the model provided by the Treaty of Waitangi, of two parties negotiating and agreeing with one another, is appropriate.”
My question is about what consideration he gave to his role as a Minister, when that is a well-established constitutional convention of the excise of public power, and why new clause 3A, as I have proposed it, does not exist in the legislation already, given what the Cabinet Manual says. My next question will be about the Cabinet Office circular with guidance on these clauses—it was in 2017. The question after that will be on the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee’s advice and guidelines—those are the guidelines from 2021. The fourth question is around his obligations under the Public Service Act 2020.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions for the Minister, and also some well-crafted amendments, which I’m sure you’ll appreciate.
The first thing is that there is a real concern about the destruction and the reputational damage that this bill is proposing to do to our region. You will be aware of our views in Taranaki regarding seabed mining and the inclusion of Trans-Tasman Resources, who have lost, as you’ve heard and I’m sure you’re aware, in the High Court; they have lost in the Court of Appeal, they have lost in the Supreme Court—pretty much lost in every court that exists in Aotearoa—because they could not prove without doubt the damage that the discharge that they would do from a marine consent would create to our environment and, indeed, our moana. We are living with the fact that they’ve been given this reincarnation through this bill.
I guess some of the questions that we have for you are that that decision was mooted on the basis that they would bring billions of dollars to the New Zealand economy. We’ve recently seen Trans-Tasman Resources backtrack on that statement—in fact, backtrack so badly that they had to do a formal retraction to the Australian Stock Exchange. That is extremely concerning for us, especially given that you have also endorsed them coming in. Again, I respect what you’re saying. There’s a process that they’re meant to go through, and I will pick that up. We have lost the sight of windfarms and sustainable renewable energy which would have been much better supported and welcomed by the Taranaki community—people who have decided to take their investment elsewhere.
We’ve seen a company that lost in every court and that is unwanted by locals—in fact, so bad that they decided not to go through the decision-making committee (DMC) process that the court had proposed they could and instead ducked through this bill. One of the couple of questions we have for the Minister is: what is New Zealand’s experience in seabed mining? What is the cost that the new expert panel will be bearing and what will taxpayers expect to bear, given they already have three or four court cases, three DMCs, two Environmental Protection Authority meetings? What is the experience of New Zealand Government officials—in fact, Ministry for the Environment—in dealing with 30 years of discharge of sediment from 50 million tonnes of seabed mining for 30 years consecutively?
In the court case, there were two rulings particularly that I would like to ask the Minister about. The exclusive economic zone legislation, which is, effectively, the Resource Management Act on water, which your Government endorsed in 2013-17, and then also section 10(1)(b), which talks about the marine discharge—that that would need to be monitored, because that is, effectively, what seabed mining’s destroying. It’s not the mining so much as the discharge created by the mining. The Supreme Court particularly made a ruling on section 12(c), which refers to Treaty of Waitangi and the principles which must be given effect to. How are you going to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi is given effect to in this decision to bring Trans-Tasman Resources and, in fact, keep the confidence of the multiple iwi and sectors, including fishing, that will continue to take this to court? I guess the amendments that we’ve had, in conclusion for just this part—I haven’t gotten past the title and clause 1.
For your benefit, we ran a poll and asked rangatahi what they would like to call this bill, and we would like to replace, in clause 1, “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Environmental Ram Raid Act”. I think they were extremely ingenious in how they came up with that name. We’ve also got another amendment, and, sorry, through the Chair, it hasn’t got a number, but it is on the Table. It has been tabled. In clause 3, we have asked for an amendment to the Fast-track Approvals Bill that aligns with the bill’s purpose and the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We’re asking, for clause 3, after “national benefits”, to insert “while upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, safeguarding Māori social, cultural, and environmental”—[Time expired] Mr Chair, I’d like to carry on, please.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—and can I just, before you do: avoid the use of the word “you”. It means that we are actually keeping it on the bill rather than the personal.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Ka pai. We would like to, in clause 3—I’ll just take it a little bit slower. In clause 3, we’ve made an amendment. Just to remind people, clause 1—to replace “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Environmental Ram Raid Act”. And, in clause 3, after “national benefits”, insert “while upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and safeguarding Māori social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing”.
This amendment has been tabled—again, to state it aligns the bill’s purpose with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and acknowledges the importance of considering Māori interests alongside development goals. Emphasising these values ensures long-term cultural and environmental sustainability. Now, the Minister will know from all experience that the amendments will align with, as I said earlier, section 12(c) that was ruled by not only the Court of Appeal but also the Supreme Court, which acknowledged the role of tangata whenua and mana whenua when there is activity done within our moana. These are settled iwi that certainly the Minister has stated they want to abide by.
The question in that final aspect is: what is the Minister going to do to ensure the obligations as determined in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui and Te Korowai o Ngāruahine are respected and upheld, and how is the Minister going to ensure that the confidence and the reputational damage that has come from allowing this type of activity, or the reliving of Trans-Tasman Resources to be able to come back to fruition—particularly as we stated the huge disappointment that we have had to see wind turbines and wind companies leave, who actually were proposing to bring economic development to the region. They have not had to stand up in front of the Australian Stock Exchange and retract promises that they would make, and they have not had to renege on making promises to bring in a billion dollars to the New Zealand economy.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): There’s quite a lot to that contribution. I can’t comment on the comments around the stock exchange. I end where the member ended, which is in relation to offshore wind. I think it’s worth noting that there is great potential for offshore wind in New Zealand, but there isn’t even a regulatory regime in place yet. The best estimates that I’ve seen are that 2035, maybe a bit later, we could see the development of it. It would be subject to the economics of it. Actually, we’ve got plenty of cheap energy in this country; it’s just that the Resource Management Act makes it very difficult to get access to that cheap energy. I won’t relitigate my long rant from 15 minutes ago.
In relation to the Treaty, I would encourage the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to actually read the bill. Clause 6, which is the Treaty settlements clause: “All persons performing and exercising functions [and] powers, and duties … must act in a manner … consistent with … the obligations arising under existing Treaty settlements; … customary rights”, and a variety of different protections around that, including Te Ture Whaimana, in clause 7. I’d also encourage the member to read clause 4A around ineligible activities, and there’s a variety of provisions there around Māori customary land. I’d also encourage the member—
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: That’s what my amendment is: 4A.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member needs to actually get familiar with the bill. I’d also encourage her to read clauses 18B, 19A, and 24WA, which impose a variety of obligations on decision makers and panels when it comes to the effect of Treaty settlements. I think we actually spent quite a considerable amount of time—between myself; the Hon Shane Jones; the Minister for Māori Development, who’s in the House, the Hon Tama Potaka—working our way through some of the complex questions that the member raises. I think we’ve done a really good job balancing the right interests.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to add my comment in support of those who have already spoken in relation to the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and how it’s missing from this legislation.
It’s disappointing to hear the focus on settled iwi and post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), knowing that Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations are beyond an entity and beyond a settlement. It is all-encompassing for all of our obligations for the betterment of New Zealand society and te iwi Māori as we’re trying to move forward kia kotahi ai tātou. [so that we may be united.]
When I hear the emphasis on post-settlement governance entities leaving hapū out, leaving marae voice out, and leaving whenua Māori voice out, I start to worry, because the amendments proposed by my learned colleagues from Te Pāti Māori and Labour are quite common sense. What we’re seeking to do in these amendments, really, for anyone who’s operating within this fast-track space is to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is in Amendment Paper 130 by Peeni Henare. Then we have Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment, where she is also suggesting that we should uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and safeguard Māori social, cultural, and environmental wellbeing. That’s all common sense, really, you would think, in a Te Tiriti - based society.
Then, referring to my proposed amendment on Amendment Paper 152—which is aligned in the same way as my whanaunga, my tungāne Peeni Henare—it is about saying that anybody who is operating in this space needs to give effect to Te Tiriti. That protects all of us, and, in particular, those who are without Treaty settlements, those who may not have a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement, or those that may not have a marine and coastal area (MACA) takutai moana settlement. There are many Māori that need protection from fast track, and that’s well beyond having a settled iwi framework.
In relation to what’s being said, it’s lovely that there’s been consideration for our iwi entities—absolutely. They have negotiated a settlement, which is important for their people, but there are many that are impacted in this space, and whenua Māori, in particular, need to add that, considering that public, community, and Māori in general are being blocked from the process of having their voice being heard.
These projects are happening in our kāinga—these projects are happening in our kāinga. You can’t say to te iwi Māori who are looking over the fence when you’re digging up the papa moana to take the sand from out of our moana, or you’re reigniting Northport, “Oh no. No, no, you’re not a settled iwi. Sorry, we can’t talk to you. You’re not allowed to be a part of the process.”, because doesn’t that undermine our fundamental agreement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whereby we are meant to have participation, whereby our rights are meant to be protected, and whereby, as the indigenous people of that specific whenua, we cannot be blocked out of this process?
I contest anything that says that Te Tiriti o Waitangi should not be included, but also you limit and narrow the voice of Māori down to PSGEs—those who have endorsement from the Crown—and don’t worry about the rest of us, eh? We only signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we’re only uri of the signatories of He Whakaputanga; no, we don’t get any rights because we haven’t signed a settlement with the Crown!
Mana Whakahono ā Rohe is limiting. Takutai moana—oh, well, you know, you’re repealing it. How many of us Māori are going to have to go back to the High Court? And then, you turn around and say, “Oh no, it’s only those that have negotiated a settlement.” Well, kei hea te hapū rangatiratanga mō tēnā? [where is hapū sovereignty for that?]
What’s the point in having the stage 1 report of Te Paparahi o Te Raki, whereby our tūpuna said, “We did not cede our sovereignty as the tribes of Ngāpuhi.”, and then we come here and then we see Te Tiriti o Waitangi being thrown out across legislation?
Aroha mai, Mr Chair. I am taking a bit of a liberty because it’s quite a passionate issue, Te Tiriti. I don’t know whether you’ve noticed that, but we had a hīkoi a couple of weeks ago and quite a few people are pukuriri.
We are giving voice to the centrality of Te Tiriti. It does need to broaden beyond post-settlement governance entities and those with the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe but also those with MACA takutai moana rights. Oh, it’s pretty small in terms of those who have gotten through that Crown-mandated pathway. Plenty of us aren’t in that pathway, so where is our voice protected? Where is our voice, as marae and hapū and those who are iwi mana whenua, whenua Māori? [iwi that have authority over land, Māori land?] Kia ora.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Look, I will just remind members that having a different member saying the same thing is still repetition. I’m also saying that general debate speeches on both sides of the House are not helpful, because it means that we can broaden the debate out further.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of short questions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, but I’m just going to say them all at once, knees and all that, and then I want to ask him some questions about his Amendment Paper and how we work through that. I might seek your guidance on that as well, Mr Chair, noting that I’m still not on clause 4A, which is ineligible activities, and nowhere near Schedule 2, which I want to talk about and have amendments on. In that general debate, or long rant, depending on if it’s the Minister—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, did you say you are on 4A, or you’re not on 4A?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, not yet—not on 4A yet. I was just saying about the long rant, as the Minister called it. I want to ask a number of questions about that discussion on the Resource Management Act (RMA), and one is: does he acknowledge that this bill doesn’t fix the fundamental timing and cost problem with the RMA, which is that when you compare the consenting time frames and cost to developers, which are far too high, the problem when you compare it internationally is with those smaller and medium sized projects, which, of course, are not covered by this bill because this is for large projects? That’s the first question.
What are his views on infrastructure funding in terms of slowing down housing development in this country? The Minister made the point that we are the same land size or bigger than Great Britain, we only have 5 million people, but we still have a housing problem. I do not disagree with that, but one of the main problems for putting more houses anywhere, even in increasing density, is the infrastructure funding, and I cannot see anything in this bill that addresses that problem.
Third question, then, is: given this housing problem, why has his party reneged on the medium-density rules, and would that not help and wasn’t it helping already?
Now, those are three questions, but now I’m moving on to clause 4, which is the interpretation section, and the Minister’s Amendment Paper, which is 238—it’s very large. It is the whole bill, though, and it has a number of tracked changes from the version as reported back by the Environment Committee, which is helpful. It was tabled this afternoon, so we have not had long with it. Of course, we have known about some of those projects in Schedule 2—not to go on to the select committee, but I wanted to ask the chair and the Minister for some guidance on how to deal with these substantial Government amendments, because it might be simplest just to move through the bill as per the Amendment Paper.
Hon Chris Bishop: No, we’ll just have a debate part by part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Sorry? No, part by—sorry, I’m now having a conversation with the Minister. No, of course we want to move through part by part, but are we discussing the Minister’s Amendment Paper now—
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —as we go through? I’m getting a nod. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yeah, the schedule is in this part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah, but, of course, it’s not just the schedule that’s in the Amendment Paper; the Amendment Paper amends many, many, many clauses of the bill. It does not amend clause 3, which we’ve been talking about to now, but it does amend many others.
I have a question, and the Minister might want to make a general comment on clause 4, which is the interpretation clause. There are a lot of changes in his Amendment Paper to clause 4, and one of them is a competing application. This is a new definition, and it’s talking about substantive applications, and it seems to be when there is a conflict between two different applications. I would like to know if that is a correct interpretation of that new competing application definition, and I would also like to know how this worked in the process that the Minister set up and says is robust. I, of course, question how robust it was, given we’ve had reports in the media about this very short time that that group considered any applications and, very importantly, that they did not consider environmental considerations. Did that group not check between the different items on the schedule to see if they were in conflict with each other?
That’s the question relating to competing application, and I’d be interested if the Minister wants to explain why there are so many new definitions in clause 4.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m happy to deal with most of the questions from the member. Firstly, does this fix the underlying problems of the Resource Management Act (RMA)? No, of course it doesn’t. That’s why we have an RMA bill—bill one has already passed; bill two got introduced yesterday and will have its first reading next week; RMA phase three is under way. Of course that is true. Does it deal with infrastructure funding? No, it doesn’t. Of course she is right that that is a significant issue. The Government has a substantial policy programme under way around that. It’s one thing to unlock the land, but you need the infrastructure funding and financing tools. I’ve made public comments around our work programme to that extent.
Thirdly, on the medium-density residential zones—well, they haven’t actually been repealed yet, by the way. They’re still the law; heaps of councils are still doing them, for better or worse. Our view is that greater flexibility around zoning, but with a greater intensity around public transport corridors, rapid transit, and strategic bus corridors, allied with easier access to greenfield housing will make much more of a substantive difference. Our policy is Phil Twyford’s original 2017 housing policy, except we’re going to make it work. I’d encourage the member to read the New Zealand Initiative speech Phil Twyford gave in 2019, in which he outlined an extensive programme of competitive land market reforms. It was a great policy—it’s a shame that he got into Government and firstly he was saddled with the disaster that was KiwiBuild, and then Jacinda Ardern actually took the portfolio off him and gave it to Megan Woods—and New Zealand would be a better place—
Camilla Belich: Not relevant.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, exactly, it is irrelevant, but Rachel Brooking brought up infrastructure funding, which has got nothing to do with this bill. Clause 4 on competing applications—I’m advised that deals with the “first in, first served” nature, so the bill doesn’t affect the way that’s dealt with under the RMA, which is basically “first in, first served”.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll ask the Minister the last three of my four questions to him. My question is about the Cabinet sector in 2017 and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s (LDAC) advice around clauses like the one I’ve proposed at 3A is simply that: is the provisions that he has relied on in his answer to me at clause 6 and clause 7—those are about existing settlements and about ineligible Māori land—is that enough, in his view, to satisfy what are essentially constitutional conventions here?
The question that LDAC asks Ministers to propose themselves and the Public Service is: does the proposed legislation affect, or have the potential to affect, the rights or interests of Māori under the Treaty? Not whether their settlements that have been passed through legislation are affected or whether Māori land as constituted under te ture o Māori Act 1994 or the definition that he’s added to the legal definition of “Māori land” in clause 4A constitute that. If that is the case, why is he ignoring the constitutional conventions outlined in the Cabinet Manual 2017, that circular, and LDAC’s advice? And what advice did the Minister have from LDAC about the effect of the way that this legislation has been drafted on those longstanding constitutional conventions? That’s my question to him.
I also have a specific question on the new definition of “Māori land”. At clause 4(1)(h) on page 9, the Minister has included “other land held by or on behalf of an iwi or hapū if the land was transferred from the Crown [or] a Crown body … [for] the intention of returning the land to … holders of mana whenua”. For many of the Treaty settlements, that will be affected by many, many, many of these projects that are listed in the 149 in the schedule today. Treaty settlement rights will be run roughshod over by this legislation because they are rights in future; they are rights of first refusal in collective agreements.
Say, for example, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, which legislates for the collective redress of the 19 iwi with an interest in Auckland. There is a right of first refusal that is collectively shared between three carousels of the iwi that are represented in three different parts of Auckland with different interests. Those carousels are offered rights to buy land which is sold by Government or Crown departments. When transfer occurs—that might be between, say, the transfer of a court building to Police—it is the intention of the 2014 Act that that offer would be made to iwi. We have caught in this definition every single piece of Crown land in Auckland.
Is the intention here of the Minister that every single piece of Crown land should be deemed Māori land? Or would it not be simpler to remove the provision there to include every single piece of Crown land and to simply make it explicit that decision makers under this bill—like the panel and like Ministers who make decisions about public land—should give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? That is less burdensome on New Zealanders, that is simpler, that is well understood in our jurisprudence. It’s been an established piece of our law since 1975.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Look, I don’t want to relitigate past ground, because we’ve gone through this at quite some length in response to Hūhana Lyndon’s contribution but also Ms Packer’s contribution. There are extensive provisions throughout the legislation, including in Part 1, which we’re meant to be talking about, for the protection of Māori land. Nothing can happen in a substantive sense on Māori customary land, without the permission of the landowner, and there are protections for existing Treaty settlements through there. Yes, officials and the Government did take advice from a variety of bodies throughout the development of the bill, which has been under way for the better part of a year now, and we’re very confident that we have given effect to Cabinet circulars and various Cabinet Manual requirements.
The member’s suggestion that we should just create a carte blanche “The bill must give effect to the Treaty” would be a licence, with respect, for utter legal chaos. The Government is not willing to do that. What we have tried to do in a very precise legal way is uphold and protect Treaty settlements—everyone acknowledges that that is very important—and the bill does that, and we are very confident the bill does that; and protect Māori land, and the bill does that. This sort of idea that we’ll have an untrammelled right to give effect to the Treaty would be a recipe for legal chaos and would be contrary to what the Government is intending to do.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Through the Chair, point of order, please. I’d like to have it corrected on record, please—it’s taken me a very long time to hold the name “Ngarewa”—my surname is Ngarewa-Packer.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: My apologies. It’s very late. My apologies.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. It’s interesting to be able to take a call this evening on this piece of legislation. Listening to what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has just been saying in his last two contributions, I guess my caution is that several learned lawyers during the select committee space—one challenged this Government about this bill having the potential to be this Government’s KiwiBuild disaster, and you just spoke about that. Just so you know, there are some very learned members. The second part in that last contribution that he’s made is the fact that other lawyers—[Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No one will say the members are asleep at 10 o’clock at night!
GLEN BENNETT: The other lawyers spoke about, basically, the truck you could drive through this legislation in terms of the fact that litigation with this legislation would be massive. I just thought I’d raise that.
I know there’s been a lot of discussion this evening about the purpose of the bill, and I’ve heard the hard and fast answer that you’re not going to change that, but the challenge is, for me, as I listen, we can’t take this in isolation this evening. We’ve got to look at the previous months in terms of the process that we’ve been through, and the challenge of democracy within that, but also the challenge—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We can, actually, Mr Bennett—at this stage of night, we could stick to fairly narrow. We’ve probably had a few general debate speeches.
GLEN BENNETT: I’m going to go for five minutes past 10, Mr Chair. What I really briefly want to say is we don’t disagree with the fact that a one-stop shop—we don’t disagree with the fact that the Resource Management Act has been clunky. We’ve spoken about that already. But what is this Government afraid of in terms of considering the environment as part of that? What is this Government afraid of in terms of maybe ensuring that the systems are better set up, that funding is in place to ensure that we can move things on far quicker? My question is: why is the Minister afraid of including the environment in the purpose of the bill?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come to suspend this debate. It will be resumed at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Goodnight, everyone.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
TUESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2024
(continued on Wednesday, 11 December 2024)
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, when we suspended last night, we were debating Part 1. Part 1—this is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedules 1, 2, and 3A. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m now moving to clause 4A—so, still in Part 1. I remind the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that when we were discussing the bill last night, I did think he wanted to take up the opportunity to discuss his changes in his Amendment Paper about the interpretation clause, clause 4. The same goes for clause 4A, because there are some changes in his Amendment Paper—Amendment Paper 238; it’s a big one—to clause 4A as well.
What I want to talk about is clause 4A, “Meaning of ineligible activity”. This is a really fundamental clause. It’s not as important as the purpose clause, but it’s very fundamental to how the whole scheme of the bill acts, and that is because if something fits in the definition of “ineligible activity”, then the approvals under the bill can’t be granted. There are a number of activities that are excluded, and they are listed in clause 4A.
My questions to the Minister are related to Amendment Paper 141 in the name of Glen Bennett. The first part of the Amendment Paper amends clause 4A by replacing paragraphs (m) and (n) with “(m) an activity that is a prohibited activity under the Resource Management Act 1991: (n) an activity that is inconsistent with a water conservation order made under Part 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991: (o) an application for an activity that is substantially the same as an application under a specified Act previously made and declined by a tribunal or court.”
These are three particular additions that we think should be included in “ineligible activities”. I want to outline those reasons now. The first is about prohibited activities. It’s very difficult for a council to make a prohibited activity in a plan. There are certain thresholds that have to be met to make a prohibited activity, and most prohibited activities in council plans are things like building on flood plains or building nuclear power plants—it’s a very high bar to make something a prohibited activity. What it means is that when something is prohibited, you cannot apply for a consent for that activity. Councils are nervous about making a prohibited activity, because they know that they are likely to be appealed if there is a landowner who doesn’t want that activity to be prohibited.
Will the Minister consider including prohibited activities as ineligible activities? There has been no other fast-track legislation or similar legislation that has ever allowed for permissions to be granted to prohibited activities. What analysis has been undertaken about the prohibited activities that could be overruled by this bill? I cannot recall seeing any of that. Those are the questions on the prohibited activities. They are very serious. An activity has to be very bad and very inconsistent with the plan made by the council, made with the community, for it to be prohibited, so overruling it is a fundamental affront to all those processes.
The next activity that we think should be included in the list of ineligible activities is an activity that is inconsistent with a water conservation order made under Part 9 of the Resource Management Act. Water conservation orders are referred to often as the national parks of water bodies. They are very significant water bodies and there is a very long process for communities and environmental groups to go through to apply for a water conservation order. Depending on when it was made, there’s a panel process or a court process required. There are, in fact, only 16 water conservation orders in New Zealand.
Again, there have been enormous public processes to protect these 16 water bodies. We’ve heard particularly about the springs in Nelson. We’re very worried and concerned that there could be projects that would override their recent water conservation order. I’m sure other members will want to speak about that specific example, but, again, it seems entirely inconsistent that while some activities will not be allowed in national parks, and nor should they, things could happen that would be inconsistent with these water conservation orders that have been through years and years and years of processes for those very special protections. It totally undermines the whole point of those water conservation protections if they can just be overridden by a fast-track approval.
The third one there is an application for an activity that is substantially the same as an application for a specified Act previously made and declined by a tribunal or court. Of course, the specified Acts are the different Acts that the fast-track approvals can be made for, and the ones that I’m particularly thinking of here are the Resource Management Act and the Conservation Act.
We know that a number of the projects that now turn up in Schedule 2 of the Minister’s amendment have already been decided and declined by a court or tribunal. When the Prime Minister stands in this House in question time and says the Opposition members should support this fast-track bill because it’s good for the environment, he needs to make this change to this clause as well, and some other changes, to be able to demonstrate that this bill is not, in fact, an override of those protections—because an application has been made, it’s been declined on environmental grounds, and then, now, magically, it can be approved under this fast-track bill despite the fact that it had already been declined on environmental grounds.
The Minister may say, “Well, the application will be different this time and it will provide better protections for the environment and that is why the fast-track legislation should apply.” I can understand that argument in part, which is why we’ve put in this Amendment Paper, which is substantially the same as an application. If it is different, if for some reason a coal mine in a kiwi habitat is suddenly not going to harm kiwi, or if it’s a marine farm in a landscape area and there’s some environmental effects regarding penguins that can now be mitigated in a sensible way by changes to that application, then it wouldn’t be substantially the same and it could still go through this process if this amendment is made.
At the moment, the way the bill is structured, any argument that this bill somehow protects the environment is undermined by the fact that applications that have previously been declined because of their adverse effects on the environment can be approved under this bill.
It’s a specious argument to try and then argue that somehow this bill is going to protect the environment. We’ve solved that problem for the Minister by this Amendment Paper in Glen Bennett’s name, with that change that adds paragraph (o). I’d like the Minister’s comments on excluding prohibited activities and any evidence or thought that’s gone into what those activities might be, and why they should be included in the fast-track bill, and about protecting water conservation orders that have gone through these giant public processes that I’ve just canvassed and not allowing projects that are substantially the same as ones that have already been declined. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The answer in relation to all of the three areas that the member, the Hon Rachel Brooking, raises—prohibited activities, water conservation orders, and previously declined projects—is the same in all of them, which is that the bill is designed to facilitate projects with significant regional or national benefits. Very deliberately, the Government has gone for a wide scope to enable a broad range of activities, wider than the existing Resource Management Act (RMA), but that’s not to say that those things that the member mentioned aren’t important; our expectation is that they will be taken into account during the panel process. The point is we’re just not excluding, up front, projects that fall within any of those categories from being considered.
Specifically, when it comes to previously declined projects, I take a different view to the member Rachel Brooking, which is the Government’s view that there have been projects under the RMA that have been declined that we would like to see progressed. That is an explicit policy decision, and that, I think, gets to the nub of the issue and the heart of the bill, which is that the current laws are too restrictive about projects that can be done. If you take the view that the status quo is fine, then, obviously, you support restrictions and the status quo when it comes to projects that have been declined, because that’s your view. That’s acceptable—that’s a legitimate point of view; reasonable people can disagree. The Government’s view is that the current laws have not allowed enough development and therefore we are changing the law to make clear that we want to see projects happen that would—that have—otherwise been declined in the past.
It’s just really an issue as to the committee’s comfortableness with the strictures placed on projects right now, and our Government position is that there are a whole range of activities that have not been allowed that should be allowed. It really gets to the heart of the bill, and that is the Government’s position.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Just in reply to that—and I know that my colleagues from the Green Party have more questions on Part 1 of the bill before we get to the schedule in some detail—given the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s answer just then that he’s unhappy with the current law and the decisions that have been made under that law that have constrained some development, and therefore it is a policy choice to go through with this piece of legislation to enable those projects to proceed, does he agree that that is then inconsistent with the Prime Minister’s remarks in question time yesterday that this bill will protect the environment? That is my first point.
My second one is a point of frustration, really, because many people, when this bill was introduced, came and made submissions to the Environment Committee and said this bill is about process only. The word “process” was, in fact, in the purpose clause as the bill was introduced—it’s been removed now by the select committee—but they said, and a number of parties who then went on to also apply to be in the bill said, “No, no; this bill is about speed and it is about the joined-up, the one-stop shop. That’s all it’s about.” We’ve listened to the Minister and we’ve listened to the Prime Minister say it’s not about overriding environmental protections, but what the Minister—and I would like him to agree or not agree with me; I think it’s useful to have on the Hansard—has just clearly outlined, in my opinion, is that this bill is about substantive decision making, which is consistent with the changes to the purpose clause, and is very particularly designed to enable projects that would otherwise fail under existing legislation to happen.
It’s a “getting things done” approach that, regardless of what happens to the environment, regardless of what the community thinks, the projects that are included in his Schedule 2—the 149 projects—are there purposefully to override the environmental protections that we have seen stopping some of these projects in the past. If that is the case—we’re following on from the logic that he was just discussing—does he think it would have been better or would he consider some changes to specify the projects included in the 149 why it is that the Government thinks that the previous decisions—the 149 projects; the ones that have already previously been declined—why it is; what the public interest is, apart from regional or national benefit, that is so important that those environmental protections should be overridden?
This is fundamentally important: there’s been a judicial process and something has had a negative environmental effect—say, it’s going to kill kiwis—and then the Government, the Minister is here saying, “Well, we’re OK with the killing of those kiwis.” We’ve heard his colleague the Hon Shane Jones say, “Goodbye Freddie.” He said it a number of times: “We’ll say goodbye to the Archey’s frog.”—something that horrifies OceanaGold, who tell me how much work they’ve done to protect Archey’s frog and that there is no way that they want Archey’s frog to go extinct. They said in the submissions that they’re very happy to have an environmental clause added to the purpose.
Has the Minister thought about specifically outlining the projects that have previously been declined for environmental effects and what the justification is for that particular project to override those environmental effects? Or, if he considers that the process under the fast-track bill will provide enough security for those environmental impacts to be treated differently, is it his expectation that the projects will be different from the ones that were applied for with the negative environmental effects; that this process will give them a chance to rethink about the project; and does he expect different environmental outcomes?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, the member, the Hon Rachel Brooking, makes some reasonable points, but all I would say is this: she seems to be drawing a distinction between various different rationales for the bill and trying to claim that they are different; they’re not. There are multiple rationales for the bill. One is speed; there’s no doubt about that. One is the one-stop shop nature of it, which is the major distinction between this version of fast track and the previous Government’s version of fast track, which was basically a Resource Management Act (RMA) fast track. This incorporates a variety of underlying statutes like the Wildlife Act and various other statutes that are often required—the Conservation Act being the most notable other one. It is partly about speed; it is also partly about the one-stop shop element of it.
It is also partly about changing the decision-making framework to allow more projects to happen, and we’ve been really up front about that. When we launched fast track in December last year, soon after the Government came to office, I gave a series of speeches about that. It’s not to say that the environment is not important; it is important, and layered throughout the bill are a series of protections about the environment. The underlying parent legislation for all of the statutes we are talking about—the RMA, Conservation Act, etc.—is layered through the bill. Those things are considered at the substantive expert panel stage, and those protections and the conditions placed on the way in which a project happens, the activities that a project undertakes, are weighed against the purpose of the legislation. The Government’s view is that we’ve struck the right balance between one-stop shop, speed, and making it clear that the purpose of the bill and the legislation is to facilitate the delivery of regionally and nationally significant projects while still maintaining core environmental protections.
I come back to what I said last night, which I think is the major point of disagreement between both sides of the Chamber: the Government’s view is that the status quo is unacceptable. Members are entitled to take a different view. The Government’s view is that the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to speed, when it comes to condition setting, when it comes to environmental protections weighed against the economic interests. We are disrupting that; we are quite explicit about that. We want more houses built more quickly, we want renewable energy built more quickly, we need more quarries, we need more mines, we need more infrastructure built. The status quo does not work; it fails New Zealand, and that is why we have fast track.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, you’ll get the sense that we’re prosecuting quite deeply this question of environmental protections, but I think it’s important, because the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s just stated that within the purpose of the bill there is still an intent to maintain core environmental protections, but it is not clear how that intent is fulfilled in this legislation, because at every step the legislation is unwilling to express that principle in its drafting.
Last night, there was a debate-like speech by the Minister on how the Resource Management Act (RMA) had failed to facilitate development that was wished—a speech that was reined in by the Chair, we might recall, because it was not appropriate to the setting. The point that had been made by my colleague that the Minister was responding to was in fact that not only has the RMA, in your conception, failed to facilitate the sort of development you would like to see; the RMA has facilitated environmental decline as well. There is not disagreement across this Chamber that the RMA is problematic and failing. When you were asked specifically, “Where do environmental outcomes fit in this bill?”, you’ve just said that this bill will still maintain core environmental protections. The question is: by what means will it do that? In its drafting, it clearly, specifically, and explicitly rules out multiple pieces of environmental legislation. That is what the legislation does.
To remediate this, we have proposed various additions or changes to clause 3, the purpose of the bill. My colleague proposed inserting the words “while continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” I had proposed inserting “in line with existing environmental protections and democratic processes”. There is another Amendment Paper that I’d like to speak to in that regard that I’d like the Minister to respond to—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you give us the Amendment Paper number?
STEVE ABEL: Pardon me, the two that I just referred to, the one by Lan Pham, 147, which my colleague spoke to last night, and I spoke last night to 148, and I’m now speaking to Amendment Paper 149, which has not yet been spoken to.
This is an attempt to get the Minister to put in some form of the word “environment”, the conception of the environment as a thing that is part of the intent of the bill to be protected, because it seems to me that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. The Minister’s argument is that environmental protections have been the primary barrier to the sort of development that he would like to see, but here he is absolutely removing any true burden and consideration on decision makers to take into account the environment. The question, I still believe, remains unanswered: where do environmental outcomes fit in this bill?
The amendment I’m proposing is: at clause 3, after “regional or national benefits”—on page 6, line 11—insert the words “for the prosperity of all New Zealanders and the natural environment”, thereby clarifying that the intent should also include the environment. Is the Minister suggesting development at all costs? Why is it so pernicious to the Minister, or so revolting to the Minister, to consider putting in mention of the environment in the actual purpose?
The Minister said that what he was trying to achieve was a belief that there were projects that have been declined that this Government would like to see progress. Now, I wonder if the Minister can outline: what are those declined projects that you would like to see progress? You have stated that. It seems to me that he has clarity about there being specific projects that have not been allowed to progress. I wonder if the Minister can outline some examples of projects that were turned down in the previous regime that the Minister would like to progress—this is another point, really—the obvious big ones being the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project that suffered 10 years of being kicked back because it was so bad for the environment and had such a negative effect.
I noted last night that the Minister said, in regard to the departure of a major offshore wind interest in this country because of the Government’s articulated support for seabed mining in Taranaki, there was no regulatory regime for offshore wind. What is the regulatory regime for deep-sea mining, Minister? There is no regulatory regime for that. It is a totally novel and extreme extractive industry. It basically doesn’t exist anywhere in the world. You’re purporting to support, and have added to the fast-track list, this novel, unregulated industry and seem to be backing picking a winner. Is that one of the projects that was declined that the Minister would like to see progress?
I wonder, in that context, what is the line of environmental damage that is acceptable? What is the guidance for those decision makers who are making determinations around the projects that you wish them to make evaluations on? What is the line of environmental damage that is acceptable and what are the protections that you expect, and, in the simplest terms, where do those environmental outcomes fit in this bill?
I will leave it for another call to talk about the Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations that my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer talked about last night, the fact that there is no mention of Te Tiriti in the fundamental clauses, and your response that it would be utter legal chaos to consider Te Tiriti. I’ll come back and speak to that, but my primary question, Minister, is: where do environmental outcomes fit in the bill, and how will you maintain core environmental protections if you don’t mention them?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I want to encourage the member Steve Abel to read the bill, for starters. The various pieces of underlying legislation are in the schedules, and all of the environmental considerations as part of those statutes are part of the bill. The member says, “Is the Government’s position development at all costs?” No, it isn’t, and I point him to clause 24WD, which is “When panel must or may decline approvals”, which is the panel must decline an approval if the panel forms the view that there are one or more adverse impacts in relation to the approval sought. This is the key issue: those adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to be out of proportion for the project’s regional or national benefits that the panel has considered under section 24W(3)(a) after taking into account conditions, etc. There’s a very clear decline clause.
As I canvassed last night in the Chamber, the Government’s initial position was that Ministers should be both the referring body to the fast-track panels and then ultimately make the consenting decisions. Now, that met with some degree of scepticism from people, including from members opposite, so the Government’s changed its stance on that, and the panels now make the final decisions, and we put clear criteria in there around declines. It’s not development at all costs, but it is a pro-development statute.
I’ll just make the point that I made before and again last night: this is a disruption to the status quo. It is a change. We’re explicit about that and we’re deliberate about that, because, as we canvassed last night, the status quo is not working for New Zealand.
In relation to projects that we would like to see advance that have been previously declined, I’m going to decline the member’s invitation to get into the specifics about that. Suffice to say—just to repeat what I said before—that if that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t be here. Clearly, there are projects that we would like to have seen happen that have been declined.
In relation to Trans-Tasman Resources and the offshore wind, I mean, it is a true statement of fact that there is no regulatory regime for offshore wind, but there is for the activities that Trans-Tasman Resources wish to undertake. We have an Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and we have a Resource Management Act, so there is a well-canvassed regulatory regime around that. There isn’t for offshore wind. It’s not a most super important point, to be honest, but it is a point I make in passing.
In relation to his comments around the Treaty, I stand by what I said last night, which is that an untrammelled clause to just give effect to the Treaty—I mean, Parliament does not legislate for “the Treaty”. To be honest, that shows a staggering lack of constitutional nous from those members. Parliament has not done that for years and years. In fact, the last time Parliament tried to legislate the Treaty was the—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It doesn’t mean you can’t change and start doing it.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, just listen to what I’m saying. The last time a serious proposition was put to legislate the Treaty was the 1987 Palmer proposal for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the first draft—which went out for consultation. Palmer’s version of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually wanted to literally incorporate the entirety of the text of the Treaty—leaving aside the debate about which version you do. He wanted to put the entirety of the Treaty in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—it was 1985, sorry. That met with widespread opprobrium from everybody, and so that idea was rejected, including by Māoridom, by the way. Views may be different 40 years on, but that was the last serious attempt.
Then, subsequent to that, Parliament decided that we would legislate Treaty principles. The Government’s position is that we should be much more specific about what legal rights and obligations you are creating. The approach of untrammelled, broadly defined words and phrases that we ultimately leave to the courts to define has been problematic. That’s one of the major reasons why the then Opposition, now Government, opposed the Natural and Built Environment Act because of the reference to Te Oranga o te Taiao, which has never been used in New Zealand law before and would have led to years and years of litigation. Parliament has to be clear and specific about what it is legislating. I stand by what I said. It would be chaos to—[Time expired] Mr Chair? Just very briefly.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Chris Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mr Chair, I’ll just finish this point off. It would cause chaos to just insert “the Treaty” into a piece of legislation.
The principles have proved problematic and difficult enough for the polity and the courts to grapple with, and we are trying to be more specific and clear about what we are creating, which is why in the bill there are references to Treaty settlements. The settlements are agreements between the Crown and iwi in relation to specific legal obligations that the Crown imposes on itself around consultation, around—I mean, it depends on the settlement, but there’s a variety of different things that the Crown enters into and then legislates. We have not sought at any point—in fact, it’s a core part of all of the coalition documents that we will uphold and honour Treaty settlements. That is a critical bottom line for the Government. That’s why it’s reflected in the legislation. The idea—
Hūhana Lyndon: Only historic.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?
Hūhana Lyndon: Those are only historic agreements. That does not recognise contemporary breaches that you’re doing.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, let’s not have conversations across the Chamber, please.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, contemporary—I mean, it depends what your definition of a contemporary breach is. The Waitangi Tribunal’s currently seems to be that literally anything the Crown does is a contemporary breach; the Government has a different view, unsurprisingly. That’s a conversation for another day.
There’s a core commitment to uphold Treaty settlements, but we are not going to insert a clause into the bill that puts a broad commitment to “the Treaty”. That is not the way Parliament, including for the last 40 years—that is not what Parliament has done, and Parliament has not done that for a very specific reason. Actually, that enjoys cross-party consensus. Maybe it doesn’t any more, but it certainly enjoys consensus across the Government parties.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up, firstly, on the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’s reply to the question about where do the environment and environmental outcomes sit in the bill. He very accurately described what is in the bill, when it comes to environmental aspects, as “environmental considerations”.
Now, that is the accurate way to summarise where the environment sits in this bill. It is a consideration, rather than protections that New Zealanders would typically understand are involved when it comes to environmental legislation. We previously had various checks and balances where there were thresholds that constitute environmental protections, but we know that, under fast track, these are now merely considerations which ultimately need to be weighed up by the panel, and when they legally have to give the greatest weight to the development benefits, we know that they are simply considerations rather than protections. I’m really interested in if the Minister thinks that is an accurate way of summarising where the environment sits in the bill.
I want to specifically talk to Amendment Paper 150. The context for this is that we’ve heard, time and time and time again, particularly from the Prime Minister, about, for example, the renewable energy projects that sit within fast track. We hear about various projects that confer actual public benefit. Now, if this is the thing that, publicly, the Government wants to point to about fast track, then let’s actually make the fast-track bill about these public projects. Here we have an amendment that very basically spells out a definition of what would constitute “significant regional or national benefit”.
In clause 4, which involves various definitions about how to interpret words that are used within the bill, after “responsible agency”, we would actually suggest a definition of “significant regional or national benefits”. We would say that this “means public infrastructure projects that provide a public good; and (b) includes, without limitation, public infrastructure projects that relate to-sustainable transport: [to] water: [to] hospitals: [to] education: [to] renewable energy generation: [and to] telecommunications”. Again, these are the kinds of projects that the Government likes to point to that are part of fast track, but it isn’t actually defined.
A lot of submitters during the select committee process actually pointed this out as a really sensible way to narrow the eligibility of projects that actually deliver public benefits, rather than the private, more controversial aspects of, like, the waste incinerators, the seabed mining, the coal mining, the open-cast gold mining—these are the kind of projects which are causing all of the controversy with fast track. We had a number of submitters, including the Infrastructure Commission, recommend that we actually do make changes here, and we proposed these changes, even at select committee stage, but, like so many sensible suggestions, they were shut down.
I am really interested to hear the Minister’s response: why is he not considering narrowing to this very clear definition which would make the fast-track bill exactly what the Government purports it to be?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): We’ve been through this for two hours last night, but I’m happy, hopefully for the final time, to deal with this issue.
It depends on what your definition of a public benefit is. The debate last night, as I demonstrated, was about this proposition—nuts proposition, frankly—that a privately owned electricity generator didn’t deliver private benefits. The member Lan Pham’s argument seems now to be that renewable energy is a public benefit. I agree—I agree with her—there are public benefits from renewable energy, but much of New Zealand’s renewable electricity infrastructure is privately owned. Trust Power—or Manawa Energy, as it’s now called—and Contact Energy are privately owned.
Now, that reflects historical circumstance and a variety of different things. If the member’s proposition is that renewable energy is a public benefit, I agree with her, but the point we made last night, and I make it again today, is that the ownership structure of those entities differs. Some are publicly owned, listed companies; 51 percent owned by the Crown. Others are wholly privately owned. The member’s argument across the foregoing debate last night was that all of those private benefits had to be ruled out. She now seems to be claiming that renewable energy is a public benefit and, therefore, that should be allowed. Well, I agree with her, but the point is that the ownership of those entities differs. The argument seems to have changed.
The core contention of the Government is this: all of the projects and all of the activities listed in the fast track deliver public benefits, and those benefits differ depending on the project and the activity, but they are all public benefits—for example, housing. Now, the vast bulk of housing in New Zealand—again, I said this last night, and the point remains true; it’s never been rebutted—is delivered by the private sector; it’s not delivered by the public sector. Kāinga Ora has a role to play, but the vast bulk of it is delivered by people putting their own private capital up, developing their own land that they buy—and it’s bloody tough, frankly. We need more private sector housing. That’s part of the reason why we’ve got fast track.
Is there a private benefit from someone developing a piece of land and selling it to buyers of houses? Well, of course; they’re making money out of it. Is that a private benefit? Yes. But is there a public benefit in more housing? Absolutely there is, because we need more houses. That is a public benefit. Is there a private benefit from Contact building a wind farm and making a buck out of it in the electricity market? Yes. Are they making money for their shareholders? Yes. Is there a public benefit from renewable energy? Yes. The member’s argument is that renewables are a public benefit. We agree.
The member is actually making our point, which is that, in a mixed economy, there is a variety of different ownership structures and there are different benefits, both public and private. Is there a benefit from more quarries? Yes, there is, because to do anything in infrastructure in this country you need more quarries. Are they publicly owned quarries? No, the Government hasn’t nationalised the quarrying sector. The Government doesn’t run quarries. We haven’t run quarries since probably the 1870s. Do we need more quarries? Yes.
Mining: is there a private benefit from mines? Yes, of course there is. Well, we used to own a coal-mining company in New Zealand. It was called Solid Energy. The Government didn’t do a very good job of running Solid Energy, because the Government doesn’t do a very good job of running most businesses, so we don’t own Solid Energy any more. The majority of mines in New Zealand are privately owned. Is there a private benefit to them? Of course there is, because people who own the mines will make money out of it, but is there a public benefit to the West Coast from having coal mining on the West Coast? Absolutely.
Go down to the West Coast and tell the people of the West Coast that the mines that thousands of New Zealanders and West Coast workers depend on for their livelihoods, or go to Waihī and tell the people there that the mine that is near there, which provides jobs and growth and regional resilience in sometimes quite neglected parts of New Zealand—tell those people there aren’t public benefits from mines! There are, and the Government’s position is that the broad suite of projects that are in fast track or that will be considered, whether it’s mining or renewables or quarries or wind farms or housing or roads, all of those different things—all of them, yes, to some extent have private benefits for their owners or private benefits for the people who run them, but they all have public benefits.
That is the reason why they are being fast-tracked. They all have public benefits, and the member’s own argument makes that point.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really appreciating the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’s responses, in basically saying that the sky is blue, but I don’t accept the quite disingenuous assumption, or assertion, that my argument is changing. It’s not changing. What I’m saying, and what we’ve been saying all along, is: make it really clear within the fast-track bill that companies that apply for fast track need to prove that they are conferring these public benefits. I disagree that every project in the list confers a public benefit, and if you narrow it, again, like many submitters suggested, including the Infrastructure Commission, you would actually avoid a lot of the controversy about these much more damaging projects which are included in the bill.
Now, what I want to pick up on is another aspect, which I refer to in Amendment Paper 151. This is about adding a clause after 4A(1) that inserts where a project is contrary to a regional or district plan, regulations, or an Order in Council—this would, basically, amend the bill itself to make activities that are contrary to these plans set by local authorities, regulations, or Orders in Council ineligible for fast-track approval.
Why I think that is really important at the approval stage is that these plans and the processes that councils and communities have been through are often years in the making, and they actually form this democratic structure of our society, about how we want our communities and our cities to look, how we want them to develop, how we want different protections to be in place or not. I think what’s so important about this is that there’s really clear aspects within these plans—for example, prohibited activities—where it’s been so clear from the community and the council that they do not want specific activities in these plans to be eligible for development. Now, the fact that fast track overrides these is a gross breach of our democratic structure and the way that we actually have plan making and the ability for communities to actually contribute to plan making in this country.
If the Minister considered this amendment, it would go much further in terms of providing really clear, or much clearer, social licence for these activities and companies, which will, ultimately, be setting themselves up in communities, setting themselves up in our regions. The people who live in these communities, who are affected by these projects, would at least, in some small form, through the recognition of the district plans, or the regional plans, for example, have a say in that way. There has been no clear rationale that I have seen or heard—even throughout the entire select committee process, and certainly as part of this committee of the whole stage—that is a rational justification for being able to override these plans and rules that have been democratically arrived at through submissions, through consultations with the community, and through councils actually putting that in place.
I am really interested as to why, again, the Minister has, so far, refused to implement this as part of the bill.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. In the previous speech from the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, he spoke about the statutes within this legislation, and obviously there’s a lot of Acts of Parliament that it refers to. You also spoke about Treaty settlements that are included in this.
Now, I understand that it is around a one-stop shop, hence why there is a lot of this information in the bill. But I’m just wanting to get clarity in terms of—I looked around recently in terms of, as far as I can see, this probably has the largest amount of statutes and Acts of Parliament that are in one piece of legislation. I just want to sort of get some clarification, if that is the case, if it feels comfortable, them all being in here.
Secondly, I’m just going to briefly come back to the interpretation and there’s the piece around competing application in relation to a substantive application. Now, I just want to get clarity from the Minister about what a “substantive application” is, just so we can understand as a committee.
Thirdly, my third question this morning is: just looking at my Amendment Paper 141, which talks about inserting “an activity that is inconsistent with a water conservation order made under Part 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991:”—I just want to get some clarity, because in the Environment Committee we obviously went through the process; we worked with the bill; we changed the bill, and it came back to the House. Now the Minister, in Amendment Paper 238, has added a section in the interpretation around the “complex freshwater fisheries activity” and what that means in terms of “culverts and fords:”, “permanent dams” and structures. I just want to be really clear in terms of why the Minister felt it important to add the complex freshwater fisheries activity explanation into the legislation.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a number of quite contained questions to say about Part 1, before Schedule 2, and then I’d like to move on to Schedule 2—so, a number of things.
First of all, the idea that this side of the Chamber likes the status quo of the Resource Management Act (RMA) is offensive. I spent all of last term working on the Spatial Planning Act and then the Natural and Built Environment Act, which was to change the status quo and which of course, a year ago, this Government repealed. I asked a question yesterday to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, which I haven’t heard an answer to, which was the problem—one of the many problems—with the status quo is that, compared with international comparisons, it is the smaller and medium projects that take too long and cost too much. The large projects take about the same amount of time as international comparisons and cost about the same amount for those applicants. So that would be good to get an answer to that.
It goes to the heart of the problem definition. If the problem definition is “we need to get stuff done”, well, is it the really big stuff or is it the small and medium stuff that should be having the priority? Obviously, the Government’s decided on the big stuff, but that doesn’t seem to be where the problem is.
We also just had a discussion from the Minister about a Treaty clause, and I think it’d be useful to have on the Hansard that of course—and I don’t think he meant the opposite of this, but it sounded like it—Governments have for many years inserted Treaty clauses into bills. In fact, the Minister acknowledged that the Natural and Built Environment Act did have a Treaty clause and it was referring to the principles of the Treaty, and it was a “to give effect to” clause, which is the same as the Conservation Act and stronger than the RMA. The amendment that my colleague, Arena Williams was talking to yesterday was to include a “give effect to the Treaty” clause. That’s not abnormal; many Governments have done it. The Minister then raised an argument that it is better, rather than to have a “give effect” or “take into account the principles of the Treaty” clause—that can be up for discussion; so it’s better to have specific provisions. Of course, the RMA has a section 6(e) and 7(a), which do some of that lifting, and then whole sections on Mana Whakahono a Rohe.
The point is that this bill doesn’t do the specifics except for settled iwi and a little bit about the Mana Whakahono a Rohe, but iwi or hapū that do not have settlements or do not have Mana Whakahono a Rohe agreements, which are very rare, are not really mentioned in this bill. That is the problem. The Minister’s idea that you have a Treaty clause that sets out exactly what it is that is expected—that is, you know, a logical thing that we can all debate here, but that is not what this bill does. This bill is only about settled iwi and Mana Whakahono a Rohe. There’s a couple of bits in there, so he might want to come back to that point as well.
Then the Minister talks about how this bill is pro-development, but I would challenge him on that again, because it’s pro very specific development. It’s pro the things that are listed, the 149 things that are listed in that schedule too. It’s not all development; it’s those specific projects.
Before I get to those 149 projects, which I do want to do, I want to, again, ask the Minister about his amendment—I need to be looking at the right version of the bill here, because he has an amendment that is the whole bill—and whether or not the changes that he has made to clause 4A, which is the meaning of “ineligible activity”, if—you know, what is the point of those changes? Do they enable more items to be considered under this bill, as in it reduces the amount of ineligible activities, or does it extend the amount of ineligible activities? Why has he made those changes?
Then we can go through to Schedule 1 and the transitional provisions—these are very large bills, excuse me for a minute—and there are some changes in Schedule 1 in his amendment as well. It would be interesting to know why there are the changes in Schedule 1, and there’s a new bit on new applications at clause 4 of Schedule 1.
Those are a number of questions, but now I would like to move on to Schedule 2 and the list of projects.
James Meager: Oh, we’ve already talked about these.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, Mr Meager, we have not talked about these, and, of course, we want to talk about them in a lot of detail.
James Meager: What’s No. 3?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Mr Meager asks, “What’s No. 3?” Of course, if he looks at Schedule 2, he will see that they are not numbered.
I have flicked to the Minister’s amendment, to page 129 of that, and on that—I just flicked to this page—I see NZSki Ltd. This talks about The Remarkables Ski Area upgrade and Doolan’s expansion, and the project description says, “Upgrade existing infrastructure at The Remarkables Ski Area, including a new passenger transport lift, carparking areas, and expanding the ski field into the adjacent Doolans Basin.” Now, I have to declare that I do frequent The Remarkables Ski Area and that my family are all great fans of this particular ski field. I know the NZSki Ltd people well, through being sort of the Labour representative who does some work and tries to raise issues around the Queenstown area.
This expanding of the ski field into the adjacent Doolan’s Basin is on conservation land and it means blasting a giant hole through the mountains. You wouldn’t know that from reading this project description. Of course, everybody in Queenstown knows exactly what this project is, and there will be different views in Queensland about the importance of extending The Remarkables Ski Area into an area that I’m sure will make for some very great skiing; there is no doubt about that. It is also on conservation land, and it is also a major project, and I’m sure mana whenua will have many things to say as well about those Remarkables—called that in English for a reason—having a giant tunnel blasted through them.
Now, when NZSki Ltd came and made their submission to the Environment Committee, I specifically asked what they thought about community input and that, of course, this fast-tracked process avoids that. The CEO, Paul, of NZSki Ltd did say, “We won’t do this without community input.”, but I don’t know how that can happen with this mechanism through the fast track. My question for the Minister on this item—and I know everybody else will have questions on different projects, the different 149 projects included in this—is that NZSki Ltd is a private company and it’s working on conservation land and it wants to, in this project description, blast a big tunnel through a mountain. That is a very private benefit that this company will get through having the purpose clause not refer to the environment. I want to ask the Minister how he can justify that a project that benefits the shareholders, or the main owner of NZSki Ltd, should be able to avoid consideration of the environment.
He might say, “Well, it’s going to be very useful for them to have all their approvals considered at once because there will be many approvals required.” I don’t disagree with that. The point here is that there is no reference to the environment in the purpose and that this project is going to make a very private benefit to a very private company and should not be included in a public bill.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just deal with a few of the questions by the last few speakers. Firstly, Glen Bennett asks whether I am comfortable with so many statutes being included in fast track? Yes, we are. That’s why it’s in the bill. Secondly, he asks “What is a substantive application?” Well, it is literally an application under the fast track; that is what it means. It’s a standard application to go to the expert panel.
Rachel Brooking made a number of points. In relation to small and medium projects versus large projects, yes, she’s right that we need to make it easier for small and medium projects. We agree. That is why we have a comprehensive programme of Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, in particular quite a large suite of national direction coming next year, which respectfully builds on some of the work developed by the last Government. We’re now picking up some of where they left off, in some respects. I won’t get ahead of Cabinet decisions, but it’s definitely true to say that we can do a better job of synthesising the parent legislation with clear instructions and directions around what the Government considers to be important.
In particular, we can set standards to reduce the need for resource consents, and everyone seems to be on board with that. One of the great failures of the RMA over the last 20 or so years is that we haven’t been better at doing that. Simon Court, in particular, my under-secretary, is doing a good amount of work there around standards. Anyway, that’s a bit of a preview for next year, but she is right that we need to do a better job with small and medium projects.
In relation to non-settled iwi, there are a range of protections—not just for settled iwi—throughout the bill as well. In particular, I would point her to the make-up of the panels where there has to be a person on the panel with the knowledge of te ao Māori and Māori development. There’s also provisions in there around ineligible Māori land, for example, as well; that was well canvassed last night.
In relation to The Remarkables project which, to be honest, I’m not familiar with—I’m not from down there. But it’s good to see that she’s a frequent user of the great ski field—
Hon Rachel Brooking: My family is.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, your family is; OK, that’s fair enough. I mean, as I said last night, I’m not intending to entertain a dialogue about each particular project, largely because, for some of them, I have no great familiarity with the project. The point is, again, as we covered last night—the debate is becoming repetitious—the bill does not consent these projects. The bill expedites their processing into the fast-track panel process.
She asks about community input. The reality is, as happened under the previous COVID-19 fast track, applicants don’t just apply and randomly work their way through the process and through the consenting process, kind of on a whim. There’s a huge amount of pre work that goes into preparing these applications; draft conditions that they themselves propose to the panel to be set, and there’s a bit of a back and forward and a dialogue about what conditions should be set and which ones are appropriate. That is completely acceptable; we don’t envisage that process changing. Part of that is the community engagement that the member talks about.
Very often, particularly when it comes to energy projects, for example, there’s a huge amount of community consultation, engagement—
Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s because it’s required; it’s not in this bill. We’ll get to that in Part 2.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well—and in relation to her point around, “Well, it’s a private development on conservation land.”, yeah, it is. There’s private developments on conservation land up and down the country, and this gets to the point, again, which I’ve made about seven times now, which is that if your view is that private development should just not be eligible for fast track, well, that’s a legitimate point of view, but it’s not one the Government holds. Again, I just repeat the point: private development can have public benefits because we live in a mixed economy. There will be public benefits from that particular project that the member is talking about, in the same way that there are public benefits from privately run renewable energy projects. Lan Pham, her colleague, agrees, because that was her precise point for much of her speech.
We agree. The Opposition’s got to get its ducks in a row about what their actual point is. Private projects that have private profit for private gain can have public benefits. We stand by that point.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. There is a comment there made by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that concerns me, and I think it warrants a response from you. Last night, you’ll be aware, there was a significant ruling made by the Speaker when recalled by this House that was considered, and came about as a result of a decent amount of debate on both sides of the House. Now, at the end of that ruling the Speaker said, “The Chairperson would be justified in allowing a more considered and lengthy discussion in the committee stages.” That was a quote, but it was clear that he was referring to Schedule 2, which was originally advised by the Clerk that it was out of order. The presiding officer at the time agreed with that, and then the Speaker ruled differently.
Given that is a direct quote from his ruling, which the presiding officer subsequently clarified to the House that that does mean the Government can expect a lengthy and detailed debate about that schedule, for the Minister to stand up in one of the very few questions about specific projects and say that he is not going to enter into a debate about, or doesn’t want to entertain a debate about specific projects—I think the committee needs some clarity here. Normally, if a Minister refuses to engage in questions, that means that we have an even longer debate because for a closure motion to be considered, the Minister’s engagement in that is a factor. If that is the case, directly contrary to the ruling that the Minister made, we’re in a difficult situation here.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Speaker made.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Apologies, the Speaker made, and I think we need some clarity.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member has anticipated exactly what I was going to say when I came in. I’ve been following this debate for several hours, including being in the Chair—that we have traversed much of Part 1 and questions from here on in, without risking a closure motion, need to be around Schedule 2, and that’s what the Chair will be looking for. I’m ruling that the points you made are the points I was about to make.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I want the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to tell the committee how many tens of millions will Winton Land Co. make on the value of their project that is in Schedule 2 on the passing of this bill. This is Winton’s project. [Holds up picture of planned development] It’s very close to the electorate of Manurewa and, as the local MP in Manurewa, I have an interest in it. The Minister is proposing to expedite the process for Winton here, which also comes into contracts with another project on this fast-track list. The route of Mill Road, which is being expedited by the fast-track bill as well, goes right through the middle of Winton’s project.
Winton Land Co. has a right to buy this land. They paid for that right earlier, and so any uplift in the value of that land makes their project significantly more valuable. The option to buy becomes millions of dollars more valuable when it is expedited to become residential land.
Right now, it’s rural land. Every MP in this House who is a rural MP knows that rural land zoning is incredibly important to those developers who are land bankers or those developers who expect local projects to progress on their land, like New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) projects. NZTA is now being told by the Minister in this bill to purchase land from these landowners which, last year, was worth only $1 million, $2 million, or $3 million, but which will now be in the tens of millions. This is a public Government entity which is now going to pay out tens of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money for land which was not valuable before and is now. It is not only a private benefit; that is public money going into the hands of Winton Land Co. for a residential development that they have lobbied successive Governments for, and it has been turned down over and over again.
Winton Land Co. donated $100,000 to the National Party in its campaign year. Its board members include Steven Joyce, a previous Minister from the National Party. This is public money going into private hands.
There is also an element of private benefit here which is extraordinary. We have rules which require private developers to share the public cost of their developments. This development will cost Auckland Council a huge amount in the infrastructure that is required to build this kind of development: in roads, in pipes, in playgrounds, in libraries, and in facilities for commercial development. All of that is on the line here when this is being expedited in a way where Auckland Council cannot require the developer to put in the kind of infrastructure that will cost the developer many millions more. Not only have they made a huge amount of money when this passes, but they have also saved a huge amount on the infrastructure, which will then be passed on to Auckland ratepayers.
People in the electorate of Manurewa will be bearing the cost of this for a generation if the infrastructure is put back on to their rates bill—back on to the people in New Zealand who can least afford it—to build hundreds of new houses that will cost this area in terms of infrastructure. Yes, we need those houses, but we do not need this at the expense of the people who will be paying for it in my electorate. It should be funded by the people who are making the exorbitant profits out of this which this bill confers on them. Not only will they be making a huge amount on the options that they have to buy—overnight, when this passes—straight from the public purse, but they will be making that on the expediting of their projects through an almost guaranteed set of consenting requirements that are fresh and new in New Zealand.
This is unlike anything we have had before. This is the closest New Zealand has ever come to cronyism through the legislative process. This is wrong, and this project should be struck out.
Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before the Minister speaks, I’ll just set this out. We’re on territory here where we’re going to be talking about donations to parties and, obviously, the projects. The unique nature of this bill means that I’m ruling that it is more relevant in this particular bill than it may be in other legislation. However, just be wary that where any of these allegations go towards individuals, that is where the line will be got close to. I just make that ruling now, because I anticipate that as we go into these projects, there may be more of that, and that’s the line that the Chair will be looking at.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for that, and I note that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb also has a point to make. Just for absolute clarity—thank you for that—there was no issue with what was said in that contribution. You’re just pre-empting that and indicating that the debate and contributions on this—is it exceptional to the normal process, and what might not normally be accepted will potentially be accepted here and you’ve drawn a line as to what might be?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, it’s not. I’d just say that the line remains, but, again, taking into account the unique nature, where allegations start to come towards individuals is where members need to be very aware.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: But that contribution was OK?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That contribution was fine.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Webb, were you looking for a point of order?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. My point of order was—because I do think clarity is really important here, going forwards. I accept the obvious statement that members are not to make allegations of corruption against members in the House or that any particular legislative initiative is being done because of, essentially, a corrupt purpose.
I was concerned that you’ve suggested that individuals can’t be named, because there are many projects in Schedule 2 which individuals absolutely have their hands on, and there are legitimate questions around transparency and process about which it’s entirely appropriate to ask—not because there’s an allegation of corruption in there, but to give the Government an opportunity to show that there is transparency and honesty and that the public can have confidence in exactly that. I just want to make sure that you’re not ruling that members can’t say, “In respect of this person, who made a donation to that party, how can you assure me that there is no invidious nature to that?”
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yes, well, when I say, “an individual”, I mean an individual within the Government.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, it’s easier when you’ve got privilege, eh? If the member Arena Williams really believes that, say what she said outside the House. I bet she won’t—I bet she won’t.
The first thing is to publicly acknowledge that, in relation to the particular project the member’s talking about, as that went through the Cabinet process I declared a conflict, out of an abundance of caution, on advice from the Cabinet Office in relation to a press release I issued in relation to that particular project back in 2022, from memory. It was actually about Kāinga Ora. It wasn’t actually about the specific project but, out of an abundance of caution, I declared that conflict. The member makes a series of facile allegations.
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, firstly, the allegation that infrastructure will just be delivered for—it was actually unclear what the member was saying; it’s pretty disappointing. She is allegedly the spokesperson for building and construction, but her knowledge about how housing and infrastructure development works—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Get personal.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —has now proven to be sadly lacking. Oh, I’m getting personal? Are you for real? What a joke.
Firstly, councils are able to charge development contributions for housing developments. The bill does not change that. You’ve got to separate out consent for building of houses. It’s interesting to see the sort of nimby attitudes from members opposite so far in relation to housing. Auckland needs more housing, but, anyway, I make that as a general point. The development contribution regime and infrastructure is a wholly separate issue from consent for housing.
The other point I’d make here is that the Government actually has a comprehensive programme of work under way. It’s called “Going for Housing Growth”. It actually builds on what the last Government started in relation to infrastructure funding in the form of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, which was passed by the last Government, building on work by the last National Government. It’s actually a strain of continuation here, and the core principle of that is to make growth pay for growth. I actually agree with the one decent point the member made, which is that the beneficiaries of new infrastructure to support housing should pay for that infrastructure, and that is the thrust of the Government’s housing policies. We’ve got work under way around—that’s not dealt with in this bill; it’s not relevant to this bill, but that is very important. If we’re now going to go through every single project one by one, I’ll just—
Hon Members: Yes we are.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK, I’ll just make the general point I made right at the start, which is the point I’ll continue to make, which is that we ran a process insulated from Ministers and the Government around projects that could be considered for inclusion in the schedule. We then took advice from the expert group and we put not all of them but we put 149 of them into the bill. The bill does not grant consent for those projects or the relevant approvals. The bill puts them into the process to go to the expert panel, and many of the issues that the members will have with a variety of the different projects—all of those issues will be dealt with through the expert panel process. The answer is the same for all of them.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to draw the attention of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to the Bream Bay proposal—the Bream Bay sand extraction project—which is a project to extract, using a motorised trailing suction dredge, up to approximately 150,000 cubic metres of sand per annum for an initial period of three years and up to approximately 250,000 cubic metres per annum thereafter. The approximate geographical location is a 17-square-kilometre area of seabed in the marine coastal area of Bream Bay, Northland.
Now, my question for the Minister is: given his recent statements about non-inclusion of Te Tiriti considerations, what is the say and rights of iwi impacted by that project if they do not have customary marine title, if they are not settled, and if they do not have mana whakahono? If we go to Part 1, clause 4A, the meaning of ineligible activity, subclause (1)(b) of that—“an activity that—(i) would occur in a customary marine title area; and (ii) has not been agreed to in writing by the customary marine title group:”—there are numerous tribes of Whangārei who are not settled, do not have customary marine title, and do not have mana whakahono. Is the Minister saying they get no say whatsoever in determinations around the likes of that project at Bream Bay?
It is, of course, but one example, but such a substantive sand-mining project that will certainly impact the interests in the rohe and the marine coastal environment, of which those iwi have customary traditional use. Currently, because they don’t have settlement and they don’t have customary marine title, they will get no say. What is the means, Minister, by which they would get a say if it is not in some way a recognition of the broader Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Last night, I asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop—and I thank him for his reply—in respect of a large mining proposal for what is a project which extends, essentially, from the Clutha River to the Manuherikia River. This is a huge area of land which, if mined, would be the largest mine ever in the history of New Zealand. I asked the Minister how he can justify doing that without rights of public input, as opposed to discretions for public input. I would also suggest to the Minister that one of the reasons why fast track, so far, has not had a tarnished reputation is that there was judgment exercised as to when projects were too big and controversial to go through a non-public process.
The fast track that we introduced post-COVID—which has been very successful, and the Minister has said is the model for this legislation—had a number of safeguards in it. We had a discussion in Cabinet as to whether there should be a group of Ministers authorising projects to go through fast track, or whether it should be an individual Minister. Cabinet, in the end, said that it should be the individual Minister for the Environment—who happened to be me—but it was the office of the Minister for the Environment that was chosen in order to avoid lobbying and to create pressure through groups of Ministers to get certain sorts of projects on the list. I would suggest to the Minister that that was a wise way of protecting the reputation of fast track, because the risk that the Government is taking with the reputation of fast track is that they’ll so tarnish the reputation of fast track that there will be a push against the legitimacy of fast-track decisions more generally.
First of all, my question is: did they consider just having an individual Minister with an environmental Resource Management Act (RMA) bent—which also goes to development, because the RMA is also meant to achieve development, not just protection of the environment; it’s meant to balance it too?
The second issue is that I’m intrigued as to why it is that the South Island Resource Recovery Ltd project is included in Waimate. This is the first ever large waste-incineration project to be considered in New Zealand. Indeed, the National member for Waitaki took an interest in it during the election and, I think, said he’d resign—I might be overstating it—or took very strong opposition to that particular project, which is now being pushed through under fast track.
Now, why I’m interested in that is that that project came to me as Minister for the Environment at the request of the local council, who said that they lacked the wherewithal and the competencies to properly deal with what is a very, very complex application relating to the burning of plastic waste, amongst other things, which, in addition to toxic fume risks—and they can probably be moderated—does have greenhouse gas implications because carbon in, carbon out. If you burn plastic, you actually release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and there is no current way of avoiding that. I understand this application doesn’t propose to capture the carbon dioxide. Faced with that, I, as Minister for the Environment, said, “Look, this is the first of these events. We need to actually look at it properly. We’re not necessarily opposed to it. It needs to be properly considered.” We, as a Government, decided that we would refer that to the Environment Court.
If the applicant had pushed that through the Environment Court, they’d just about be through the process by now, because it’s well over a year ago since that was done. Instead, they’ve gamed the system to get on this process, which doesn’t have any right of public input, and, indeed, probably at law, the greenhouse gas implications can’t be properly considered; whereas through a referral to the Environment Court, they specifically could be considered, and, indeed, my direction as Minister, asks particular attention to be paid to that particular issue. Instead of actually drawing upon the wisdom of the Environment Court judges, who are wise in these matters and would hear evidence on all sides, in respect of what is the first of these, it’s on this list in Schedule 2.
My question is: why? What justification is there? It was already going through a one-step process which would have kicked the tires on it properly; there would have been appropriate public consideration of the issues. How can the Minister justify the South Island Resource Recovery project?
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the bill, and I’m going to specifically ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform questions relating to a project listed in Schedule 2. It’s a New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi project and it is the Hope Bypass in my electorate of Nelson. Labour supports this project and we were really pleased to include this in our version of the Government policy statement on transport, but I do have some questions for the Minister, and they do come off the back of the fact the schedule has come to us at this stage of the process and not through the select committee process.
I will start with some questions I have that are quite specific and are related to a recent media report from two of our mayors, and some of the wording that is in the schedule that could make it difficult for the mayors to get the change they want to the project. I don’t necessarily agree with the mayors on their view.
The thing about the Hope Bypass is that there is cross-party support, at least between Labour and National, for the project, but there are some differences around the edges of the project. I want to talk specifically to parts of Schedule 2. It’s called the Hope Bypass. In the project description, it says, “Construct approximately 4.2 kilometres of new highway bypassing Richmond and Hope townships, altering the existing designation, and additional land acquisition outside of that designation.” That is really specific in the schedule, and the mayors of Nelson and Tasman, the Hon Dr Nick Smith and Tim King, have recently called, on 16 November—and it’s a story in The Press—for the scope of the project to no longer bypass Hope. They want the bypass to only cover the Richmond piece and then for the project to be extended out further into Nelson City.
I don’t necessarily agree with them, by the way, but I think what the process is showing us is that if the schedule had been presented in the select committee process, the mayors would have seen it and been able to submit to the select committee process, perhaps with the wording to be less specific. What concerns me is that if the NZTA together with the two councils, through the design process—because we’re actually still at the design process of that road—do decide to agree with the mayors and make that change, then what’s going to need to happen? Is there going to need to be further legislative change coming back to this House to amend the schedule? These are the kinds of small technical details that exist in a lot of these projects, where there’s been real specifics written into the schedule but it might actually have some unintended consequences.
There are a couple of other questions I have for the Minister on this particular project, and just on that, I understand the transport Minister is going to be in the electorate on Thursday about this project, so, hopefully, he might have some further things to say on this. There are questions in the community as to how many lanes. There is certainly a question—and there’s nothing mentioning it in the schedule—about protecting the existing cycleway, which is part of the Great Taste Trail, which was funded by the Key Government. It is a fantastic part of our electorate, and there is concern in the community that we might lose part of that important tourism infrastructure. Also, the name causes confusion. People might want to change the name of the project. People often don’t understand where it goes when we call it the Hope Bypass.
The schedule talks about land acquisition, and I’m really interested in understanding the interrelationship between this legislation and an important court case that is currently making its way through the courts, which is the tenths. I understand the Minister might not be able to talk to this, but there was a recent ruling in favour of Wakatū Incorporation in relation to the tenths land. It has been issued with NZTA land potentially being subject to claims under those cases. In fact, a small project just around the corner from where this project will happen had to have significant changes because the land couldn’t be transferred from NZTA to the polytechnic.
There are some technical legal issues that I’m concerned perhaps have not been considered, but my fundamental question to the Minister is around the specifics related to this project. I want to be really specific that my question is about how specific it is here in the legislation and what the Minister intends to do if, indeed, the mayors and NZTA do actually agree to change, through the design process, the scope of the Hope Bypass project.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I begin, I just want to seek some clarification from the Chair. I understand that we are currently moving on to Schedule 2, but I have not been able to take a call at all for any of Part 1. Would the Chair allow me to ask three very specific clarification questions for clauses—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no. The fact that the member didn’t participate earlier doesn’t mean the subject matter hasn’t been covered, but what I have just declared is that now the debate has been going for some time. The Speaker’s ruling last night was that it should be allowed to extend perhaps beyond the normal time that it would do, where it pertains to Schedule 2. Calls outside Schedule 2 do risk straying off or into an area that may invite a closure motion.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. I will stick to Schedule 2, then. Thank you for that clarification, Mr Chair. And, again, just a reminder to the governing members, as well, that this is a 235-page amendment that was dropped on our lap yesterday, with no public consultation. Please, bear with us while we do, actually, for many of us, speak to our portfolios and also our communities. Thank you, Mr Chair.
My question is around the fact that, in Schedule 2, there is a particular project, which is the Summerset Retirement Villages Ltd, and it is the Summerset Retirement Village in Mosgiel, in the deep South. I have an Amendment Paper on this, for this particular one to be removed. Now, the reason is that I would like to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform around what he said before in terms of public good and public benefit in the context of this particular project. I think the key word here—and this is something that my colleague Lan Pham was trying to get through as well—is the proportionality test of public benefit. In the case of retirement villages, now there are a number of retirement villages that are part of the 149 projects, but this is the only one that is specifically just on a new retirement village.
Now, many of us, with the committee of the whole House, have gone through various bits and pieces in the South Island, in the deep South, around aged-care facilities, but one of the things that we do notice—one of the things—
Carl Bates: The bill does a lot for the South Island. The Government’s delivering for the South Island.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I said the deep South. One of the few things that we have noticed, and particularly in the context of the retirement village, is the fact that there’s currently a live review of the Retirement Villages Act, which is currently with the Associate Minister of Housing. Fundamentally, this is to do with the way that retirement villages have been allowed to operate and take advantage of our seniors and elderly, from the perspective of not sharing capital, deferred management fees, not paying out capital when they move out, or sometimes when they’re forced to move out due to additional health reasons.
Now, this is something that the Retirement Village Residents Association—this is within my seniors portfolio—has spoken a lot about in terms of the way that the privatisation of retirement villages has had a detrimental effect on our seniors, and the lives of our seniors. That, coupled with the fact that we’re seeing an increasing number of our seniors—possibly, now, 40 percent, up to 50 percent—no longer owning their own property, which means that they are no longer able to have the capital, because you have to pay cash upfront to enter one of these retirement villages; they’re no longer able to pay cash upfront to access some of these retirement villages.
In the context of this particular project, I would like to ask the Minister what sort of public consultation has been done with senior residents—with Grey Power, with other relevant communities and organisations—around the need, in the beginning, for a new retirement village, purely just a new retirement village, in that area, and whether the companies are able to show proof that they’re able to house or able to actually bring people in as part of that. Again, we’re seeing that retirement villages are struggling because people are not able to pay up front to access the licence to occupy some of these retirement villages. If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying what data is there.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I’ll deal with a few of the questions that have been raised in the last few contributions.
Firstly, to start where we left off with the last contribution, which was, basically, a long rant about the problems in the Retirement Villages Act, which, as Lawrence Xu-Nan rightly notes, is under—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: So why are you fast tracking it?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, notwithstanding that the Act itself is under review, the Government does not have a problem with retirement villages. If the member wants to campaign on abolishing privately owned retirement villages, which provide residential accommodation very happily for people up and down the country, that’s over to the Green Party. But that was just, really, a long rant about some of the alleged problems with retirement villages’ practice.
He says, “How do we know there’s a need for it?” Well, last time I checked, the Parliament and the Government wasn’t in the business of determining need for retirement villages. Normally, what happens is that, if someone wants to build one, they go and build one and get consent for it. If they can’t make a buck out of it, they don’t build it. And if it fails, it fails. We don’t run a planned economy here, at least certainly not on this side of the House. I think, to be honest, a lot of what he was talking about is really away from the bill. In relation to Rachel Boyack, which was a really good question—
Hon Member: I’ll pass it on to her.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Righty-o, pass it on. Very good. I wasn’t going to breach the Standing Orders by commenting on it.
In relation to Rachel Boyack, her issue is, basically, summarising it—well, interestingly, the most interesting part of her speech was, it turns out, that the Opposition supports one of the projects in the Schedule 2 list, which is the Hope Bypass. That’s quite interesting. It might be an interesting exercise to go through and work out how many of the projects the Opposition actually supports, because it turns out there’s at least one of them, which is the Hope Bypass. That’s interesting. We support all of them, so it’d be an interesting little exercise to work out how many of them the Opposition supports. But, anyway, it turns out they support at least one of them, which is the Hope Bypass.
Her substantive issue was about the route in, I think it is, page 126. I went away and checked and the basic point is, I’m advised by the officials, that the definition of project provides some flexibility. The definition of project at clause 4 includes an activity that is involved in or that supports and is subsidiary to a project referred to in Schedule 2. Her point is that the route listed in Schedule 2, in relation to the Hope Bypass, is quite specific. The mayors have got a different route, which might be better. That’ll be worked through later. Her point was, essentially, that it’s good it’ll be fast tracked but we just want to make sure that we can fast track that particular route, if indeed the route changes. I’m advised the answer is yes.
Hon Members: Mr Chair?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Hang on—hang on. I’ve got two more points to make. I’m trying, in the interests of completeness—members ask questions; they’re going to get answers.
The Hon David Parker asked, basically, why is it not just left to one individual Minister? And it is. It’s just that it’s not the Minister for the Environment, which it was under the last fast track. It’s the Minister for Infrastructure, which happens to be held by me at the moment. That reflects the fact that it’s a development statute. We’ve changed that, but there’s a requirement—I forget the exact clause—to consult with the Minister for the Environment as well. That was one of the changes made through the Environment Committee.
Steve Abel asks about a particular project and what you do if you’re a relevant iwi and you’re not—it was a slightly confused question, but I would just direct Mr Abel to clause 24M, which is about the panel inviting comments on substantive applications. There’s a long list of people that have to be invited to comment, and actually, this question goes to many of the questions that I suspect have been raised or might be raised in the future: relevant local authorities, relevant iwi authorities, relevant Treaty settlement entities, protected customary rights groups, groups under the marine and coastal area Act, tangata whenua of an area which the substantive application relates to, mātaitai reserves, local fisheries, the owners of the land, the occupiers of the land, the Minister for the Environment, relevant administrating agencies, requiring authorities—there’s a long list.
This kind of idea that it’s all kind of like everything just goes off to a panel and no one gets a say and no one gets any public input is, with respect, not accurate, and members need to read the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll just comment that, while the Minister’s colleagues are vigorously seeking a closure motion, I wonder whether he will consider he has now invited the Opposition to go through each project. The Minister might need to just—
Hon Chris Bishop: I said it might be interesting.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Might be interesting. But I’ll also make another comment that we are going to be speaking on projects, but just mentioning a project and taking that as an excuse to do a broad-ranging presentation is also not advisable at this stage.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can name a few projects, actually, but they’re all themed around a particular question and whether the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has received some advice in relation to these different projects. I’ll go through them: the Beachlands South Limited Partnership, so Beachlands South—that’s on page 114 of Amendment Paper 238, Schedule 2; the Ōhoka Residential Subdivision on page 115; the Gibbston Village, which is page 118; the Plimmerton Farm, on page 121—I’ll keep going.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Slow down—not all at once.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Yeah, I know—not all at once. Ha, ha! Page 132, that is—actually, no, not that one, I’ll come back to that one, actually. And the Sunfield development, on page 141.
Now, the reason why I’ve picked out those specific projects, and my question to the Minister, is because each of those projects has a comment around “enable the potential development of a school”. These are all very large residential development projects, and as part of the project description, there is a sentence at the end of it that says, for example, “develop X residential dwellings, on approximately X hectares land”—add commercial, add retail. But, actually, the really key theme which strings these different projects together is to enable the potential development of a school. However, as I pointed to, there are other projects right throughout this schedule, such as Stratford Park Limited, that have a very similar example of where it’s basically developing the land for multi-use, for different complexes and facilities, and hosting agricultural and pastoral shows, etc., etc.—different uses—but it doesn’t actually say it won’t enable the potential for a school.
My question to the Minister is: as part of the weighting for those projects, was the ability to enable the potential development of a school—how much weight was that given by the panel in suggesting this to Ministers, and did the Minister or the panel receive independent advice from the Ministry of Education as to the development of these potential schools? I could understand why you would weight your decision very differently if there was the potential for the enablement of a school; however, I would like to know whether the Ministry of Education actually provided that advice, or was that just part of the specifications that that commercial developer decided to input on their own? Unless they’re looking at doing a private school and therefore developing the private school by themselves using their own money, I wouldn’t have thought that having a sentence like that as part of the project description, or as part of the project evaluation as to whether it should be given greater weighting, should be in the absence of the Ministry of Education, who does provide the schools.
If I look to Plimmerton Farms, which is a development within my electorate of Mana—yes, our population of Porirua City is growing and there is a need for schools in the northern area. However, I would also argue that, as part of the Porirua regeneration—the east project—for a number of years, Kāinga Ora, the local government, and schools within that area have been asking the Ministry of Education to do a review of that area because of the population, the number of people that live there, the development of houses. That’s had to be something that over a number of years—and we still haven’t come to a conclusion as part of that review—the Ministry of Education has had to lead, because they’re the ones, in the end, via Crown funding, that then develop this infrastructure of a school. There’s also, when you think about it—I’m not too sure where these other projects are and what the school network looks like in those other projects; I can only really speak to the one I know in particular here. For example, there was an Aotea development, which was a number of stages—I think it was, like, 19 stages. For a number of years there, the community had been asking for a school because the two closest schools are oversubscribed, and the Ministry of Education has basically been trying to put money into those two current local schools to build more buildings.
For me, it’s a really important decision as to a development, but when they put that proposal through to the panel, how much does that actually weigh on that decision? How much information was given by the ministry? It would be concerning to me if it was just, “Oh, we have the potential for a school to be built here”, but there was no actual official advice as to the wider network and the implications of the wider network, and therefore the implications on Crown funding. If there is going to be potential for more schools to be built in the future, who’s going to pay for that? If it’s not the developer, I don’t understand why that would be part of the consideration. I would like the Minister to be able to provide a bit of elucidation around that, the weighting of it as part of the project assessment by the panel or the Minister himself; whether the Ministry of Education was included as part of this advice that they received around that particular weighting. Otherwise, I can’t understand why there is a distinction between some of these projects which have the ability or potential to enable schools but a number of other projects don’t even mention it.
Where did that come from, who was advised or consulted as part of that, and were wider network implications—and therefore the Crown having to fund it if it’s not the private developer themselves; who is having to fund these? I understand it’s the potential to enable it, but surely there must be some advice that was given by officials or someone as to why they could put that in a project description which is now in Schedule 2 of this particular bill going through the committee.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do just want to note a couple of things before we talk about a particular project I’m interested in. It was that the Speaker’s ruling last night did give us the scope to discuss this bill in quite a bit of detail, particularly with that huge Amendment Paper that landed and in particular all these projects which didn’t go through a select committee process. We’re trying to replicate that process now with a bit of back and forth as to many of these projects. In fact, I hope we do have time to discuss all of them, and I note that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform did invite a little bit of information there as to whether the Opposition agrees with some of the projects or not, and we’ll get through that as we go through these projects.
I want to draw the committee’s attention to a particular project. It’s a KiwiRail project; it’s on page 120 of Amendment Paper 238, in Schedule 2, and it’s the four-tracking from Westfield to Pukekohe. Looking at this particular project—and the Minister looks very satisfied that I’ve raised this one—and it is actually one that was something that was proposed under the previous Government as well—
Hon Chris Bishop: You should have funded it. You did the three-track, not the four-track.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s sort of one of those ones which the Minister might like to put a tick in his list of the—
Hon Chris Bishop: The benefit-cost ratio’s higher with a four-track. Bill should have funded the whole thing.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —projects that the Opposition agrees to. If I look at this project, this four-tracking—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just invite the Minister in the chair to know he’s got a microphone there. When he does yell across the Chamber, he’s giving himself a big advantage in that his words are heard by those listening. If he could contain himself, it would be appreciated—or at least give me a warning and I’ll turn the microphone off.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I may need to seek another few seconds at the end of this call because of that.
What it’s going to do is widen the existing rail corridor, all right, and expand the North Island Main Trunk line between Westfield Junction—that’s Newmarket in Auckland—and Pukekohe. It goes from a two-track to a four-track, which is pretty interesting. A bit of grade separation going on at Westfield Junction. Of course, in order to enable four-tracking, you’ve got to widen the bridges and maybe change the configuration of some station platforms. Interestingly, in fact, we’re going to remove some level crossings. Of course, we’re going to support that. Level crossings are a known danger, and it’s a good thing to remove level crossings. Of course, alongside all of this, we’ll need new track, new signals, and electrified lines—so, quite a big project.
The reason I want to discuss it in particular is because this was on the cards before the change of Government. There was a bit of discussion on it. The big thing about this is that it goes through residential Onehunga. There’s going to be a big trench dug through Onehunga in order to enable this, as far as I can tell—it’s not specified in what’s going on in the bill, but that was the project that we had under way. One of the candidates for the seat of Maungakiekie said—I’m going to quote. On this heavy rail going through, this big rail corridor going through, one of the candidates in that electorate said, “I think I might cross the floor on that one, or certainly beg leave to differ. That would be such a bad piece of decision making in terms of the impact on this community.” That’s the exact quote from this candidate.
The candidate responded to the mood of the community. The community doesn’t want it, the community in Onehunga, and the candidate said, “They want to hear me say that if I become the local MP, I will lie on the proposed railway tracks.” “And I will!”, he went on to say. That candidate became the National Party MP for Maungakiekie. Good on Greg Fleming for standing up for what he perceived the interests of his community to be, but now he’s probably in a bit of a bind, and can I suggest to the Minister that this just might be one of those situations where quite a lot of community consultation might be needed. I’m going to ask the Minister to comment on this because my understanding is—and I’ve been told and I’ve read—that community consultation “may” be undertaken but there’s no “must” about it. The legislation enables consultation, but it doesn’t require consultation.
I guess that’s part of the point of the fast track, but, in that case, what is the Minister going to say to his own colleague, who says that the community is really opposed to this particular rail development? I think it highlights a real problem—[Bell rung] Mr Chair, just a few more seconds?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Damien O’Connor.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Sorry, I was little slow there, Mr Chairman. I’m just working my way through Schedule 2—the first time I’ve had a chance to look at it. I’ll start right at the beginning. It relates to the Āmuri irrigation project, which the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, I understand, has already put up an amendment to—the Balmoral Water Storage Facility project.
I just happened to be in and around Culverden this week, so I’m familiar with some questions that should be asked, and it’s really, to the Minister, on advice that the panel received. This is quite a unique area of North Canterbury. The area runs, basically, between the Waiau River and the Hurunui River. This is the area that currently has irrigation from the Waiau River. There’s quite a complex irrigation system that’s been running for some time. The area is quite dry. It has been converted in the past into dairy operations. In fact, it continues to be developed and transitioned from forestry—a huge area of forestry—into farmland. This Amuri Irrigation Company Limited is going to put in this water storage facility, and the amount of water coming from the Hurunui River will, as the Minister has amended, change from “1.5 million cubic metres”, which is not right, to “1.5 cubic metres of water per second”, which is the proposed extraction rate.
My questions to the Minister relate to the nitrate levels in the Culverden basin. It’s quite a unique geological area. There are already increasing nitrate levels in that aquifer. My question to the Minister is: what advice did the panel receive regarding the already increasing nitrate levels—whether this project would rapidly increase the nitrate levels in that aquifer, and what would be the long-term consequences of that? As we’ve seen in Waimate—in fact, there were some other projects here that are likely to impact on that—the school at Waimate can’t drink the water because of the nitrate levels in the water supply.
I don’t think any New Zealander, whether they be in rural or urban areas, wants to see that degradation continue. Here is a project which, again, continues the irrigation—and I’m not opposed to that at all. I think that has allowed us to expand farming operations, but there are consequences in some areas. As I’ve said before, this is a unique geological area where the nitrates, if not managed properly, will remain in that aquifer, affecting the local community’s ability to get good, fresh water. So, firstly, the question to the Minister: did the panel receive any advice on the nitrate levels and what might happen with this greater level of irrigation?
Then the other issue of Ngāi Tahu: Ngāi Tahu are big landowners in the Culverden basin there. They will be potential beneficiaries of this. This will enable more conversion of their forest land into farmland, possibly going from dry stock operations into dairy. The nitrate footprint of both those operations is quite different. What advice did the panel receive, and were there any guidelines as to the utilisation of this water over what kind of farming operations will develop from access to more water facilities? These are really important issues.
The other cultural question that I have—and the Minister may know this. This will, effectively, be the mixing of water from both the Waiau and from the Hurunui rivers—two different catchments coming into one area for the development of farming operations. As I say, that in itself is a good objective, but we are learning as we go forward about the impacts of inappropriate land use in inappropriate places: the wrong tree in the wrong place or the wrong farm in the wrong place. The questions go to the Minister: what advice did the panel receive when it looked at this application? Are the issues of the cultural mixing of water important; and, in fact, should that be a deal breaker? And how does Ngāi Tahu manage the issues of the cultural values of water and then the commercial objectives of their land development?
It’s quite a significant project—one that’s No. 1 in the schedule. As I work through, I’m sure I’ll have other questions to the Minister, but I welcome his reply on this.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’ll just deal with some of the last few questions. In relation to the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ question around a variety of different housing projects, some of which have schools as part of them, some of them don’t: nothing particularly turns on that, to be honest. Some of the applications proposed included the potential for a school as part of the development, others did not, but that wasn’t determinative as to whether or not they were listed.
In relation to her question around the Ministry of Education, I’m advised that the advisory group and Ministers did not receive advice from the Ministry of Education. The wording reflects an option expressed by the applicant to work with the Ministry of Education to include a school in a development down the line—that there may be the potential for a school; there may not be. There’s a whole lot of work that has to go under way around that, and the Government’s got work under way around better school property processes—that’s a separate issue. I think it’s helpful for some of these developments that, when they do take place, developers are thinking ahead about infrastructure, about schools that may or may not be included, but those are kind of subsidiary questions to what we’re actually dealing with.
In relation to the Hon Deborah Russell’s point around some of these KiwiRail projects, I think, respectfully, she may be a touch confused. There are two KiwiRail projects; in fact, there are four KiwiRail projects listed. The two she’s talking about are the four-tracking of Westfield to Pukekohe. I happen to know a little bit about this project because I used to be the transport spokesperson. Suffice to say that the Government is—this is the third main line. The last Government funded it; they should have done the fourth main at the same time. The benefit-cost ratio of the fourth main is actually higher if you do them both at the same time. They didn’t do that. It’s quite an odd decision. So that is that.
This allows me to make a general point, which is that consent is different from funding. Just because something might get consent or it might go through to expert panel does not mean it’s funded. There’s billions of dollars’ worth of projects here, and consent is not the same as funding.
The point she was making about Avondale-Southdown is a wholly separate project across another part of Auckland. She was attempting to make a political point about a National Party MP. They’re completely separate projects, by the way, but she seemed to think they were the same.
In relation to Damien O’Connor’s project point, I don’t know what advice the panel received; that was a process run separately to Ministers. Many of the issues that he talks about would be considered by an expert panel as it goes through the process, but I don’t have visibility about what advice the advisory group who gave Ministers recommendations received.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Kieran McAnulty—before I take this call, I have been watching the debate with interest and we have been on Part 1 for four hours. As I indicated last night when I was in this Chair, we can have a bit more of a wide-ranging debate, but I’m starting to hear lots of repetition around the purpose and the environmental issues, which I think have been well answered by the Minister. I understand there’s been a bit of an opening up to the projects this morning. I think, if people could be really specific with something new, that would be really helpful, because we have been on this stage for about four hours, and while we accepted that it could be longer, I’m feeling that there is a lot of repetition from what I’ve heard.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that guidance. I think the committee would benefit from some clarity here, because it wasn’t that long ago that we sought clarification from the presiding officer in the Chair around the ability of the committee, given the Speaker’s ruling last night and the subsequent conversation that I had with you last evening and then with the presiding officer around what that meant in practice, and where we landed was that if members of the Opposition, or, indeed, the Government—so members of this committee—wished to speak specifically to each of the 149 projects listed in Schedule 2, that would be permissible. Now, subsequent to that, the presiding officer has made it clear that if we stray outside Schedule 2 at this moment, then that could bring on a closure motion, so that’s something for all of us to consider. But, essentially, in summary, as long as we talk about projects in this, we’re OK.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I guess we’re speaking the same language, Mr McAnulty.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m saying to, please, make it very specific and not repetitive to where we shouldn’t be going.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: My question is around it being repetitive. If we were to take that guidance given and the permission, essentially, to speak to each project, naturally we might ask similar questions but about different projects. So my question is: would you deem that to be repetitive?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Excellent—thank you. The other question I have is around the ability to speak to amendments that relate to these projects. There are a number of amendments that are being progressively tabled that propose to remove a specific project. Now, that hasn’t been tested or discussed yet, and I don’t actually intend to ask that question specifically, but I just want to be really clear that if some member has spoken about a project and then another member wishes to speak to an amendment that relates to that project, would that be deemed repetitious?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In my view, it would be deemed repetitious if we were to have people standing up individually wanting to remove projects one by one. I’m happy for people to speak to the project and suggest during their speech, as they’re doing that, that it might be removed and to speak to that amendment, but I don’t think it would be helpful for the committee if we had only speeches about removing the projects one by one.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: So a member could potentially not have the opportunity to speak to an amendment that they’ve put forward?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, that’s always the case—nothing changes there. Not all amendments are spoken to on many occasions, on lots of bills.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: OK, so I suspect that—
Hon Chris Bishop: Why don’t you just get on with it?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: This is a point of order.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —we will see, in taking on that guidance—
Hon Chris Bishop: You should see the way you behaved in the chair, Megan.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Excuse me, Minister. I’m taking a point of order, which I take in silence.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —that we will see contributions from members specific to projects that won’t be touching on contributions to projects that have been spoken of before and won’t be repetitious. I’m sure we can expect to see that. I’d like to make my call now.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, and I don’t expect that people will speak to the project and then get up and take another call suggesting that it be cancelled. I’m sure people can refine what they’re saying and bring up—
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s really useful.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —the amendments during the course of their speeches about the projects, because I don’t want to see a whole list of speeches just suggesting that we remove the projects.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, that’s really useful. Do you have a point of order?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yeah, a point of order, Madam Chair.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’m going to leave it.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, and thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. Just further to the clarifications you’ve been able to give my colleague Kieran McAnulty, my question is: if there’s a member who has taken a call, asked the Minister some questions, and is seeking information before they decide they need to put in an amendment, because, actually, their decision about whether or not there does need to be an amendment is dependent on the Minister’s answer—whether, in that instance, they will then be able to speak to their Amendment Paper, because they won’t know until the Minister has answered the questions that we’re seeking in this committee of the whole House stage?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a fair question. We’ll judge that one case by case.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The project I wish to speak to is listed on page 133, Schedule 2: Tararua Wind Power Limited. It relates to the area of the “Foothills of the Tararua Range, south of the Manawatu Gorge, and north of the Pahiatua Track, 5.5 kilometres west of Woodville.” Now, this is obviously in the Tararua District, where both sides of my family are from, and it’s an area that I hold very dear. It’s appropriate that I speak to this project because I’ve spoken about this area before in the House, in relation to proposed wind farms and this specific area in particular.
Now, there are already substantial wind farms in this area, and in fact this project proposes to improve and expand, in terms of the size of the turbines, those that already exist, but what it doesn’t provide the committee is the context. Separate to this scheme, but right next door, is another project—the Makomako proposal—that has been given separate fast-track approval outside this bill. Why is that important? Because the Tararua District has numerous consents for wind farms that have already been issued—more towards the east—and they’ve never been actioned. This bill is asking this Parliament to approve projects that subvert the normal process and override or prevent the public from having a say whilst there are consents sitting there that haven’t been used. It’s very hard for us to understand the justification here.
If indeed all those consents had led to projects being built and there continued to be barriers to future projects getting through the consenting process, we might have a valid discussion there, but we don’t. I remember when I was fencing out Makuri for a few seasons, we did work on areas that were consented for wind farms—we’re talking about 20 years ago—and they still haven’t been built. Yet, we go to these areas near Makomako where a project, an additional project, has already been given approval, overriding the views of those communities and all the affected properties. And now, in addition to that, we’ve got this project here that again wants to override their views.
I’m also mindful of Mount Munro, just down the road in Eketāhuna. The residents there have similar concerns that their opposition to the wind farm right next to their residential areas—a relatively compact residential area in the context of a rural community—their views have been overlooked. The Makomako views have been overlooked. And here we are, the fast-track proposal—exactly the same thing. Why I’m particularly concerned about this is that this community has already done their bit; they already have a massive wind farm right up against their farms and right up against their houses. This proposal is going to make that bigger, and they’ve got another project coming. The main concern here is that, in including this project in this bill, it doesn’t provide the context that a normal process would allow, and that is a concern for all of us.
It is also a concern the way in which the Government is trying to frame this debate. They are trying to frame, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform indicated earlier, that because members of this committee are expressing concern about the inclusion of a project, that means they are against that particular project or they are against that industry. We are not against renewable energy—I don’t think there’s a member in this House that is; we’re certainly not against proposals that look to increase the proportion of renewable energy—but when this bill allows the communities that are affected, their views, to be completely ignored and completely overlooked, we have an issue with that.
My question to the Minister is: why are we including this project when projects in the exact same area, surrounding farms, and surrounding residences have already been approved without the requirement of this bill, and yet that fact will not be considered?
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. As I listen to and consider what is going on this morning, I want to look at the bigger picture and come, obviously, to one of the pieces here, because the challenge that I’m seeing is that there are some projects—and I’ll allude to them very shortly—with community controversy or there are issues in terms of the projects that have been declined or there are issues in terms of the community.
The Minister responsible for RMA Reform has spoken several times today, and my colleague just now spoke about the fact that this side of committee isn’t opposed to all of these projects, but there are some that we need to take into real consideration. The Minister spoke to us about nimbyism and the fact that we don’t want progress to happen, but, actually, it’s about the protection of our communities and the protection of people for whom these projects are on their doorsteps; not nimbyism, but getting it right, because this is for generations and generations to come.
Now, the project I want to speak on is on page 122, and it’s Maia Properties Ltd in New Plymouth. Again, looking at this project—119 potential allotments, residential development, including stormwater infrastructure—that does sound good, but the question I have for the Minister is in terms of we’ve heard from the Minister that the process, at arm’s length, was with the panel who came up with recommendations; then it went to Cabinet, and Cabinet decided on these 149 projects. The challenge the Minister has—and, I believe, the Government has—is that some of these projects have major issues that are not only running through the media but have run through the courts, as we’ve talked about.
This project in particular—and, in fact, I’ve been tracking with some of the families involved, who, on the record, say completely that they support the development up the top of Mangorei Road. As New Plymouth continues to grow, and as we see communities around the country growing, we see, obviously, moving into farmland, but there’s also challenges: there’s wetlands up there, there’s council reserves. There have been challenges around the developer, in terms of what is good development. This is the thing, I guess, for us on this side of the committee, where we say, “Yeah, of course we want housing development, of course we want more people owning their own homes, but, again, at what cost and at what implications to social cohesion within those communities?”
Now, I’m holding up a series of news articles from over the last four or five years around this particular development. The reason I’ve got them here is because I’ve been considering that the council’s had to get involved because there was an issue in terms of engineering. One of the houses actually had the potential of subsiding because they had cut far too close to the side of the property that isn’t part of the development that already exists, and now the council is committed to building a public access way along there just to create protection for that home and other homes that are already existing. It went through a process. This project went through the engineering association—I forget what they’re called. The sort of Engineering New Zealand had to actually look into this because there were some mistakes made, and, again, for the local residents, there’s been dust, there’s been concerns around the wetlands, and concerns around council reserves that it feels like it’s impeding on.
The question I’m trying to ask the Minister is: how comfortable is the Minister around some of these projects—I’m going to get to a few a bit later on—that definitely are controversial and that definitely don’t have local support? As you’ve said, Minister, we know that this is about consenting; this isn’t about funding. Just because it’s on the fast-track Schedule 2 doesn’t mean that it will necessarily happen, but if it does, these community members who live there now or live there for years to come will potentially not have a say in what happens. Currently, they feel out in the dark. Currently, they feel like they’re being ignored. This piece of legislation and this project up on Mangorei Road just shows the potential of the community falling apart, but also bad infrastructure, bad build—actually, someone who maybe doesn’t know what they’re doing. The question is for the panel who made the decision: how did that happen? Secondly, why would the Cabinet decide on a project that is as controversial as this to go ahead and be in Schedule 2?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I take the next speaker, I also want to say that the questions around the community concerns and things are relevant, but we want to be careful also that there’s a panel to be appointed as a result of this bill, and we’re not actually here in this Chamber to do the work of the panel.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you for those comments, Madam Chair. I’m going to be very specific about my contribution and the very clear questions that pertain to the bill and the process ahead of us. I want to focus in on a project on page 129 of Amendment Paper 238 in Schedule 2, and the company is OceanaGold, which is a multinational mining company based in Canada and Australia. The specific one that I’m talking to in this contribution is the Macraes phase four, where in stages it proposes to expand the existing open pit and underground gold mining operations to enable output of approximately 130,000 ounces per annum out to 2036.
The concerns that I have around this and the questions that I have for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform pertain to a very significant ongoing pattern of non-compliance of the company and about how that relates to how that will be picked up through the application process by the panel and actually given due consideration to. Now, what we’ve found with OceanaGold at this Macraes site is that they have demonstrated significant negligence, and this is across both the consenting from Otago Regional Council and also Waitaki District Council, who both undertook auditing and reporting on the company that documented this pattern of non-compliance.
This has been over a five-year period, the Otago Regional Council’s audit found, and it found continued or repeated non-compliances over this time which related to the declining of aquatic health and the surrounding ecosystem. These are really significant breaches. It had higher than allowed chemicals and algae levels in the water, and there were gaps in both the monitoring and then the non-notification to the council when there were breaches. With the submitting of their compliance reports, there was a pattern of them being late, but not just a few days or weeks—we’re talking about between five months to one year. I want to make that really clear: that this is a significant pattern; this is not just one-offs.
The same was found for Waitaki District Council. They found significant negligence, particularly when it came to stock exclusion and allowing cattle to graze against consent conditions. A number of these breaches were actually in relation to QEII covenants, and there were certain conditions that actually asked or made clear that OceanaGold would actually have to create lizard habitat, for example, but then the stock issues actually destroyed their own lizard habitat creation, and fencing activity was compromised due to a continued failure to exclude stock. Waitaki District Council found they’d breached all of their ecological consents multiple times, often at different mining sites, and this is captured in an article by RNZ just this morning.
Now, what I’m concerned about with this, and what I’d like to hear the Minister’s comments on, is that even in the early stages, where Cabinet actually considered these on a project-by-project basis—considered these companies that would be eligible to going through and being listed in this schedule—there was, I believe, a part of the application that asked about previous non-compliance. I’m interested whether the Minister is aware whether this kind of non-compliance was first and foremost present in these applications which have now gone through into this schedule. If not, how are the next processes in the bill, in terms of the panel decision making, making clear that these concerns will be vetted and visible to the panel?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’ll just very briefly deal with three of the last contributions.
Firstly, in relation to Mr McAnulty’s point about the Tararuas, which is a haven of wind power, he seems surprised by that. It’s because the wind is good. That is why everyone wants to build wind farms in the Tararuas. He doesn’t like it very much, but the point is the same for the particular project he is talking about, as it is for all of the projects, which is that expert panels are required to invite local councils to comment on projects so they can consider the full context of projects. That point remains true for all of them, and members opposite often say that local councils know their local communities. Well, that is indeed the case.
In relation to Glen Bennett’s points about the particular project he was talking about, again the point is the same. The expert panel’s job is to consider the effects of the project and can apply conditions as appropriate.
In relation to Lan Pham’s point just made now, which was a good point, the bill provides that panels can take into account the history of applicants regarding previous non-compliance. This has to be included in both listed and referred applications. That is something the panels can specifically take into account, which, I think, deals with the nub of the point she was making. We’ve put the specific provision in the bill for that.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call now from the Hon Dr Megan Woods, but I’ve just been through a process of having a discussion and Part 2 is related to the process, and I think we’re now heavily straying into Part 2. I’m going to take a call from the Hon Dr Megan Woods and then assess the situation. Thank you.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I specifically want to address my comments and questions to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop, around the Mid Canterbury Water Storage Limited Klondyke Storage project, which is listed on page 123 of the schedule. This proposal is to construct storage for up to approximately 53 million cubic metres of water for irrigation to improve the reliability of the existing MHV Water Ltd and Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Ltd community irrigation schemes, including realigning parts of the Rangitata Diversion Race to facilitate the diversion and take of water into storage. Specifically, it is 917 and 986 Shepherds Bush Road, Ruapuna, Canterbury, adjacent to the Rangitata River, and approximately 38 kilometres from Ashburton.
It’s fair to say that the Rangitata races and the Rangitata Diversion Scheme is something that is very dear to the Labour Party’s heart. Of course, it was built between 1937 and 1944, and was very much part of the first Labour Government’s mission around regional economic development. This is a scheme which is part of our proud history of how it is we have supported rural communities in New Zealand.
It is worth, before asking my questions, also putting on the table that we’re not opposed to fast-track schemes, but my questions to the Minister around this specifically relate to the fact that this is a fast-track scheme like we have not seen for decades. This is a fast-track scheme where Part 1 of the bill, the purpose statement, clearly lays out the hierarchy of what can be considered, and the environment is not in that hierarchy. That is one of the things that we have been seeking answers on when we have schemes such as this, which I’ve given some of the past history on, but I haven’t gone back to the 1860s when runholders first started building culverts to irrigate their land in that part of mid-Canterbury.
There has been, since 2016, an attempt to get this Klondyke storage scheme up and running. It has had various stages through that, and it has gone through various processes. In September 2016, the Ashburton District Council published the notice of application for the resource consent. The application included consents to divert an additional 10 cumecs from the Rangitata River, at times when the flow exceeded—now, I’m not going to go through everything like that, but the decision to grant this resource consent was appealed by several bodies, notably including the New Zealand Salmon Anglers Association and Ngāi Tahu. These were the two entities that appealed strongly around this in 2016.
In 2019, the disputed application for resource consent was still in the mediation phase in the Environment Court when the then Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage, announced that a project was being developed in conjunction with partners to ensure the ecological health and biodiversity of the Rangitata River. Now, this is really important, because this says that there were processes in place that put at the heart, in terms of decision making, the environmental impacts of the scheme, and we know from the purpose statement of the legislation that we’re debating today, which is in Part 1 of this bill, that the environmental concerns really slipped down the hierarchy. We know from the purpose statement what the overarching concerns were and, when these fast-track projects which were included in the schedule are referred to the hearings panel, the hierarchy of considerations they’re going to have to take.
One of the things was that an agreement to withdraw the appeal was linked to a detailed monitoring plan for the river. I’m not going to go through every detail of this, but there still was a certain amount of angst around this project, particularly around the water conservation order and how that was being adhered to. A key environmental consideration has sat at the heart of this, yet this is a project that is now being included in this legislation, in this schedule to this legislation, under a purpose clause that takes the environment out of the hierarchy of considerations and puts economic development right at the top, when, clearly, what we’d seen over the last years, in an attempt to find a way to work our way through this, was actually finding a way that did bring the environment centrally into the decision making of whether or not this should be a project—[Time expired]
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close. [Interruption] I’ve started voting, Mr McAnulty. Sorry, were you calling before I—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I have started voting but I will take the point of order. I suspect I know what the member is going to say, but my judgment is that in the last few minutes, we’ve been talking heavily around the process, which relates to Part 2, and there’s a lot of work in Part 2 around the process. It’s one thing to talk about the projects; they can be used as examples in Part 2, to make the case of the points that the members are trying to raise around process, and I feel right now we’re doing that in Part 1 when it belongs in Part 2.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I appreciate that, Madam Chair, and thank you. I heard the guidance you provided to the committee earlier that it is your view or your preference that there not be contributions talking about process, and as long as there are calls that don’t touch on process, members can still refer to specific projects as has been established previously. My concern, though, is that you took one call and throughout the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ call—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just for the member’s benefit, I had actually taken one call, but I had been listening to the calls previous to that and I feel that the calls, including the one that I just took, are based around process. I’ve made a decision to take a closure motion. We’ve still got Part 2 to go, and we can still example the projects when we’re talking about the process. What I’m finding is that what we’re talking about now is the process.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. With respect, I haven’t actually made the point that I wanted to make, and that is that, very reluctantly, if it is indeed your intention to take a closure, then I move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on that decision on the basis that his ruling last night indicated that the debate on the schedule would be wide-ranging, and that was very clearly made.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, well, I would point the member to Speaker’s ruling 67/3, on page 67 of Speakers’ Rulings, which states that “It is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair’s judgment [on … closure]. Of course, if in fact the committee does not agree with the Chair’s decision … then it is always open to the committee to vote down the question,”. I’m going to make the decision now to take the vote, so the question is that debate on this question—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, I had started voting, and I’m going to continue voting.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Madam Chair, you referred to a Speaker’s ruling and it is only appropriate that we are able to respond to that before a decision is made, so respectfully I seek—
Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order, I feel the Opposition are trifling with the Chair. It is your decision, as you quite rightly pointed out, and they’re attempting to obfuscate you and not allow you to carry out your duty.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I’m actually going to start the vote now.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to replace clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 129 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 146 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 147 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 148 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 149 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s amendment to insert new clause 3A set out on Amendment Paper 130 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 150 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s amendments to clause 4A set out on Amendment Paper 141 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 4A set out on Amendment Paper 151 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 4A to insert new paragraphs (la) and (ma) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment inserting new clause 6AAA set out on Amendment Paper 152 is out order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment replacing clause 6 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to replace subclause (3) and insert new subclause (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 8 to include a reference to the Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2
Fast-track approvals process
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 14 to 33, “Fast-track approvals process”, and Schedules 3 and 4 to 13. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve no desire to dispute your ruling previously. However, we are in a situation, given the Speaker’s ruling last night and the unprecedented nature of it, that I think it’s reasonable to say that some clarity is required. My understanding is that Schedule 2 can still be debated in Part 2. Is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Reference to the projects in terms of process—Schedule 2 not in itself, but the projects can be referred to, to clarify what the members are asking around process.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you. That’s important, and that’s how I read it, but for the sake of everybody’s awareness I thought it was best that we set that out from the get-go. Members can still go through project by project, but it’s your expectation that the calls are focused on the process around those projects?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s my expectation that this is around process but the projects can be used for examples to clarify the questions. Is that clear? I’m not sure that it—am I making myself clear?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, it’s just not what I had expected, so I’m pleased I’ve asked the questions.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not ruling out people talking about the projects; all I’m saying is that Schedule 2 was in Part 1. This is about process. If people want to speak about their particular projects in relation to how the process is going to work, then that is fine.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Madam Chair, speaking to the point of order, I just want further clarification from you that we are then able to also, for example—because we are using examples from different projects—refer to the same clause within Part 2 in order to receive some enlightenment from the Minister around the process for those specific projects.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That would be really helpful if people did refer to the clauses, because then it makes it much clearer for the Minister in terms of the questions that the members are asking.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But we can refer to the same clause or the same subclause, depending on the project that we are using as an example?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as you’re using the clauses in Part 2 and the projects to, I guess, quantify what you’re asking.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sounds great—thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right, thank you.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave to give a five-minute call on Part 1 in relation to Winton Sunfield.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there agreement on—[Interruption] There’s disagreement? No, there is objection—there is objection.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Right, as we’re moving on to Part 2, I want to note at the outset that this includes many, many schedules that are very important in terms of process. Of course, Schedule 2 does link to Part 2 as well, as we’ve just been discussing. Whilst other members may want to talk more about the Schedule 2 projects and how they relate to this process—this process which involves a lot of “mays” and not very many “musts”. I’m going to talk quite a lot about the difference between “mays” and “musts” as we go through this because, fundamentally, there are not any of the requirements or protections for the environment or for community participation or for Treaty considerations in this bill, and the requirements in terms of the process.
I’m going to start right at the start, and I will try and move through; I cannot speak for what other people will do, but that is my plan. We have a number of Amendment Papers, some of which have been tabled early last month, so these should not come as a surprise to members at all.
Before I go to the first one, on clause 14, I would note that the Minister’s giant Amendment Paper 238 includes a new clause 14AAA, “Consultation requirements for referral application”, and also clause 14AAB, “Notice of request to grant right of access for proposed access arrangement”, and the short question on that is: if they have come from somewhere else in the bill and it’s just a move around, or if they are new, could that be pointed out to us? There aren’t the little numbers that sometimes there are in these documents with the comparison there is at clause 9, so why are they there? That’s the basic question.
Whilst the Minister responsible for RMA Reform considers that, if we move on to clause 14, there are a couple of amendments that Labour’s had on clause 14, and this is “Referral application”. This is not for the projects that are already included in the Schedule 2—those 149 projects—this is for other projects that might want to be referred. It’s an important process issue of how you go about being referred.
We have Amendment Paper 131, in the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s name, that’s after clause 14(3)—which is “The information to be included in the [referral] application is as follows”, and there’s a wide range of projects, of information that is required—to add at the end of that list, so it would have been (ix) and (x): “neighbours” and “relevant public interest groups”. I’m wondering if the Minister will consider these changes, because the list of groups to be considered there is very narrow. “Persons affected” includes: “relevant local authorities”, some “iwi authorities”, “Treaty settlement entities”, “customary rights groups”, “Ngāti Porou”, “Marine and Coastal Area”, “person with a registered interest in land that may need to be acquired under the Public Works Act”.
What is not included in that list is “neighbours”. We heard before, in a contribution from the Hon David Parker, some concerns from a chap, Hayden, whose surname escapes me, who has a wedding venue near a large, proposed goldmine. He is not an adjoining neighbour, and so I was concerned that he will not be able to participate. I mean, that’s slightly different because that process has already been referred, but it’s that type of situation where neighbours should be included, and relevant public interest groups.
We have a further amendment on this clause as well that I’ll quickly move to, and that is in the name of Glen Bennett, Amendment Paper 141, and that is to delete paragraphs (ea) and (ua). That is a statement of any activities involved in the project that are prohibited activities under the Resource Management Act. That is, of course, because we consider that prohibited activities should not be included in this bill. We’ve discussed that again, but, again, I advocate for a change in this.
So, very quickly wrapping up on the start to Part 2, what are those new clauses before 14 about, and will the Minister consider opening up the referral application information to neighbours and other interested parties? Thank you.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. My question is a continuation of what my colleague has just been talking about: new clause 14AAA in Part 2, on Amendment Paper 238. It’s not repetition, because she alluded to this clause but she did not delve specifically into the content, and it is around consultation.
I’m glad that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and his officials have ensured that the word “must” was included in this, because in many ways, if this legislation goes through, this is potentially the only place where consultation will take place before the lodging of a referral application. My concern around this is that for many people who have maybe been involved in local government or been involved in any kind of consenting, or who have been involved in iwi and hapū relations or in community engagement, with this sort of thing, you can always drive a digger through it. It talks here about this and says that they must consult with “relevant local authorities;”, “relevant iwi authorities, hapū, and Treaty settlement entities,” and then it goes on to include others, as well as the “relevant applicant groups with applications”, and so on and so forth.
Now, the concern I have is that it’s pretty vague on what consultation is, and I often speak to colleagues and friends of mine in Taranaki, including some of my iwi and hapū friends, who talk about the dreaded email that gets sent. It’s the email that says, “Oh, we’ve consulted because we actually emailed the local hapū. We sent the email and we told them, and we asked them to respond to us by 5 p.m. on Friday with their feedback.”, and often what I then get coming back to me from the other side is people saying, “They never replied to our email. We tried to send something through.” The challenge of “must consult” is the fact of capacity but also just the fact of just the sheer arrogance, I’d sometimes say, or the assumption that sending a random email to people who, often, they don’t even know and don’t even have the connection with is their version of consulting, and it’s not—it’s not. It has to be far more than that.
I really want to understand in terms of this consultation requirement how we can firm it up so that the engagement, the connection, and the consultation is actually something that is thorough, something that dives deep, and something that is meaningful with relationships. Now, they don’t need to be friends and they don’t need to be best mates, but the fact that that consultation can just be an email is actually, to me, not acceptable, because I have seen it so often in my own community and I’ve heard about it far too often in so many other communities around the fact that consultation is just a once-over-lightly tokenism. We need to consider as we move forward as a nation but also within our regions and our cities and within our councils and local authorities and other agencies what true consultation and engagement look like, and I’m concerned because of what comes after this in the process.
This piece here has the consultation requirement just for the actual application, so if they do that once-over-lightly, the one email that they might get a reply or might not get a reply to—and I’m not arguing that part of it, because I think it’s just a bit embarrassing sometimes. The fact is that this, potentially, would be the only check and balance in terms of going through the process. Do you know what? It may end up with the panel. It may end up with the panel, and it may make some choices in terms of this process to engage or to seek further information, but, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has said, there’s lots of “mays” versus “musts”, and that challenges us in terms of how we make sure that the process is good, that it is tight, and that communities feel heard. It’s not about slowing things down, but it’s actually about having genuine engagement, a genuine relationship, and a genuine understanding of the issues and the challenges but also the possibilities of projects. That could also be good.
To the Minister: how do we ensure that this consultation is fair and engaging, and we are prescriptive enough in terms of clause 14AAA in terms of the consultation requirements?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I thank the members for their questions. A question from Rachel Brooking: the Minister can identify other parties, including neighbours.
The question from the member who’s just resumed his seat, Glen Bennett, in regards to how do we understand whether the consultation has been adequate: there’s a requirement for the applicant to include a summary of consultation and how it has informed the project.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 in the fast-track approvals process. My questions do follow on alongside my colleague from Labour in terms of consultation and determination of what is consultation, but also links into clause 14(3)(ha), “Persons affected”, on page 24. What I’m seeing here in terms of a theme is there’s a list of Māori to engage with, but there’s specific wording—and the “may”, and specific wording that the applicant “considers”. Is it the intention of this Government to say that the applicant will determine who’s going to be the local Māori?
It’s pretty tricky, eh? While we’ve got a list of iwi authorities, those who have done a Treaty settlement, you might have a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement, you’re probably going back to the High Court again for marine and coastal area because the customary marine title (CMT) threshold is so high now—very few of us have got any of that. A lot do not have organised authorities or charitable trusts who represent their hapū groupings. Some organise themselves through marae as well. If the applicant is the one to consider who is the best Māori to engage with, I’m a bit worried about that, because that’s where you fall into the trick of tick-box exercise and favouring who is the best Māori of the time. I am cynical about that because I have experienced that myself in hapū and iwi land whereby you pick and choose who the relevant Māori is that you engage, but it should be a blanket approach. It should be all-inclusive, because we have layers of interest in this space. We have layers of whakapapa, and we have layers of connection.
Moving over to a couple of projects I’d like to speak to within my own tribal rohe, being the project from McCallum Bros for Bream Bay sand extraction—and we’ve heard about that a little bit earlier; that’s in the south of Whangārei—and also the Northport expansion, which was also listed here. I know that it’s been spoken to a lot by members of the coalition Government around how it’s a national significance project. Now, in terms of the process, I’m really wanting to understand the intention. This is an intention kōrero, because I think, from the amendments I’ve seen, there is a desire to try and improve this space. We have heard from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that there will be a Māori on the panel—there’s apparently going to be a Māori—and that impacted whenua Māori landowners also will get a say. That assumes that there is whenua Māori there.
Now, if I can speak specifically to south Whangārei—aka Ruakākā, Bream Bay—the tribes of that area only have tiny little land parcels; I would say less than 2 percent whenua Māori. For the adjacent whenua Māori, there’s very little at Bream Bay. We claim Poupouwhenua—Poupouwhenua is under claim. That’s of particular contention with the Northport expansion proposal. But, for the McCallum Bros over there on that side, whenua Māori will not get a say, because there is none on that side of town.
Further, with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act implications—and noting earlier in the legislation; and it’s only a brief mention—Part 1, clause 4A talks about if you do receive Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act customary marine title, you can decline or you can approve activity. Now, this goes hand in hand in terms of you giveth the opportunity to say no, but then you take it away with the repeal or the amendments being proposed in the current Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.
For the hapū, for the iwi of Bream Bay, learning I guess from what we’ve already experienced in the Pākiri sands issue—so, Pākiri sands, our whānau there, and I’d like to signal that I’d like to continue on with this line of kōrero with you, Mr Chair, to take a second call. Pākiri whānau, Ōmaha Marae, in April this year won in the Environment Court against McCallum Bros. McCallum Bros have now changed tack in coming north to Bream Bay for this purpose—for sand mining, of which they are going to take 150,000 cubic metres of sand per annum.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Take a call?
HŪHANA LYNDON: Āe. I just want to take a second call.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hūhana Lyndon.
HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you. McCallum Bros are there. I’m wanting to see what learnings we have in terms of what consultation looks like, and if these applicants who are coming into the process and are listed are going to have high thresholds in terms of what is consultation with the local Māori. Will it just be only those who have the tribal authority status, who have the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? Can marae be consulted? It seems to be pitched towards the applicant determining who is the Māori. That’s of grave concern as an uri of that district.
Similar with Northport, knowing that there’s some 12 hectares of reclamation proposed for the Northport expansion. Again, these are pan-tribal interests. They have just finished two hearing processes for inside the harbour and outside of the harbour for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, of which they’re probably going to have to go back to court. It’s a significant impact of which the tribes had already been to the Environment Court or had been before commissioners and are in mediation right now. It’s custom and practice. How do these panels assess—because you’re going to have a Māori, so I acknowledge that. You’re going to have a Māori, but how will the panels assess how pono, how tika the applicant is in their genuine engagement with the local hau kāinga.
I go to hau kāinga on this, because the hau kāinga are the people of the land—the people who have lived there for generations, who have seen the obliterations of pipi beds in Whangārei Harbour, and they may not be represented by a tribal authority. Ain’t nobody got any CMT rights in Whangārei? And there are no Treaty settlements on that side of town as well, in the south of Whangārei, so it’s a very narrow group of Māori that these applicants will be engaging with. It’s an important question because I think it opens up more questions around the 149 projects, but also how the Māori on the panel will operate and how the Māori is appointed to the panel. Do the Māoris of the rohe get a say on who the Māori is that considers their project? Kia ora.
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for her questions. Clause 14AAA obviously includes the list of people or organisations or iwi that are to be consulted. The Ministry for the Environment will check the completeness of the application at the referral stage, and the Environmental Protection Authority will check that parties required to be consulted have been consulted at that stage.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to follow on from clause 14AAA, and actually there are a whole lot of others. I’ll go into it, but if the Minister for Energy will just bear with me. There are a few things that concern us, and if we were looking for a project that should be removed from this, I’m more than available to help you locate that one. It does start with Trans-Tasman Resources, which should never ever have made the list, and I refer to that particular project on page 138.
Now, the reason—and there are a few things I’d like to highlight. If we were to go on to clause 14AAA and talk about consultation—there must be a consultation with hapū and iwi. This project specifically has had extreme consultation with hapū and iwi. In fact, one of those iwi which settled and was apologised to by the Government in 2002 has made it known since 2014 how it feels about this particular project. I want to be able to delve into the process and the concerns we have there.
On 30 September 2021, the Supreme Court highlighted two particular issues and its concerns with, one, the domestic law and how it applied to Te Tiriti, and the international law. If we were to look at affected iwi and hapū and what it is that clause 14AAA is intended to do, and the significance of the importance of tikanga Māori, the hapū opposed the marine discharge consent as is very clear and outlined in the exclusive economic zone, nicknamed the EEZ, or the Resource Management Act on water, if you prefer to call it that way. There was extreme concern with the way that the decision-making committee (DMC) at the time refused to decline the applicant.
They then in 2014 and 2016 consulted with the Government and it resulted in them taking the DMC’s decision to the High Court, which ruled in their favour. In short, Trans-Tasman Resources could not provide any predictive model for the environmental effects. In fact, it was so bad that Trans-Tasman Resources sought to redact all information from their application because they did not want to be consulted and neither transparent.
In 2016, they won this in the High Court and it was won on the absence of base-line evidence. As we progressed this hapū and iwi in their consultation process, we went through the High Court, to the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court. Four judges agreed on New Zealand’s obligations to Te Tiriti, to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti, and on their obligations to the international law.
If we can, effectively, go into the EEZ, the Treaty clause in section 12 said the courts will not easily read—in fact, sorry, I’ll just go back a bit. The judges’ decision stated, “the courts will not easily read statutory language as excluding consideration of Treaty principles if a statute is silent”. In fact, what it states is, rather, they must give a broad and generous construct.
I think what we have here, Minister, is a project that has made the cut, that had no right, no business, no support from any of those hapū and those iwi in those communities—business communities, hapū, and iwi—who invest largely in the whole region. Nowhere did they have any support at all.
If we go into the further regard on whether there was any doubt about the process—and I think of the hypocrisy of being able to see this particular case make it in here. We have a Government that has told its voters, including iwi and hapū, that they support a moratorium of deep seabed mining in international waters, so it’s really, really hard to understand why we now have a Government that is supporting seabed mining and supporting a particular project that, again, as I said, has lost in every court—every court that exists in Aotearoa—to prove without doubt that it could do this particular activity without detrimental effects to the environment.
We have a perfect storm: we have an economic crisis and we have a company that has had to retract its statement that it gave to The Australian—
Hon Member: Mr Chair?
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: If I could carry on please, Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Simeon Brown.
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Mr Chair, appreciate the opportunity to take a brief call. Much of what the member is discussing is in regards to whether or not a particular project should be on the list in Schedule 2 or not—that has already been determined as part of Part 1 of the bill. This part we’re dealing with here, and the consultation, is in relation to how our project is referred, and as I’ve answered very clearly, there’s a range of requirements upon parties as they put forward an application as to who they must discuss that with and consult.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. Kia ora, Mr Chair. I believe that, in terms of the previous person in the Chair, it was made very clear to us that we are within our rights to prosecute this section, which includes referring to what is in the schedule, because it was specifically around process—if we need to do that. I guess the point I will make, just to push it through, is this wasn’t something that was able to be discussed during the select committee process I was part of. This is our one and only chance to really challenge and work through this and dive deep into it. I just ask you to consider that, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Before we move on, I acknowledge the point of order, and my understanding is that Part 2 focuses on the process. In the sense that the projects that members are talking about are linked to the process and therefore to Part 2, then we’re able to make those interventions.
Before I move forward, though, members, I’d just like to draw your attention to a new tabled amendment, from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, to Schedule 2. This was lodged after the debate on Part 1 had concluded, so I’m ruling that members can debate that amendment during this debate on Part 2. I would warn members, though, that this does not reopen a broad debate on Schedule 2. This amendment corrects a small error; it’s in Schedule 2: item relating to Macraes phase 4 (MP4), page 129, which replaces the number 13,5000 with 13,500. There was an accidental zero there somewhere.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am still on Part 2 referring to referrals, so this is not relevant to the 149 projects. I will get there, though. Again, I encourage the Minister for Energy to comment on the changes in the Amendment Paper—to explain why they’re there—from those early clause 14s to where I am now, which is at clause 22B, “Criteria for assessing referral applications”. We, in my name this time, have some amendments on clause 22B, and the first is that at subclause (1)(a). It’s “(1) The criteria for accepting a referral application are that—(a) the project is an infrastructure or development project that would have significant regional or national benefits;” Of course, in line with the arguments I was making in Part 1 and that a number of people were, we would like the Minister to consider that that is changed to “public … project”.
Then some further amendments are to delete, at clause 22B(2)(a), subparagraph (vi), which is about whether “the Minister may consider—(a) whether the project—… (vi) will support development of natural resources, including minerals and petroleum:”. This does not fit with any of what the Prime Minister has been saying over and over again at question time about how this bill is somehow going to help meet climate change objectives. Supporting the development of minerals and petroleum, particularly coal and petroleum, will not help us achieve our climate ambitions. I would like his opinion on deleting that. He may even say, “Well, we think in terms of climate change that there are some minerals”—I note the Minister’s interest in this—“that are going to be useful to make renewable energy.” It may be that those minerals are included, but that coal, which does not help, to my knowledge, make wind turbines or electric cars or batteries or anything, is excluded. I would like the Minister’s thoughts on that deletion or change to subparagraph (vi).
Then the third suggestion in this Amendment Paper, which is Amendment Paper 132—apologies if I didn’t say that originally—is that the Minister also considers supporting green infrastructure.
We have also heard from the Prime Minister—in question time, often—that this bill is somehow going to support the environment, despite its focus on minerals and petroleum. One way—a good way, a good show of good faith—would be to make conclusions like this: that in fact, when referral applications are assessed, if it is going to be supporting green infrastructure—or there could be many other terms for this; nature-based solutions is another name for it—this would be good faith demonstration of how this bill can encourage things that are positive for the environment. That is, a nature-based solution might be the growing of Macrocystis and native seaweed on our coastlines to stop erosion. That would be an example of a nature-based solution or green infrastructure. It might be having wetlands to slow down stormwater flow—those sorts of things.
It seems to me a very easy amendment for the Government to make, one that would demonstrate some adherence to the rhetoric that we’ve heard over and over again from the Prime Minister, that somehow this bill is going to be good for the environment.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair—first time rising in Part 2 of this debate, and I want to talk specifically about the process for referring an application in clause 14. My colleague Scott Willis has an Amendment Paper, 154, which I hope the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the Government will consider, which is adding, in clause 14(3), after paragraph (a), “(aa) [a requirement for] an outline of the regional or national benefits of the project, including—(i) what those benefits are; … (ii) who will be the recipient of those benefits; and (iii) what the duration of those benefits will be:”.
I’d like to point out that, if we go to clause 22B, “Criteria for assessing [a] referral application”, the very first criteria that is noted is “the project is an infrastructure or development project that would have significant regional or national benefits;”—so that’s clause 22B(1)(a). Then, if you go down to subclause (2)(iv), it “will deliver significant economic benefits:”. I guess the question is: these are the criteria for assessing the referral application; however, if we go earlier in the process, the details that are needed to assess those criteria aren’t required or specified in the referral application under clause 14. There’s a whole lot of information that is required both in the bill as amended from the Environment Committee and the Minister’s substantive amendment, which was tabled yesterday, controversially, but there’s a whole lot of information that’s meant to be included in the referral application. We can look at that under clause 14(3), “description of the project and the activities [involved]:”. There is “an explanation of how the project meets the criteria”, but I think that is quite vague.
I mean, the whole premise of this entire bill apparently rests upon the idea that we should be able to do projects faster on the basis that those projects will deliver benefits—regional benefits, national benefits, economic benefits. That has been the mantra of the Government. However, if I can refer to an example in Schedule 2, which was different options for a new Mount Victoria Tunnel. In Schedule 2, there’s different options for the Mount Victoria Tunnel. One of those that is in the Amendment Paper from the Minister has already been ruled out by the Government, but they did spend over a million dollars investigating a long tunnel—still referred to—so it could still potentially go on the fast track, but the Government says they won’t do that.
Then we had a story released under the Official Information Act to Oli Lewis and BusinessDesk—I think the Minister and Government members should be very interested in this—about the economic assessment of the long tunnel, because the long tunnel was assessed as having a benefit-to-cost ratio of around 0.2 to maybe 0.6 if you try to include wider economic benefits, which, to be honest, don’t really exist when it comes to road projects in cities; there’s no empirical evidence for those economic benefits. It goes up 0.1; so the total range, the highest benefit we could get, was still under 1. What that means, if you do cost-benefit analysis, is that the costs of the project outweigh the benefit, therefore there are no net benefits—regionally, nationally, there’s no economic benefits from that project. That’s the economic assessment that the Government spent a million dollars getting about the long tunnel.
If we go back to the other alternative, the parallel Mount Victoria Tunnel, which is also in Schedule 2, the most recent assessment of economic benefits for that project was similar: it was 0.2. That means the project costs five times more than the economic benefits that are purported from the project.
I think it is vitally important that this legislation—and, Mr Chair, I’m going to ask for a second call to continue on this, because we’ve got an Amendment Paper here that would just make it very, very clear that the applicants, when they are proposing a project that they want to be referred for fast track, have specific outlines of regional, national benefits of the project, what the benefits are, and who they accrue to. That’s Amendment Paper 154, and I can’t see why the Minister or the Government wouldn’t want to include something like this, because if you’re going to assess a project—whether it should be fast tracked—then you need to have that information about what the benefits are, who they accrue to.
If we take the example of the Mount Victoria Tunnel, which is in Schedule 2, and we just look at both the options that are listed in Schedule 2, the benefit-cost ratios that are on the record show that these projects are a net loss to the country. They do not generate economic benefits. They do not generate national or regional benefits. There’s a whole host of evidence from around the world that shows that when you add a car lane in the middle of the city, it does not actually reduce congestion. It does not reduce transport costs. Within a very short period of time, the road fills up with cars and then you have more pollution, you have more congestion, you’ve got the damage to the environment and the climate of all the materials that you used, that 10 years of disruption to build the project, there’s carbon emissions involved in building these projects.
The biggest tragedy from my point of view is that the Government is doing this on the basis that it’s going to be good for the economy and have these great benefits when the objective information says it does not—it does not. It’s just an article of absolute religious faith, which I know—you know, the Minister in the chair there obviously believes that God has told him that these roads are going to be good for the economy and are the right thing to do. But look at the evidence; look at the numbers. The Government is talking about spending billions and billions of dollars on projects that are a net loss to the country for no good outcome.
This whole fast track, it’s really important: if we’re going to talk about fast-tracking and using this process to bypass a normal process—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. If we could link that back to the process, that would help the committee.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. We’ve got the criteria for assessing a referral application. There’s no requirement for the information to be provided, so how will the Minister for Infrastructure be able to assess the referral application on the basis of regional or national benefits or economic benefits if that information has not been provided with the application? Of course, like, in the case of this Government and its priorities, it’s already said it’s going to do these projects, supposedly on the basis of benefits, when the benefits actually are not there—there are no benefits. Why would we trade off the environment to do a project on the basis of economic benefit when, objectively, there is no economic benefit?
I think that when previously projects have gone to a board of inquiry process—for example, the Basin Bridge project went to the board of inquiry that was appointed by the National Government; a different process that was trying to streamline nationally significant projects—that project was declined on the basis of the evidence that it was going to create significant harm and there was not the evidence of benefit. I think we’re in a difficult situation because our entire environmental legislation and this Fast-track Approvals Bill is set up to kind of assess what the environmental impacts are going to be, and judges who are making decisions on cases that may have gone to the Environment Court—been appealed when the consent’s been granted—and people are making the case that there’s going to be all this environmental damage but we’re told, “Oh, well, but there’ll be economic benefits, so it’s justified.” But, actually, where in that process do we have the experts weighing up whether the evidence around the economics is actually there? Often, they say that’s out of scope.
I just think this Amendment Paper 154 is one small step towards ensuring that there is information about the benefits—who receives the benefits, what the duration of the benefits are—which would be important for being able to assess an application. Of course, there’s many more amendments that my colleagues have that would make this process more robust, but let’s just be really honest here that this Government doesn’t actually, whatever they say, it doesn’t appear—well, it’s definitely clear they don’t care about the environment, they don’t care about the climate, but it appears they don’t actually care about economic benefit or cost-effectiveness either, because they’re pushing forward a bunch of destructive projects that have terrible benefit-cost ratios, the worst benefit-cost ratios we’ve ever seen in this country, at a cost of billions of dollars while they sever the rail connection with the South Island, while they deny the South Island from having a hospital. Yet they’re going to spend billions of dollars on a tunnel in Wellington that delivers negative economic benefits. It’s outrageous.
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call and respond to those questions. Clause 14(3)(a) requires those putting forward a project for referral to explain how the project meets the criteria in clause 22B, and the detail would be in the standard application. That would include whether that’s for a roading project or whether it’s for car parks outside a Green Party office, I imagine.
In terms of other questions that have been raised in terms of minerals and petroleum, this Government’s been very clear in our view around the importance of minerals and petroleum. We’ve seen the impact this year with a significant downgrade in our reserves of natural gas and the impact that’s had on the industrial base of New Zealand and the incredibly high electricity prices. Even the Climate Change Commission has, in their demonstration pathway, outlined the need for natural gas out beyond 2050. We’re very clear in the need for minerals and petroleum as part of the transition going forward.
In terms of the issue of seabed mining, and the question was raised around our obligations, international obligations, or our position—that is in regards to seabed mining in the high seas. What happens within New Zealand’s economic zone is different, and obviously, there’s a process here in which those applications have to go through, and that is what we’re discussing here: the referral process, the criteria, and how those consultations have to be undertaken.
In terms of the question around consulting with Māori, it’s very clear around the criteria and how an applicant must prove that they’ve done that. At the end of the day, the Environmental Protection Authority and the Ministry for the Environment will undertake checks to ensure that the parties required to be consulted have been consulted.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some small comments still on the referral process and I’m still referring in large part to this Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 238, that was tabled yesterday. At clause 22D, which is “Minister may determine that linear infrastructure on certain identified Māori land is not ineligible activity”, there’s a new subclause (4) at the end, and there’s some other changes, that says—actually, I think I would have just answered my question on that because something has been struck out but then it has been replaced.
That leads to the question: at subclause (4), it did say, “In this section,—electricity lines means [blah, blah, blah]”, and then, “land transport infrastructure means [things]”, and, now, it’s been replaced with new subclause (4), which just refers to “land transport infrastructure”, and I’m wondering why, then, that deletion of “electricity lines” at subclause (4) has happened. This is, of course, the difficulty when you get large amendments on the day that you are discussing something in committee of the whole House.
Then there’s a lot more information about electricity lines at clause 22DA and it’s that “Minister may determine that electricity infrastructure on certain Schedule 3A land or in national reserve is not ineligible activity”. I won’t go through it all, but I the question is: is the result of these changes to enable more electricity infrastructure rather than land transport infrastructure on conservation land or reserve land? That’s the question with those changes. Again, there are more changes to clause 23AAA, and the Minister for Energy might want to explain why they are in there—and in clause 24.
If I move through, though, now, to Subpart 2A, this is the “Steps before lodging substantive application”. This includes steps for the listed projects, so, of course, it is relevant to everything that is in Schedule 2. There’s a lot of changes, again, in the Amendment Paper, and I won’t go through all of them, but it would be useful if the Minister could explain why all these changes were necessary and if any of them are substantive or if they’re moving things around, and for clarification only.
Something that is quite new and different is at clause 24AF, and that is that the “Minister may determine that project is priority”. It seems to be very new that there is this priority process now, and my question on that is: why is it required? I assume it is because there are 149 projects on that list and there has been no work done on that list. To determine when these different issues are in conflict with each other would be one point that you might want to prioritise for. Another point would be that some of them may be still years away from being processed. I’d like the Minister to confirm if that’s an issue or not. This is a big dream for somebody to have their project done, but they want to go through the Fast-track Approvals Bill and get all the consents, all the permissions, in place before they go ahead and build the thing. Then, of course, if that is correct, the question is: then why do you need a fast-track process for that? That’s my question on clause 24AF.
Then, if we keep moving forward to clause 24C—this is a very important one that I would like to reflect on briefly—and that is “Authorised person may lodge substantive application for approvals”. There are a number of changes in this Amendment Paper, and it looks like the intent might be that it’s an addition to what can be approved in this Amendment Paper from what was reported back from the select committee. I’m particularly interested if the Minister can confirm whether or not clause 24C expands the range of things that can be considered in the amendment version of the bill, as compared with the select committee version of the bill.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to be really specific about my contribution and I want to speak to proposed Amendment Paper 153. This is about Part 2, clause 14. Currently clause 14(2) has that “The referral application must—specify all of the proposed approvals, but need only provide a general level of detail about each proposed approval, sufficient to inform the Minister’s decision on the referral application;”. Now, our proposal is actually to replace “but need only provide a general” level of detail with “and need to provide a specific” level of detail. That then goes on to refer to the level of detail that would inform the Minister for Infrastructure’s decision.
Now, why this is so important is because—again, I mean the Government themselves; the whole premise of this bill is that it’s purported to be projects of such a scale that they are considered to be regionally or nationally significant. What’s really concerning about this is some of these projects—and I’ll just mention one that I’ve personally visited the project proposed site of, and that’s the Bendigo mine or, in the actual schedule, it’s referred to as Matakanui Gold Limited mine. This mine is of an immense proportion. If people are aware of Central Otago, it extends all the way from Bendigo and that Bendigo range to Ophir, and it’s of a massive scale.
What I’m really concerned about and what I’d like the Minister for Energy to comment on: why be so high level about the level of detail required for these Ministers to actually make informed decisions at this point; rather than having a more specific, comprehensive level of detail in terms of it being a far more robust decision-making process? It will mean fewer mistakes and not only can things be avoided, but it would actually mean that the Minister themselves actually have all the information at hand.
We just saw, for example, the Government introduced this last-minute amendment that had a quite significant difference in one of the scale sizes of one of the mines. Now, this is exactly what we want to get rid of. We want these applicants, if they are applying, to be extremely specific and comprehensive in the applications so that we can actually understand, and the Minister can understand, in the really important decision about whether to refer those projects on to the expert panel and through the fast-track process, that they actually have that information to hand.
Now, presumably—but I’m not sure and I’m interested in the Minister informing me of this—the Minister can call on more information from the projects, but if they were just up front about the level of detail necessary to allow the Minister to actually make a very considered decision about the referral application, then there wouldn’t need to be this sort of back and forth that occurs and the Minister would be able to have the information to hand to actually make that decision comprehensively.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Kāre e roa taku tū engari kei te tū au ki te waha i ngā whakaaro a ngā hapū o Tokomaru Bay.
[Thank you, Mr Chair. My speech won’t be a long one, but I stand to give voice to the thoughts of the hapū of Tokomaru Bay.]
Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have a very specific, process-oriented question on behalf of Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare and Te Ao Tawarirangi relating to the Gisborne District Council Tokomaru Bay legacy landfill contaminated land remediation project, not in Gisborne but up the coast—Tairāwhiti.
Anyone who lives in Aotearoa will be aware of the existential threat recent weather events had in Tokomaru Bay, so therefore any remediation of land is obviously welcome in the rohe. The hapū collective of Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare and Te Ao Tawarirangi have established an excellent relationship—to use their words—with council. In terms of the process moving forward, can the Minister provide reassurance or, even better, guarantees that any pre-existing arrangements between Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare, Te Ao Tawarirangi, and the Tairāwhiti Gisborne District Council will be respected? And, in terms of the process moving forward, will the Minister guarantee that Te Whānau-a-Ruataupare and Te Ao Tawarirangi will be involved in that project to completion?
Also with regard to process, just looking at the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, I know that project is already under way, but in considering that it has been proposed as toll—
Hon Simeon Brown: We don’t muck around.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Ha, ha!
Hon Simeon Brown: We just get on with it.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Well, sometimes that’s a shame, because sometimes when you don’t muck around and you just get on with it, people who are impacted don’t get the full consultation they deserve.
Speaking of impacts around that project, given that it’s already gone and considering people impacted, such as, specifically, Piringa Hapū, for example, in Ōmāhu—moving forward, what processes will be put in place to address the concerns they have about the increased traffic flow that’s going to go through there? Ōmāhu was also devastated by Cyclone Gabrielle, but they have gone through a process of restoring their marae and restoring and repopulating their community, and so now they’re concerned that they’re going to see an increase of traffic flow through their back roads and they are concerned about the safety of their tamariki and their community in general. They’ve recently opened their school. Piringa Hapū: were they consulted in terms of process anyway?
Moving forward—because it already is happening—what will the process be to address the concerns of hapū such as Piringa Hapū and any other communities in surrounding areas that might be impacted while that work is going on and once the toll is put in place, because we know people are struggling? People may opt to take back roads instead of paying a toll daily to get to where they need to get.
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to see the Opposition recognising the progress of roading already under way under this Government, and it’s fantastic to see. I was down in the Hawke’s Bay just recently, just seeing the progress on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, and the road construction’s already under way. We don’t muck around, we get things done, and how much more we’re going to be able to get things done with fast track—that’s what it’s all about. Of course, the last Government was very good at writing endless business cases, which they didn’t even complete—the business cases, I mean—that’s how good they were: they didn’t even complete the business cases. How appalling.
Anyway, there are a number of very good questions here from members in terms of the issues that have been raised. In terms of the referral application and the level of detail, the referral application is not intended to require a level of detail required at the substandard application; it is meant to be sufficient to inform the Minister for Infrastructure of the scope and eligibility, consultation, and affected persons, to give the Minister the ability to then make a decision whether to refer.
In terms of the electricity lines, there is a prioritisation here, due to the need to, obviously, deliver that infrastructure in New Zealand, which is critical to the electrification opportunities and also the doubling of electricity generation that’s required to meet our net zero 2050 targets. That’s why the changes in the bill are being proposed.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister for Energy is, firstly, concerned with clause 14AAA—sounds like a battery, but it’s not. It’s the consultation requirement—what it says, what it doesn’t. For example, will both Kahungunu Iwi Inc. and haukāinga be included in consultation about the “zombie project” formerly known as the Ruataniwha Dam? Plans for that billion-dollar dam were scrapped nearly seven years ago when the Supreme Court said the land swap was unlawful, and rebranding the project doesn’t change its fundamentals. I refer to the Tukituki Water Security project in Schedule 2.
I also want to ask about further consultation and the record of that consultation. Will an applicant who consulted with Forest & Bird be expected to provide the results of that consultation, or will they never be consulted ever again on any of these projects? I look forward to the Minister surprising me. Whether a project’s owned by a council organisation or a community trust, the effects are the same. This project in central Hawke’s Bay would see a dam built on the Makaroro River and the flooding of 22 hectares of conservation land. How would Fish & Game be able to contribute their knowledge of the trout fisheries there? How would the local health professionals be able to note that with the current water quality in the Ruataniwha aquifer amongst the worst in the country—we’ve got Hawke’s Bay cases of both bladder and colorectal cancer higher than the national average; so are premature births and infant mortality. There is no way, unless I am convinced otherwise, that the fast track bill is capable of considering these wider issues that a project may invoke.
Of course, it’s not just human beings. Which iwi is going to be consulted about the effect on native species? I’d like to quote that, for this particular project, freshwater advocate Tom Kay notes that there will be fernbirds, mātātā; long-tailed bats, pekapeka; and the New Zealand falcon, kārearea with themselves or their habitats wiped out. Please, address the consultation that could possibly shed light on these important issues.
Finally, I’d like to also say: what about Future Farms Aotearoa? We’re talking about dramatic climate change here, increased floods and droughts in the east of the country. I’m not suggesting we do nothing. Would Future Farms Aotearoa be able to contribute some alternative information talking about how we can improve the soil to improve its water retention, rather than see the topsoil lost? I’d like to refer to our wonderful Green leader Jeanette Fitzsimons who talked about our greatest export being topsoil. Whether it’s taken off by floods or it’s taken off by wind, where is the intelligent input to these projects that says we can make them better or there are alternatives? I look forward to hearing your answers.
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): In relation to some of the issues raised by the member, there are a range of conservation entities which will be asked to provide comment and that is in Schedule 5, clause 4 of the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended and will resume after oral questions.
Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Debate interrupted.
House resumed.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Two weeks ago, the Reserve Bank made a 50 basis-point reduction in the official cash rate (OCR). The bank has now reduced the OCR in three consecutive meetings by a total of 125 basis points. It’s forecast OCR track indicates another reduction at the next meeting in February and further falls in 2025. Reductions in the OCR, of course, affect mortgage and business lending rates, which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses.
Nancy Lu: How have OCR reductions affected businesses?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Every business is unique, but a good aggregate picture is shown in the monthly ANZ Business Outlook survey. Business confidence is high. Firms’ expectations of their own future activity is high; their experienced activity, compared to a year ago, is negative but steadily improving, suggesting that interest rate reductions are changing actual behaviour, not just expectations. As ANZ itself points out, the economy is clearly still weak, but things are starting to turn.
Nancy Lu: How have OCR reductions affected households?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: OCR reductions will directly impact households through lower mortgage rates. For someone with a $500,000 mortgage, the difference between an 8 percent mortgage and a 7 percent mortgage is around $140 a fortnight, depending on the term. And that comes, of course, on top of tax relief, which took effect on 31 July this year, and the FamilyBoost childcare payments that many households are now receiving. While each family has its own set of circumstances, many will be feeling better off than they were a year ago.
Nancy Lu: How is consumer confidence tracking?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: ANZ - Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence jumped nine points in November, and both the current and future conditions indexes lifted markedly. ANZ’s conclusion is that “Both households and businesses are optimistic that falling inflation and interest rates will deliver better times ahead.” And I’d also add, for the benefit of many of the National Party and other coalition members, that a forecast milk price of $10 a kilo is making rural communities across New Zealand a lot happier about life and about their prospects for next year.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. 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 unleash growth and investment so that we can rebuild the New Zealand economy. Last night, the next stage in the passage of the Fast-track Approvals Bill kicked off—critical legislation designed to unshackle investment in infrastructure, renewable energy, housing, and a raft of industries that are hungry to grow. We are serious about growth and infrastructure on this side of the House, and fast track is a big part of delivering that vision, and it’s good to see that we’re not alone. It was fantastic to see Labour MP Rachel Boyack give an impassioned speech this morning on one of those projects on the fast-track list: the Hope Bypass. As I’ve said many times before: like many of the fellow Labour MPs, if he’s serious about the future, don’t play politics; support fast track.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why, over a year after cancelling, via text message, the $551 million order for two new Interislander ferries, has the Government still not decided what’s going to replace them?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud that today we announced an incredibly fantastic, incredible plan to actually ensure we have a resilient, safe, and reliable crossing on the Cook Strait, at a reasonable cost. I’m very proud of the plan that we’ve got. We’ve got a great plan: two rail-compatible ferries, an opportunity to improve it even further between now and March, and, importantly, the new ferries will be operational, on time, on the 2029. And isn’t it fantastic to have a new Minister for Rail who’s got the expertise—it’s not his first rodeo.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how—
SPEAKER: Before the Rt Hon Mr Hipkins asks his questions, I just ask those people down in that sort of centre part of the House there who appear to have better answers than the Prime Minister to perhaps put them in writing and table them in the House rather than just trying to shout them out when no one’s listening.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How much will the new Interislander ferries cost, and why wouldn’t Nicola Willis share that with the public, given David Seymour seems happy to announce it via Twitter?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say is it’s going to cost a lot less than the $3.2 billion heading to $4 billion. And maybe, for the member’s benefit, we could just take him through a bit of the history, because in November 2018, the cost was originally $775 million; one year later, 19 November, it doubled to $1.4 billion; February 2023, it was up at $2.6 billion; and by the time we got to November last year, it was actually $3 billion; and then, in July last year, they were told it’s actually closing approximately $4 billion. So what I can reassure that member is that you won’t see the Labour playbook that we’ve seen on ferries and Dunedin and Kāinga Ora; we’re actually going to do it a lot cheaper than that.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government’s commitment to delivering the new ferries for less than the estimated cost of the iReX project include costs transferred to other parties such as the port companies, ratepayers, and users?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member: do not worry, we have a fantastic Minister for Rail; he will deliver it on time, in full, under budget.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: In that case, what does it say about his confidence in Nicola Willis that he’s transferred responsibility for rail and the Interislander to Winston Peters, who set up the iReX project that Nicola Willis cancelled, creating this mess in the first place?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely false. The first thing is that the new Minister for Rail signed up to a project at $775 million, not close to $4 billion, because when Labour people get in charge, they don’t run the money well and they let it blow out. And I’d just say we have the best Minister of Finance this country has seen for a very long time.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I thank the Prime Minister for the chance of putting the record straight. Is it not a fact that what we’re dealing with is a decision in May 2020, it was for the Crown to allocate $400.1 million to KiwiRail to fund the new two ferries project when I was the last Minister, and those are the facts that he cannot deny?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m just very excited to have that member as our new Minister for Rail. I know his leadership, his experience, and his expertise on this subject will be well appreciated.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s so confident that the new Interislander ferries are going to be such better value for money, why can’t he tell New Zealanders, one year on, how much they’re going to cost, who’s going to build them, when they’re going to arrive, whether they’re going to be able to have trains on them, and what the costs for other users are going to be?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That member’s question just illustrates the economic illiteracy from the other side. Because if you knew anything about forming contracts and getting capital approved, you don’t reveal—for commercial sensitivity reasons—the actual budget. That’s quite normal commercial practice. But I appreciate nobody on the front bench has actually run stuff, understands how it works. But I just say to you, I’m very confident we’re going to get a great project and a great result.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: One year after cancelling the order for the previous Interislander ferries, will he now tell the New Zealand public how much the decision to cancel the ferries has cost?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, our budgets are commercially sensitive—for the reasons I’ve just tried to outline to that member. But what I find quite outrageous is the Leader of the Opposition is the arsonist who lights the fire and then criticises the fire brigade for trying to put it out.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that one of his Ministers—Minister Seymour—said on the bridge today that these ferries will not be rail-enabled?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: These are ferries that will be rail compatible and they will be delivered at a much cheaper price than the $4 billion that it was heading to.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this, but I don’t believe I actually said that. Therefore, the member is potentially misleading the House, although I suspect unknowingly.
SPEAKER: For whatever reason, I just couldn’t hear what you just said, sorry.
Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I hesitate to raise this, but I don’t believe I actually said that and, therefore, the member is, perhaps unwittingly, misleading the House.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m not quite sure how we progress here. Chlöe Swarbrick, have you in any way misrepresented the statement by David Seymour?
Chlöe Swarbrick: Not that I am aware of, Mr Speaker. I’m more than happy to go away and to check the facts there, but this information has come directly from the tiles.
SPEAKER: That would probably be a good idea and a fair thing.
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to deliver on net zero 2050. Whatever we hear about climate change from the other side, and it’s often bad news, we’re not pushing up prices higher by turning off natural gas.
Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s just not true.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not shutting down industries and driving farmers off the land. We’re not making life harder by forcing Kiwis out of their cars. Here’s the good news: on our plan, we repeal the broken oil and gas ban, we keep agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme, and we still hit net carbon zero six years earlier, in 2044. There’s a lot more to do, but our emissions reduction plan (ERP) 2 plan is a good one. It delivers emissions budget (EB) 1 and 2, and we’re on the right track.
SPEAKER: Can I just tell Government members that their interjections while a Minister from their own side is trying to give an answer are most unhelpful and add nothing to the value of the Minister’s answer.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who’s just resumed her seat has previously been admonished by the House for accusing the same member, the Prime Minister, of lying or misleading the House. She’s just been shouting that what the Prime Minister’s saying is “just not true”, which would appear to be doing exactly the same thing. She’s either a very slow learner or doesn’t respect the rules of the House.
SPEAKER: The response to that has to be that it is inappropriate to allege that someone in here is deliberately tampering with the truth, and so I’d ask the member to resist making those sorts of comments across the House.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government’s final emissions reduction plan published today somehow does even a worse job for emissions reduction than his draft version?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to that member is we are committed to delivering on net zero 2050. ERP 2, which we released today, confirms that we are in good shape on EB 1. Emissions budget 2, we’re in good shape. We’ve got more work to do on emissions budget 3, but ever since the draft plan was announced and where we got to today, we’ve actually halved the deficit or the progress that we need to make in that space. That doesn’t kick in till 2031 to 2035. We’ve got some time to sort that out.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is his Government’s emissions reduction plan actively taking us off track to meet emissions budget 3?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. It’s delivering EB 1 and EB 2, which is the pathway that gets us to net zero 2050. Equally, it’s encouraging to see that we may be able to reach that goal much quicker, in 2044, six years earlier.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government’s policy decisions to reverse the oil and gas ban, which he just mentioned; cancel the Clean Car Discount; and encourage consenting of new coal mines in its fast-track process will increase emissions by, at a minimum, an extra 81 million tonnes, and will he take responsibility for the long-term impacts of those emissions on behalf of everyone in Aotearoa?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: ERP 2 delivers on EB 2. That’s the pathway by which we hit net zero 2050. I’d just say to that member, we don’t believe in importing Indonesian coal and not having domestic gas as we make that transition. I’d encourage the Green Party to support the end of the oil and gas ban, support us on fast track, and support us on our gene tech legislation as well.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is there any Government policy, statement, or action that would prevent non-executive members of Parliament from the Government side from supporting the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen the nature of the bill that I understand that member has just announced in the time we were coming into the House. I’m happy to look at it, but what I’d just say to you is that our position has been that those settlements are illegal under international law. The best way forward, as you know, is a two-State solution, and we’ve been taking sanctions against extremist settlers.
Chlöe Swarbrick: So the Prime Minister can confirm that his Government MPs, as a result of no policy, statement, or action currently existing to the opposite—
SPEAKER: Reword that question. You can’t start by telling the Prime Minister what he’s going to say.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister then confirm that his Government MPs are therefore free to vote with their conscience on the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to explain this, but as I understand it, the member has just proposed a bill. We haven’t seen the bill, so—
Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s in your inbox.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s in my inbox from an hour ago. No disrespect; it’s big for you, but there’s a bit more going on as we run the country, so we will get to the bill. I’ll have a good look at the bill, but in fairness, I haven’t seen it.
SPEAKER: I might also point out—[Interruption] That’s enough. I might also point out that a question like that is in the nature of a question to a leader of a party, which is not a position that enables questions to be answered in this House.
Question No. 4—Rail
4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Rail: Does he agree with the statement of the Minister of Finance that “the Government’s alternative ferry solution for the Cook Strait will cost less than the iRex project”; if so, how much will the total Crown contribution be, compared to the $2.2 billion Crown contribution that was planned for project iRex?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Yes, I agree with the Minister of Finance. But in answer to the second part of her question, the member asserts that the Crown’s contribution would have been $2.2 billion for Project iReX, but that seriously understates what had been the case, and Treasury, under the Official Information Act that this information was made available to that member, said it could go past $4 billion.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is he confident that the total Crown contribution will be less than the $2.2 billion agreed under the previous Government for Project iReX?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is most assuredly, or, as Little River Band sang, “Hang on, help is on its way.”
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will he keep the option of rail-enabled ferries open, even though the ferries may be smaller?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that all aspects going forward, having picked up this mess that we inherited, are going to be looked at. We’ll look at every option we possibly can.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Don’t be so harsh on Nicola!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon—say again?
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Don’t be so harsh on Nicola!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no, no, the poor Minister of Finance was trying to deal with an absolute blowout of people who toss money around like an eight-armed octopus, with no idea what they’re doing with it.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: What are the estimated costs of the minimal viable option for the wharves used by KiwiRail in Picton, given they reach their estimated useful life in 2029?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answer to that member’s question is that in every aspect we will be frugal and sensible and wise about public expenditure. We’ll be as careful about spending the taxpayer’s money as if we are spending our own money, and that’s why you can be assured that out there in the industry, they’re cheering from the rafters at the change.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is the estimated cost of an extra 55,000 container move-on, move-off wagons in Wellington and Picton, per year, over the lifetime of the ferries.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the first aspect of any business negotiation is not to tell the other party what you want. The very advice being given over there shows a certain innocence—no commercial skills, don’t know how to close a deal, don’t know how to start the deal, and, first of all, you’re spending taxpayers’ money while you learn on the job. We’re not going to do that, are we?
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can he guarantee that the operations currently being undertaken by KiwiRail will not be privatised?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me just say that there have been no discussions about that whatsoever on this side of the House.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can you guarantee?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, one more time, slowly: there have been no discussions whatsoever, so what do you mean any guarantees?
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can you guarantee?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: there have been no discussions at all, so why would we be required to give a guarantee? Unless, of course, you’ve come to this House with so little experience about the tactics and strategies of being a good Opposition member.
SPEAKER: Just keep the answers away from the interjections—they’re not of great value.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can he assure the New Zealand public that he will do a better job than the Minister of Finance, who, in a year, has only delivered an announcement?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Minister of Finance inherited a disaster. We had hardly come into Government, and there was Treasury saying, “Look, this could blow out. It’s already got to $2.8 billion and it could possibly blow out to $4 billion.” That’s all in the Treasury advice that they had, and they should have shared it with the public as they were coming into the 2023 campaign. Were they transparent? No, they never told the public a darn thing about it, and we picked up this absolute mess. So I’m not blaming the previous Minister at all; I’m just saying, though, that we’ve got a chance to, again, save rail.
Question No. 5—RMA Reform
5. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Why is the Government progressing the Fast-track Approvals Bill?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hold on. Wait. Wait. Surely the barracking could at least wait until the Minister says something. I would suggest that it’s held off for the entire duration of this question.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, he needs to hurry up.
SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He needs to hurry up. We haven’t got all day.
SPEAKER: I don’t think that it would be a good idea for MPs to have a time clock put on them. It would be very embarrassing for some. The Hon Chris Bishop—in your own time.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In answer to the question: because we are a Government focused relentlessly on economic growth. For too long, Governments have accepted our slow-growth status quo, cemented in the ways of the past, unwilling to make the critical trade-offs between the things we need for growth and the impacts those things inevitably have. We are not satisfied with slow, anaemic growth. That is why we are progressing the Fast-track Approvals Bill to help rebuild this economy.
Tim van de Molen: What benefits does he expect New Zealanders to see as a result of this bill?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there are enormous public benefits to New Zealanders from these regionally and nationally significant projects. The projects listed in the bill, in the schedule agreed in the committee of the whole House earlier this morning, enable 55,000 houses; 143,000 tonnes of aquaculture and farming projects; 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport; 3 gigawatts of additional renewable energy generation; and a significant boost to our resources sector. These projects will help rebuild and grow our economy after years of mismanagement.
Tim van de Molen: What benefit will those 55,000 homes have?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, this Government has inherited a housing crisis, which has been driven by unnecessary planning barriers in place of new housing developments. Report after report has said that our planning system is at the heart of our housing affordability challenge. Our Going for Housing Growth plan will help, so will fast track and making sure that private developers—because the vast bulk of housing in New Zealand is built by the private sector—can get out there and build houses that they want to build and that New Zealanders want to live in. And fast track is about removing those red-tape and green-tape barriers that get in the way of houses New Zealanders need.
Tim van de Molen: What does he say to those who are concerned about fast track?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I say to those that are concerned that we can protect the environment and grow our economy at the same time. If we want to end our housing crisis, support fast track. If you want more jobs in our cities and our regions, support fast track. If you want more renewable energy, support fast track. If you want modern roads, rail, and public transport, support fast track. If you want a growing economy, fast track is where it’s at.
Hon Shane Jones: Given his reference to the protection of key features of the environment, can he confirm that frogs will be relocated and will continue to live on?
SPEAKER: No, no. That might be an interesting proposition, but it’s not something he can be responsible for.
Question No. 6—Prime Minister
6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Would he and his Cabinet have signed off on all 149 projects to be included in the Fast-track Approvals Bill if he had been aware of the ongoing environmental breaches from some of those companies, detailed as recently as this morning in an RNZ article titled “Second audit finds more consent breaches by OceanaGold’s Otago Macraes mine”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very excited about fast track, for the reason that the Minister for Infrastructure just outlined. We need to grow our way out of a recession caused by the Labour-Greens Government, and one of the ways we do that is we get modern, reliable infrastructure in this country. We’ve got to build things faster and at lower cost and quicker, and fast track’s cracking through the system, it’s breaking the system to get things done.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Would he and his Cabinet have signed off on all 149 projects to progress through the Fast-track Approvals Bill if they had known about the founder of a company associated with one of those fast-track projects having been previously investigated by the Serious Fraud Office?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not going to comment on individual projects, but what I will comment on is the excitement that we could have 55,000 new homes; the excitement that we could have 180 kilometres of new roads in this country, which would be brilliant; 30 percent growth in renewable electricity generation. They’re all good things, designed to get our regional and national economy growing.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with continuing to progress the Fast-track Approvals Bill through the committee stage, despite advice from the Clerk that his Government’s Amendment Paper could be in the nature of private legislation and the subsequent ruling that stated, “It is undesirable, in principle, for Parliament to make law that is only for the benefit of specific private persons.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that’s a matter for the Speaker, but I’m very proud that fast track is moving through the House exactly as it should, and that’s incredibly exciting.
Question No. 7—Climate Change
7. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Climate Change: What proportion of total emissions cuts projected between the period 2026-35 are attributed to unproven or disproven technologies?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): In answer to the question: none. Experts in the Ministry for the Environment completed the modelling for the Government’s second emissions reductions plan (ERP). They worked closely with technical experts across the Government and private sector to ensure that all projections were justified and reasonable.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: How can he have confidence in carbon capture and storage achieving the 100 percent capture and storage of emissions from the Kapuni gas field that is assumed in his plan’s modelling, given globally not a single carbon capture and storage project has ever reached its target carbon dioxide capture rate, and no existing project has consistently captured more than 80 percent of carbon, and real-world capture rates range from 10 to 72 percent?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, what is interesting is that internationally, countries like Norway are already storing carbon dioxide and have been doing so for several decades, and we understand from industry that this process is feasible here in New Zealand. This is credible as carbon dioxide is already removed as part of the existing production process, leaving the natural gas remaining. Our officials have been and taken a conservative approach to modelling the expected removals. Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage is real and happening all over the world today.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: What changes were made to baseline projections from the interim projections in the ERP 2 discussion documents to the final plan as a result of the New Zealand Steel deal achieving more emissions reductions faster than initially projected?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Officials have worked through the modelling and taken into account all of the changes that were made in regards to different aspects of the economy. Our plan reflects the best estimate in terms of where those initiatives are at, and that includes all aspects across our broader economy.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why has his Government chosen to scrap proven emissions reduction strategies such as the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, which produced the 1.8 megatonne increase in baseline projections, and instead rely on policies that are best described as speculative and unproven?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, unlike the grinches on the opposite side, this side of the House today is celebrating an emissions plan that puts us on track and on a pathway for net zero as early as 2044. That is a success and that demonstrates the confidence and capability on this side of the House to ensure that we are managing emissions reduction in this country while also protecting our economy.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Do New Zealand taxpayers, who may face liabilities of up to $24 billion if the Government fails to meet its international climate targets, deserve a plan that relies on more than just speculative technology advancements to cut more than half of the emissions projected in the plan he released today?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I am proud that this Government today has reflected and published an ERP 2 plan that shows that we are on track for the first two emissions budgets and, most importantly, net zero by 2044 at the earliest. The technology that the member references that is unproven—and this is an example of what that technology could look like, that will go into cows to reduce biogenic methane—is happening under development in this country already by scientists and innovators, and we should back those individuals and we should back our agricultural sector and not always put them down.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Todd McClay, who says the Government won’t buy overseas carbon credits to meet emissions targets?
Hon SIMON WATTS: I always will acknowledge and reflect the positions of the very wise Todd McClay. It is clear that we need to ensure that we are on track in terms of all of our targets, and we will be looking at the international components very soon.
Question No. 8—Prime Minister
8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister stand by his comments that Crown-Māori relationships are “probably worse” than they were a year ago?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said, I think the discussion around the Treaty principles bill—there are strong feelings on all sides of that topic. I’d also say that the previous administration built a lot of division and a lot of frustration across New Zealand with some of its actions that it didn’t make the public case for and didn’t take the public on.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What role does he think he has played in making the relationship—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ll tell you what: all commentary will stop when a question is being asked. Afford the member that respect.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What role does he think he has played in making the relationship worse?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I’ve explained before, we have a difference of opinion within the coalition Government about this issue. Neither party got what they wanted but, in an MMP environment, we found a very sensible compromise and we’re working our way through it.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Prime Minister still using the coalition agreement as an excuse for the division the Treaty principles bill has caused when it wasn’t even a bottom line for the ACT Party?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re in an MMP environment—and a modern, mature MMP environment—and we make space for all the parties in our coalition Government.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Given he has accepted the International Court of Justice ruling to issue an arrest warrant on the Israel Prime Minister, when, if ever, will the Prime Minister support sanctions on Israel?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have been very clear about sanctions—travel sanctions, travel bans on extremist settlers in the occupied territories. That’s been a longstanding position and we’ve continued, through the course of this year, to ratchet that up.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was specific: when, if ever, will the Prime Minister support sanction on Israel? Not settlers.
SPEAKER: Well, I think he just answered by saying that there have been progressive sanctions throughout the year. I don’t think he can be more specific than that.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the Prime Minister doing to stop the illegal occupation of Gaza?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have been consistent in our position, and I’m actually very proud of the centrist line that we’ve taken, given the strong feeling on all sides of this debate. I think you’ve seen us come out with joint statements with the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia articulating our position, and we have called both parties to account. We want to see both sides come together, get round the table, have a proper ceasefire, and most fully develop a two-State solution.
Question No. 9—Justice
9. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: How is the Government proposing to strengthen the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): This week, I intend to table an Amendment Paper to the House to strengthen the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. The amendment ensures that strikes recorded under the original three-strikes regime repealed by the previous Labour Government are carried over into the new regime. Offenders who have committed repeat sexual and violent crimes should not escape accountability for their previous actions. This change reflects our Government’s commitment to public safety by ensuring that repeat serious offenders are kept off our streets and out of our communities.
Todd Stephenson: What support has the Minister received for this amendment?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Submitters feared that without this change, offenders who had already received warnings under the previous regime would not face consequences under the new regime until they reoffended and received a new warning. To address these concerns, I will table amendments at the committee of the whole House stage to ensure that consistent strikes are carried through into the new regime, holding repeat offenders accountable and protecting communities from their offending.
Todd Stephenson: How is the Minister ensuring that strikes carried over from the previous regime remain consistent with the new regime?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: While the Justice Committee supported the reactivation of strikes from the previous regime, it also recommended that only warnings consistent with the new qualifying sentence thresholds be reactivated, and I agree with this approach and have amended the bill to clarify that strikes issued under the old regime will only be carried across if they meet the qualifying criteria of the new regime. This ensures fairness and consistency while upholding the objective of the legislation.
Todd Stephenson: How is the reinstatement of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill with these changes likely to impact on prison population?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: It’s estimated that the prison population will increase by 130, to 210 prisoners over the next 10 years due to the reinstatement of the three-strikes regime. We make no apologies for locking away the worst offenders for longer.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Given the desire of the Government to reduce the number of victims of serious crime in this country, does she agree with the basic principle that a good place to start is with those who are serious repeat offenders who have created many victims already, and that is the fundamental purpose of the three-strikes legislation?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. It is important that this Government sticks to its commitment of looking after the victims of crime. When we look at the Māori population specifically, nearly two-thirds of them are reported to be victims of crime. And it is them that we will also be supporting with the introduction of this new regime.
Question No. 10—Agriculture
10. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to protect highly productive food-producing land in New Zealand?
Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Last week in Southland, the Prime Minister and I announced the Government will set clear rules to limit farm-to-forest conversions from entering the emissions trading scheme (ETS). These changes deliver on a key Government commitment to protect food production for farmers while providing ETS certainty for foresters. They also address the previous Government’s failed ETS policies that incentivised large-scale conversions, created ETS complexity, and undermined our world-best primary producers. [Interruption from gallery]
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia kaha!
Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week’s announcements will help safeguard New Zealand’s most productive farmland, while allowing—[Interruption from gallery]
SPEAKER: Minister—the Minister will stop. [Interruption from gallery stopped] That outburst is going to cause some other discussion and probably a ruling from me next time the House formally sits. The Hon Todd McClay will—
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate again, but I notice that—
SPEAKER: Speak up, then.
Hon David Seymour: A member of the House was yelling “Kia kaha!” at those strangers making the disturbance. To encourage and actually to speak to the gallery is in breach of the Standing Orders generally. But to actually encourage that sort of undermining of the House, I would argue, is another breach of privilege.
SPEAKER: Then the member knows that he should write to me if that’s his broader concern. I didn’t see it or hear it—I was watching what was happening in the gallery. The question can be asked again.
Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to protect highly productive food-producing land in New Zealand?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week in Southland, the Prime Minister and I announced the Government will set clear rules to limit farm-to-forest conversions entering into the emissions trading scheme. These changes deliver on a key Government commitment to protect food production for farmers while providing ETS certainty for foresters. They also address the previous Government’s failed ETS policies that incentivised—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In this instance, I have the benefit of hearing that answer the first time around, and I had hoped that they would stop after that first part, which is fine. This is a question by their own side, and it is inappropriate for Government Ministers to state as if it’s fact a point of debate or a point of opinion about the previous Government’s record. What the Minister said the first time around and was about to say then is incorrect and is very much a debatable point, and they shouldn’t be allowed to just state that—which is clearly a political point—as if it’s fact.
SPEAKER: That is true. My apologies. I was actually still thinking about the incident that took place, and not fully paying attention. But I will just say to the Minister: confine his remarks to efforts of the Government, not criticism of previous administrations.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. They also address the previous Government’s policies that incentivised large-scale conversions, creating ETS complexity and undermined—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s just not true.
Hon TODD McCLAY: —our world-best primary producers.
SPEAKER: Hang on, just a minute.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week’s announcements—
SPEAKER: Sorry, stop. What is the problem? Stand up and speak about it, because I can’t hear what’s actually a problem with that. It’s not unreasonable for a Minister to talk about something that a previous Government did. It is unreasonable to attack a previous Government or an Opposition for their time in a previous Government. He’s not doing that; he’s talking about somebody else making a comment.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, in fairness, I raised a point of order. That was dealt with. Now I’m responding to what he’s saying. If I had an issue with what he was saying, I would have raised another point of order.
SPEAKER: OK. Sorry, it’s just you were saying so much over here, perhaps I was a bit confused as to who I should be listening to! Make the rest of the answer brief.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you. Last week’s announcement will help safeguard New Zealand’s most productive farmland while allowing space for sustainable forestry growth and ensuring landlords retain the ability to make informed, smart land-use decisions that enhance both profitability and sustainable outcomes.
Suze Redmayne: What policy measures did the Government announce to protect food production in New Zealand?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Government announced several clarifying changes to limit farm-to-forest conversion from entering the ETS. These include a moratorium on exotic forest registration for land-use classification (LUC) one through five farmland that’s actively farmed; an annual registration cap of 15,000 hectares of exotic forest registering on land six farmland; the ability of farmers to plant up to 25 percent of LUC one through five land in forestry while maintaining flexibility and choice; property-level LUC reassessments for land categorising ensuring accuracy and fairness; exemptions for certain Māori-owned land categories to honour Treaty obligations while ensuring pathways for economic development; and also transitional exemptions for landowners with intention to plant trees prior to 4 December 2024. These changes strike the right balance between protecting productive farmland and ensuring sustainable forestry development.
Suze Redmayne: Why did the Government decide to make these changes to farm-to-forest emissions trading scheme rules?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, as I said in answer to the primary question, the previous Government’s ETS policies incentivised large-scale land conversions and they created ETS complexity, which was one of the reasons why the carbon auction failed so many times before the last election. They also led to undermining world-best primary producers. These new rules address these significant challenges. They provide much-needed certainty for ETS participants, enabling farmers, foresters, and investors to plan ahead with confidence. At the same time, these changes preserve New Zealand’s ability to produce high-quality, safe, sustainable food that is demanded globally whilst protecting the rural economy.
Suze Redmayne: What additional measures has the Government announced to improve farm and rural productivity?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, last week, I announced, with the full support of hard-working local MPs Katie Nimon and Catherine Wedd, that the Government is co-investing $995,000 to expand the Land for Life pilot project in the Hawke’s Bay. This programme helps farmers and growers plant trees on low-quality farmland so they can adapt to changing conditions, prevent erosion, and generate additional income through carbon credits and timber on low-quality farmland. We estimate that this will benefit $380 million in cumulative economic gains for participating farmers over 30 years, and $1.5 billion in avoided cost from reduced landslides. This is just another way the Government supports our rural sector.
Question No. 11—Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti
11. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he stand by his statements regarding the Māori-Crown relationship?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Yes, and this Government is committed to outcomes, not outbursts over Māori-Crown relations. There are many people out there that don’t like the fact that we support over 20 Māori-led or partnered projects through the fast-track process, that we have recently offered, through Minister “Metekōura”, the Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia on behalf of Ngāpuhi, or that Matua Tararā, Minister Jones, has offered support to Waitangi, Parihaka, and Rātana through the Regional Infrastructure Fund. But we’re into action, not acting up.
Hon Peeni Henare: Who is correct: Tama Potaka, who said in response to my oral question on 7 November that the Māori-Crown relationship had been strengthened under this Government, or the Prime Minister, who said that the relationship was probably worse under this Government?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Prime Minister is correct, and I am also correct. We can have things at a low ebb but continue to strengthen Māori-Crown relations. It’s in this vein that I turn to Minister Mātauranga, Minister Stanford, with her great Māori Education Action Plan, and the work that my erudite colleague Minister Watts is doing with the Pou Take Āhuararangi or the climate change pou or the national Iwi Chairs Forum to ensure adaptation of many, many marae to climate change.
Hon Peeni Henare: Supplementary. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Yeah, just wait for a moment.
Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What specific bill, if any, has he introduced in his capacity as Māori-Crown relations Minister that has strengthened the Māori-Crown relationship?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I continue to support and lead the ongoing progress of the Ō-Rākau bill, which was fomented as a result of Prime Minister John Key and Minister Christopher Finlayson to ensure that that particular piece of property—whenua—is returned to the three iwi around that: Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato.
Hon Peeni Henare: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa chair Helmut Modlik, who said that he found the Minister’s response to be “so dishonest that he couldn’t sit there and listen to that a moment longer”, and, if so, does he think this is the reason why the Government has been uninvited from any future iwi chairs meetings?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I just correct the honourable member’s comments: Helmut Modlik is actually the CEO of Ngāti Toa Rangatira and not the chair of Ngāti Toa Rangatira—fact-check. The second thing is that Ngāti Toa CEO Helmut Modlik returned to the Whare the week after that particular comment and was very supportive and enthusiastic about my responses in relation to a number of questions that were of a very similar nature.
Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that a key strand of Māori-Crown relations is economic empowerment, and with the passage of legislation extending marine farming permits until 2050, that that represents certainty and confidence for the large Māori presence in that particular industry?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Absolutely. And I can also acknowledge the significant efforts around Māori businesses who are exporting serious levels of kai moana to international markets. And we will continue to support it through aquaculture and other efforts in the primary industry, especially with the good work of Minister McClay ensuring that the appropriate international deals are curated.
Hon Peeni Henare: What risks have Te Arawhiti officials outlined—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on—sorry. How long is this going to go on for? The rules are pretty simple: if someone is asking a question, no one else speaks—basic respect for other members. The Hon Peeni Henare.
Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What risks have Te Arawhiti officials outlined regarding Ministers attending Waitangi 2025?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: A number of officials, as well as iwi leaders and others, have outlined various risks but also the enormous upsides of the continued engagement between the Ministers of the Crown, the Cabinet, and other members of this Government attending various events in the Māori calendar—but also ensuring that we are absolutely focused on delivering on the needs of Māori, rather than various acting up and outbursts that we often see.
Hon Peeni Henare: Will he recommend to the Prime Minister to immediately stop the Treaty principles bill from progressing any further to prevent a future hate tour?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Excuse me, e te Māngai o te Whare, I just didn’t hear the last phrase that was mentioned. I just ask if that question can be asked again.
SPEAKER: Just repeat the whole question.
Hon Peeni Henare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will he recommend to the Prime Minister to immediately stop the Treaty principles bill from progressing any further to prevent further division in this country?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Kei te tautoko au i tā te Pirīmia i whakatau ai. Kāore tēnei rōpū, te pāti kahurangi, i te tautoko i te anga whakamua o te Pire Mātāpono Tiriti ki tua o te komiti arotake.
[I support the decision made by the Prime Minister. This party, the blue party, does not support the progression of the Treaty principles bill beyond select committee.]
Question No. 12—Conservation
12. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about Mautohe Cathedral Cove?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): On 1 December 2024, I attended and announced the restoration of public walking access to Mautohe Cathedral Cove in time for the summer tourist season. Mautohe Cathedral Cove plays an important role in supporting the local economy in the grand electorate of Coromandel. And this reopening is an exciting step in the region’s tourism recovery following storms and COVID-19 lockdowns. Manuhiri to the area are predicted to bring an estimated $12 million into the region annually. I’ve committed to Ngāti Hei and community leaders to ensure this first stage was delivered in time for the high numbers expected this tourist season. I want to thank everyone—Te Papa Atawhai, other officials, those that worked on it, contractors—for delivering on this commitment.
Hon Scott Simpson: How important are these kinds of attractions for regional economies like the Coromandel, including tourism and employment?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I regularly am reminded by the member for the Coromandel, it’s very evident at Mautohe Cathedral Cove. In the Punangairi visitors centre I recently opened at Paparoa National Park, significant numbers of international manuhiri come to see our spectacular coastal views, unique flora and fauna, and learn about tangata whenua relationships and responsibilities. Adverse weather events are increasingly impacting the safe operations of these kinds of attractions. The Department of Conservation (DOC), Te Papa Atawhai, is considering the second stage of development at Mautohe, which is intended to provide more resilient access to better withstand some of these ongoing issues. These are the challenges that we have to deal with at DOC while simultaneously applying its finite resources to protecting biodiversity, heritage landscapes, and other matters.
Hon Scott Simpson: How is the Department of Conservation going to meet these kinds of challenges for areas like the Coromandel in the future to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the beauty and richness of our landscapes and creatures?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that pātai. We are now actively seeking—through consultation, hui, and submissions—public views on options for modernising conservation management. This includes simplifying conservation rules, ensuring that processes are fit for purpose so businesses and others can more easily ensure quality experience, maximising benefits from commercial and recreational activities on conservation land to support nature and local communities, and increasing flexibility for land exchanges or disposals that align with conservation and community and other needs. And I’m encouraging everyone to have their say and to submit by the end of February 2025.
Points of Order
Speaker’s Ruling—Admissibility of Minister’s Amendments, Criteria
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the last question to raise this point of order. We didn’t get an opportunity to do so last night; you were on your feet when you put the House back into committee. The ruling that you gave warrants some clarification. I acknowledge that there was considerable thought put into that, and it was quite extensive. However, Speakers’ decisions are guided by previous rulings and established practices, and it is noteworthy that there was no reference to Speakers’ rulings at all throughout your ruling. To aid our understanding and that of the House, could you please explain what precedent you looked at and relied on to land on the ruling you did?
SPEAKER: Well, I think your first assumption that all Speakers’ rulings rely on previous Speakers’ rulings belies the fact that, in fact, Speakers’ rulings are Speakers’ rulings—and that’s exactly what was given last night. I looked, over a period of days, at the extensive list of projects, which was well known by people. I heard the advice, obviously, from the clerks and spent some time looking through the book that talks about parliamentary practice in New Zealand. That’s a book that draws on a previous publication by a previous Clerk, and has been updated by our current Clerk. In that, there’s an interesting statement that—sorry, I can’t call to mind exactly the page and paragraph number. It essentially says that there will always be some degree of private gain or benefit from Government bills.
I think when you start looking through other aspects that were looked at, of which, of course, one was: is the amendment proposed in scope? There’s another page in there that lists about, I think, in the order of about maybe eight to 10 different points that an amendment must comply with. The amendment complied with all of those, in my opinion.
The next point which was relevant was the three tests that have to be applied for a bill to be considered a private bill as opposed to a Government bill. I made it very clear that I thought it failed on the third part of that test. Now, I’m sorry I don’t have references for you because there are some that I can point to, and I’m happy to bring that back to the House at some point or to give to you personally if you want them.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much for that. I didn’t make an assumption, sir. The opening line of my point of order was actually from McGee, the book that you’ve referred to yourself, page 92: “The Speaker’s decisions are guided by previous rulings and established practices”.
SPEAKER: What did they do on day one?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, I don’t know what they were up to 100 years ago in Westminster—
SPEAKER: No, well that’s the point—
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And neither do you—
SPEAKER: Sorry, let me speak. A hundred years ago—or more, in fact—private bills were brought in because of gaps in legislation. One of the original reasons for it, you’ll find in Wilson, which is the latest tome that we tend to refer to; it talks about a person wanting a divorce, for example, would need to petition Parliament to have an Act of Parliament passed for their private benefit. Now, I think we’ve gone a long way from that. The other thing is that if you look at the recent bills that have been passed that are of a private nature, there is a very specific benefit for any of the individuals who are seeking that preferment. I think this is just another step in Parliament itself claiming its right to legislate, which I think is important.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I had an opportunity to review your ruling in writing this afternoon, which is always helpful. Your ruling, particularly with regard to the third test that you set out there, is problematic in the sense that if you applied—so, in the third test, you seem to be relying on the fact that there is no guaranteed conferred benefit from truncating the process. The people who are listed in the schedule go through a faster process, but the outcome of that is not guaranteed.
I thought about how, if that was to apply to other legislation that might come before the House, that could be very problematic, because I don’t think that is the way the Parliament could continue to interpret such an approach. For example, if the Government was dealing with legislation regarding crimes, and made the decision that a new criminal process would apply to categories of offender, and then a Minister was to table an amendment that said, “except for these specific cases”, it would be allowed; therefore, those specific cases would go to a different process—go, say, immediately to the Supreme Court. Under the ruling that you’ve made, that would be allowable because the outcome is not guaranteed. It’s short-circuiting the process for a particular group of named offenders, whilst the other category of people would all have to go through the regular process. That’s somewhat of an alarming concept for this House.
I actually think you’ve applied—this bill deals with economic interests, but there are other private interests the House deals with, including issues around liberty and rights. If you applied that—exactly the same ruling that you have made—to a question before the House of liberty and rights, you’re saying that the House can specify in a public bill, in a Government bill, that particular people could have a different set of rights in terms of the process of the law that may apply to them. I think that would be very problematic.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s a view that I’d like to think further on. I did think about that. I would say, for example, electoral law carves people out already in general legislation. A lot of alcohol-related law carves people out. There are different classes of criminal offence in almost every bill that’s related to the fight the Parliament works against crime. It’s not unusual to have people carved out. The issue in this case was in that schedule, if a company or an entity that is not a public entity is getting the opportunity ahead of someone else to go through the short-track process, what is the extent to the private benefit? The question then becomes: what is the public benefit in the activity that they’re asking to be engaged in? I think, on that balance, I made the call that the list was acceptable.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I think your comments there highlight the problem. The examples that you’ve just given are examples of where Parliament has treated classes of people or organisations differently—perfectly acceptable for the Parliament to do that in a public bill. It’s where specifically named individual people or entities are being treated differently that it becomes a question of whether or not it is a private bill. It is perfectly acceptable in criminal legislation to treat classes of people differently in terms of the nature of their offending or so on, but then to say that these named individuals would be treated differently, that would be very, very problematic for the Parliament to adopt a process that allowed that to happen. Having looked carefully at the ruling that you made last night, if you applied that same ruling to criminal law, you could end up with exactly the same conclusion.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order. I’m not sure what else is to be gained from going through this, because you’ve made a ruling, but the only comment I would make is that Parliament has already considered a bill like this. It was called the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020—
Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s different.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s not, and that’s the point: it lists specific projects, including private projects. That bill was acceptable three years ago. I accept that the current version of fast track is wider in scope, it has more projects, and it’s a one-stop shop, but that’s not relevant to the issue.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, it is.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, it’s not, because Parliament, it is a matter—well, you’ve got to the Government’s preferred outcome with a different form of reasoning. The Government’s reasoning is that it is a matter of public policy that the Government can expedite projects. Our view is that privately owned developments can have public benefits. We spent four hours this morning litigating the fact that Meridian Energy could build a publicly owned—in the sense that the Government owns 51 percent of Meridian—wind farm that would be the exact same as a privately funded and owned wind farm by Contact Energy, but both have public benefits. That’s our view. I don’t want to relitigate that. The only point I’d make is that you’ve made a ruling; you should get on with it.
SPEAKER: Can I just suggest, I do hope you were referring to my reaching a position that the Government wanted was in terms of all Governments, as opposed to my being particularly persuaded by the current Government. I’m not unmoved in my decision by a consent that was granted under the COVID legislation for a project that exists in the electorate that I previously represented. That has been incredibly problematic and is entirely a private project. For those who argued that my ruling is wrong and wanted precedence, then that would be one that I would certainly quote to them.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the intervention by Chris Bishop actually raises serious concerns. Chris Bishop’s suggestion that you have reached a conclusion that is the Government’s preferred position actually undermines your independence, and certainly—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: While a point of order is being taken, no one else will express an opinion.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and certainly draws into question all members of Parliament’s ability to have confidence in the ruling you made last night. The ruling you made last night began with a suggestion that the Government took a policy position and the Opposition took a procedural position. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives, it is very clear that your job is procedural, not policy. The Government’s positions on policy should have no bearing on the decisions that you make as Speaker. The intervention that we just had from the Leader of the House suggests that it has—that’s wrong.
SPEAKER: It most certainly did not have bearing on my consideration. As I’ve said, I’ve spent quite some days looking at this particular issue and reaching my own conclusion on it. I can’t help but be in some way influenced by previous experiences that I’ve had, particularly with regards to Christchurch, where there was significant legislation that, in my opinion, prevented faster progress. I’ve just given you the example of a project in the electorate that I formerly represented that is entirely a private benefit but was consented under the COVID legislation. I took that as being Parliament understanding that there are times when the intersection between public and private benefit might occur. The question in my head then was to what extent is the private benefit greater than the public interest in the project progressing? That’s where we’re going to leave the discussion. Thank you for the point of order.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you. I don’t intend to relitigate that, but given the House is limited in the processes available to it when it’s under urgency, the normal way in which we would express this is not available to us. The only option we have available to us now is that we, regrettably, indicate that where you as Speaker had the full confidence of the House, that is no longer the case.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s all right. You’ve got a mechanism to signal that.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions
Question No. 9 to Minister, 21 November
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.
SPEAKER: Sorry, can you speak closer to your microphone?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Sorry; I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for a personal explanation to correct an answer. Is there any objections to that? There appears to be none.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. I’d just like to make a correction to an answer for oral question No. 9 in the House on 21 November. I accidentally said that the eligible students will be provided assistance by the Ministry of Transport, but I meant to say the Ministry of Education.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. We are now at the end of question time. The Minister has been in the House for the entire duration of question time. Therefore, she must have known at the beginning of question time that she had needed to correct an answer. Why did she not do that at the first available opportunity, which was as soon as the House resumed?
SPEAKER: Well, perhaps it could have been because I called the questions fairly quickly upon arriving, but that would normally be the course of action that should be taken. You can’t turn back time, unfortunately.
I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fast-track Approvals Bill and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 2 Fast-track approvals process (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We are in committee stage. I’m just wondering, do we have a Minister? Thank you. Members, when the committee suspended at 1 p.m., we were debating Part 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. Part 2 is the debate on Clauses 14 to 33, “Fast-track approvals process”, and Schedules 3 and 4 to 13. The question is again that Part 2 stand part.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am still on Part 2 and the clauses and have not yet reached any of the schedules. I want to start back on clause 24M, which is “Panel invites comments on substantive application”. We have Amendment Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan and that is to add a number of groups to the list, so I’ll explain what that means.
Clause 24M—we were talking a lot before about referrals. Now, these are things that have either been referred or that are on that list of 149 things in Schedule 2. The comments must—there’s a “must” here—be invited from local authorities, iwi authorities, and some others I’ve already listed in other contributions. Also, at paragraph (f), the owners of the land to which the substantive application relates and the land adjacent to that land—we’ve had some discussions about having to be adjacent to the land previously—occupiers of the lands, the Minister for the Environment and other relevant portfolio Ministers, relevant administrating agencies, and requiring authorities. That list is a very narrow list in terms of the size of these projects and who must be consulted, who must be invited for their comments.
Now, we’ve had some discussions about the COVID legislation, which was of course legislation in an emergency, and that legislation included a list of groups who were determined to be representative of some sort of both business, infrastructure, and environmental groups. This list is: Business New Zealand Inc.; Employers and Manufacturers Association—more than “Incorporated”; Environmental Defence Society Inc.; Generation Zero Inc.; Greenpeace New Zealand Inc.; Infrastructure New Zealand Inc; the New Zealand Fish & Game Council; the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission; Property Council; and Forest & Bird.
What this Amendment Paper 142 is suggesting is that, to make it more similar to the COVID legislation, which apparently this fast track is modelled on, those groups should be included at clause 24M. The result of including those groups at clause 24M would be that more people would have to be asked for comment on these very important, very large proposals, so it’s part of the “must”, not the “may”.
If we look down and we look at the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s amendments to clause 24M, at subclause (l), it’s any person or group specified by the Minister for Infrastructure under clause 23(3)(b)(iii). Clause 23(3), “Comments may be invited from any other person the panel considers appropriate.”, but of course, that’s a “may”, so it’s not compulsory for the panel to talk to groups such as those that I’ve listed. It’s not compulsory for the panel to talk to the people like the wedding venue near the proposed goldmine.
The list that I just read out in Amendment Paper 142 is very restricted, because at the moment, if you were doing a big application for a goldmine, it would be a fully notified resource consent. It wouldn’t be limited notified, which this group is like a limited notification. It would be a full public process.
Now, we understand that this is supposed to be a fast process and one of the ways to speed things up is not to open it up to everybody, not to be a fully publicly notified process. I know many people will think that it should be publicly notified, so this Amendment Paper 142 with those suggested groups taken from the COVID legislation is a big compromise, and so I would hope that the Minister would consider accepting that amendment.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to get straight to picking up on a number of amendments in this contribution, and those are ones that cover Amendment Papers 155, 156, and 157. I want to pick up on those because this is about the referral applications and the information that is required under these applications.
The first part of my Amendment Paper 155 refers to clause 14, and this is in clause 14(3)(ba), where it currently talks about a description that is needed for the whole of the project area being detailed, and—oh, sorry, it currently says that it doesn’t have the detailed part. It talks about the project area, and what we’re proposing in this amendment is to insert the word “detailed” at page 21, line 20. This is to ensure that a very clear, comprehensive description of the whole project area is included. Now, this is really important because later in the bill it’s of serious implication for those landowners or individuals who are deemed to be affected or not by the impacts of the project, and it matters because some of the neighbouring properties will immediately be consulted and what not, but others may not be. That’s why the detail in this description actually really matters.
The second aspect of this—and this is in Amendment Paper 156—is that it’s replacing “identifies its boundaries in sufficient detail” with “clearly and comprehensively identifies its boundaries and the project area”. Now, again, this is about offering clarity. It’s about offering clarity not only to the applicant in terms of who they need to then contact and consult with about the impacts of their proposed activity, but it also provides certainty and clarity for those impacted parties in the neighbouring areas, about whether they are considered affected or not, instead of simply being left wondering.
The third aspect of what I’m proposing—which I’d like the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s thoughts on—is to do with clause 14(3)(e), and this is about, again, the information to be included in the referral application. Now, it currently talks about a description of the application only in a sufficient way that it outlines the anticipated and known adverse effects of the project on the environment. What we’re suggesting here, which I’d like the Minister’s thoughts on, is to actually insert a requirement for a detailed ecological assessment. The reason we want to do that is because it is virtually impossible for an applicant to understand what the anticipated and known adverse effects of the project on the environment may be unless they actually are getting advice on this, and if that is not known in the first instance, I’m unclear how the Minister for Infrastructure would then actually have an even very basic adequate amount of information to make a proper consideration as to whether they would refer the project on to the expert panel. I’d really appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on those three amendments. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I thank the member for those good questions, which I’m happy to address, although perhaps not to her satisfaction. I’m advised that maps will have to be of a sufficient level of detail, and some of this is a question about how much is in the primary legislation and how much is in the operational notice and the mechanics of it. My expectation is that an application form will include specific requirements, and that’s part of the detailed operation of the regime once we get under way.
I don’t think adding “clearly and completely”, which I think was one of her—I think it was Amendment Paper 156 that does that. I’m not sure we need that—that a lot turns on that. I’m advised that that is not necessary.
There’s an issue about how much detail is required at the referral phase, because it’s like a two-step process, right? There’s the referral, off to the expert panel, and then the expert panel works through and then the consenting. The Government’s view is that to require an ecological assessment at the referral stage would be not appropriate—it’s not necessary at that stage. Clearly, issues like that are going to be worked through as part of the expert panel process but not at the referral process.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: since he was last in the chair, there was an amendment that was tabled, which I know the Chair did allow us to speak on because no one else came in late—that’s correct, isn’t it?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there a number or is—
GLEN BENNETT: Oh, yeah, sorry. It’s the—
Hon Member: Say the time it was tabled.
GLEN BENNETT: It was tabled at 11.35 a.m. It was—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ah, right. OK.
GLEN BENNETT: —on behalf of the Hon Chris Bishop. I just want to clarify with the Minister, in terms of finding that mistake. Obviously, there were too many zeroes. It was around OceanaGold and in terms of the hectares that they were allowed to use, potentially, in this process.
For myself, I know the Hon Rachel Brooking, I know Lan Pham, and those who came into the Environment Committee—we did our best to work through the legislation that we had. We didn’t see this. Could I ask the Minister to clarify, I guess, that we know that information in Schedule 2 has been double-checked, triple-checked in terms of there aren’t any more mistakes or concerns in this? I mean, I’m kind of glad that it’s a lesser number rather than a higher number, but is there any confirmation from your officials or yourself that we can actually be, I guess, clear and assured that everything in this schedule actually is accurate?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I’m advised by the officials that this was picked up on the triple-check, so it’s a good thing for the committee. I hope there are no other very, very small errors.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would remind the Minister responsible for RMA Reform of my questions about standing that he has not answered. It would be very good to have an answer on that.
I also asked questions earlier on about the new prioritisation process and why that was required and whether that is in part because the panel that decided on the 149 projects didn’t check for conflicts amongst them, all because of some of those projects not actually being ready yet. Comment on that would be interesting.
We also had a discussion on whether or not minerals should be able to be referred, and another Minister in the chair talked about minerals that weren’t coal. Would he consider excluding coal, then, for the referred matters? That’s a number of questions.
Then, going to new clause 24P, there is the hearing of a panel. This is for any project that gets this far, referred or listed, and “There is no requirement for a panel to hold a hearing”, and “no person has a right to be heard by a panel.” This is disappointing, given all that we have been discussing so far, which is that there are 149 projects, they have not gone through a select committee process, many of them give a private benefit to individual companies, and they are substantive. They have to be of regional or national significance, so they’re big projects.
We’ve just been talking about the number of zeros attached to a mining proposal in terms of area. These are big things that will have large environmental effects as well, and they would normally end up in an Environment Court—and I’ll talk about that in a minute as well. But here, there’s no hearing required. We have, in Glen Bennett’s name, Amendment Paper 134, and that is to change “Hearing not required” to “Hearing required” and to change the subsequent language in new clause 24P, and also in new clause 24Q. New clause 24Q is about what, if a hearing is held, would then happen, and we’ve, obviously, got amendments to make that consistent for the requiring of a hearing.
I saw that the Minister was about to get to his feet. I can leave that there and get an answer before moving on.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Madam Chair, thank you. No, we’re not excluding coal in the bill. Nice try, but no, we won’t be doing that.
In relation to the hearing, of course, I don’t need to talk to Jonesy about that one. The clause in relation to—it’s in 24P, “Hearing not required”. That just mirrors the COVID19 fast-track legislation. Of course, that didn’t require a hearing. It’s just to say that, if there’s no need for a hearing, you don’t need to have one. Clearly it is a range of projects on this list that are going to require a hearing—it will just depend on the panel. But complex projects will almost certainly require a hearing; if they don’t, then they’re not required.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): To continue this line, again, going back to my earlier contribution about who can make comments on an application, and who has standing: I haven’t had an answer on that yet, and if he is just now reminding us about the COVID legislation, that didn’t require a hearing, for a much smaller range of projects that were much less controversial, and I’d remind the committee that that COVID legislation has 17 listed projects in it. They went to the Environment Committee—a very short select committee process—and 16 of those 17 involved a Government agency. One of them was about water supply in the Far North, and I have not delved into the ownership of that issue.
This legislation is very different. There are 149 projects listed, and many, many of them are entirely private; they are clearly private with a private benefit, and we’ve heard how they are going to make money. On the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s argument that because the COVID legislation didn’t require a hearing, it’s OK for this legislation, one or two things: one, the COVID legislation was much more restricted—or three things—there was an emergency, and all of those parties that I read out before had to be involved in the process. They’re not included in this process. I would like answers to those points, please. And I can continue?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I mean, I’m not sure what’s to be gained. I mean, we can have a reasonable debate about whether or not the COVID fast track was the right thing to do. I mean, like a lot of things that happened during COVID which were justified under the guise of the emergency—it’s not clear to me why Parliament had to pass a piece of fast-track legislation for so-called shovel ready projects. There are shovel ready projects, some of which were funded under the shovel ready fund, that are yet to start! That funding also funded Lake Onslow, which was 2038. A lot of things were done under COVID; I’m not sure what, frankly, turns on that. This fast-track piece of legislation is different to the COVID fast tracks, no doubt about that. Everyone can see how: it’s more substantive, it’s more expensive, and it’s a one-stop shop.
The only point I was making is that the lack of requirement for the hearing was in that legislation, it’s also in this one. Some of the procedures are similar, although not the same. I have to be honest—my apologies, she may have raised these issues when I wasn’t here in the chair—but I’ve missed the question around comments. Perhaps if she can repeat exactly what she’s asking for there, I’m happy to come back and have a look.
As the member knows, I think there is a range of provisions in the legislation, from clause 24U onwards, around information requesting of commissioning of advice and things like that. If the member has a specific question about comments, I’m happy to address that.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will look to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for guidance about what he missed or not. What I was talking about was the standing of different groups to be able to and that must—so there’s a “must” here—at new clause 24M—
Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, “M” or “N”?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s “M”—“M” for “Mickey Mouse”.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): “M” for “mother”.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I prefer Mickey Mouse, but there we go. New clause 24M lists the groups that must be consulted or be invited to make comment on an application, and they are the local authorities, they are the landowners, they are adjoining landowners, and some iwi groups. They are not Business New Zealand, Infrastructure New Zealand, New Zealand Fish and Game Council, etc. We have an amendment—Amendment Paper 142—that would include all those groups that were in the COVID legislation. The COVID legislation specifically named these groups, and that’s why this amendment uses those groups. It’s not some new made-up list or anything, and, of course, we’re very happy for it to be updated if the Minister thought that that was required.
The point is that, if these processes were done under the Resource Management Act, they would be publicly notified and open to everyone. If they were done under the COVID legislation, they would not be publicly notified but they would have comments from the specified groups. Under this legislation, there’s no such requirement. The panel may ask and the Minister for Infrastructure may suggest some groups, but those are “mays”; they are not “musts”. What I am seeking is an amendment where these groups must be consulted, and, as I mentioned, if the Minister wants to engage in that process, we’re very happy to discuss what groups should be in and out of that list.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, I understand the point now—I’ve got it. Thank you very much—my apologies. We’re not supportive of that. I mean, it’s not an unreasonable suggestion; I just don’t think it’s necessary. The moment you start getting specific about particular interest groups like Business New Zealand, Infrastructure New Zealand—all good people; I’m not having a go at them—you start to limit discretion, and you make things more mandatory—potentially slows things down.
The other thing I would say is that, unlike the COVID-19 legislation, which was to do with the Resource Management Act, this is a one-stop shop. There’ll be a panoply of groups that have interests in different—it depends on the project, obviously. Members are smart enough to think of different interest groups across the spectrum that will have an interest in different parts of projects, and so you wouldn’t want to limit or fetter that discretion. There’ll be groups that are relevant to some but not to others, and, you know, Infrastructure New Zealand is a busy body; I don’t want to burden them with endless consultation. It’s a reasonable suggestion, but we’re not supportive of that, either.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m speaking to Part 2, Subpart 2, which is the approvals process and referrals of projects to fast-track approvals process.
In terms of the consultation requirements for referral applications, if you shift across to page 27, under the heading “What is needed to complete project”, new clause 22DA(4) and then clause 14(3)(r) and (s). Speaking to paragraph (s), under the heading “What is needed to complete project”, is “an outline of the types of consents, certificates, designations, concessions, and other legal authorisations (other than contractual authorisations or the proposed approvals) that the applicant considers are needed to authorise the project, including any that the applicant considers may be needed by someone other than the applicant:”.
My question and concern is that for an assessment to be made on the soundness of the information presented to those who are making a determination in that referral, surely there has to be a more independent perspective than simply what the applicant considers is needed to authorise the project? That’s my question.
My proposed amendment that I think would make it clearer in some degree—though there could be other ways of doing it. My proposed Amendment Paper 161 is that we delete, in new clause 14, the words “the applicant considers”, so that the sentence would then read “that are needed to authorise the project”. There are other ways you could do that, but that’s just—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just wondering, could the member just speak into the microphone a little bit? I missed the last couple of sentences when you started talking about the Amendment Paper. Could you just repeat what you just said?
STEVE ABEL: Like from 30 seconds ago?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.
STEVE ABEL: Yes, pardon me.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.
STEVE ABEL: The Amendment Paper essentially deletes the words “the applicant considers” in new clause 14, on page 24, line 15.
There is another Amendment Paper which is on a different matter, in a sense, because my essential question around the applicant’s view of what is needed is a question of the problem of an applicant withholding information that may be important in the determination of the referral decision. How is it tested that the applicant has presented full and thorough information and has not withheld important information that those considering it might need to know, such as the failure to uphold previous consents by that given organisation or company?
Another suggestion is Amendment Paper 160, in the name of Lan Pham. In clause 14, at the beginning of that same section, the current wording is “an outline of the types of consents, certificates, designations”. The proposed amendment is that that word “outline” be deleted and replaced with the words “a detailed description” of the types of consents, certificates, and designations. Again, it’s about assuring a thorough depth of information is provided so that a decision can be determined. But, really, I’m keen to hear what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s views are on the earlier amendment as well. Thank you.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going back to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s contribution and then your response, Minister. Just for clarity, I understand you’re talking about it getting bogged down and you’re not wanting to have lots of—you know, this is fast track, so we hear you. At the same time, I guess, in giving validity to this process, having a group like Business New Zealand—but again, there are tight parameters around the process. This is just as something to consider, in that actually it might give a bit more hope to the community and to business around this bill.
I want to come to—it was in the schedule, but it’s around the process of this, which is in terms of, I guess, the involvement of local government in the process. In Taranaki, where I am, we’ve got Stratford Park Ltd, which is a good project. As we’ve said on this side of the Chamber, we oppose the bill, but we don’t necessarily oppose all the projects, because some of them actually will have an impact, and this is one of those projects.
When I look through the legislation, and I’m looking at new clause 19(2B) on Amendment Paper 238, which says that “Without limiting subsection (1), a local authority must provide comments advising of—(a) any applications that have been lodged with the local authority that would be competing applications if a substantive application for the project were lodged;”, and it continues with part (b) of that. I guess in terms of this process of fast track, you have the projects in Schedule 2. Were they considered through this same lens or is this a new lens in terms of what we have in Part 2?
For example, Stratford Park—I think it’s got some real merits in terms of the possibility of what could actually be done regionally but also for the jurisdiction of Stratford District Council. But how does the process of Schedule 2 fit in with Part 2 in terms of whether this whole process was considered for all those 149 projects?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The member Glen Bennett might have to elucidate a bit more about what he’s saying. There’s, basically, two pathways to get to the expert panel: one, you can be listed in Schedule 2, which Parliament has agreed after some debate. Those projects are automatically—assuming the bill passes—deemed by Parliament to be through the gateway test of regional and national significance. They then can apply to the Environmental Protection Authority to go to the expert panel for consideration, and then a final determination. The other pathway is the more generic pathway, which is outlined—I don’t have the exact clauses in front of me—at various different stages, which is the referral.
The initial plan was for the three Ministers to do the joint referrals to expert panels, and then for the final consenting to be done by the troika. That’s no longer the case now. We’ve simplified and streamlined that into the Minister for Infrastructure, who does the referral—which is currently me, but it’s a portfolio thing rather than me—and—
Hon Rachel Brooking: It doesn’t specify “Chris Bishop”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, there’s no bills of attainder in this Parliament.
Hon Member: Not yet.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Not yet—no, we won’t do that, I hasten to add. It’s currently me. There’s a range of requirements that the Minister for Infrastructure is required to take into account and consultation requirements, and then that goes off to the expert panel. That’s the kind of basic thrust of it.
Look, we could have a debate about it, and, in fact, Rachel Brooking’s got some amendments around it and has made some suggestions. Reasonable people can disagree. None of the suggestions are without merit. The Government has come to a view that we think we’ve got the balance about right, but happy to have a discussion around it.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I hadn’t initially thought that I was going to ask a question, but the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s recent response, a couple of questions back, just made something that I thought was clarified a little less clear to me. I do want to go back.
I know that you have answered some previous questions about clause 14AAA in terms of the process of consultation, but the one that I was thinking about in particular was that I know the Department of Corrections put in a fast-track application for Auckland Prison. When I was looking, as I just happened to be, at the prison network assessment for capacity expansion that was done earlier in the year—and you’ll be familiar as a Minister that a lot of that information is presented as a bit of a traffic light. Auckland Prison itself, under the three criteria, the strategic requirement to add capacity was certainly green, but the ability to commence construction quickly and the site configuration costs to develop new capacity had previously been rated red, because there’s a cap of 610 prisoners.
The application to fast track that, to essentially double the number of prisoners, I can see why the Department of Corrections would have put that application in; it takes away what was previously rated red flags, that would have been the process under the Resource Management Act, and essentially means that they can go through that expansion process. They have said: subsequent to getting approval through the fast-track process, but they don’t actually have any concrete plans to do so at the moment—but if they need to, or should they need to in a hurry. I do note that quite frequently in this House we are discussing Government policy which does automatically involve the increase of prison numbers, and we know that, worst case scenario, those prison beds run out at around about June next year—best case scenario, we’ve got another couple of years up our sleeves.
It did make your previous answer in relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question about not being more open to having “must” and being more facilitative in that consultation period, because this will be a consultation that is not straightforward, and it’s not something a panel could simply pay lip service to. We don’t have that many prisons in New Zealand; they are quite unique facilities. The surrounding areas and the environments in which they find themselves require in-depth consultation, and I see that the Minister, Minister Mitchell, has assured the public in public statements that any future expansion would involve full public consultation.
I’m just wondering if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Bishop, given that this particular application did cause some consternation and ruffle a few feathers—certainly, Auckland Council expressed some surprise that it was not only applied for but also granted, and the community has certainly expressed some concerns about it as well. Given your hesitancy to sort of favour those amendments that have been proposed on this side of the Chamber, can you give me some reassurances or talk me through what that consultation process might look like for a project like this?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I don’t want to comment specifically on the prison project, mainly because I’m not super familiar with it, to be honest.
The member can probably imagine the sort of consultation that would take place for the community over the expansion of the prison. It would largely depend on where the site is located and who might be affected by it. And, look, people who are involved in large-scale projects in New Zealand are very familiar with the idea of community consultation. I would draw a distinction between legally mandated consultation and consultation that project sponsors do because it is clearly in their commercial interests or public interest to do so, because no one wants to build something in a place where it’s not wanted, or at least where there is broad scale community opposition. People tend to find that doesn’t create a particularly hospitable environment. Anyway, there’s a range of consultation requirements at clause 14AAA, as the member well knows.
The other point I would say is to draw a distinction between consenting and funding. Yes, it’s true that that project that has been applied for has been listed as consented. Listing for consent is not funded, and that is actually partly by design choice through the bill. What we are trying to do is build up a pipeline of projects that may have consent or at least are in the pipeline for consent that don’t necessarily have funding attached. But that’s actually part of the problem with the way we do things in New Zealand: we get the money together and then we go off and get consent, and it takes five years. In the meantime, the costs have gone up, and we have to rescope and reprice things. Transmission Gully is a classic example of that, where Transmission Gully was—you know, a deal was signed and then, I mean, without getting too much into the weeds of it—
Hon Damien O’Connor: That was a shocker.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —they spent—well, the problem was they spent 2½ years getting the resource consents to the regional—
Hon Damien O’Connor: You mucked it up.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, actually. This is completely—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re talking process here; we’re not going to start blaming each other. Just be very clear on—we’re talking process.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’m not pointing the finger at any specific person—
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I’m just making a point: Transmission Gully is a perfect demonstration of it, because a deal was signed and then the consents took three years, and the consent conditions were so onerous that that drove the cost up. It’s exactly what happened. The regional council consents took forever, and there might have been good reason for that—
Hon Damien O’Connor: What are you saying about iReX?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —but that is part of the—well, we’re not; that is completely outside the realm of the bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, out of scope.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: If you want to have a fight about that, we can do that through general debate or question time.
Hon Member: We will—we will.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll look forward to it. I’m not the Minister responsible, so you can have fun with that.
Anyway, what we’re trying to do is reverse this. I’ll give a simpler example that’s less controversial: when I first became an MP, there was a lot of talk about the Haywards Hill interchange—State Highway 2 connects State Highway 58—and that project was built in 16 months, in 2015. The reason why it was built is this: NZTA got to the end of the financial year and had $50 million lying around and, like all Government departments and Crown agencies, they went “Right, what can we spend some money on before the financial year runs out, before the Treasury comes calling and takes it back to the centre?”
People who’ve been Ministers before know exactly how that process works. They looked around for a project that had consent, because you can’t build anything without a consent, and so they looked around and lying on their books was the Haywards interchange project, which some planner in NZTA had had the far-sighted decision to go and get a consent for, I don’t know, seven or eight years before. It was consented; they had the funding, it was ready to go, there was basically nothing else that could be funded and that was consented, so off it went, and it got built and now it’s there.
That has always struck me as just a great way of doing things: you might have a massive pipeline of consented projects that funding is not yet attached for, but the point is that when the funding becomes available or the economics work or the business case is approved or whatever the case may be—it will differ depending on public and private sector—you can go and do it. It completely inverts what we normally do in this country, which is that we get all the funding together and then we spend years and years and years arguing about whether or not we can have consent. In the meantime, the project economics change.
It’s actually a deliberate design choice to try and invert that situation. There’s quite a lot of people out there saying, “Oh, well, you know, you’re going to consent this project but it has no funding”. Well, yeah, that’s true; we have limited funding. Everyone knows that the Crown doesn’t have limitless resources and there’s a debate between both sides of the House about trade-offs. But can we all agree that there are trade-offs, that money is not unlimited, that you have to make choices and—
Tim Costley: It makes sense to me.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, thank you very much, Mr Costley; that’s good—you’re on my side of it. I’d be worrying if it didn’t. With that, I’ll finish my contribution.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Given the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s last contribution, I am wondering if he has heard of designations and notices of requirement, which are, of course, good long-term planning tools. I suspect his road might have been part of one of those—used one of those tools.
Look, I want to go back to new clause 24AF, “Ministerial powers”, which says that the “Minister may determine that project is priority”. This is a new clause that is in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 238, and I have already spoken on it when a different Minister was in the chair, but I just raise it because it would be interesting to know how it relates to the discussion that the Minister was just having; if it fits into that discourse about wanting a pipeline of projects on that list of 149, because that question was not answered. It would be good to have the Minister answer that question.
Two things related to that: one is that there are numerous changes in this Amendment Paper that the Minister hasn’t touched on at all, and it would be good to know if any are substantive or not. I asked another Minister in the chair the same question. I accept that there will be bits that are moved around for various different reasons, but if there are substantive changes and if this project is a priority, is a substantive one, if it’s—what’s the meaning of it, it would be useful to know that.
Also, I’m interested in how that pipeline of work works for private projects and how that works with a priori, because the Minister’s examples that he was just talking about were to do with Government projects and Government budgets and coming to year-end and wanting to spend things and having to make a decision to fund something before you can consent it if you don’t have a designation for it. I understand that point, but how, then, does that same logic flow through to the many projects on the 149 list to do with private projects that aren’t to do with Government funding at all?
Now, going back to where I was at in the bill, I’ve just flicked back there. When we were talking about standing before and who has standing, and we were talking about groups such as BusinessNZ and Infrastructure New Zealand, the Minister quipped that the Infrastructure Commission was very busy and they shouldn’t have to be consulted on all of these applications. Of course, the way the COVID legislation worked—which is what I modelled the amendment on that I was speaking to—is that they were invited to comment. There was no compulsion that they had to comment, but they had the option to comment, and we heard the Hon David Parker in the House earlier note that Greenpeace, in particular, was invited—I hope it was Greenpeace; apologies to Greenpeace if I misheard what David Parker was saying—but that they chose not to comment. It’s a choice for those organisations to comment or not. They probably would see what other organisations were commenting or not. It would not be an unnecessary burden on groups like the Infrastructure Commission.
Now, moving on to new clause 24WB and amendments on this. We had an Amendment Paper pretty much to delete new clause 24WB, which is, “Conditions must be no more onerous than—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): What’s the amendment number?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. Amendment Paper 133, and this is the name of Dr Duncan Webb. New clause 24WB has been amended a little bit by the Minister’s amendment, the big Amendment Paper, and now this is what it reads: “When exercising the discretion to set a condition under this Act, the panel must not set a condition that is more onerous than necessary to address the reason for which it is set in accordance with the provision of this Act that confers this discretion.” That seems to be quite a confusing provision, and I’m not sure that it’s necessary given normal environmental laws that set out that you can’t have a condition that undermines the granting of the consent in the first place. I’m wondering if the Minister wants to comment on that.
Then, if we move to new clause 24WD on the same Amendment Paper 133, we have some changes to that—that’s “When panel must or may decline approvals”. I mentioned at the outset that I was very interested in the difference between these two words, “may” and “must”, and so in the Minister’s amendment, it’s all been changed quite a lot.
I won’t talk in detail about the changes suggested in Amendment Paper 133, but I will talk at a higher level about it, because the point was that what this clause 24WD does is say that some things are so bad they must be declined—an ineligible activity: that “must” be declined—but there are other things that are not so bad, so they “may” be declined. There’s a discretion there. Some of those things that would be discretionary, under “may”, include: “the activity or activities for which the approval is sought would have 1 or more adverse impacts; and (b) those adverse impacts … outweigh the purpose of this Act even after any conditions that the panel may set in relation to those impacts are taken into account.” We’re trying to get what was, too, the “may” into a “must” there. That sounds like a very bad outcome that should be declined. It “must” be declined rather than and “may” be declined. I would ask the Minister to consider that, noting that he’s slightly reworked the section in his amendment.
Then I also want to ask: in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, at new clause 24WD(3), there appears to be a new section, but again, there’s no numbers that give you clues about how it relates to the former version. It says: “To avoid doubt, a panel may not form the view that an adverse impact meets the threshold in subsection (2)(b) solely on the basis that the adverse impact is inconsistent with or contrary to a provision of a specified Act or any other document that a panel must take into account or otherwise consider in complying with section 24W(2).” I really want to know what this clause means and why the Minister wants it in there. It does look like, at first reading, it’s trying to constrain the issues and the adverse effects, the bad things, that a panel is allowed to decline on.
If the Minister could comment on that change and also my proposals in the Amendment Paper of the change from the “may” to a “must”. Thank you.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Just for clarity—oh, I’ll come back to that once the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is paying attention.
I have an amendment in my name, Amendment Paper 134, which amends new clauses 24P and 24Q around the hearing of the panel, and I understand—we get it. We get what you’re wanting to do. We don’t agree with it, but we get what you’re trying to do, but the question we would have is: is there some way of having some checks and balances in place for this?
To new clause 24P, “Hearing not required”: during the select committee process, there was huge interest or huge concern about the fact that someone living next door to a major infrastructure project has no ability to engage, and so my proposal is to replace the current sentence with “There is a requirement for a panel to hold a hearing in respect of a substantive application and all persons listed in section 24M have a right to be heard by a panel.”
Now, I kind of feel I know what your answer will be, but hear us out because, surely, there is a way to do this where it can be short and sharp. Surely, if you aren’t willing to actually have serious engagement with community, with stakeholders, with those who are affected by major infrastructure, major substantive applications, then surely, by changing this clause, you could actually have a subclause below that which has it time-bound, or has in terms of geography and connection those impacted and affected. It actually wouldn’t slow the process down. It would actually just ensure—I talk a lot about social licence, but it is one of those things that I think is really important for us as a community.
In particular, I remember listening during the submission process to Firstgas, who actually spoke cautiously in favour of this legislation, and their caution was around social licence, Minister, because it was the fact that they have pipes on private land. They have to negotiate and work with landowners every day to ensure that the infrastructure they have is looked after. Their concern was the fact that there has to be buy-in and there has to be actual engagement from locals or those who are impacted. That’s my suggestion: to amend new clause 24P and change that.
The next part is new clause 24Q, “Procedure if hearing is held”. Now, in this instance, what I’m proposing to do here is replace “if hearing is held” with “for hearing”, and then, in new clause 24Q(1), replace “If, in its discretion, a panel considers it is appropriate to hold a hearing on a substantive application (or any other part of a substantive application) it may hear from”. Then it goes on also with amending—and I quote—“A panel holding a hearing on a substantive application must invite to a hearing”. Again, it’s around including some of those key people who are connected.
I just think there is an opportunity here to allow this, because we’d love for people to cross the floor and come on to our side, but we get that, potentially, this will pass. But if it is going to, why not work on it so that, actually, people in the electorates that the people in Government represent actually feel like they’ve been heard and are part of it. It doesn’t have to be long—it could be something short and sharp—but at least someone has actually been included, and that is often a part of that social licence that companies like Firstgas talk about. So there are those are two amendments that I have, and I’ve got a couple more to come.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Let me just deal with these briefly. Clause 24AF, from Rachel Brooking—this is a new clause—“Minister may determine that project is priority”. Basically, what we’re trying to do there is—if that clause wasn’t there, it would just be first in, first served. It would just be whoever—because that’s the basic, underlying principle of the Resource Management Act. It’s just first in, and things get processed depending on when stuff gets in. That will generally be the case, but it will also provide for the Minister to determine that a project is a priority and it will allow the Minister for Infrastructure to rearrange the order in which the project is considered. That, essentially, gives the Minister greater discretion around things. That’s what we’re doing there.
In relation to the question around what it is—she quoted the phrase, “To avoid doubt”, etc. I won’t quote the rest of the words. She said, “Well, what does that mean?” What that means in plain English is that it makes it clear that just because an effect or part of a project may be inconsistent with national direction or part of a particular plan, that is not grounds in and of itself to turn a project down. It needs to meet the test for decline, which is laid out in the other parts of the bill.
In relation to Glen Bennett’s proposal, I mean, we’re covering ground that’s already been trod over here, which is that we’re just replicating in the bill the section from the COVID19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act about lack of a hearing if we were going to require a hearing. His suggestions might have some merit, but we’re not.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to really specifically home in on clause 15, which we haven’t yet discussed and which I have Amendment Paper 163 on, and that I would like to speak to and hear the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s views on. Firstly, clause 15 is a really key one in that it’s about the responsibilities of what’s deemed the responsible agency in their decisions about whether referral applications are actually complete and within scope, and so, initially, I just have some questions about whether that responsible agency is always the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) or whether there are times where it might be the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Conservation.
Now, why I’m interested in this is because we know that all three agencies have been subjected to quite serious cuts to their funding and that’s resulted in some really significant changes within their staffing and personnel. For example, MfE has a 39 percent budget cut, which has implications across their business. Now, I don’t doubt that MfE will find it within their limited resources to actually prioritise staff members to do this job, but what I’m concerned about with clause 14 is the fact that they have 10 working days to decide whether a referral application actually complies, after receiving it. There’s quite a high burden on them to actually be assessing these applications—and this could be hundreds of applications—so it is a really intense administrative task.
What my amendment refers to is clause 15(1A)(b), and it says, “(1A) A referral application complies with this subsection if—… (b) the responsible agency considers that”—and I’m glad that the amendment has suggested deleting “on the face of the application,”, because at least that suggests some level of detail of scrutiny of the actual application. What’s concerning about it is that it goes on to say, “the project—…”—and this is paragraph (b)(ii)—“(ii) does not appear to involve an ineligible activity;”. Now, what I’m suggesting in this Amendment Paper is to actually delete the “appear to”, because that seems to constitute a very cursory responsibility on the responsible agency to check these very significant and serious criteria about what makes a project eligible or ineligible. I would really appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that.
The other questions I have are: what happens in a situation when an applicant’s referral application does not comply with the requirements repeatedly? Will applicants be able to basically continually lodge applications—and as many as they like—until the responsible agency is actually happy that they are compliant with the requirements of 15(1A)(b)(i) and (ii)? I would really appreciate the Minister’s thoughts about these, because they seem of significant implication.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you to Lan Pham for that excellent question. I’m advised that the responsible agency at the referral stage is the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). The responsible agency at the substantive stage is the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
In relation to her concerns about costs being cut at MfE and the EPA, the salient point is this: this whole regime is going to operate on a cost recovery basis. I’ve made that really clear. There’s a whole separate process around application costs and referral fees and all the rest of it, but the point is it’s going to be neutral. It’ll be complicated, but the salient point is this: applicants who are going to use the fast track will be charged at various different points and the referral costs, the administration, and all the sort of administration around all of that stuff throughout the process will be cost recovered from them, and so the staff and the various resources required—over time it’ll be neutral for the Crown, so we’re not subsidising through the administration of the applications.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you for that response from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. What I’m really interested in is the policy rationale for clause 15(1A)(b)(ii), where it is explicitly saying that it, “does not appear to involve an ineligible activity;”. My concern is the cursory nature of that and I would like some assurance from the Minister that that is not, essentially, a get out of jail card for the responsible agency when it’s such a clear and important bar that these applicants are asked to meet and should be meeting if they are to move through to the next stage.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was going to go back and note—and I’ll note for the officials—that my questions around clause 24C I don’t think have been answered, and that is the new additions in this Amendment Paper 238—the large Amendment Paper, the Government Amendment Paper. If it has increased what can be approved or not, that would be very useful to have an answer to. I thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his response about clause 24AF in terms of priorities.
I move now through to “Miscellaneous provisions”. I’m now on Subpart 3 of Part 2 but have not yet touched on the many schedules that are an important part of this bill, and I note that members opposite have been jumping up for closure motions, which I think is a very poor form. Clause 26 is “Appeal against decisions only on question of law”, and that has been in the bill for some time, as reported back, but there is a change in this Amendment Paper 238—this large amendment paper that was only tabled yesterday afternoon and has not been through select committee. At paragraph (aa), there’s this new insertion: “the applicant (or, if the substantive application was lodged by more than 1 authorised person, the person who has proposed to hold the approval)”. It has been included rather than “the authorised person whose substantive application sought the approval”. Why has that change been made? That’s my first question.
I’m not as worried about that, though, as I am about paragraph (e) of clause 26(1), which has been deleted, and this was “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public.” This is a substantive change because, already, appeal rights are constrained to questions of law, so there is no appeal on the merits. If you’re in the Environment Court—normal resource management procedures—you may well have an option to do a full de novo hearing on appeal on all the merits; a merits-based appeal and everyone hears all the evidence and everything again. That is not an option in this case, because the appeals are only on questions of law, so they are already confined to the appeals. Normally in resource management and conservation legislation, “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public”—that’s a fairly normal phrase—has the ability to appeal. That has been removed at the 11th hour and there has been no discussion about this proactively from the Minister. I would like to hear about that and, of course, suggest that that deletion of clause 26(1)(e) be undeleted, that the line is not struck through.
I would then move to “Judicial review”, and this is a new clause, clause 27AAB, inserted by Amendment Paper 238. Again, it looks to be included just now in this amendment from the Minister. It’s saying that “(1) An application for review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016”—blah, blah, blah—“that relates to a decision on a referral application or an approval sort and a substantive application must be filed with the High Court—(a) no later than 20 working days after,—” the decision is made, and so it goes. My first point is there’s this 20 - working-day period—that appears to be quite short; I think, sometimes, it can be up to three months for a judicial review. Also, it seems new that there is this time frame put into the bill for judicial reviews. Then, at subclause (4), there’s a new—well it’s all new—underline: “Except as provided in this section, nothing in this Act limits or affects any right of judicial review a person may have in respect of any matter in which this Act applies.” Presumably, all that this new clause 27AAB is really applying to, given subclause (4), is that time limit of the 20 working days. I’d like, from the Minister, some explanation of that new clause.
Whilst we wait for an answer, I’ll move on, then, to clause 27A, which is “Interpretation”. I have here a note that we have an amendment on Amendment Paper 135, which is for the old clause 27A, which was “Cost recovery”, which has been deleted, but I presume it’s been put somewhere else. Again, this is just a huge frustration that we have had no Minister in the chair explain to us why all these changes have been made and where we can go about finding the different provisions, and of course we haven’t had the time to do that work ourselves. Clause 27A which is now deleted, the cost recovery provisions, says what the Minister was talking about before, that the idea is that these proposals are fully cost recoverable—except for those iwi authorities or other groups similar to an iwi authority, Māori groups; there doesn’t seem to be any ability for them to cost recover. There might be a change now in new clause 27B, inserted by Amendment Paper 238.
My Amendment Paper 135 that has been tabled since early November—well, not mine, it was in the name of the Hon Peeni Henare—was to include in clause 27A, at subclause (3A): “An iwi authority or anyone who is invited to make comment under ‘section 24M(b) to (ea)’ ”—so that’s the range of different groups—“may recover from the applicant the actual and reasonable cost incurred from participation in relation to the relevant substantive application.” Why we have included that in an amendment is because whilst these iwi and other groups have to be—customary rights holders; those sorts of groups—consulted with, that always comes at a cost to those groups. It’s a time cost, and they might need to involve professional people that they have to hire as well. It seems the bill as it was reported back from the Environment Committee—that there was no way for those groups to recover costs; maybe similar arguments for how much local government can get as well. I’m interested in the Minister’s comments on our Amendment Paper 135, and what thought has been given to cost recovery for those Māori organisations that will be involved in the process.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of what has already been mentioned but also to examine and ask some more questions in relation to clause 14AA-ish, and also going over to clause 15, where I have questions in relation to engagement with Māori and trying to unpack and understand the intentions of the amendments made that we have before us—as we have had limited time to review what’s in front of us.
Earlier in the piece, we discussed Part 2, clause 14AAA around consultation and engagement with Māori groups, and I have an Amendment Paper for clause 14. It’s Amendment Paper 159 that I’d like to speak to in relation to clause 14(3)(ha)—we’re going to go over it? Yes, we are. Yep, there we go. I can see it in the papers here. It’s page 24, to guide my colleagues in my discussion.
What we have right now is that my Amendment Paper seeks to amend and change some of the subparagraphs provided, and it’s around iwi authorities and it’s around hapū and Treaty settlement entities—the post-settlement governance entities that I’ve spoken to previously—and recognising iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū that are parties to relevant Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, or joint management agreements. It’s broadening it a bit there—this is my amendment and my proposal—but also going to our customary fisheries space, including taiāpure and mātaitai reserves, to be clear and explicit in terms of the voice of iwi kāinga who can input into applications.
For these provisions here, they support those of us who are impacted as Māori groups through the projects that we have before us, going back to Whangārei Harbour, such as the McCallum Brothers mining our sand out at Ruakākā, at Poupouwhenua, and also Northport, with their desire to go and dredge our papamoana in Whangarei-te-rerenga-parāoa. By having the ability for us to utilise this amendment, it ensures that those of us who have got customary rights recognised through taiāpure and mātaitai get a say, because under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, we have yet to achieve a decision in the High Court in that space.
Further, speaking in support of what has been put forward by the Hon Peeni Henare, in terms of reasonable cost recovery, that is an issue, and it came through strongly in submissions through whānau, hapū, and iwi. The worry is that they will not be able to gear themselves up and have the relevant technicians on hand to support them. For some of these applications, even if you are a part of the notified group, it’s substantial. We’re guessing it’s going to be a big application with a lot of technical detail, so the ability for hapū iwi groups to be able to access technicians and to be able to pay for them and then recover the costs are not clear. We acknowledge that this amendment here from Peeni Henare seeks to ensure that reasonable costs from participants are able to be achieved.
Local government are locked in on the legislation. The hapū iwi voice was really strong in the submissions, and kore taea te kite ki roto tēnei ture [unable to find where this is within this bill]—we’re unable to find where we landed on that, in terms of hapū iwi. We have many within the Whangārei district—e hanga kārangirangi ana [it seems to be unsettling]. You can ask our Minister what “kārangirangi” means, but it means that you’re in a bit of a panic. You’re panicking because it’s coming. We’ve got six in Whangārei Harbour, and how are they going to pay for the technicians, even if they get notified and included in the process?
One final question I’d like to ask in relation to clause 15, which is the responsible agencies and whether to defer. In understanding the intentions of the process, who are the relevant Government departments that are going to do the referrals?
Then, getting over to page 31, where we are at clause 19(2A), where the Minister, once they’ve received the information and the panel has done their assessment—it is my understanding from what we read before us that the Minister is to call for comment from Māori groups identified in the list provided to the Minister, and then the Māori land owners in the project area, and “Before the Minister invites comments under subsection (1), the responsible agency must provide the Minister with a list of the Māori groups referred to”.
For this area here, the question is the agency itself, the responsible agency—sometimes they don’t get it right. Sometimes our agencies don’t get it right, or they don’t know who’s in the whare or who’s in the mara or who’s in the harbour, so how do we ensure that our agencies themselves are geared up and prepared and understand the lie of the land whereby they are operating? Are they going to be working with their regional officers to be able to get a good list of the Māori who the Minister for Infrastructure will need to invite comments from?
Further, in terms of the Māori land owners of the project area, who defines what the project area is—that is a question for the Minister—and then who determines who the land owners are? In the Whangārei Harbour, for instance, we have very few whenua Māori land blocks on the harbour today, and that’s because of the acts and omissions of the Crown in terms of alienation of our whenua, but that doesn’t mean that the hapū and the iwi kāinga of those spaces should not be considered in terms of inviting this comment from the Minister.
That’s a question in terms of landlessness and who the Māori land owners in the project area are, and who determines all of this. Does it all come from the ministry and their Crown officials, and how big is the footprint of impact? When you think of Northport and you think of their footprint of impact, it’s quite substantial. It’s not just on the Ruakākā, Poupouwhenua side; it’s across the harbour. There’s many of us, and, as we might recall, the tribes of Whangārei are currently in mediation with Northport because we’ve been quite successful in pushing back on the proposal.
These are some of my pātai to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the officials. Kia ora tātou.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that the officials are here, Ministers are changing, and it would, of course, be lovely to have some answers to the questions that I was making on the miscellaneous provisions, and prior to them. But now I’m going to move to Schedule 3.
This is the schedule about the expert panel. There’s been a change in the Government Amendment Paper at clause 2, and this is the appointment of a panel convener. I’ve got some changes to who should be on the panel in the first place, but there are going to be a lot of the panels—there are 149 projects. I realise not all of them will happen at once; there’s just not that many people available. But they have to be chosen—these expert panels—by someone. The question is: who is that person that chooses the expert panels? It was going to be: “(1) The Minister must, after consulting the other relevant portfolio Ministers, appoint a former (including retired) Environment Judge or High Court Judge to be the panel convener”.
A former or current Environment Judge or High Court Judge is somebody who will know a lot about process and will know a lot about environmental laws. That is a high bar. You don’t get judges all the time, but these are not the people who have to be on the panels; this is just the person appointing the panels. Now, I see in this amendment that it’s changed, so that subclause (1) is that the Minister, after consultation, can appoint the Environment Judge, the High Court Judge, or—and this is new—“a senior lawyer with expertise in resource management.” That is quite a dramatic change. I would like to ask for the justification of that, given that this is just one person—it is just one position. There is one convener—it’s a panel convener. Why does this need to be widened to senior lawyers?
Then, if we go further through, I note that there’s clause 2A—this looks to be new as well—the “Associate panel conveners”. Again, these can be a senior lawyer with expertise in resource management. Then, at clause 3, there is the “Membership of panels”. These panels can be up to four people who make up the panel. We’re very interested in the membership of these panels. We have an Amendment Paper, No. 136, in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. That is around who can chair the panels, which is at clause 4. I’m sure there are some other submissions, some other amendments as well, about the make-up of those panels and what the knowledge has to be that’s included in clause 3.
At clause 4, there is a bit about who the chairperson of the panel is. This is very important, because 149 projects have to be of regional or national significance. They are big projects—we’ve seen that in the schedule, and other members may want to talk some more about those projects in Schedule 2. These are big things that would normally go to an Environment Court process or a direct referral process. But here, in clause 4, the chairperson of a panel may be a suitably qualified lawyer or planner with experience in relevant law to be the chairperson of a panel. You don’t have to be a lawyer or a senior lawyer or a retired judge to be the chairperson of a panel; you can be a planner. And all my aroha to planners, who are wonderful, wonderful people. They are not the same as a very senior lawyer, and they are not the same as a judge.
That is why we have that amendment to make that change. These are big, serious applications that are going to affect various companies a lot with the decisions. There’s going to be big private gain from those, and there could be very significant environmental effects that would not otherwise be allowed under existing law, and the decision makers can be chaired by a planner rather than a lawyer or judge.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Earlier, I’ve been engaged with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in terms of some of the work in terms of clause 19. I want to sort of jump into, I guess, the schedule of projects, because it talks about—and I’d ask the Minister in terms of some comment or reflection. The Minister invites comments in clause 19(2B), “a local authority must provide comments advising … applications that have been lodged with the local authority that would be competing applications”, etc., and it goes on.
As we look through Schedule 2, we see that there is a huge number of projects that are not only private but there are a lot of council projects. I’ve got a few questions around this, because I do see that Auckland Transport is in there and there are several—in fact, there are three that I can see from Auckland Transport. There’s the airport to Botany bus rapid transit; there’s the Auckland level crossings removals—that’s a shame; and there’s the Papakura to Pukekohe route protection for track, which had been mentioned. Obviously, this Government has announced some changes in Auckland in terms of Auckland Transport and how it will be managed. I just wonder if there are any implications, in terms of Schedule 2, with Auckland Transport around the announcements that I think were made last week. Are there any issues with that?
Secondly, I just want to look—for example, Ashburton District Council has an application and, as we move our way through, there are a number of local authorities that are here, like the Far North District Council. They’ve got plans in terms of the Kaikohe waste-water treatment plant renewal. When we look at this, in terms of the process which we have here, how does the council offer comment when its projects that actually they are the stakeholders in or projects that they are supportive of? In many ways, is there conflict there? We understand that and we’re grateful that local authorities can participate—one of the few that can—but how does that work?
So, firstly, around Auckland Transport, does it change anything with the announcement the Government has made around Auckland Transport in their management or leadership system? Secondly, in terms of local authorities which are in here, is there a conflict that they’re actually having to provide advice to the Minister in this space? I’ve got more to come, but those are a couple of questions just at the moment.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just wait for my mike—thank you. I would like to focus in on what was clause 16, and this was about consultation requirements, but it’s more an explanation about the changes between the bill as we knew it as of yesterday and then the Government’s Amendment Paper 238, which, essentially, deletes consultation requirements for referral applications. Now, I assume that these are covered elsewhere, but I have a number of questions about them. I’m really keen to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform what has happened to this clause, so I can better direct the rest of my questions on that. Thank you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I share my colleague’s frustration that we are not getting any answers from Ministers. I’d remind you—and I will go back to them if I need to—of my questions on new clause 24C: what does it mean; is it opening things up—my questions around appeals—who has standing to make an appeal; the time provisions around judicial review; the hearing panel issues that were raising costs for iwi and other groups. These are all things that have not been answered, by my count.
Now I will move to Schedule 4 and clause 12, which is “Criteria and other matters for assessment of consent application”. If we look at Schedule 4—we were looking at Schedule 3 before which was about those panels—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Which schedule?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m sorry?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Schedule 4.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Schedule 4, yes. Schedule 4 is “Approvals relating to Resource Management Act 1991”. There’s a number of schedules here, and they relate to the different specified Acts; they relate to the different pieces of legislation which this bill, as a one-stop shop, can give approvals for. They are all important, but this one is in relation to the Resource Management Act, and at clause 12—it’s a very important clause for a number of reasons, because it starts with and it relates back to section 24W—“when considering a consent application, including conditions … the panel must take into account, giving the greatest weight to paragraph (a)”.
Now, what is that greatest weight? Oh, “the purpose of this Act” is the greatest weight. So I have an Amendment Paper in my name, No. 137, to change that “must take into account, giving the greatest weight to paragraph (a)” by deleting “giving the greatest weight”. It fixes a major problem with the bill if you get rid of giving the greatest weight to the purpose of the Act, because as we’ve already traversed in Part 1, the purpose of this Act doesn’t mention the environment. Therefore, the purpose of this fast-track bill is in direct conflict with the purpose of the Resource Management Act, which is for sustainable management. The Minister has already refused an amendment to clause 3 to include sustainable management, so that’s not in there. My question is, then, would the Minister responsible for RMA Reform consider removing “giving the greatest weight” in clause 12, as suggested by my Amendment Paper 137?
Then, interestingly, clause 12 goes on to the provisions of Parts 2, 3, 6, and 8 to 10 of the Resource Management Act, and the relevant provisions of any other legislation. It doesn’t include everything in the Resource Management Act. It does include Part 2; Part 2 of the Resource Management Act is the purpose clause. Now there’s been an insertion in this Government Amendment Paper—the big Amendment Paper No. 238—to add Part 3. That seems like a good idea. I would ask the Minister why Part 3 has been added, why it wasn’t there before, and why it’s not all of the provisions of the Resource Management Act that are included in clause 12(1)(b).
Then there is an “to avoid doubt” provision at clause 12(2)(c), which is new, and it says, “to avoid doubt, for the purposes of subclause (1)(b), when taking into account section 104(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act … any Mana Whakahono ā Rohe or joint management agreement that is relevant to the approval is a relevant matter.” I presume that that is a clarification, but I want to know why it’s needed—why is that specific reference needed? Why did officials feel that that was needed in this change, and what else is missing from the Resource Management Act in clause 12? Those are some questions on Schedule 4.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Mr Chair. Apologies for the swap-over with Minister Grigg earlier on. As we know, this kaupapa, this proposed legislation, is all around ensuring the expedited delivery of projects of national and regional importance.
Just in response to various questions that have been proffered by my erudite colleagues throughout the Chamber: yes, in relation to a senior lawyer being able to be the convener, we are cognisant of the width and depth of people who are equipped with the procedural expertise and the skills and the knowledge to conduct panels for these projects of national and regional significance. As a result, the proposed amendment will encompass a broader and wider group of individuals with that relevant expertise to conduct a panel of these matters of consequence. There are resourcing constraints across the motu in relation to panels of this nature and of this consequence—hence why we’ve brought in that group by way of the amendment.
In relation to those that may be able to contribute to the panel’s consideration of a variety of applications that will present themselves, yes, the panel does have some discretion to ask organisations, people, NGOs, Infrastructure New Zealand, and a wide range of organisations with relevant insights and expertise to better inform the panel of their decision making and inform the panel as to what considerations—and perhaps even the appropriate conditions—in the decision-making process, knowing, of course, that many of the challenges that will be presented to the panel will be different in nature to many of the various applications submitted by way of the previous fast-track consenting arrangements that were launched and led out by the then Minister Parker.
To the questions around iwi and hapū participation, it’s my great privilege to hear that hanga kārangirangi [provoking] comment. That actually went down really well, especially at this time of the day. We are very aware of the need to ensure Treaty settlements are upheld and the obligations and commitments that go with that. I look forward to a report, in due course, around the extent and the breadth and depth of those settlements that are held by many agencies throughout the country.
The other item I’d like to just acknowledge is that my understanding and, certainly, expectation is the relevant agencies that will be assisting panels and Ministers will contribute to clarity of identification of the iwi and hapū groups and any other authorities and organisations that should be engaged by way of clause 14AAA. To the question from my colleague Ms Lyndon, I expect that there’ll be quite extensive engagement through the agencies to the referring Minister about the appropriate groups, entities, and organisations that should be part and parcel of that process, which ultimately will result in a report that is considered by the Minister for Māori Crown Relations and the Minister for Māori Development, whoever he or she may be at the time.
In relation to clause 16, essentially the effect or the intent of that by way of Parliamentary Counsel Office redrafting is that that provision has been channelled to clauses 14AAA and 14AAB.
There was a question in relation to Auckland Transport and wonderful places, especially if you’re trying to catch the bus on time from Ōrākau to town. The councils that will be experiencing separation between functions, ultimately, will work out—and the expectation is that they will work out and manage any separations themselves. We’ll leave them to their devices.
There are a couple of other items that were raised and, again, excuse me because I just arrived while some of the questions were being asked. Just going through this—oh, that’s right, Schedule 2. It’s wonderful to see the amount of iwi-led and partnered projects. Certainly, my take on those projects that are currently on that relevant schedule is that there are over 20 projects within the 149 identified on the documents today that are either iwi or Māori-led or partnered. That to me really underpins the support from many iwi and Māori organisations to participate in the fast-track process and to actually expedite their economic aspirations, which consequentially will contribute to the social emancipation of many of their own iwi members and onus.
Whether or not that’s the Rangitopuni project out there beyond the rohe of my whanaunga, Mr Halbert, beyond Riverhead there, or the Hananui aquaculture project down at the bottom of Te Wai Pounamu, or even the Arahura papakāinga project in the beautiful Tai Poutini, on the West Coast, adjacent to the Arahura Marae, what we see is that there is an absolute intention from iwi and Māori organisations to participate in the fast-track process and to continue to support for that channel to be open to them to participate—and, might I add, the Ruakura Tuumata project, which is a residential and commercial development laid out by the phenomenal Tainui Group Holdings.
There certainly is an intention to ensure that there is a one-stop shop for projects of national and regional significance, and so much so that the iwi and Māori organisations involved in applying for this process and through this process are right behind us.
Finally, there is a final comment—actually, I think I’ll just take a break for now, Mr Chair.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): It’s wonderful to hear from the Minister of Conservation and some of his whakaaro in reply to some of our contributions. I’m wanting to explore a little bit about what has been shared thus far, considering the reporting on Treaty settlements and other obligations in clause 19A. It’s great to see a comprehensive list of what would be included in the report. It’s good to see that a range of Crown legislation, of different provisions in relation to Treaty settlements—hey, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act is mentioned in there again, but, of course, very few of us may ever achieve that goal. But then you’ve got rohe moana, you’ve got also the provisions for those with Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.
I’m wondering, though, in terms of reporting, because this is for Te Arawhiti Māori Development and those decision-making Ministers: will there be any provision to provide a cultural landscape report in terms of these projects and the rohe that they are coming into? I ask that because there’s a story in each of the areas that the projects will land, and if they have public good or a public outcome, if they are something of regional and national significance, would it not be good for the Government, for the agencies themselves, to have an understanding of the layers of interest, but also in terms of some of the acts and omissions of the Crown that led to alienation in those spaces?
We cannot think that the iwi kāinga in those areas, just because they might have signed a settlement, have not had an element of loss. What is the documenting around that space, but also what is the contemporary layering of interests? I use the words “layers” of interest, because the Minister is here with us now; he knows that there are layers of interest amongst iwi Māori, amongst hapū, and amongst tribes.
Going again to those who have not settled, those tribes who have maybe had Waitangi Tribunal reports that have been produced—and I’m going to the North, the Great North, Whangārei. Mapping out again: we’ve got six projects out of the 11 in Tai Tokerau in Whangārei Harbour. We have one tribe which is settled in that area, which is Ngāti Pūkenga, Pakikaikutu. We have two Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, Patuharakeke and Te Parawhau. We have no customary marine title, marine and coastal area (takutai moana) rights that have been proved, because we’ve just finished two rounds of hearings and we might have to go back to the High Court again. We have rohe moana also in the area.
It’s great to hear the emphasis on settlement, but when there are no settlements in the rohe, will the report reflect on the large database of evidence that the Waitangi Tribunal Te Paparahi o Te Raki has compiled on the story of the Whangārei Harbour? I can even provide some references to quite a few reports, actually, on Whangārei Harbour. There’s an opportunity there to really understand the nature of the space where the project will be located, but also some of the impacts to date. To the deciding Minister: will those reports, knowing that it will be beyond just Treaty settlements and all of those compliance issues, also go into the background of the proposals, because some of these proposals that will come up might have already been through processes in the past? Will it reflect on Environment Court hearings, on commissioner hearings? Will it provide a whakapapa of the company or the agency or the group that is the applicant, and provide full expression of the journey travelled for that project? I think, in terms of the general public of New Zealand, it would be great for us to review these reports, but also for the deciding Ministers to have all the information in front of them.
Let’s go to McCallum Bros, for instance—you know, talk about the uncles. They have been in Pākiri for nearly 80 years, sandmining there, and they just recently lost this year in the Environment Court, so they’ve turned their attention to the Bream Bay area. Will the report that comes before the deciding Ministers look at the whakapapa of the entity, of the company that is applying for the consent, for the projects, and then also look at their track record in terms of environmental impact? You don’t get declined in the Environment Court for no reason. Those are just some questions I’d like to ask. Thank you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to remind the Minister of Conservation of some unanswered questions—one’s going back to clause 24C and the amendments on Amendment Paper 238 and whether that widens up who can be applicants, really. Also, to the appeal provisions, I don’t think I heard in his last contribution any reference to that strikeout of clause 26(1)(e) and the time limits to judicial review. I don’t think I’ve heard anything, either, on costs being recouped by the various different Māori organisations that we were just hearing about in that last contribution.
Continuing on to Schedule 4, there’s more changes on this Amendment Paper that have quite a lot to do with freshwater fisheries activities, and I was wondering why those changes are made, and they come up in another schedule, as well. That would be a useful thing to know.
Again, noting my amendment on Amendment Paper 137, in clause 16 of Schedule 4—clause 16 is the “Panel to make aquaculture decision”. It says, again, that we’ve got this hierarchy, at subclause (3): “In making an aquaculture decision, the panel must—… take into account, giving the greatest weight to subparagraph (i), [which is] the purpose of this Act; and [then] sections 8 to 10 and 186GB(1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act”. Again, it’s trying to change that and giving the greatest weight to the purpose to this Act being to facilitate projects.
Then, a similar change is recommended in Schedule 5 on Amendment Paper 238. Schedule 5 moves on from the Resource Management Act, which was Schedule 4, and goes into approvals relating to the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, and the Wildlife Act and the National Parks Act. There is a change here in this big Government Amendment Paper to include the Wildlife Act and the National Parks Act in the heading to Schedule 5. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us why that is and how it has repercussions for the rest of the bill, as well; that would be useful.
Then, again, going back to my Amendment Paper 137, it again goes to this greatest weight clause. At clause 5, “Criteria for assessment of application for concession”, again, it says that the greatest weight must go to “the purpose of this Act”. That, of course, is very different from the purpose of the Conservation Act, which is all about conservation, and is really in direct conflict. Then we see, in those criteria, reference to the Wildlife Act have been included by Amendment Paper 238, and the National Parks Act as well. That would be useful to have more information on why these changes have been made and what they mean.
At clause 5(1)(a)(x) of Schedule 5—that has been deleted by Amendment Paper 137, which is interesting. We have an Amendment Paper 143, in the name of Priyanca Radhakrishnan, and that was to add an amendment after subparagraph (x), which was really to give weight to management plans and reserve management plans and to change the weighting of those important plans that are very important under this underlying legislation, to be a must, so they “must” be considered rather than “may” be considered. At the moment, they fall under paragraph (b) rather than paragraph (e). This seems to be a strangeness, given the importance in those legislative regimes of those planning documents—that they’d just be a “may” consideration, rather than a “must” consideration. There is an amendment in Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s name there at Amendment Paper 143 for that change, as well. I will sit down now.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, it’s actually my first opportunity to contribute to this Fast-track Approvals Bill debate, although I have been following along for the contributions that others have made. I just wanted to ask some questions of the Minister of Conservation; I won’t take too long. I wanted to go to Schedule 4, and wanted to ask a few different questions in this schedule and I’ll let you know the numbers of the specific clauses, and I’d be grateful if the Minister could answer them in due course.
The first question I have is really in relation to Schedule 4, clause 4 when it looks at the environmental effects, and there’s a number of things listed there. The question I had was in relation to clause 4(f), the unreasonable emission of noise. I wondered if the Minister had a barometer for what that would include and whether he would consider any noise to be covered within environmental effects as an alternative, because, of course, reasonableness, as a question of policy, a question of opinion—and it would seem to me that just including the emission of noise would be a better way of ensuring that environmental impacts were fully considered. That’s my first question: whether the Minister would consider looking at that or has considered it.
The next question I have is in relation to Schedule 4, clause 6(2), and that goes through the required documents that are necessary for that particular clause, for the information required in application for a certificate of compliance. It’s quite an interesting list, there, of the documents that are required and I just wanted to know whether any other documents could perhaps be necessary in relation to that particular provision, whether he thought any other helpful documents could be included that could provide more information when they are looking for a certificate of compliance, because they do seem quite specific, but also not entirely fulsome.
The next question I have is in relation to clause 10, still in Schedule 4, which looks at the chief executive in relation to an aquaculture decision, and appreciate the comments made by my colleague Rachel Brooking when she talked about some of the important determinations that are needed when looking at aquaculture decisions. The question I had, really, was a process question around the chief executive’s actions in relation to when they receive information, specifically in relation to clause 10, the requirement to do that within five working days.
If we then move to clause 11, it’s a very complicated process that the chief executive has to go to in order to prioritise the different decisions that they have. First of all, it states that they have to be made in the order that they are received and that seems relatively reasonable, but then, if there’s more than one on the same day, it has to be determined which was first in that day, and that also seems reasonable. Then, in subclauses (3) and (4), there are additional determinations that need to be made by the chief executive in relation to the priorities.
That seems to be, if the chief executive was to receive a number of recommendations on the same day, not a very fast process to go through, which seemed to be quite contrary to the purpose of the bill which I have looked at. I did look at the Environment Committee report, and I did look at the fact that the speed was of the essence, really, with this bill, and the comments made by the other select committee members that said maybe the environmental considerations should be placed higher within the purpose were not agreed by the Environment Committee as a majority.
Obviously that’s not necessarily the main objective here but I just wondered whether clause 11 is really the most efficient way to draft a procedure that the chief executive will have to follow, because it seems to me to be quite arduous. Of course, that’s not the end of the story and I’m sure other members will have contributions to make in relation to the further procedures relating to the aquaculture decision-making process. I know there’s further decisions that have to be made in relation to clause 16 and also in Schedule 4 that make it further complicated. However, I’ll leave my questions there.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, it’s absolutely wonderful to see the genuine interest in the catalysing and accelerating of Māori economic development by way of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I look at the applicants like Te Aupōuri Fisheries team way up there in the far Far North—not the far middle north, which sometimes I frequent, but the far Far North—and their intention to create aquaculture employment, small to medium enterprise, and other opportunities not only for their people but actually for all the people of the Far North, that great place which I hope to visit later on this week.
There is an extensive opportunity for a very concise report by the responsible agency. This exemplifies, in my view, the commitment, ultimately, of the team behind the legislation to ensure that the settlement obligations and settlement commitments of Treaty bodies but also those other matters from other organisations, as set out in clause 19A(2)(i), where it is noted “any other Māori groups with relevant interests:”—whilst there has been an inquiry around the need for something of the nature of a cultural impact analysis or cultural impact assessment and the layers of interest that might go with any specific area, the subject of an application through this process, we can note that a cultural impact assessment is not a requirement. There may be applicants and project owners who want to undertake that by way of their own engagement with the local communities, and in some ways, in some people’s minds, the mana whenua, but I often refer to that as the tangata whenua.
These projects that are led and partnered with Māori, they too might go through their own internal assessment of cultural impacts and cultural relevancies, but I expect that many of those will be hardwired into the planning that they undertake for their own projects and to the design and other features that might be accommodated within their applications—for example, urban design that may be led out through the Mana Ahuriri Trust project around the Ahuriri Station, the Tauhara North No.2 Trust Solar Farm down there near Rotokawa, and a project like the Tara Road housing project out there near Mr Rutherford, out there by Pāpāmoa and Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore.
My expectation is that there will be different horses for courses around how an applicant or a project owner may engage with the relevant post-settlement governance entities, but also any other groups, and they may be hapū or they may be incorporations and trusts. They may even be at whānau level, but there’s provision for that, not only to engage but also to ensure that there is a very concise and deliberate report prepared by the responsible agency for the consideration of the Minister for Māori Development and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations, whoever she or he may be.
In reference to previous compliance history—that’s clause 24C on Amendment Paper 238—yes, the previous compliance history and also herstory of the relevant applicant and project owner is considered.
Costs: there’s been a lot of observation around costs and they do sometimes mount up in these sorts of processes. There are provisions in clauses 27F and 27H on Amendment Paper 238 to ensure that there will be a set cost contribution for groups. Some of those, I expect, will be around the engagement set out and throughout the proposed legislation with iwi. That cost contribution will be organised through the Environmental Protection Authority.
There were comments around the freshwater fisheries and the standard fisheries proposals, of course, part of the resource consent, but projects like dams that need a freshwater fisheries approval outside of the one-stop shop would cut against the grain of the intention of this Act, which is a one-stop shop. The upside is, of course, that the Director-General of Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation, will be expected to provide a report to the panel to help.
There is a variety of comments around the Wildlife Act and the National Parks Act being in the title of Schedule 5. Of course, the Wildlife Act, which generally comes within the purview of the Minister of Conservation, a quiet figure in the coalition Government, is to ensure that concessions can be given for wildlife refuges and wildlife management reserves. Certainly, there are some exclusions across the conservation estate that will be ineligible to be used as land for these types of projects, and those are well set out. The National Parks Act, of course, is in the title of Schedule 5 on Amendment Paper 238 to allow concessions for the limited electricity projects of clause 22DA.
There was a question about clause 6(2) in Schedule 4 that was removed, but it’s covered off, in our view, by clause 6(1)(g)—“g” for “goat”, and there’s a lot of them on the conservation estate; please knock them off if you see them—and, of course, the aquaculture decision process mirrors the existing MBC process, considering all the relevant interests. Happy to take some more questions.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some specific questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, around the panel convener and setting up the panels, which is clause 24GAA of Part 2 of this bill. Of course, Schedule 3 of the bill goes into far more detail around the membership of the panels and the way in which these are set up.
In particular, in Schedule 3, I have some questions around clause 3(1A), which specifies: “Before appointing the members of a panel, the panel convener may, but need not, consult—(a) the Minister”, and then, “(b) if the panel is set up for a substantive application that seeks an approval described in section 24C(3)(h) (marine consent), the EPA.” My question for the Minister is: this requirement to the—well, it’s not a requirement, before appointing the members of the panel, the convener “may, but need not, consult—the Minister”. My question for the Minister is: what is the purpose of this? Obviously, this is not an area where the Minister is going to have decision-making power specified under the legislation, because “may, but need not” is also included in there. I’m interested to hear from the Minister in the chair what the thinking is behind that.
Also, to get some clarity from the Minister in the chair, what happens if the panel chair comes and says, “We’re going to appoint X, Y, and Z people to this panel.” and the Minister does have an issue with some of those appointments? What is the thinking that Ministers, where they’ve been going through doing policy development—what will be the consequence of a Minister raising some flags to officials, and what weight will that carry? Will that be documented? Will that be communicated? If so, how and where? Just really looking to get some understanding of the purpose of why that is there.
I’ll come back with some more questions around panels, but I am looking for some clarity on those.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister of Conservation to turn his attention to page 114 in the Amendment Paper, the first item at the top of the page—the project name’s “Auckland level crossings removals project”. That’s been sponsored by Auckland Transport. The Minister may be aware that because of the City Rail Link increasing the frequency of services across the network so significantly—something I think we all celebrate in this House—one of the flow-on consequences is that it has implications for a number of communities around the network, because our old-fashioned rail network often has pedestrian crossings, often unsupported by safety enhancements like automated gates. This project is to, basically, in stages, remove and grade approximately 42 of those level crossings.
I’m interested in what advice the Minister has had in relation to this particular project in terms of the decision making and the implementation once this is passed into law and this project, effectively, gets its planning permission as a result of the fast track, because we recently had an experience in Swanson in my electorate in West Auckland, where Auckland Transport had been planning the closure of a pedestrian rail crossing really for the last two years as part of this very programme of closing crossings for safety reasons on the grounds that the increased frequency of train services would have exacerbated the safety risk. The community resisted vigorously because it would have, effectively, severed the community and made it significantly less walkable. A very large neighbourhood of people would have had to walk 45 minutes to get to the school and the shops on the other side of the railway line, instead of a 10-minute walk.
Now, the reason I raise this and ask this is that it’s often the consenting process—when you get a notified consent—it’s often only at that stage that the community becomes fully aware of a given project and has the time to digest the consequences that are a result of this project. They get into gear, they start to ask questions, they start to engage with the institution that’s responsible—in this case, Auckland Transport—and that’s when the rubber often hits the road. The local project in my electorate that I was just talking about is, in fact, part of this programme of 42 level crossings. As a result of a pretty stout local community campaign over nearly two years, Auckland Transport, to their credit, finally reviewed the project and said, “We got it wrong. We’re going to listen to the community. We don’t think that the marginal increase in train frequencies as a result of the City Rail Link is sufficient to justify closing this crossing.”
In this case, it didn’t have to get to a consenting process because there’s a very good local MP and very good local councillors who took it up and advocated and supported the local community, but in many cases it actually is the consenting process. When you’ve got a notified consent, that’s when this process actually happens and projects get contested and interrogated by the community and their advocates and often their elected members. My question for the Minister is: in this instance, when is that going to happen? Because the community will no longer have a notified consent process where they get the opportunity to question and interrogate. The example that I’ve been telling you about is a great example of the fact that organisations like Auckland Transport often get it wrong. These things are laden with judgment and subjectivity and shifting assumptions and variables, and it is often the rigour and the transparency that a notified consent process brings that actually allows much better decisions to be made. I ask the Minister to respond to that.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I very much agree with the contribution from the previous member the Hon Phil Twyford.
I wanted to take this call to talk to my Amendment Paper 179, which proposes to move the following amendment to clause 22B. Currently, in clause 22B(2)(a), subparagraph (vii) refers to the criteria for assessing referral applications. In that clause 22B(2)(vii), it refers to “[supporting] climate change mitigation, including the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions:”. That is no doubt an incredibly relevant thing to be considered. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform should consider whether the project will support climate change mitigation.
Given the urgency of the climate crisis and a huge cross-party commitment we have in this Parliament to effective action on climate change, to meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement, and to the zero carbon Act, I’ve got an Amendment Paper that would add “insert [subparagraph] (viia)”, saying it “is consistent with New Zealand’s emissions reduction targets under the Climate Change Response Act”.
Now, I think that’s the absolute minimum that we should be considering, because it’s not sufficient to consider whether or not it mitigates emissions in this process. We need to have, like, a specific commitment in the legislation for the Minister to assess whether it is consistent with the emissions reduction targets, because it could reduce emissions and it could not increase emissions. The way it’s worded currently in the bill, and I believe in the amendment—although I have to say I have to check the Government’s Amendment Paper, because it’s as big as the bill—all that needs to be considered is what impact it would have, whether it would have an impact on mitigating emissions, but it’s another step entirely to say that it is actually going to be consistent with our commitments for reducing emissions.
I’m interested in hearing from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, if he’s able to comment on this, whether there’s a reason why the wording isn’t more specifically linking the consideration of our targets. Obviously, if the Government is interested in achieving emissions reduction targets, then a whole lot of things need to line up. We know that the carbon price in the emissions trading scheme alone is not sufficient to reduce emissions, that a number of infrastructure projects that are included in Schedule 2 will either have the potential to increase or to reduce emissions. If it is the case that there’s no requirement to consider whether or not it’s consistent with emissions reduction targets, then what is the process for ensuring that we’re actually going to be consenting a bunch of projects that will actually reduce emissions and help us reach our targets as opposed to increase them?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation again to stand and convey some responses and reflections on the various questions asked. I, of course, refer to the pātai around the panel convener may not need to consult the Minister for Infrastructure, and what if the Minister has issues? It’s like Paddy Gower Has Issues.
The first thing is that, originally, that was “must” consult the Minister, and now there’s a bit of optionality that’s been built into the proposed wording to “may”. Of course, the panel chairs—well articulated by the member—may have some issues with the proposed appointments to a panel, and it’s pretty clear that the panel convener has a discretion to appoint members of the panel or otherwise.
I appreciate that comment that came from Te Atatū Peninsula in relation to the Auckland light rail project—thank you for that query. This legislation is different from the Resource Management Act in that it front-loads a lot of the info requirements to enable the applications to be processed a bit more quickly, without delays commonly experienced under the resource management legislation while further information is gathered or parties are involved, and, certainly, my experience of the Auckland train network is one that the types of projects that the member observed and mentioned often attract a lot of public interest. In that regard, the panel, I’m sure, will not see itself as an omnipotent or an omniscient being, but, rather, one that considers many opinions. It can, of course, call a hearing if it chooses to do so, and also invite comments from many varied groups. It is one-stop shop legislation—that’s what we are absolutely committed to—but it’s good to hear of those previous experiences that the member has of democracy in action.
In relation to the climate change matter, it’s a critical, very important kaupapa that’s confronting the entire globe, including this little part of paradise here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That’s why we’re so enthusiastic and energetic, not just over the jet planes in that box back there, but energetic around expediting renewable energy projects. Whether or not they’re Māori-led—Tauhara North No.2 solar farm, for example, but also—
Hon Rachel Brooking: What about the coalmines?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: —well, I’m not going to talk about all the coal imported from Indonesia right now—there are even the solar farms in Bunnythorpe. I don’t know if any of you have been to Bunnythorpe lately, but it’s got the most unusual railway crossing that goes straight on to a roundabout. There is no crossing like Bunnythorpe. If those were in Auckland, I say to the member for Te Atatū, they would cause absolute chaos. There is a substation down there in Bunnythorpe, and I imagine that the solar farm down there will link into that substation quite nicely—along with one of my home digs, Marton, which will also have the more southern links of Mōkai Pātea, which, as Mr Halbert knows, is also going to have a solar farm.
Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. I look forward to reconvening with you and others this evening at 10.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Minister Potaka, who was in the chair, for partially answering my questions around the membership of panels, which is covered off in Schedule 3 of this bill. I think that the Minister who answered from the chair gave us cause for more questions. He said that at the Environment Committee, it was changed from the panel convener “must”—“must”—consult with the Minister for Infrastructure around decisions of who’s going to be appointed to panels, and that this was changed at select committee to “may”, but need not, consult.
I want to understand from the Minister of Conservation how they see that as being an important part of how these panels are going to operate and these decisions are going to be. I’m still waiting to understand what happens, given the way the clause is now currently worded in the schedule, if a Minister does have some issues with the panel members who are being appointed. That’s a question that is still outstanding that the Minister in the chair didn’t address. What will happen with that information? Will it be made public anywhere? What is the purpose of it is really what we’re trying to understand.
What I also want to move on to, then, is some of the provisions around memberships of panels, particularly as it relates to local authorities, and there’s a lot of detail in Schedule 3 about how it is and when it is and who it is that local bodies get to appoint to these panels. In clause 3, it says that “The membership of a panel must include 1 person nominated by the relevant local [authority].”, “The person nominated by the relevant local authorities may, but need not, be an elected member of any of the local authorities.”, and “If the relevant local authorities nominate more than 1 person for appointment as a panel member, the panel convener must decide which … of [these] nominees is to be appointed as a panel member.” We can see that there’s a lot going on in terms of selection around that. If it is not an elected member of a local authority, then who? Who is it that the Government is envisioning that local authorities will be appointing to these panels who are making some really important decisions? Just to get some clarity from the Minister there.
Then, in clause 3(6)(a) through to clause 3(6)(e), it goes through what happens: “Despite the limit specified on the membership by subclause (1), that number may be exceeded (including by the appointment of more than 1 person … at the discretion of the panel convener, if warranted by, or required to accommodate,—” and there’s a very subjective set of criteria area around when it is that that limit can be exceeded. One of the things that it goes through is “the circumstances unique to a particular district or region; … the number of applications that have to be considered in that particular district or region; … the nature and scale of the application under consideration; … matters unique to any relevant iwi participation legislation; … the collective knowledge and experience needed under clause 7(1A).”
One of the things that we’re really interested to know from a process point of view is whether or not there is an application that has previously been turned down by the Environment Court, the High Court, or, indeed, the Supreme Court—that these are applications that have already been overturned and have really only had life breathed into by virtue of being included in the schedule of this bill. Is that something that the Minister is envisioning might require more people from the local authority, and therefore the local community, to have input into those decisions where it is seeking to overturn what have already been quite longstanding decisions and the communities have been heavily involved often in the coming to that decision and some of the activism that led them to that?
I think that’s an important point for the Minister to answer to us on the make-up of those panels, added to the outstanding questions around the interaction between the Minister for Infrastructure and the convener of the panel, the chair of the panel, and whether that’s a two-way street—something I didn’t ask before. Does the Minister and, therefore, the Government have the ability to put up names to the convener of the panel in terms of people that they would like appointed to it, or is it that the convener of the panel must go to the Minister with a completed list of names? These are all things that are important for us to understand.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to specifically ask some questions of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about a project in Lower Hutt which he’ll be familiar with, considering he’s the local MP there. It’s one very close to my home and to where my children have grown up. It’s the proposal for Winstone Aggregates, a division of Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure, to be able to establish a new overburden disposal area adjacent to the existing quarry to enable the extraction of approximately 20 million cubic metres of aggregate, including land exchange with the Department of Conservation, earthworks, and establishing new access roads.
I would particularly like to understand—the local Hill Road Community Group would also like to know—what impacts that would have on the Belmont Stream, which is a tributary to the Hutt River in which kids swim—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask the member—we’re on Part 2, around process, so if these questions are around the process of what happens with the project, it’s OK to use the project for an example, but I’d like you to stick to what is around the process.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Community consultation is what I was asking. What engagement, I would like to know from the Minister, has he undertaken or proposes to undertake to inform a community that this will directly impact on?
We have a natural environment here that is going to be substantially impacted by 20 million cubic metres of aggregate being extracted. From what I have understood in my communications since seeing this, there’s been no engagement with community groups and also those groups that are very active in terms of conservation in the area. There are many people tuning in who would really like to understand: what is the process for informing the community? What is the process for assessing the risks to their natural environment? What is the process for assessing the impacts on the natural environment?
In particular, what is the land exchange with the Department of Conservation that has occurred? That is of particular concern to the community, because they have not been informed at all about the land exchange that has occurred with the Department of Conservation, and it would be very interesting to understand what other correspondence or process has gone on for public notification for Department of Conservation land to be used to extract approximately 20 million cubic metres of aggregate from in and around that area.
I would just like to ask further, if there has been no process of community engagement to date, if the Minister could tell us what his process is to inform the community of this fast-tracked process, and what ability they have to be able to have some say in a significant local project which they have previously had absolutely no knowledge of.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from the Hon Rachel Brooking, but I also do want to note that we’ve had lots of questions around consultation with communities. I want new and specific things. For example, some of the clauses that have been referred to in the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ questions have been relative to the parts of the bill. Before I take the next call, I just want to see that we are in Part 2; we are referring to questions. We’re not solely talking about projects; we are solely asking about the processes and the parts in Part 2 here. It doesn’t preclude talking about a project as an example.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, I think, part-answered my question that I’ve asked a couple of times now about clause 24C. There’s a number of amendments in the Minister’s Amendment Paper to clause 24C. Clause 24C is the “Authorised person may lodge substantive application for approvals”. The Minister in the chair mentioned something about looking at, I think he said, previous behaviour, but that is not my question about clause 24C.
My question about clause 24C is: under subclause (3), it says “A substantive application may seek 1 or more of the following matters (the approvals):”, and then there’s a list of things, but the list has been extended by this Amendment Paper. There’s a number of things. There’s a new clause 24AAA and there’s a new clause 24D, but there is a clause crossed out as well. There’s a new clause 24GA and there’s a new clause 24K. My question, which I have now asked a few times, is: is the intent of these changes to clause 24C to widen up who can make applications for these approvals? Is that what these changes are doing? That’s clause 24C.
I appreciate that some of the other questions were answered, so I’m now going to go back to Schedule 5 and note again the criteria for the panel in Schedule 5, which is the schedule for the wildlife conservation—oh, I might have said that one already, sorry. That was that the panel gives the greatest weight to the purpose of the Act at clause 17D.
Would the Minister responsible for RMA Reform consider my amendment to delete “giving the greatest weight”? Same at Schedule 5, later on at clause 26, which is the “Criteria for assessment of application for amendment or revocation of conservation covenant”. Again, at subclause (1), it says to give the greatest weight to the purpose of the Act. I have Amendment Paper 137 to delete “the greatest weight”; same in Schedule 6, “Approvals relating to Wildlife Act” at clause 1C and—I will go through this quickly—in Schedule 7 at clause 2C(1).
Then I come to Schedule 8, which is “Approvals relating to complex freshwater fisheries activities”. This all seems to be new. It’s a new schedule. It’s all underlined in the Minister’s amendment. Where has this come from? Why is it all underlined? Has it been moved from somewhere else or is it a new thing? If it’s new, why? Again, at clause 5, would he consider removing “giving the greatest weight”?
Skipping on to Schedule 9, that same point can be made at clause 9. Again, Schedule 10 is Crown Minerals Act, and we have my Amendment Paper 137 applying to clause 3A(1) and 4A(1). Then, later on in Schedule 10, in Part 2, we have “Mining permits”. Again—this is all underlined—it has the greatest weight clause at 14(1). Again, is this all new or has it been moved from some other part of the bill relating to these mining permits? If the Minister could answer that.
Then, finally in this contribution, I would like to touch on Schedule 11, which is “Modifications to process under Public Works Act 1981 to take or deal with land”. There were some changes made in the select committee around clause 3, which I have in Amendment Paper 138—or we have an amendment—whose name is it in? Let me look. I think it is in my name, No. 138, and that is to change the wording of the title and the substance of clause 3, so that where it says the court “must” accept the determination of a panel about consideration of alternative sites, that changes to “may” in both the title and in clause 3(1). That is because it seems that these changes to Schedule 1, which are different from the bill as introduced, are really taking away the rights of people that they would normally have under the Public Works Act.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair; ngā mihi. With the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in the chair, this is a great opportunity for me to ask some detailed questions in relation to the process after Ministers receive referral applications.
I’d like to point to my Amendment Paper 166, where it talks to clause 18A, which is found on page 30. What we have right now is the process for receiving a referral application and then how the Minister for Infrastructure and the agency responsible will consider the application. It is my proposal in my Amendment Paper that clause 18A is changed, where we insert paragraph (aa): “consider the outcomes of any consultation undertaken with affected parties; and”. The considering of the consultation with affected parties and the outcomes of it really points to the fact that the hui is really important, as are the contents of the hui and the discussions undertaken within that space by the responsible agency or whoever, whoever the responsible people are—for the Minister to know the content of those discussions to inform decision making.
Further, I want to pull back a little bit around this because the previous Minister that we had in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, spoke to the fact that there was no CVA, or cultural values assessment, really compulsory within the fast track. That might be an optional extra, but for tangata whenua at place, those types of reports are really important to show the decision makers, which would be the Minister making the decisions on these things, around the cultural effects and the cultural impacts at place. They are very important to the iwi kāinga to tell the story around what are the cultural values of the site of the proposed activity at the location, and potential impacts on the cultural values for the peoples of the land.
It is through my amendment that we propose to make the change to have a fulsome discussion so that all the information can be presented. We’ve heard tonight that it is the Environmental Protection Authority who will have responsibility even around cost recovery, which is really good to hear. All of these things are really wrapped up in terms of the story that our Minister needs to hear in terms of receiving those referral applications and the fulsome reporting that would be needed.
One further question I’d like to ask the Minister is in terms of readiness for implementation in relation to the receiving of the applications—our ministries, whichever group or agency is responsible at place for the application. Will they have the necessary teams established and ready to go in terms of capacity and then also the technical capability? Will there be technical leads in terms of iwi Māori engagement established within the teams in order to report back to the Minister in the referral application process so that the reporting can be as broad and as fulsome as possible? I raise this because good decision-making requires a full examination of the information at hand, and without the relevant reports like a CVA, a cultural values assessment, or a CIA, a cultural impact assessment, how does the Minister truly know what is important to the people of the land or the people of the sea, the people of that space which we call the hau kāinga?
That is one proposition that we would like to ask in terms of the amendment that I’ve proposed, but also, what is the capacity, the capability, the readiness of each of our agencies to step up into this space knowing that it’s going to come at pace, and the ability for them to be able to lead and guide and provide the information relevant, particularly around iwi Māori, and grab—or, well, facilitate; yeah, facilitate the necessary reports to be able to provide that fulsome picture to the deciding Ministers in terms of the applications? Kia ora.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll very briefly deal with a few of the issues raised in the last few contributions. In terms of the Hon Megan Woods’ question around ministerial involvement in the appointment of panels, the Minister for Infrastructure doesn’t appoint the panel members; the panel convener appoints the members of the panel. The Minister appoints the panel convener, but the panel convener appoints the panel members, and there’s a range of criteria under the bill to consider.
Secondly, in relation to the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question around Winstone Aggregates’ proposal, I’m just going to maintain the stance I’ve taken throughout the bill so far, which is declining to comment on individual projects, because we went through an advisory group process to determine the projects that would make their way into the initial tranche of projects which is in the schedule, and Ministers were insulated from that process.
What I can say in a general sense is that it is very difficult to consent quarries in New Zealand. One of the drivers, I’m advised, of our large escalation in infrastructure, particularly roading infrastructure, over the last few years is the inability to source aggregate. The facts are really clear, which is that the further away a source of aggregate is from where it is used, the cost rises exponentially as a result of that. There’s no doubt that it needs to be easier to get quarries built in New Zealand. Clearly, any application will go through a full panel process, and some of the conditions and issues that the member raises will be considered as part of that. It’s worth noting there’s a quarry there already, in Belmont, and it actually provides much of the aggregate for many of the roading projects around the region. I can tell you those projects would be a lot more expensive without that quarry there. That deals with that issue.
In relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s point, I mean, I think what she was trying to say is: are we prepared to consider the changes around the “greatest weight”, which is listed throughout the bill, and the answer is no, we’re not prepared to do that.
In response to Hūhana Lyndon’s point, I mean, I think all I can do is point her to the process laid out at clauses 18A through 22B, which set out what the Minister has to do after receiving a referral application. It’s pretty simple. They have to consider the application, give any Treaty settlement or other specified obligation effect, invite comments from specified persons or groups, and then decide on the application. I think it’s a pretty straightforward process. It’s been well laid out in the bill.
In relation to her question around whether there is the capacity inside the Government to deal with this from the various different agencies, the answer is yes. Quite a lot of time has been spent actually working our way through, from an official level, how that will work when it comes to involvement from groups like Te Arawhiti and Te Puni Kōkiri and things like that. The answer is yes.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to give a call to the Hon Kieran McAnulty, but before I do that, the Hon Dr Megan Woods had a comment about a question that you asked that you thought was misunderstood, about the “may” and the “must”. Can I just get that question clarified first?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you. I appreciate that the questions were put at the transition of Ministers in the chair. I absolutely understand that it is the role of the chairperson to appoint the panel. It’s really around the change that was made.
The previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, talked about that being changed at the Environment Committee. The panel convener—sorry, I’m just finding the bit now. I’ve moved on to other questions, but it’s around the fact that they may consult the Minister; they don’t have to. the question is: why was that change made? What is the policy thinking behind making that change, and what occurs in the instance that a Minister does raise concerns, given that they don’t have to consult and there is no onus for anything to necessarily be done as a result of that consultation? What thinking has been given if the Minister or Ministers do raise concerns about particular panellists that have been put there?
The other thing that I asked is whether or not this consultation was a two-way process where the Ministers were able to suggest panellists, given there may be consultation between the chair of the panel and the Minister or Ministers, and whether that was a two-way street.
Then the other questions, in clause 3 in Schedule 3, were around the very subjective criteria around exceeding the limit of number of people from a local authority to sit on a panel and what the grounds were—they’re very vague, as listed in the schedule—and asking whether or not one of the grounds might be a project that had previously been ruled out by the Environment Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court—it had clearly been a project that only breathed life by virtue of being covered through this fast-track process—and whether the Minister envisioned that that would be a case where locals would have more representation through their territorial local authority representatives on that panel.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I thank the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods for the clarification of the question.
In relation to why the change was made to allow the panel convener to potentially consult with the Minister, the reasoning there is—I actually think it’s a helpful change, which is to make sure that you get the right expertise on the panel. You can envisage scenarios—I’m not necessarily saying this will happen—in which there may be novel or interesting applications that the panel convener might say, “I’m thinking of the following group of people for this”. But there may be factors relating to a particular project that, for example—I mean, to take Hūhana Lyndon’s point, it may be a project that requires real iwi involvement; you may well want mana whenua of the area to have real input and advice given as part of that process. Or it may be that there may be particular niche projects that require real technical expertise, for example. It’s really just a bit of a safety valve to make sure that you get the right people on the right projects. I actually see it as quite an advance.
In relation to the second question around “Is it a two-way street?”, no, it’s not. In relation to local input, we’re comfortable with the way the clause is drafted currently around local input. When you look at clause 7 of Schedule 3, around the membership of panels and the conduct of hearings, I think it’s a pretty good approach, which is “The members of a panel—(a) must, collectively, have—knowledge, skills, and expertise relevant to the approvals sought in the substantive application … expertise in environmental matters; and (b) must include at least 1 member who [has an understanding of te ao Māori and Māori development]”. Reasonable people can disagree about exactly who, but I think it’s a pretty good approach.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Bit late to the point, but I did say I was going to call you.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: You did. Well, the Hon Dr Megan Woods had some follow-ups, so I thought I’d let it go. Then I saw you look over there, and I thought, “Shivers, I’d better get up!” So I did, and I’m pleased about that. Thank you for the call, Madam Chair.
Look, I’m not sure if members are aware, but the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s just very recently put down another Amendment Paper (AP). It’s quite extraordinary, really. I don’t know, what; about a quarter of the way through the debate, the Minister comes in and drops in another Amendment Paper. This is a proposed amendment to AP 238. What’s extraordinary is that this is actually the third Amendment Paper that the Minister has dropped today. I think what this demonstrates is that this has not been the ideal process—I’m being generous here—for a bill that the Government is expecting this committee to consider, for the Minister then to come in and drop another amendment.
Now, I would have expected that if this had come in roughly about half an hour, possibly slightly more, ago, the Minister might wish to speak to this and explain to the committee what it is that he is wishing to amend. That would have been, I think, the courteous thing to do. That certainly would have assisted the committee’s understanding. We’ve got one, two, three, four, five elements to this amendment, essentially, replacing provisions related to expiries with a 30 working-days’ time limit. Now, the committee deserves to know what the rationale behind this is, and why, so late in the piece, this has come about now.
If you look at the first proposal of this amendment—the first of five—it looks to replace “after any rights of appeal under section 26 that relate to the concession are exhausted or have expired” in new clause 6C inserted by Amendment Paper 238 with “and a period of 30 working days has expired after the decision document for the concession was issued under section 24Y(1)”. What does this mean? Where the original proposal was that any rights of appeal conclude when things have exhausted and expired, that makes sense. But now there’s this proposal, right in the piece, of 30 working days—but not after an expiry has happened; it’s after a decision document for the concession was issued.
Perhaps the Minister might want to explain: is it possible, if this goes through, for there to be a period of time when the concession isn’t exhausted or hasn’t expired, but because it’s after 30 days they can’t do anything? It’s a potential, if you look at this, that there’s a window there which wouldn’t have been there and now is there—that people could get caught out—and it’s a similar theme right across all five elements to this amendment. I think the committee deserves an explanation as to why it was so late and what it is that the Minister’s trying to achieve.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to get very specifically to clause 19B, and that is on page 33. Now, this is about the reporting requirements in relation to use of public conservation land in terms of the processes after Ministers receive referral applications. I want to pick up on this aspect in particular, because it’s a part that is of fundamental importance to the Minister’s decision making. It outlines that if a project area includes public conservation land, the Minister for Infrastructure must, for the referral application, obtain and consider a report that the Department of Conservation (DOC) pulls together, and it outlines what the report must set out, in clause 19B(4)(a), (b), and (c).
What is missing from this report—and which I’m interested in the rationale as to why it is missing—is an actual assessment of the ecological impacts of the project. Now, why this is so important is because this Minister will need to actually have some form of evidence that robustly informs them about the actual nature of the ecological impacts. I’m not sure why this wouldn’t be a reporting requirement by the department and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s rationale as to why it’s not.
If we’re going to call on DOC—and you’d think this would just be a bit of a no-brainer—to lend their expertise to each application, to inform the Minister, then you’d think we would actually make use of their expertise and require them to undertake a scientific assessment of any arrangements that may relate to the use of that conservation land. Considering there are land exchange provisions in the bill for conservation land, I’m interested in what kinds of activities the Minister expects would be carried out on public conservation land that would require some sort of access arrangement under this part.
For example, we know that there are at least seven entities currently listed in the Fast-track Approvals Bill that have known compliance issues with DOC, two of which are to be investigated further. Will reporting requirements on arrangements for public conservation land include any history of non-compliance, specifically with DOC? I know that in the application process these companies or individuals are meant to put forward any history of non-compliance and what not, but what about when it comes to DOC? I’m aware of particularly one company where they have outstanding concession fees and haven’t been paying their concession fees to DOC. What justification is there for these companies still remaining eligible for these public conservation land arrangements? Now, I specifically have an Amendment Paper 169.
Glen Bennett: Great amendment.
LAN PHAM: Thank you; it is a great amendment and it would be very helpful for ensuring the Minister actually makes a wise decision with these. It’s simply to include, in 19B(2) after paragraph (a), to include an assessment of the ecological impacts of the project which, again, seems like a very simple ask, considering that the department—Department of Conservation, in this case—will be looking at the project, will be considering it, but aren’t specifically requested to put forward their expertise and knowledge about the site, about the project, about the ecological impacts, and we’d like to know why.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): I’d like to thank the honourable member Lan Pham for that question. Of course, I’d direct the committee’s attention to clause 19B(4), inserted by Amendment Paper 238. I’d remind everyone that this pertains to the assignment of certain rights to use part of the estate under the administration of the Minister of Conservation or the delegated individuals. There is a host of other provisions that deal with the impact or the effects of an activity. For those reasons, the attention is dedicated to: does a potential assignment create a liability for the Crown? If I take the member to clause 19B(4), there is more than enough scope there for advice to be tendered as to what does this assignment represent in relation to a liability or a risk. Matters pertaining to the externalities associated with the activity are picked up in other parts of the statute.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Mr Chair. I’m interested in looking at new clause 31AAA of Part 2, before we get into the schedules. This is a new provision that’s been introduced in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s large amendment, as I’ll call it—238—
Hon Shane Jones: Page?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and the page is—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is that Amendment Paper 238?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, the Minister’s large Amendment Paper is Amendment Paper 238, and the page is page 108. That is new clause 31AAA, “Order in Council to amend authorised person in Schedule 2”, on Amendment Paper 238.
Now, as we know, Schedule 2 contains the 149 projects that the Clerk recommended be ruled out because many of them are for a private benefit. That is relevant to the insertion of this new clause, because what it does is say that the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, change the person who is the authorised person on the listed project. Of course, if these were all public projects, then they would not, I presume, need this new clause to enable the Governor-General to change who is the authorised person. If we go to Schedule 2, you will see the various different columns. It starts with authorised person, then the project name, then the project description, and then the approximate geographical location.
Why, I assume, new clause 31AAA is being inserted—and I would like the Minister’s confirmation for this—is because many of these projects are private entities. If we look at the second project on page 113—that’s in Schedule 2—the “authorised person” is listed as Andrew William Simpson and Karen Frances Simpson. They sound to me like a couple of farmers who, I think, may have even appeared in front of the Environment Committee and who want to build a solar array at Lake Tekapō. Very clearly, this is a private interest that those two people have, and should they want to sell their farm, should they want to sell their solar array, when it happens, then the Governor-General—well, before the consent is issued—will have to make an Order in Council to change their names on the schedule.
However, if we look down to the next authorised person, that is the Ashburton District Council. I acknowledge that from time to time councils do change their arrangements, and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, will know more about this than me, I’m sure. Normally, that has to be done by a statute, by another piece of legislation. Something like a local government reorganisation Act would make a change that would amend this schedule itself if the Ashburton District Council suddenly changed, if it suddenly became a unitary authority—I’ve got the member shaking his head across from me.
James Meager: No, keep going on the unitary stuff. What’s that about?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m not suggesting anything should change about the Ashburton District Council at all, but should the Ashburton District Council have a change of name or have a change of relationship with other councils, that would be a change made by statute in this Parliament, and there would be no need for an Order in Council like that specified in new clause 31AAA, because the legislation doing that would amend Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act as well. I’d like confirmation from the Minister that the point of this addition—new clause 31AAA in this Amendment Paper—is because there are so many private projects listed in Schedule 2 and, being private projects, they may change hands.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Before the dinner break, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was asked by the Hon Kieran McAnulty about Amendment Paper 238, which was only tabled in this Chamber less than an hour before the dinner break. I think it was a fair question, and I believe it would be helpful for the Minister to answer our questions in terms of what this is and why it is important.
As we’ve gone through today, there’s been three amendments tabled by the Minister in charge of this bill—three—not to mention the large Amendment Paper 238, which we only got yesterday, wasn’t it, which has obviously been for us to work through very quickly. I feel like the request from the Hon Kieran McAnulty is justified, to ask around what this piece in Schedule 5, new clause 6C, is all about, just so that we can understand. It just surprises me that we’re in this position where this is happening not once, not twice, but three times already, and we don’t know; maybe it will happen more.
The other concern I have, which I need to raise, is because two of the proposed amendments—238 and, sorry, I can’t see the number there—are actually changing; the two previous ones are actually to do with mistakes made in terms of Schedule 2. One was an incorrect number in terms of the area mass being used; the second was around the amount of cubic metres of water. The reason we need justification is because we don’t want fast and loose law. This is, obviously, the fast track they’re talking about—everything’s going to go speedily! But, if we don’t get it right, here—which, I mean, it would be wonderful if it didn’t progress; if it does have to pass, then let’s at least get it right. I would really respect, on behalf of my colleague, an answer around the proposal that was dropped just before the dinner break, around Schedule 5.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): I’d like to thank the honourable member for that question. We’re referring to Amendment Paper 238. This actually preserves appeal rights. The appeal rights are structured, in the context of this amendment, within a 30-day period, then the appellant has an option not only to administratively lay down an appeal but also to secure an estoppel, essentially, to freeze the consent within 30 days. The alternative would have been to disenable the recipient of the approval until all of the appeals had been expired or all of the appeals had been exhausted. This defines within a 30-day period and provides an opportunity for the appellant to seek such an estoppel without creating a situation that the law could be weaponised and, for a long period of time, appeals would drift on and the recipient of an approval would be prevented from operationalising it.
It’s a balance between maintaining what the law already enables and at the same time giving some confidence to the people who have sought an approval that, within a defined period of time, an actual decision pertaining to stopping the operationalisation of the consent has to be made. That’s all it does. It does not create any additional appeal rights, it does not strike appeal rights out, but it tightens the period of time that an applicant has to make an application to the judge and an active decision has to be made on the merits of the application—as opposed to an assumption that a disenablement of the consent would drift on and on and on, for however long an appeal may take.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, e mihi atu ana ki a koe mō tēnei wāhi kōrero.
Tēnā koe, Matua Shane, ka hari taku ngākau ki te kite i a koe ki roto i te tūru, kia whai wāhi tēnei mokopuna o te Tai Tokerau ki te patapatai ki a koe e pā ana ki te poari whiriwhiri.
Me huri au ki roto i te reo Pākehā ināianei.
[Greetings, Mr Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Greetings, Matua Shane, my heart is happy to see you in the chair, so that this grandchild of Northland has the opportunity to ask you a few questions about this discussion panel.
I have to switch to English now.]
Matua Shane—aroha mai. E te Minita, e te Minita, I’d like to ask a question in relation to Schedule 3 and the expert panel and, in particular, draw our attention to Part 7 around the skills and experience of panel members. I have an Amendment Paper which I’d like us to review, which is Amendment Paper 207, relating to this part of Schedule 3, clause 7(1A)—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Was that Amendment Paper 247?
HŪHANA LYNDON: —Amendment Paper 207, sorry; 207—and I’m wanting to draw us as members to the opportunity to have ao Māori perspective on the review panels.
We’ve discussed this a few times, e te Minita, around the ability for a Māori to be appointed. This Māori, and tēnei mana nui [this very powerful person], will be on the poari whiriwhiri, te poari whakatau [discussion panel, the decision-making board], and it says that the emphasis here in clause 7(1A)(b) is that at least one member needs to have an understanding of te ao Māori and Māori development. Now, my Amendment Paper, which I think is a nice complement to what the intention is of this part of the legislation, really enables us to look at the broader mātauranga, the broader pūkenga that we would want at the table for us being the one Māori on the panel.
This is an inclusion of somebody with an understanding of tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori. He mea nui tērā ki te Māori, kia kitea tētahi Māori e tino mōhio ki te iwi kāinga, e mōhio ana ki ngā tikanga, e mōhio ana ki te taiao hoki. [That is a big thing for Māori, that a Māori can be seen that really knows the home people, knows tikanga, and also knows the environment.]
Māori development is one thing in te ao Māori, but with my amendment, which I think is a great middle ground for us, it is a “plus, plus”. It enables us to look at the broader Māori cultural values of the application, bring in additional skills when we think about our reo, our tikanga, and an understanding of mahi i te kāinga, but also knowing that when you have just the Māori development focus and a bit of an ao Māori focus, you might have the commercial Māori that comes to the tēpu, who may not have the aronga Māori. It’s an “and, and”, e te Minita—I keep wanting to call you Matua Shane because you’re my matua. Minister, I propose that my Amendment Paper is just such a beautiful thing for us to look at, because in clause 7(1A) and (2), I want to acknowledge there’s an improvement here. It’s not all bad—most of it is quite bad, but this isn’t too bad.
Steve Abel: It’s terrible!
HŪHANA LYNDON: Ha, ha! What’s good about it is that a person is not ineligible for appointment to the panel by reason of whakapapa—by reason of tribal affiliation. Now, oftentimes in the Environment Court, we have our own uri who cannot sit on our own panels because they have a whakapapa to the iwi or hapū at place. Now, one good thing I’ve seen is that an uri who has affiliation to that place could actually sit on the panel. Nō reira he mea pai tērā, he mea nui. [So that is a good thing, and an important thing.]
What I’m proposing in my amendment is an opportunity to both look at the Māori commercial world and all those pūkenga, all those skills that come with it. There’s a tirohanga Māori, an ao Māori thing there, but we need to strengthen it—strengthen it with our reo, strengthen it with taiao, with mātauranga, and the ability for us to look at—you know, some Māori are quite good in the planning space, good in terms of ture, but also in terms of tikanga. I have a working knowledge in seeing this in practice, whereby we have the ability to bring people on with these added additional skills. I have a concern, and I want to signal to the Chair that I want a little bit extra time to talk to this, because there’s an opportunity for us to do better in this space.
For the Fast-track Approvals Bill, Schedule 3, here at clause 7, I’d like us to really look at broadening the ability for us to add tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori into these key competencies. I don’t know whether the members of the Government may appreciate the ability for Māori to freely express themselves on these committees, these panels, because having Māori development, ao Māori, is great, but—
Dan Bidois: Repetitive.
HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no, no, no—let me finish.
Hon Scott Simpson: This is sounding like a job application.
HŪHANA LYNDON: No, no, no, no, no—I don’t want to be on these panels, thank you. But in recent times, I have seen an Environment Court hearing whereby we had a whanaunga of a distant nature who came in with very strong mātauranga Māori but also ngā mōhioranga o te ture [knowledge of legislation], and we saw that person come in and play the middle ground and provide the balance for the perspective of the panel—this is in an Environment Court hearing.
What I’m sharing here is by adding tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori into the kete pūkenga for ao Māori and Māori development, all it does is strengthen the opportunity for the Crown to show that they are opening up the opportunity for all of the skills that we have in te ao Māori. Again, I mihi to the fact that if you have whakapapa to that place, if you are of the hapū and iwi, that is a good thing that we are not ineligible to sit on these panels. Nō reira koia taku tono ki te Minita, otirā mō tō tātou iwi Māori. Kia ora tātou. [So that is my request to the Minister, indeed for our Māori people. Thanks everyone.]
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai, otirā tēnā rā koe e te Minita. Ko tēnei taku wā tuatahi ki tēnei o ngā pire. Me pono aku kōrero, i te wā i kite au i a koe i tērā tūru, i kōrero atu au ki a Mariameno Kapa-Kingi me taku kī, “Me tino koi aku whakaaro ināianei nā te mea kua tae mai te matua.” Me mātua aku koi ki tēnei o ngā pire.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed thank you, Minister. This is my first time on this particular bill. I must speak honestly, when I saw you in that chair, I said to Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, “My thoughts have to be intelligent now because the master has arrived.” My intellect must be foremost concerning this bill.]
Engari ko taku pātai [But my question]: I just want to come to Part 2 and the process around clause 19A, “Report on Treaty settlements and other obligations”, particularly pertaining to—this is in Part 1, at clause 7. I’m just referring to it; I’m not talking on behalf of it. Just in Part 1, at clause 7, it says that “(3) In this section, ‘Te Ture Whaimana’ means the vision and strategy set out in—(a) Schedule 2 of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010;”.
Now, I guess the Minister will be well aware of the blanket approach, and I guess—kāre au e tino mōhio ki te kupu engari [I don’t really know the word, but], the settlement that we have—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Taea te reo Māori te kupu.
[You can use the Māori word.]
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Oh, OK. Ka pai. It is the settlement that we have within my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, and that’s mainly coming to my pātai around the projects that some of the projects in the 19 approved projects in Waikato are pertaining to the mining and quarry projects. These affect our taonga and our pepeha within our electorate such as the Rotowaro Mine Continuation Project, the Waihī North Project, the Pit 1 Mining Project, and I guess my pātai is around—we know that there’s already going to be consultation with post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), with iwi entities, the Tainui Group Holdings, but my pātai is: are there going to be consultations with the hapū and mana whenua of those mining quarry projects?
For example, I’m not an expert in this field such as Whaea Debbie, but I do know in my electorate, in the Rotowaro, that stream goes down to the Waahi Paa lake, which me and my siblings consistently swim in over the summer and they will be in preparation for Waka Ama. I know that is how it translates into my electorate and as rangatahi Māori, and that would be the same in some of these other mining projects within Waikato such as Taharoa, such as Waihī.
I guess, yes, there’s obviously going to be consultation with Waikato-Tainui raupatu claims in the settlements we have here and the PSGEs and iwi entities, but I guess my question is: will there be consultation and what will that consultation look like with mana whenua and hapū—like, I guess you don’t need to talk to every single person in Waahi Pa, but—making sure that there’s consultation with the areas that particularly affect these mining and quarry projects within the Waikato?
The reason why I’m so heavy on this kaupapa is because when you’re in a Māori seat, that’s seven for my electorate—there’s seven general seats and one Māori seat. All 19 projects in Waikato do sit within our responsibility, and I just want to make sure that I’ve got it on the record; it’s on the Hansard that we’re asking these questions around making sure that there’s iwi consultation, which is a given because we are a post-settlement iwi coming up to our 30th year next year. Making sure that there’s also another layer under that, which is talking to mana whenua, talking to the relating different hapū, marae, iwi. It might vary for each project. It might look different for each rohe, iwi, and seat. Arā taku pātai. [That’s my question.] Kia ora.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Tēnā koe e kō mō tēnā pātai. Tino mārama. Me titiro tātou ki te whārangi 32, me heke atu tātou ki te mutunga o te whārangi. Ko te ūpoko 19(2)(h), kei konā te kupu “hapū”. Pēnā he rōpū kua whakaarangia hei whakaputa hei whakakanohi i ngā pānga o te hapū i roto i tēnei ture, e kore e taea te whakataha i a rātou.
Nā mō te wāhanga mō te pātai mai i te mema o Te Rōpū Kakariki, ko tēnei kupu ko “te ao Māori” kei roto kē i tētahi ture kē atu ko te ingoa o tērā ture ko te Law Commission Act. Nā ētahi mātanga ka hia noa atu te teitei o ērā tāngata pērā me David Baragwanath nā rātou tēnā rōpū i hautū i tō rātou wā. Kua takoto kē te kupu “te ao Māori” i roto i te ture. Kei roto i te ao Māori ngā āhuatanga pēnei me te mātauranga, te ritenga te tikanga. Take tēnā o mātou i āmine ai me waiho ko te ao Māori kia rite ai ki tētahi kākahu ka horapa ki runga ki te katoa ko ngā āhutanga Māori. Take tēnā mātou i tuhituhi ai kia pēnei te takoto mō ngā pūkenga e tika ana kia tīkina atu e tētahi tangata hei noho ki runga i te paepae tuku raihana.
[Thank you for that question, madam. Very clear. Let us review page 32, at the bottom of the page, at clause 19(2)(h), there is the word “hapū”. If there is a group that is represented within this statute, they cannot be revoked.
Now, for the question in regards to given by the member of the Green Party, this word “te ao Māori” is in another law, the name of that law is the Law Commission Act. Now, there are experts in this field such as David Baragwanath, who led that group in those times. The word “ao Māori” has already been set down in that law. Within the Māori world are things such as knowledge, principles, and protocols. That’s the reason why we gave our approval, so that the Māori world can cloak everyone with its culture. Hence why we wrote it this way for the correct experts, so that a person is able to sit on the panel and give out licences.]
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I have some questions to the Minister for Regional Development specifically related to Schedule 11 of what my learned colleague called the large amendment—I think that’s its new name, but it’s Amendment Paper 238, just for the record. Under Schedule 11, which is on page 234, so the second to last page, there are some amendments here around the relationship with the Public Works Act. I have an example that I do want to bring to the table that I did raise earlier with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jone, this morning, I believe, that I didn’t receive an answer on. I think, actually, when you look at it in the context of the schedule, it becomes kind of a relevant point.
Just looking at clause 2(c), the application of the schedule applies if a person has objected to the taking of the land under section 23 of the Public Works Act 1981. I raised this, this morning, in the context of one of the projects in my electorate, the Hope Bypass, which you can find in Schedule 2 on page 126, and, in that, it talks specifically about additional land acquisition outside of the designation for the road.
The reason I raise this is the Minister will be aware of the case with Wakatu Incorporation of the Nelson Tenths in Te Tau Ihu, which is a significant case matter that predates Te Tiriti. What has occurred with that case currently being before the courts is we have had situations in Nelson and across Te Tau Ihu where small parcels of land may be being acquired or may be being changed between one Government department to another or potentially sold, and, actually, some of those matters have been held up because of the potential litigation from that case.
There’s an example literally around the corner from where the Hope Bypass is currently due to go through where, in order to build a roundabout, a small parcel of Crown land needed to be transferred from the polytechnic to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) in order to have enough room to build the roundabout, but because of the risk of litigation due to the current case that is still live before the courts with Wakatu, in the end the decision was made not to do the transfer of the land parcel and to come up with a different outcome.
Now, the reason I’m raising this, in terms of its relevance, is that if you look in Schedule 2, it specifically talks about land acquisition, and it’s likely for the Hope Bypass that there will be land acquisition in order to build it. The question I’ve got around Schedule 11 is that it actually changes the approach in terms of how an appeal can occur under the Public Works Act. If you look at clause 3, it says “Court must accept determination of panel about consideration of alternative sites, etc.”. It’s not really clear to me what would happen in a situation if, for example, under the Public Works Act, the NZTA decide they’re going to acquire some land in order to build the Hope Bypass and that then potentially leads to litigation risk from Wakatu who are looking for parcels of land that they can acquire in order to achieve the outcomes they wish to under the Tenths case.
I know it might feel like a complex piece of law to kind of look through, but these are the types of questions that we have and that I have, because there are two risks that occur through this. One is that you have a risk of undermining that court process, which is going through the courts. I think a lot of us, despite the fact that it’s going through the courts, know there needs to be a resolution. Secondly, it actually has the potential to, if it leads to further litigation, actually undermine the ability to build that new road.
I’m just keen to understand from the Minister a bit more about how that Schedule 11 will work in terms of the Public Works Act. I don’t have the expertise in the Act as my learned colleague Rachel Brooking does. I understand she has mentioned this briefly but may have some further questions on this schedule, because it actually is quite an important one for us to understand in terms of the introduction of this legislation. That’s my question. Thank you, Mr Chair.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. There has been very, very little improvement in this bill throughout the whole of the select committee process that I’ve been part of, but I’m really pleased to talk and ask questions about this one part that has just arrived in the substantive Amendment Paper that the Government has made, which does seem to suddenly have realised the thing that we’ve been asking about and proposing amendments to, about protecting the rights of existing consent holders, which was completely absent from the bill previously but has now turned up in some form in the Amendment Paper.
I want to ask about new clause 24AAB, which has turned up in this Amendment Paper, and it’s page 44. What was really concerning previously, when there were seemingly no protections at all or even the obligation for fast-track projects who were seeking to have access to resources—and, particularly, it was so clear in the case of limited resources, like our precious wai, our precious water, particularly in areas of the country like where I’ve been hanging out for the last few decades, in Waitaha Canterbury, where there’s significant issues with overallocation. This is across the country as well.
This clause appears to go some way to at least identifying any existing resource consents, but it’s saying “for the same activity”. Again, this is good, particularly in the water space, where it’s a constrained resource, but what I’m interested in understanding is—it goes on to say where this section applies. This is 24AAB(1): “This section applies if”—blah-blah-blah—“(a)”. But what I’m interested in is about (b): “the authorised person for the project does not hold an existing resource consent for the same activity using some or all of the same natural resource.”
Now, personally, I’m not quite following that, so I’d love some clarity from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, as to what is intended there. For a layperson reading this, it sounds like it’s saying, “if that person does hold a consent”. Does that, therefore, mean that these seemingly very basic, you wouldn’t call them, protections but at least notifications of existing consent holders using that resource or having access to that resource, and the councils having to be notified that this application is actually going through—does it mean this doesn’t apply?
What’s interesting about this is that—is this in a way opening up a new pathway for where there are constrained resources that fast track will allow, for example, the allocation of water above which currently would be considered overallocated limits?
Now, it goes on further to say—sorry, this is now at clause 24AAB(4)(b)(ii)—“if the existing resource consent relates to a listed project or referred project for which a substantive application has not been lodged, lodge a substantive application that seeks an approval described in section 24C”—which is, essentially, about having a resource consent—“for the same activity as is authorised by the existing resource consent.” I am really keen to understand the implications of these clauses and whether they actually do afford protections, or not, for existing consent holders.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Right, where to start? Maybe I’ll start where my colleague Rachel Boyack left off. That was with Schedule 11, and we were talking about the issues of the Tenths Trust but with particular interest in what happens when somebody’s land is being acquired and then in that interaction between the Public Works Act and this approval process and what happens at the Environment Court, because there’s a change in the bill, from as it was introduced, so that now the “Court must accept determination of panel about consideration of alternative sites”. On the face of that, it appears to be a watering-down of your normal rights under the Public Works Act, and he might want to comment on that.
Also, I’d note that I still am waiting for an answer about clause 31AAA and the requirements for an Order in Council for the change of those private names. If that’s because there’s such a big difference between those private entities and the public entities, that wouldn’t need such a clause. That’s two things.
Going to Schedule 1, I have a short comment on this. This is “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”, and the main change in this large Amendment Paper is that what were going to be the repealed provisions that were in the Natural and Built Environment Act that weren’t repealed and that have been in transition are now, I think, going to become the interim fast-track consenting Act. Just a small question on the Schedule 1: am I right in saying that what was going to be repealed is now going to remain and that that’s because there might be some projects that are going through that process, but they might not?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I just note that Schedule 1 is in Part 1.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I apologise for that. I will move to somewhere else. I will go back to some questions that I’ve asked before in Part 2 and that have not been answered, and I appreciate that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, has been answering some of these questions.
At Subpart 3, clause 26, on page 95 of the Government’s amendment, Amendment Paper 238, the Government is amending the ability to appeal on a question of law—and the Minister will be well aware that there’s no merits-based appeals here; they are restricted to questions of law. But the Government has in this Amendment Paper deleted clause 26(1)(e): “any person who has an interest in the decision appealed against that is greater than that of the general public.” My question is: why has that happened? I’ve not had an answer to that yet, and I, of course, think that that deletion should be reversed.
Then I was also asking questions about clause 27AAB, “Judicial review”. This is new as well in the Amendment Paper from the Government, and it gives it a 20 - working-day time frame for judicial review. The question there is: with all that that clause is doing, is it just about that time frame? My question there is: what analysis has there been on the 20 days, compared with other legislation?
Then going back, I’ve asked this a couple of times, and I have not got an answer, and I’m concerned about clause 24C—specifically, on page 53, of the large amendment. Clause 24C is “Authorised person may lodge substantive application for approvals”. There have been a number of amendments in the Government’s Amendment Paper, and particularly the cause of the concern is at subclause (3), which is “A substantive application may seek 1 or more of the following matters (the approvals):”. Then there is a list, and it’s got some changes. There is a new paragraph (aaa), “a change or cancellation of a resource consent condition”. There’s a new paragraph (ga), and, most interestingly, given this Minister in the chair, there is a new paragraph (k), “a mining permit that would otherwise be applied for under section 23A of the Crown Minerals Act”.
My question is: is this an expansion of the bill and what can be applied for than what—[Time expired]
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. The point, really, was that it would be good to have that question answered because as we know, this Amendment Paper 238 came in yesterday afternoon and we have been debating this bill in committee stage since yesterday afternoon after question time. That one has still not got an answer.
Another question I’ve asked previously is about new clause 22B, “Criteria for assessing referral application”. A different Minister in the chair answered some of my questions around this, but I did suggest that the Government could include adding supporting green infrastructure to the list of criteria that the Minister for Infrastructure may consider as positives. I’ve got an amendment that says that, but it’s really nature-based solutions. Wouldn’t it be good if this bill is, as the Prime Minister says, to encourage environmental goodness? We would want nature-based solutions to be a consideration, and that would be a very easy, good-faith amendment for this Government to make.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak also to Part 2. We’re looking at the “Minister’s decision on referral application”, clause 22A. One thing that is of interest is in terms of reasons to decline a referral application, which is 22A(5)(a): “Reasons to decline a referral application under subsection (4) include, without limitation, the following: … the project would be inconsistent with any of the following:”, and then there’s a list. I will not read it out to you; you can read it yourselves. One thing that was of particular interest was paragraph (d), which was that the Minister could decline a referral on the grounds of “the applicant … has a poor compliance history under a specified Act that relates to any of the proposed approvals”. Now, this is a very real problem.
In the case of Bathurst Resources, it was recently outlined that, in their experience at Canterbury Coal, the company had breached its runoff consent 28 times, and then after applying to extend the mine, it was found to be in breach of its entire consent. It was found that it was mining five times the amount of coal that it had consent for and, as a result, it had breached dust, light, traffic, and other consents. Bathurst refused to hand over requested information to Environment Canterbury (ECan) and ended up closing the mine. Instead of having to argue over the breached consents, after ECan came up with a rehabilitation plan, Bathurst is now appealing that to the Environment Court. That would be a pretty glaring example, you might suggest, of an applicant that has a poor compliance history under a specified Act.
Now, my question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, is: how is it that the Minister is best able to evaluate that compliance history? What are the mechanisms by which the Minister can avail themselves of independent analysis and information about the applicant? In the referral process, if you look back to page 27, the applicant is required to avail in their application for a referral “the types of consents, certificates, designations, concessions, and other legal authorisations (other than contractual authorisations or the proposed approvals) that the applicant considers are needed to authorise the project”, but it would not be in the applicant’s interest to fess up about their poor consent record. How is it that the Minister will independently assess the track record of a given company or individual applying for a referral motion?
I also have an amendment that specifically relates to this clause, in Part 2, Amendment Paper 168: in clause 19A(2)(k), replace “should” with “must”. It changes the current reason to decline, under clause 22A(5), into “additional reasons the referral application must be declined” under clause 22A. That is what I am proposing: an amendment that would strengthen what is otherwise a pretty useful list of reasons for declining an application. I’d appreciate hearing the Minister’s take on that. Thank you.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): There’s a number of items that I’d like to cover off. Obviously, the rights of appeal in respect of this statute are tightly defined. There has been no attempt at all to obfuscate the fact that this legislation is designed to restrict matters to the black letter, meaning of the black-letter law, significance. That’s the first thing. To go much further than that, I think, quite frankly, is to use valuable time of the committee upon something that is patently obvious.
In respect to the Whakatū land litigation—because I have to be mindful that litigation that’s before the courts, we have to respect the principle of comity—there’s no doubt in my mind that that process will wend its way through the various corridors of the judiciary and solutions can be arrived at irrespective of what projects may be funded or what projects may be granted an approval.
Now, in relation to how and why a project should be declined, I use the member’s own words: “The Minister will be furnished with information. The Minister will be able to check the veracity of that information.” The Minister, quite frankly, in clause 22A(3), already is under a compulsory duty to decline in the absence of subsection (1) not being complied with. The Minister has to be of a view that the proposed project “involves an ineligible activity”, and that “the Minister considers that they do not have adequate information to inform the decision under this section.” Such a catch-all phrase would enable the Minister to ensure that they have comprehensive understanding of the spotty history that the member refers to.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, for his responses just now.
I had a series of related questions that are to do with “Criteria for assessing referral application”—specifically, clause 22B(1)(a), “significant regional or national benefits;”, and also subclause 2(a)(iv), “deliver significant economic benefits:”. Really, the question is about how Ministers and the Government can be assured that they’re receiving the right standard of information to assess those benefits—whether the benefits need to outweigh the cost of the project. Is that the assumption? Is that the test? As far as I can tell, reading the Amendment Paper, there’s no definition—and here I mean the Amendment Paper from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, which is Amendment Paper 238—of what significant national or regional benefits are. I guess there’s just the question of whether the economic benefits—how that will be assessed. If we look at a number of the projects in Schedule 2, especially those from the New Zealand Transport Agency, for some of the projects listed that have had public information about costs and benefits the economic benefits have been less than the cost—the benefit-cost ratio, in other words, has been under one.
One suggestion made earlier—I know my colleague Scott Willis has an Amendment Paper that would specify a little bit more information under clause 18, and we have discussed that previously. I think, actually, it probably should go further because—I guess my question to the Minister is: do we think that the economic benefits need to be assessed in a standardised way so we know that we’re comparing apples with apples in different projects? Do the benefits need to outweigh the costs for it to be considered significant benefits and for it to be considered that’s it delivering significant economic benefits? Will there be an objective test of how those economic benefits are calculated?
I had one further question: will the Government decline projects that are not able to demonstrate significant economic benefits, or is that just one aspect? Would this be judicially reviewable if, for example, a project is referred, it is approved, but subsequently people say, “Well, actually, the information is not there to establish genuine economic benefits to the country because the economic benefits are outweighed by the cost of the project.”? Could that be a reason for either the consent to be declined or for it to be judicially reviewed if it was given? I ask this because previously under resource management law, under the board of inquiry process, for example, consent authorities, board of inquiries, and the Environment Court have said it’s not up to them to determine whether the economic benefits are there or not; they’re there to determine whether the effects can be mitigated sufficiently.
That’s what previous Resource Management Act law was, but with this fast-track thing and the fact that significant economic benefits are one of the key reasons for this process, does that mean then that, actually, the consent authority, the panels and those who might be reviewing the decision—I guess it can’t be reviewed—will be able to look at the evidence around whether or not there is economic benefit and use that as a reason to determine that the project should not go ahead?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): I have no doubt in my mind that, after this bill passes, there will be no shortage of people seeking crevices and avenues upon which to litigate. That, sadly, is just a part of the system. Hopefully, this bill will reduce such weaponisation.
Can I direct the honourable former Minister, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, to clause 22B(2), which is a long schedule, and, against my better judgment, it talks too much about climate change, but that’s another matter. You will see there is a reference not only to significant economic benefits but to addressing significant environmental issues. Obviously, these matters will become justiciable. By that, I mean they will provide an opportunity for people who want to chance their arm on the question of law—not of values, not of normative assertions.
I think that if we study it carefully, that particular provision—the content of paragraph (a) right through to subparagraph (x), before it goes to “(b) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.”—answers the question for the honourable member.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, before I take the next call, can I get members to focus on bringing new material and new questions, and I appreciate that some members might not appreciate how the answers are addressed, but it is important that we cut down on the repetition.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will be addressing an area that I don’t think has been raised in debate, and that is, in Schedule 3, the process for appointment of the chair. Now—
Hon Members: We’ve been through that.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ve covered that.
CELIA WADE-BROWN: Well, there is a question about why the phrase “in consultation with the Minister” has been removed, and whether it is the same reason that the power of the triumvirate of Ministers in making decisions about projects was removed, or if there was another reason for its removal.
The second part about the chair of the panel is, rather than a rather unspecified level of expertise that a planner might have—I mean, when you say, “with experience in relevant law”, maybe they once put in two paragraphs in a resource consent application. I would urge, and I would like to know why the chair, at least, should not be someone with more than just a planning degree, but be an Environment Court judge or, potentially, a retired Environment Court judge. Thank you, Mr Chair.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): I’ve been waiting to take this call, because my last call was regarding the amendment that was dropped just before dinnertime by the Hon Chris Bishop—and it was a good answer, thank you, Minister. You talked about what this is about. You gave us a good, clear message around Schedule 5, around the whole thing of litigation and the right of appeal, etc. You gave us the “what it is”, but the “why it’s been dropped so late”—I’m really interested to know why it’s actually taken so long to get that in there. That’s my first question.
I’m happy if you want to answer me now, or I can move on to my second question, which is—and it would be wrong of me not to ask this question, because it was from a submitter to the Environment Committee, and if I didn’t bring this up, I know that they probably would have words with us, because they made it very clear that it is important for us to consider this. One of the submitters was a member of the guardians of Fiordland. There’s an actual Act of Parliament from back in 2005 which was the Fiordland (Te Moana o Atawhenua) Marine Management Act 2005.
The concern this submitter has is around when you look at this legislation and we look at the start of Part 2, new clause 14AAA, it talks about the Fisheries Act 1996. It talks about responsibilities to tangata whenua, to hapū, and as we go through it—and I’ve got some other bits here. There is clarity around some of the aquaculture, some of the marine responsibilities. It goes on to talk in clause 19A about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. The question this submitter made to us—and that’s why we want to bring it up, so that we can get clarity—is: where does a piece of legislation like the Fiordland marine management Act fit in?
The concern from the submitter was, firstly—and I quote the thing they said—“This process disturbs me.” That was their quote in terms of this piece of legislation. They had worked hard not only as a group of volunteers but as people passionate about Fiordland and the protection of that space. To you, Minister—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could you repeat that clause again? Was it clause 19A?
GLEN BENNETT: Yeah—well, I guess I was giving examples; I apologise. What I mean is that clause 14AAA talks about different fisheries and marine areas. Clause 18B also does. Clause 19A mentions—and the reason I’m being, I guess, vague in many ways is because the question from the submitter was: “Where does this fit in?” Is this Act of Parliament that is nowhere in this legislation—does that mean that puts it at risk in terms of what is able to be done? If there is work down in Fiordland, if there is a future fast-track project, the question is: will that put other legislation at risk?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): There are two parts to that question. Obviously, the catch-all provision that I’ve already referred to in terms of the Minister considering applications on the list, I’m not aware which current applications might have a spillover effect on the Fiordland environment, but there is a catch-all phrase there, and it says what “matters the Minister considers [important].”
Secondly, on the question of why this particular amendment was moved, obviously it’s to ensure that there’s clarity and giving security to appellants that their rights to appeal are protected, and, at the same time, within a time frame, requiring applicants to secure a distinctive decision from the court: is the proposed activity covered in the proposal stayed or can it continue? It gives certainty to the ability of an appellant to go and test their case, but within a reasonable time frame.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Mr Chair, I listened intently to your ruling before, about new material. Of course, I note that many of my questions remain unanswered—not that I’m disappointed with the answer; just that they are unanswered, unaddressed, not addressed.
I’ve got three things to talk about in this contribution. I do note that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, did answer one of my questions, and that was on the deletion of appeal rights for people with greater than the public interest. He seemed to say that it was reckless of me to even bring it up in the committee and that it was a waste of the committee’s time. That is an outrageous statement for the Minister to make, particularly when this came in an amendment that we received yesterday.
My question is: is that the Minister’s attitude to all of these new changes, that we shouldn’t even be discussing them in the committee? Because, Minister, the Ministers that have been in the chair—nobody has proactively offered advice about what the changes are in all of these amendments. That includes the ones tabled just before dinner time. You’ve addressed that now, but there has been no proactive advice. It was not proactive; that was in answer to a question about what these changes are, and there are many, many of them. It is a very frustrating and terrible way to make laws. That’s that question.
The second question is on clause 27A, or around cost recovery, really. At new clause 24ZA, inserted by Amendment Paper 238, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is able to request information from relevant administering agencies and local authorities. The local authority has to provide information to the EPA if the EPA asks for it. That makes some sense.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could you repeat that clause again?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, sorry—I’m working off the Government’s amendment. At page 90, new clause 24ZA says, “EPA may request information from relevant administering agencies and local authorities”. We don’t need to look at the detail of that—it makes some sense—but what I’m interested in is the cost-recovery provision.
If you turn over to page 101, you will see that there is a cost recovery provision at new clause 27B, and it talks about how an agency may recover the costs. Then, if you look back on the page before, at page 100, there’s an interpretation section at new clause 27A: “An agency means the EPA, the responsible agency, an administering agency, or a relevant local authority”. I want to make sure that the intention here is that local authorities required to give information to the EPA under new clause 24ZA are going to be enabled to cost recover under new clause 27B. That’s one question.
Then, going back to where I was getting to in my last contribution, before I was told that Schedule 1—wasn’t quite correctly told that it was in Part 1. I’ll go to clause 33, which is at page 110, which is in Part 2. Here, the clause is deleted, and it was a repeal clause, which is “Clauses 4 to 9 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023 are repealed.” It would be useful, again, for the Minister to explain why there has been this change of heart, where that natural and built environments fast-tracking was going to be repealed by this bill; it’s no longer being repealed. Why is that? Thank you.
LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to again get very specifically to a proposed amendment in relation to clause 22B. This is on page 36, in Part 2. Currently, this is about criteria for assessing referral applications, and it allows the Minister to consider whether the project does a number of things—for example, whether it will deliver regionally and nationally significant infrastructure and other things. The part that I would like the Minister to consider changing is subparagraph (ix) on the following page, where it says whether the project “will address significant environmental issues”.
Now, what I’m proposing in this amendment is to replace that with specifically saying “will avoid, remedy, or mitigate significant environmental issues.” The reason I’m suggesting that is that is a well-documented and well-tested way—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you tell us the Amendment Paper number?
LAN PHAM: Sorry, Amendment Paper 178. In Amendment Paper 178, I’m proposing the words “will avoid, remedy, or mitigate significant environmental issues.”
This is because this is a documented and well-tested way of actually avoiding, remedying, or mitigating significant environmental issues. As the clause currently stands, “will address significant environmental issues” gives uncertainty, it’s not clear how you actually address them, and it’s really open to a lot of discretion and it’s very unspecific. I would really like to know whether the Minister would consider actually using the well-tested “avoid, remedy, or mitigate” as a really clear way to provide applicants and anyone who is impacted by these projects more certainty about how environmental impacts are actually managed under the bill.
TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I move, That debate on this question now close.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora tātou, e te Māngai, e mihi ana ki a koe me tō tātou Minita ki roto i te tūru, Matua Shane. Ēnei kōrero he wāhi tāpaetanga kōrero i taku nama rua rau mā waru. Nō reira me tirohia tātou ki waku tono kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei ture whakahohoro o tātou. Tēnei wāhanga nama whā waeture toru—
[Greetings all, the Speaker, and also greetings to our Minister in the chair, Matua Shane, I would like to speak to Amendment Paper 208. And so let’s look to what I have to say about this fast-track bill of ours. This Schedule 4, clause 3—]
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Rua rau mā waru? [Two hundred and eight?]
HŪHANA LYNDON: Rua rau mā waru. Pai te noho ki roto i te reo. Me whakapākeha ahau? [Amendment Paper 208. Is it fine to speak in te reo? Or should I speak English?]
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): E ai ki te tikanga kua hoki ērā tāngata whakapākehā kōrero heoi anō taihoa.
[According to tikanga, those interpreters have returned to interpret. However, hold on.]
HŪHANA LYNDON: Nō reira me whakapākehā ahau kia māma te haere nē. [Perhaps I should speak English and so simplify my speech.] OK. I’ll change into reo Pākehā mō tātou katoa.
Hon Karen Chhour: Point of order, Mr Chair. If we are unable to understand the debate that’s going on in this Chamber, how are we supposed to debate properly?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The interpreters were with us; we’re just trying to find out why the technology isn’t working.
HŪHANA LYNDON: Hei whakautu i tērā, ko te reo Māori te reo matua o tēnei whenua. [To answer that, Māori language is the main language of this land.]
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s coming through now. If you want an interpretation, it is coming through. Taea koe te kōrero Māori tonu. [You are able to speak Māori still.]
HŪHANA LYNDON: OK. Kia ora tātou, tērā pea me reo rua ahau kia ngāwari te haere o te pō nei. Ahakoa te roa o te noho.
[Greetings all, perhaps I should speak in both languages to simplify my speech this evening. Despite the lengthy sitting.]
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Kua hoki mai rātou. [They have returned.]
HŪHANA LYNDON: Kua hoki mai? [Have they returned?]
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Āe.
HŪHANA LYNDON: OK, ka pai. Nō reira ko aku kōrero e pā ana ki ngā tāpaetanga kōrero hou a Huhana mō te rua rau mā waru e pā ana ki te wāhanga whā, waeture toru. Ki runga i te whārangi kotahi rau rima tekau mā waru nei. Nō reira ko tāku kōrero e pā ana ki ngā taka kino. Te takahitanga o te taiao me taku hiahia kia tāpiri wētahi atu kōrero pā ana ki tēnei waiture nama toru nei.
Tērā pea me huri ahau ki roto i te reo Pākehā kia mārama katoa tātou. Kia kuhu mai te katoa.
[So what I am saying about Huhana’s contribution on Amendment Paper 208 amending Schedule 4, clause 3, on page 158—so my speech is about the disadvantages. The disadvantages to the environment and my want to add my contributions towards this clause 3.
Perhaps I should turn to the English language so that we all understand. So that we can all be included.]
I won’t translate what I just said in the reo, but I do want to talk to the Amendment Paper that I have in front of me, which is Amendment Paper 208. It’s an opportunity for us to really look at Schedule 4, going into clause 3(a), on page 158 of Amendment Paper 238.
Nō reira ko tāku e kī nei [So what I am saying is that it says], “an assessment of the actual or potential effects on the environment:”. My amendment goes to the heart of looking at ētahi takahitanga o te taiao [adverse effects on the environment], so that when there are any significant or adverse impacts or effects on the environment, there is an opportunity within the application to look at alternative locations. Ētahi atu wāhi mahi nei me kī te tirohia haere tērā pea ka taea te mahi ki wāhi kē—so you can look at alternative locations, but also maybe some of the mahi could be done in a different way.
This isn’t something in terms of the limitation of paragraph (a) that we have in front of us; it’s just examining the actual and potential effects on the environment. This is just an expansion of it to require the applicant to examine the impacts on the environment—and for the panel and the Ministers—and then look at alternative locations and methods for undertaking the activity and raise that, because in some of these projects, it might be found that the methods being undertaken by the applicant may be harmful for the taiao for that particular purpose. There might be other ways of executing the mahi.
This amendment is quite, I think, just user-friendly and is just providing a bit more expansion on the opportunity for us to include the provision for alternative locations and also other methods to be considered, and these are safeguards for the environment. These are safeguards also for the developers to have a little bit more space to look at ways in which they might be able to carry out their activities, but it is also for the community, for the hau kāinga, to be able to raise their voice through the process.
Nō reira koia waku tāpaetanga kōrero ināianei, ka heke iho. Kia ora. [So that is what I’d like to add at this stage. Thank you.]
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, I am looking for new material and new arguments, and new debates as well.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a number of points I would like the Minister in the chair’s, the Hon Shane Jones’, clarification on, but I want to start in terms of two of the amendments. This is in terms of Amendment Paper 190 and Amendment Paper 191 and this is specifically around the steps by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) after substantive application lodged.
I think one of the first points I would like to make—and I would like to ask the Minister’s consideration on these two Amendment Papers—is the time frame that has been given to the EPA when they are receiving such a substantive application. Now, both of the Amendment Papers—and this amendment is to clause 24F(1) and the second one is around clause 24FB(2). Again, these, for you, Mr Chair, are Amendment Papers 190 and 191.
I think the main issue here is, considering some of the examples that we’re seeing within the 149 projects that are currently in Schedule 2, but also considering that in Schedule 1, we’re talking about opening some of the applications and the referral applications, and potentially later on substantive applications, I am concerned that the EPA may not have the capacity to be able to respond within such a short period of time.
For both of the Amendment Papers, one of the things we’re looking at is extending the 15 working days and the 10 working days respectively to 20 working days. It wouldn’t be a massive extension by any means, but, hopefully, there is something for the Minister to consider and just to alleviate some of those issues and some of those concerns that the EPA may not respond in time.
One of the other points I would like to mention as well—and I would like the Minister’s clarification on—is actually around clause 31, and particularly around secondary legislation and, in this case, regulation. Now, I want to specifically home in on clause 31(1)(b)(ii), and this is around how the Governor-General can make recommendations “specifying requirements for a referral application [on] a substantive application, including—information that must be included in the application:”.
The clarification I would like from the Minister is about clause 14(3) and clause 14AAA, both of which are exhaustive lists of information that must be included as part of the referral application. But, if we are allowing, by Order in Council, secondary legislation to be made that changes or alters the information that must be included in the application, would it be considered that that this is a “Henry VIII” clause that we’re looking at? And how would that be in terms of amending primary legislation? If not, I would like the Minister’s clarification on what is meant by specifying requirements. Are we looking at more information being added or less information being added as part of that exhaustive list in clause 14(3) and clause 14AAA?
Again, if this is something that is considered a “Henry VIII” clause, I think that is a serious consideration for this committee. If it’s not, then also what are some of the considerations the Minister for Infrastructure will have that we’re not going to be looking at the case of ultra vires when the sort of Order in Council is being made for that particular secondary legislation? Thank you.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I wanted to bring up Amendment Paper 186, which refers to clause 24. In clause 24(3), it lays out the criteria that the Minister for Infrastructure is required to set out if they do “accept the referral application and refer a project, the notice”. This is about the notice of Minister’s decision on referral application. If the referral application is accepted, there’s certain things the notice must say. One thing that is not included between (a) and (f) is setting out any areas where the application conflicts with any relevant criteria in the Act.
This is an Amendment Paper in the name of Scott Willis, my colleague. “In clause 24(3), after paragraph (ba) (page 41, after line 24), insert: (bb) set out any areas where the application conflicts with any relevant criteria in this Act;”.
Just to make it very, very clear that the notice of the Minister’s decision should set out how the application conflicts if it is accepted for any reason. I’m hoping that the Minister and the Government would consider this amendment and wanted to raise that in this debate.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The next contribution must be new and it must contain new material.
LAN PHAM (Green): Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, like I’ve been doing the entire time: getting straight to the amendment, talking about the issue, and asking questions of the Minister for Regional Development and whether he’d consider them. So this Amendment Paper 183, this refers to clause 23. Now, these are the circumstances under which a Minister specifies matters for an accepted referral application. It’s really simple, suggesting: “In clause 23, after subclause (3) (page 40, after line 14), insert: (4) The Minister must specify that the project be publicly notified, and that the notice invite interested persons or groups to make a submission to the panel.”
This is a really simple amendment that I would like the Minister to consider, because we hear time and time again and we’ve seen now from the projects that are listed in the schedules, which will be going straight through to the expert panel, that these are projects of a significant scale. Many of them have significant environmental adverse effects, and some will have benefits. It’s important—like we’ve seen time and time again—where experts, community, a whole range of individuals actually have the opportunity to input into making the projects and the conditions on the projects fair, robust, and comprehensive, that’s when you get the best outcomes for everyone. The scale and significance of these projects absolutely warrants public notification. We heard that time and time again through the select committee where we heard about this, and I would like the Minister’s consideration.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Thank you, Mr Chair. This question, not unlike others, centres on a key tenet of this legislation: that those who have an entitlement to be integrally involved in the consideration of the panel in granting approval of those that are most affected by the approval, it is not a wide, vague description of who may or may not feel that they are affected by what externalities might flow from the project. This is the whole key point of the bill. For those reasons, obviously we are not going to accept that submission or that proposed amendment. This bill will allow the people to be consulted, providing they represent that circle of interests that are genuinely and most impacted by the decision.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to replace subclause (1) in clause 14 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s remaining tabled amendments to subclause (3) in clause 14 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 14(2)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 153 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 14(3) set out on Amendment Paper 154 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 14(3)(ba) set out on Amendment Paper 155 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 14(3)(ba) set out on Amendment Paper 156 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 14(3)(e) set out on Amendment Paper 157 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 141 are out of order as not being consistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to replace clause 14(3)(ha)(ii) set out on Amendment Paper 158 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to replace clause 14(3)(ha)(ii) set out on Amendment Paper 159 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment to clause 14(3)(ha) set out on Amendment Paper 131 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 14(3)(s) set out on Amendment Paper 160 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 14(3)(s) set out on Amendment Paper 161 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 162 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 15(1A)(b)(ii) set out on Amendment Paper 163 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 16(1) set out on Amendment Paper 164 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to insert subclause (2) in clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 165 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clause 16 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to insert paragraph (aa) in clause 18A set out on Amendment Paper 166 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 19(1) set out on Amendment Paper 167 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s amendment clauses 19A and 22A set out on Amendment Paper 168 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clause 19A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 19B(2) set out on Amendment Paper 169 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 22A set out on Amendment Paper 170 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22A(3)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 171 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22A(5) set out on Amendment Paper 172 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 22B set out on Amendment Paper 132 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is—[Interruption] Can we have quiet during voting, please.
The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 22B to insert new paragraphs (c) and (d) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 22B(1) set out on Amendment Paper 173 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22B(2) set out on Amendment Paper 174 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Scott Willis’ amendments to clause 22B(2) set out on Amendment Paper 176 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a)(v) set out on Amendment Paper 177 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a)(vi) set out on Amendment Paper 180 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 179 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22B(2)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 178 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 22B(4) set out on Amendment Paper 181 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 22B(4) set out on Amendment Paper 182 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 23 set out on Amendment Paper 183 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 24 set out on Amendment Paper 184 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 24(2) set out on Amendment Paper 185 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24(3) set out on Amendment Paper 186 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 187 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to clause 24D(4) set out on Amendment Paper 188 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24E(1) set out on Amendment Paper 189 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24F(1) set out on Amendment Paper 190 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24FB(2) set out on Amendment Paper 191 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24G(2) set out on Amendment Paper 192 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24G(3) set out on Amendment Paper 193 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24M(2) set out on Amendment Paper 194 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment to clause 24M(2) set out on Amendment Paper 142 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24O(2) set out on Amendment Paper 195 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett’s amendment to delete subclause (2) in clause 24Q set out on Amendment Paper 134 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Glen Bennett’s remaining amendments to replace clause 24P and amend clause 24Q set out on Amendment Paper 134 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendments to clause 24Q(1) set out on Amendment Paper 196 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24Q(4) set out on Amendment Paper 197 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24Q(4)(b) set out on Amendment Paper 198 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 24UA(1) set out on Amendment Paper 199 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24W(4)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 200 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
.
Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 24WD(1)(c) set out on Amendment Paper 201 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Steve Abel’s remaining amendment to clause 24WD(1) set out on Amendment Paper 201 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger):
The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendments to delete clause 24WB and amend clause 24WD set out on Amendment Paper 133 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 24WD set out on Amendment Paper 202 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 24X(1)(a)(iv) set out on Amendment Paper 203 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to clause 24X set out on Amendment Paper 204 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Scott Willis’ amendment to clause 24X(4) set out on Amendment Paper 205 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Peeni Henare’s amendment to clause 27A set out on Amendment Paper 135 is out of order as not being consistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 1
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now we vote on Schedule 1. There is no debate.
The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right, members, we are now on to Schedule 2, which is also no debate.
The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 relating to Balmoral Water Storage and to Macraes Phase Four be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments to the amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Macraes Phase Four project is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Project Kea project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Klondyke storage project be agreed to
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Summerset Retirement Village, Mosgiel project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Tukituki Water Security project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Taranaki VTM project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Buller Plateaux Continuation project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the Rotowaro Mine Continuation project be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to McCallum Bros Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Mercury NZ Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to South Island Resource Recovery Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Sanford Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to OceanaGold (New Zealand) Limited is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Northport Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Katikati Quarries (2001) Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Mana Ahuriri Holdings Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to KM & MG Holdings Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to RCL Homestead Bay Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Rangitoopuni Developments Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Mt Iron Junction Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to ImpactMarine (Bluff) Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Harmony Energy NZ #8 Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Suburban Estates Limited, Anne Lois Stokes, Brian James Stokes be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Lochindorb Wind Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Tauhara North No. 2 Trust be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Te Aupouri Fisheries Management Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Bell Road Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Coronet Village Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Eastland Generation Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Energy Farms Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Stevenson Aggregates Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to NZSki Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Kaimai Wind Farm Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Harmony Energy NZ #6 Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Harmony Energy NZ #5 Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Taharoa Ironsands Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Tararua Wind Power Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Clifford Bay Marine Farms Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Amuri Irrigation Company Limited is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Summerset Village (Mosgiel) Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Te Awa Lakes Unincorporated Joint Venture between Perry Group Limited and Schick Group Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to BT Mining Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Silver Creek Limited be agreed to.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Kingsgate Holdings Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Stratford Park Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Kings Quarry Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Tauriko Property Group Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Malcolm’s Rest Limited, Kathryn Seeney, Lloyd Seeney be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to North Eastern Investments Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Golden Ridge Farm Limited, Golden Ridge Park Limited, Industre Property Rua Limited, Southern Park Agri Development Limited, Theodoor Bongers Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to KA Waimanawa Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Beachlands South Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Ben Dormer be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Bathurst Coal Limited, Bathurst Resources Limited, BT Mining Limited, Buller Coal Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Black Point Solar Farm be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Birchs Village Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Maia Properties Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Manawa Energy Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Matakanui Gold Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Kiwi Property Holdings No. 2 Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Winton Land Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Southern Screenworks Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to National Green Steel Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Gibbston Valley Station, High Definition Development, LLC be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to SolarGen Joint Venture (Genesis Energy Limited and FRV Australia) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Precinct Properties New Zealand Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Mid Canterbury Water Storage Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to K B Contracting & Quarries Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Lodestone Energy Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Andrew William Simpson, Karen Frances Simpson be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Blackmans Creek Holdings Limited No.1 Limited Partnership be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Fulton Hogan Land Development Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Trans-Tasman Resources Limited is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Transpower New Zealand Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Tory Hill Trust be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to TiGa Minerals and Metals Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to The Wellington Company Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Vineway Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Waikanae North Developments Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Westpower Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to The Guildford Timber Company Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to The Hills Holdings Limited, The Hills Residences Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Carter Group Limited be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to the amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 to delete the lines referring to Winstone Aggregates be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 238 as amended be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendment as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 3
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Duncan Webb’s amendment to clause 4(1) of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 136 be agreed.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to delete “, in consultation with the Minister,” in clause 4(1) of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 206 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s remaining amendment to clause 4(1) of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 206 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 7(1A) of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 207 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 3A
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 3A set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3A as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 3A as amended agreed to.
Schedule 4
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 3(1) of Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 208 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 137 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 12(1) of Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 209 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 17(1) of Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 209 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 16(3)(a) of Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 210 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 5
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to the amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments to the amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 17D in Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 137 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s remaining amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 137 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Lan Pham’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 209 are out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendments to clause 5(1) of Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 143 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s amendment to delete Part 3 of Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 162 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 17A of Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 211 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Lan Pham’s amendment to replace clause 17D(2) of Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 212 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 6
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 137 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Lan Pham’s amendment to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 209 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 7
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 7 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to Schedule 7 set out on Amendment Paper 137 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendment to Schedule 7 set out on Amendment Paper 209 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 7 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to.
New Schedule 8
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting new Schedule 8 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 137 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendment to Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 209 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 9 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 9 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 10
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to the amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments to the amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Amendment Paper 238 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Amendment Paper 137 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Amendment Paper 209 are out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 10 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 10 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 11
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 3 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 138 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 11 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Schedule 13
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 13 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”, including the debate on proposed new clause 2A set out on Amendment Paper 145.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity to speak to clause 1. Here we are, after hours of debating this bill, and we are on to the first section where we can really call it what it is. I have an amendment on the Table. It would amend it to be called the “Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill”, because this is the first bill where a Chair of the committee of the whole House has been overruled by the Speaker to include private benefits in a piece of Government legislation—private benefits which have not been through the ordinary process for a private bill, where they would be required to be promoted, where they would be required to be shared with all members of Parliament, and where they would be required to be shared with the communities that will be affected by this private benefits. No, none of that has happened, and so we should call this what it is.
We should also ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform why he was so shaken when I put to him how Winton Sunfield development is a clear example not only of private benefits—
Hon Member: So anti-development.
ARENA WILLIAMS: —where the private developers are being given a benefit in the uplift of the value of the options, they have to buy land to the tune of tens of millions of dollars when this passes—and the Government MPs on that side are heckling me about it. They’re saying I’m against developers, but that is not what I’m against. This is not a pro-development bill; this is pro some developers to the expense of others. This is a “pro-housing at the expense of other housing providers” bill. This is a bill about benefiting some over the many.
This is a bill where I did not put to the Minister my questions. I could have asked him: was it him who solicited the $103,000 donation from Chris and Michaela Meehan, who are directors and shareholders of the Winton Land company? But I didn’t. I could have asked him whether the uplift of tens of millions in value that the Winton Land company will enjoy has any bearing on those donations. I didn’t ask him those questions, but he was still ready to use comments about the parliamentary privilege that we enjoy to try and shut down that debate.
This is the only chance that New Zealanders have to understand this connection, because of the way that the Government has introduced this at the eleventh hour. Government members, Opposition members—everyone in this House—has only had that amendment today when it was tabled.
Glen Bennett: Outrageous!
ARENA WILLIAMS: It is outrageous, Glen Bennett. It’s outrageous that no one has been able to put this through the scrutiny that it deserves, let alone the ordinary legislative process for private bills of this nature, let alone using the ancient rules that apply to private bills in our constitutional framework so that people at least understand when Parliament is making a rule which applies in a big way to only a small group of people—whether those are financial interests, whether those are interests about limiting their rights, whether those are interests that affect only them or a class of people. This is not the appropriate way to make this legislation, and that is why we should change its name.
I want to know whether the Minister approached the Speaker, before he made the ruling, about the nature of the ruling he was going to give. I want to know whether the Minister had had a conversation with legal advisers outside of the Government, and I want to know whether that advice was made available to the Speaker too, because this Parliament should know what advice was relied upon to make that ruling—that new ruling—because this is a fresh and new process to introduce private benefit in this way. The Minister can throw his hands in the air and say that every Government bill has some form of private benefit. That is true—
Carl Bates: Oh, that’s true—true!
ARENA WILLIAMS: —but there is nothing like this in New Zealand’s legislation before. Let me explain what is true, to the National members heckling me again. What’s true is that every Government bill will have an element of benefit to some people or to some class of persons, but there has never been, at the last hour, donors to the National Party who are included in a huge uplift in the value of their property. That is new—not in the last National Government, not in the National Government before it.
The National Party used to be a party that believes in homeownership for everyone and private developers being able to develop houses that everyone could buy. It was a National Government that wrung its hands over whether private housing grants should go to first-home buyers, but it was decided that that was an appropriate way to change the market. Those policies used to be hard. That’s what the National Government used to discuss around the Cabinet table. That’s what the liberals and the conservatives in the National Government used to debate. Now it’s cronyism and who’s in and who’s out, and who’s benefiting and whose mates are at the table.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I have a number of suggestions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to consider about a name change for this bill. The main reason for that is that it’s just the wrong name. It’s the Fast-track Approvals Bill, and that gives the impression—Mr Chair, and to the Minister—that it’s just about speed; that this bill is about process. That is how many submitters saw it when they came and submitted to the Environment Committee, but, no, that is not what this bill is about; it’s actually about getting the things done on that list for pet projects. We’ve heard from my colleague the word “cronyism”. This is very dangerous. This precedent of naming private people on a list is cronyism, and it is shameful.
The first name choice I have for the Minister that I think more accurately reflects this bill is the “Polluting Pet Projects (And Other Matters) Approvals Bill”, because that is all this bill is about—those pet projects that this Government wants to get done, not the small and medium ones that cause all the time and all the energy and all the expense in the resource management system; no, those big projects that are going to have detrimental effects. Those projects that have already been declined are the ones that this Government wants to push through.
Another suggested change, if he doesn’t like “Polluting Pet Projects”, is “Fast (Removal of Community Input) Environmental Approvals Bill”. Of course, that is another thing that this bill is doing: it’s taking away all community input, whether that’s from mana whenua, whether it’s from Forest & Bird—
Carl Bates: Not true—go read the bill.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —whether it’s from the wider neighbourhood, that is what this bill does. I suggested—I can hear some heckling members of the National Party, saying “Not true.” Well, they should have been here during the debate, when I specifically asked the Minister if he would include the list of groups of people, from Business New Zealand to Forest & Bird, who were included in the COVID legislation. But, no, he wouldn’t even do that, and that is a disgrace.
A different title would be “Approval for Private Projects in a Public Act Bill”. This goes back to the point that my colleague was making and my point about cronyism. It is very dangerous, the precedent that is in this bill.
If he doesn’t like that, another title suggestion is “Removal of Appeal Rights to Fast-track Approvals Bill”. I say that because, at this eleventh hour, we’ve had a substantive amendment to the bill. We got it in the afternoon that we were starting to debate this bill in the committee of the whole House. There are major changes to the appeal rights in that amendment.
When I asked the Minister in the chair why it was that groups that had an interest greater than the public were being removed by this Government-tabled amendment, he told me that I was wasting the committee’s time by even asking him. That just shows the disdain this Government has for any proper lawmaking processes. We hear from the Minister in charge of this bill that he has Fitzgerald v Muldoon on his wall; well, he should take it down—he should take it down fast—because this bill does exactly the opposite of what that Minister likes to talk about in terms of good lawmaking and scrutiny.
We can disagree, but we have to have the time to have that disagreement and to have the arguments. Introducing an amendment at the eleventh hour does not do that, and it does not do it when the Minister in the chair tells me that I’m wasting the committee’s time. He didn’t even get into the judicial review clause; no answer on that—no answer on why there’s only 20 days to do a judicial review. Nothing. That suggestion was the “Removal of Appeal Rights to Fast-track Approvals Bill”.
Another title suggestion is “Eleventh-hour Changes Avoiding Scrutiny Bill”. That goes to the point I was just making.
Hon Members: Frivolous.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, members opposite are saying it’s frivolous. It is accurate and it is, again, disgraceful, and they should be embarrassed that they are sitting here at almost half past 11 at night to defend what their Ministers are doing, their Ministers, who would have told them when they were all in Young Nationals, or whatever they were in, “Oh, we want to defend good processes. We are conservatives.” If you’re a conservative, then you want good lawmaking, surely? You don’t want these radical changes that are happening. What this bill is is radical, and it is radical in all the wrong directions. It’s radical in terms of cronyism, it’s radical in terms of pollution, and it’s radical in terms of undermining the rights of New Zealanders to be involved in their communities and have a say about what’s going on. It’s a disgrace.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I’ve just heard a degree of pettifogging and trivialising that, in my view, is inappropriate and does not become the members. The proposed legislation is of significant importance to progress projects of national and regional importance. The comments reminded me of the Hawke’s Bay secondary school debating final in 1993 between Te Aute College and Woodford House—epic, energetic but, ultimately, full of exaggeration. The title of this bill reflects the policy intent designed to speed up the regulatory approvals for nationally and regionally significant projects. Kia ora tātou.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I like what the Minister of Conservation just delivered. However, it is also important to know that, as we are going through this bill, we have had various Ministers sitting in that chair, and for most of it, we had the Minister in question as we were going through this bill methodologically. I think it is really important to mention the fact that it is undemocratic and is completely against the ethos of this House to drop a 235-page amendment on the day of the committee stage where the people of Aotearoa did not get a chance to participate and question during the select committee stage. The Minister cannot deny that that is not OK. That is undemocratic.
Not only that, I wasn’t part of the Environment Committee, and when we are looking at this particular bill, overall, we’re seeing a lot of errors, a lot of mistakes. When we got that Amendment Paper 238, it was almost like a new bill. My question to the Minister is whether he would consider changing the title of this bill to “Fast-track (Cannot Draft a Bill Properly the First Time) Approvals Bill”, because frankly that is what we are seeing here. We are lawmakers, we are the legislature in this House, and there are certain expectations when we are looking at the drafting of a particular bill. Frankly, this bill does not stack up. It does not go up to the standard that people of Aotearoa expect from us.
That is one of my amendments, but I want to just mention another particular point here. It is the fact that, as we are going through this bill, as we are debating various parts of Schedule 2, which, again, was something that was only dropped on our laps and only debatable by this committee yesterday or today. As we’re going through this—and I’m hearing from my colleagues when they are discussing the kinds of projects that are in there, the kinds that are against certain standards and the kinds that have been denied previously—I also want to check with the Minister if he has considered that maybe a better title for this is something along the lines of “Fast-track (Resurrect Zombie Projects) Approvals Bill”. Again, this is what we are hearing throughout this entire debate today.
In all seriousness, there are also other amendments on the title that I’ve put on the Table here.
Hon Rachel Brooking: I’m being serious too.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: You know what? Actually, I take that back. That is correct—that is correct, the Hon Rachel Brooking. All of those things that we are saying are true. All of those things that we are saying are what has been brought to us. What people from those communities and what those people that are supposed to give approval or, as part of that proposed new section 14AAA, who are supposed to be consulted by these projects are telling us—that these are, in fact, zombie projects that are being resurrected, which is why I’m proposing that particular title.
If we’re looking at something like this, to be fair, we have come to know this as the fast-track amendment bill. Actually, I was taken aback when I was looking at it. It says Fast-track Approvals Bill. But, regardless, there are also other ways to potentially look at. I also have an amendment on the Table as well, if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering, something along the line of “Fast-track Decisions Bill” as well. I also know that there are other people who have been heard and who have been part of this debate this entire day and will have other things to contribute in terms of clause 1 and 2. Thank you.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this legislation, acknowledging the hard work of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber to hold the Government to account.
I would like to propose a title to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, and it’s the “Fast-track Approvals (Green-wash and Woke-wash) Bill”, because we’ve heard a lot of green-washing and woke-washing from the Ministers who’ve sat on that chair. We’ve heard from them and we’ve heard this frequent rhetoric every question time from the Prime Minister when we question him on the fast-track bill. They always go, “Oh, why don’t the Greens join us in passing this bill? It’s actually about passing renewable energy.” Well, there are some renewable energy projects here, sure; but, if you actually look at the reality, there’s already enough power that’s been consented. This bill is completely unnecessary and completely promotes private benefit.
Further, if you look at what it’s actually doing, if you look at the list of projects, only a small fraction of the projects are actually renewable energy. If you’re calling this a renewable energy project, when, in fact, only a small fraction of the things are actually to do with renewable energy, and a lot of the projects are to do with mining and mining infrastructure and road infrastructure that will actually increase climate emissions, then that is the opposite of the Green vision. That is just mere green-washing and mere woke-washing.
Cameron Luxton: Give us a definition of woke-washing.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, woke-washing is when you pretend that things are actually going to be better than they are. That’s the definition of “woke-washing”. I’ve heard this rhetoric deployed from this side of the House as well when they referred to, I think, fossil gas as indigenous gas. We’re supposed to believe that this Government, which has launched an unprecedented assault on race relations in New Zealand, all of a sudden cares about indigenous rights when it comes to mining fossil gas and fossil coal. What a joke—what a joke!
Another aspect of this legislation is the sort of environmental processes that it does. I want to propose another potential title for this Fast-track Approvals Bill: the “Climate Doom Approvals Bill” because of all the negative environmental stuff that it’s promoting. We’ve talked about how little investment, how few projects, are actually to do with active transport or public transport. I think there was only a handful of projects that would actually invest in these. There was the busway project, some active transport projects, but the bulk of this is actually roads, holiday roads for people who go on holidays, not actually investing in the real roads that people need, you know? I went to Northland recently and they’re still repairing the roads that were damaged by Cyclone Gabrielle. None of that’s here—none of that’s here. It’s all holiday roads. It’s all woke-washed nonsense. This bill is all woke-washed nonsense.
Another proposal that I’m proposing is the “Fast-track (Burning Rubbish like it’s the 1800s) Approvals Bill.” Look, with the incinerator project, they’re trying to resurrect ancient technology that we used to do in the 1800s. I grew up in a village in the Philippines and we didn’t have modern waste systems, so we had to go and burn our rubbish. We just didn’t even have pits; we just burnt it. That’s exactly what they’re proposing. The incinerator they’re proposing doesn’t have any kind of capture technology. I think that’s what my colleague David Parker rightfully pointed out. It’s just burning rubbish.
Even worse is that this Government, which will barely meet its climate targets because—well, surprise, surprise—in the draft emissions reduction plan, they actually didn’t meet the target to 2050. But, in the revised second emissions reduction plan, they’ve done what they’re good at doing. They’ve done what this Government is good at doing, and that’s cooking the books. They’ve cooked the books on the climate targets by relying on 100 percent capture for technology that’s been deployed overseas that doesn’t reach the 100 percent rate. Amazing! I mean, I believe in Kiwi innovation, I believe in Kiwi science, and I believe that we’re a smart people, but if we’re getting rights that no one else is getting, I suspect something is afoul here. In conclusion, Mr Chair, this is woke-washing and green-washing.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I appreciate the energy and enthusiasm of members right across the Chamber at 25 minutes to midnight tonight, but if I could ask members to keep it tight towards the title and commencement clauses.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As we are debating the title of this bill, the simple question that we have to consider is: is it an appropriate reflection of the contents of the bill? I would argue that it is not, because if you were to look at the title as it currently presents, one might think that the way in which this Government has presented this bill right from the get-go—that this is nothing new, that this has been done before, this is just business as usual—might be accurate. But we know that this is anything but business as usual, and so I propose that this should be one of two alternatives.
It should be called in the first instance the “New Fast-track Approvals Bill” because it is nothing like any other fast-track regime that this Parliament has passed. We mustn’t forget that at the start of this debate—not just in the committee stage but right when the bill was first introduced—there was a proposal that Ministers would have unprecedented powers in order to approve applications for projects. This is where the questions about cronyism were raised, along with the concerns around what this would do to New Zealand’s reputation in terms of being corruption free. Now, they are legitimate questions. They were then and they are now.
It is not to say that individual Ministers are corrupt. It is certainly not to say that the Ministers that were originally proposed to have special approval powers in this bill were corrupt, but it opened up the opportunity for that to happen in the future, and that was a concern. Yes, that was addressed, but has that brought this fast-track approvals process back to what this Parliament has previously passed? No. This is nothing like what we’ve seen in the past, and we can see that in the way in which this committee of the whole House stage has gone about.
An Amendment Paper hundreds of pages long has been brought to the committee for consideration after the select committee process, an Amendment Paper which, it was advised, had provisions that would allow for private benefit allowed to be debated—that’s never happened before, ever. For the Clerk’s advice and the presiding officer to be overruled by the Speaker has never happened in this Parliament before. To suggest in the title that this bill is the same as what we’ve had before is false.
Now, I know that there are restrictions on what proposals for an alternative bill title are, and they should be serious in nature and they should not be a criticism of the content of the bill. Well, this isn’t. This is a reflection of the bill and what it proposes: a brand new process that has never been seen before, that has come about in a way that we’ve never seen before.
The other alternative is that we simply say what this is: the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill”. Now, members may say, “Well it’s not actually an amendment bill.”, but I would argue it is because it’s more amendment than it is bill when you have an Amendment Paper hundreds of pages long that hasn’t been through the full process and that was deliberately kept from the public—and that’s fair to say. The Ministers, if they followed proper process, would have included that schedule at select committee for the public to be able to submit on. Actually, if they had done that, it’s likely that the question that we saw in the debate around the Speaker overruling the Clerk’s advice probably would not have arisen, because it would have gone through a proper process. It was actually the Government subverting the process, trying to sneak it through, trying to avoid public scrutiny, that led to that question.
The other example that would lend to this bill being called the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill” is the fact that today we’ve had three amendments from the Minister in charge—today, the day that they were hoping to pass this. Now, that suggests to me, as it would to anybody that’s been observing this debate, that this has been a poor process.
There were serious questions raised by my colleagues Arena Williams, Glen Bennett, David Parker, and Rachel Brooking around these amendments, and they weren’t addressed. They were dismissed. That is the arrogance that this Parliament has had to deal with through this committee of the whole House stage. There were three amendments, quite substantial ones, that touched on serious things like judicial review and the ability to appeal a decision. “Oh, don’t worry about it.”, they said. We should worry about it because the Ministers didn’t think about it, or did they? Is this another example of the Ministers trying to subvert public scrutiny or proper parliamentary process? Did they know about this all along?
Now, I think it’s actually the Ministers’ responsibility to address this. They have refused to do so. There’s nothing stopping them from doing so now. The Minister has stood up and responded to suggestions; interestingly, did not respond to the questions posed by Arena Williams. I would wager the Minister will not respond to these questions. We’ve already asked on a number of occasions why those amendments were brought to the committee for consideration today. Why not at the start of the committee of the whole House stage? Better still, why not through select committee? They didn’t answer that.
Changing the name of the bill to the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill” actually is appropriate, because forevermore it will remind people of the shoddy, arrogant, and cynical process that this Government has gone about right from the start—
Hon Member: Back on track.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s what they’ve got: slogans—empty slogans. It won’t be back on the train tracks when it comes to the ferries, will it? They are talking nonsense. That’s all they have. They will go out to their communities, and they’ll say, “We passed this great bill; it’s just the same as the last one.”—that’s not true. They will say that we went through a rigorous process. That’s not true. None of the claims stack up.
At the very least, the bill should be reflected in the name, and the current name does not reflect the bill. It does not reflect the claims that the Government has made, and it certainly doesn’t reflect the process. So they’ve got two options: the “New Fast-track Approvals Bill” or the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.”
I think, though, if I had to choose, I would put forward as my main proposal the “Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill” because of the appalling way in which this Government has gone about it. Then perhaps when this legislation is referred to in future, be it in the courts or be it here in Parliament, every time they mention it, they’ll be reminding Parliament of what not to do.
I hope this Parliament never sees what we’ve witnessed in this committee stage; in fact, throughout the whole passage of this bill. Frankly, it has been appalling and it has been disgraceful, and the only things that they can say are slogans—and that sums it up. They are trying desperately to hoodwink the country that this is something about development when there are serious questions hanging over this that the Ministers have refused to answer.
My last question won’t be to the Ministers; it’ll be to the New Zealand public: why? Why do you think the Government has gone about it this way? Why has the Government deliberately chosen not to put the substantive part of the bill in front of the public at select committee? Why is that? Why has the Government chosen to bring amendments of substance to this bill today? Why? If people take a step back and think about it and look at the progress of this bill and the way that it’s played out, and the reaction to the Ministers on pertinent questions, particularly from Arena Williams, I think they’ll come to a pretty clear conclusion.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you. I’m wanting to address the name of the bill tonight because I think, fundamentally, we have to examine the health of the Crown-Māori relationship and how even the Prime Minister has acknowledged that it’s probably gotten worse this term.
We sat last night and heard the Minister in charge of the fast track say that it would be utter legal chaos if there was to be a Te Tiriti clause within this legislation. That is completely undermining the fundamental relationship of te iwi Māori and the Kāwanatanga. The fact that they refuse to acknowledge Te Tiriti fundamentally in this legislation undermines the very fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand.
As the descendants of the signatories of He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti o Waitangi, me mōhio mai koutou [you need to know] that this is a serious breach of Te Tiriti, as we see the Crown look to create a hierarchy of the haves and the have-nots within te iwi Māori—the haves and the have-nots. In my name proposal, I am saying, hey, let’s call this the “Fast-track (Settled Māori Only) Approvals Bill”. We have heard time and time again from the Ministers in that chair that they favour settled entities above all other Māori—above all other Māori—because it’s all about honouring a Treaty settlement and they are actually ignoring the fundamentals of Te Tiriti, because the Minister says, “It would be utter legal chaos.”
Meinga meinga, e tātou mā, meinga meinga. Nā wai i teka tēnei mea te Tiriti o Waitangi he “utter legal chaos”? Mō te whakahīhī. Whakahīhī ki tēnei kawenata tapu o tātou. Whakahīhī mārika.
[Is that so, everyone, isn’t it just. Whose falsehood was it that the Treaty of Waitangi is “utter legal chaos”? So arrogant. Arrogance towards this sacred covenant of ours. So very arrogant.]
We need to really sit on this and think, because the hīkoi didn’t happen for no reason. When we ignore the fundamentals of the fabric of New Zealand society, which you, as the Government—aroha mai—might whakaeke on to Waitangi next year, these agreements, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti, are fundamental as to how we are meant to move forward as a country, and yet we see the Crown say, “settled entities first”. Then they say that it’s those with Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act rights also. Well, there’s only a few that that got there, didn’t they, because you’re repealing the legislation and you’re sending us back to the High Court.
Then you go Mana Whakahono ā-Rohe [Iwi Partnership Arrangements]. Not many, if any, have got those.
Then rohe moana. OK, a few of us have rohe moana—gotcha. But, really, the way with which the iwi haukāinga are excluded—because we’ve been told tonight there is a refusal to go public in advertising these projects that are coming through. There is a refusal, to make sure that the iwi kāinga, ngā mea whai pānga ki ēnei mahi [the home people, the ones who are affected by these actions], are excluded because there’s a hierarchy that the Crown has created through having Crown mandates, rather than looking at the fundamentals.
This bill is he mea wehewehe i a tātou [to divide us]. It’s separating the Māori. It’s saying to those who have charitable trusts, those who have an iwi mandate, or those who have a Crown mandate, “You get to come forward and you get to input. But you in the kāinga, you who collect the pipis and keep the fires burning on the marae and keep those lights on—you are excluded, as your marae committee, as the iwi kāinga on the whenua.”, because, actually, you may not even have whenua in your kāinga. Your marae might be your only pānga to their area, and I need to emphasise that because landlessness is real—landlessness is real—for te iwi Māori.
Don’t think, “Oh, those with whenua Māori interests—you get a say”, because many of us don’t have whenua Māori interests left to even be close to where the projects are coming. Me mōhio mai koutou [you need to know] that this is serious. This is a serious breach because te iwi Māori stood before us in the select committee—ia rā, ia rā—and they told us very clearly, “Do not exclude us. Allow us into the process. Allow us to be engaged, and fuel us. Give us the ability to have some pūtea in our pocket to be able to engage and contribute into the process.”
Participation is essential to having a good democracy, but for te iwi Māori, tēnei Kāwanatanga he Kāwanatanga e wehewehe ana i te iwi Māori. Me mōhio mai koutou, me tūpato tātou katoa ki ēnei mahi wehewehe a te Kāwanatanga [this Government is a Government that is dividing the Māori people. You need to know that we should all be careful of the divisive actions of the Government]. Kia ora.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to explain why I am tired of the Government’s masquerading, pretending that this legislation is in any way comparable to the earlier fast-track legislation and, on that basis, why I oppose the current name, which appropriates the name of “Fast-track Approvals Bill” from the earlier versions.
Following the last election, one of the first acts of this Government was to repeal the fast-track legislation that we already had on the book, which was close to identical to the original form, which was the COVID-19 response fast-track legislation. Under that legislation, 95 percent of the projects were approved notwithstanding that it had an environmental test. It didn’t override the existing environmental tests in either the Conservation Act, the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Wildlife Act, or other things. We had participation from voices that weren’t all development voices. Development voices are appropriate in resource management decisions, but decisions in respect of the countervailing views that some people have as to the protection of the environment should also be heard. They were, but still 95 percent of the projects were approved.
What was approved? Well, lots of subdivisions, lots of renewable energy, wind farms, solar farms. You could do renewals of hydro under that; you couldn’t do new hydro, because that ruins a river catchment for ever and there should be public participation before you approve that. That should never go through fast track. It can under this legislation. In addition, we had approvals of factories, of new townships, transmission lines—just about everything that the other side say they want to have approved under this new legislation. Ninety-five percent of them were approved, and all of those that were approved were approved within a reasonable period of time, stripping out a lot of the excess cost that was in the system, which we had remedied. If it’s not about renewable energy and it’s not appropriate subdivisions and it’s not about other appropriate developments that were all proceeding through the existing fast track, what is it about?
Well, it’s actually about different things—the sorts of things that would not be able to be consented but for overriding the environmental tests that this legislation overrides. In the same week that we have the outgoing chair of the Climate Change Commission, one of New Zealand’s experts on these matters, saying that digging up more fossil fuels is a crime against humanity—and those are his words—this bill is facilitating more of that. This bill is encouraging more coal mines. It’s encouraging inappropriately sited subdivisions. It was hard to approve an inappropriately sited subdivision under the old fast track, because the RMA plans that were in the council plans still applied and there wasn’t an override of the RMA. So this will increase climate change emissions from subdivisions, because they can now be located far away from public transport. In what other ways will it increase climate-changing emissions? There are large water storage projects that are only economic through an increased intensity of land use, which will result in higher climate-changing emissions from the agricultural sector than would otherwise be the case.
We are as a planet facing catastrophic climate change, and if countries like New Zealand do not do our bit it is almost a certainty. It is terribly sad, because my grandchildren are going to be facing a climate that is appalling. I’ve just read the latest Tim Winton book, called Juice. He’s not an environmental crusader. People will have read most of his books; they’re about human subjects. He’s chosen to write a book about the dystopia that is coming in Australia as a consequence of climate change. This bill is about a fast track to climate change. All of the other good things that the Government heralds coming from this bill could already be achieved under the existing legislation—quickly, cost-effectively, 95 percent of them approved. This is not about the things that the Government claims it is, masquerading under the title of the former fast track, which was working well. This should be called the “Fast track to Climate Change Bill”.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The committee is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Sitting suspended from 11.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
TUESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2024
(continued on Thursday, 12 December 2024)
Bills
Fast-track Approvals Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good morning, members. The sitting is resumed. Members, the committee is currently considering the Fast-track Approvals Bill and the question we are now debating is on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. This is—
Tim van de Molen: Repetition.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He’s only just opened his mouth. We’ll see if it’s repetition.
GLEN BENNETT: This is serious, this bill.
Hon Member: It’s glorious.
GLEN BENNETT: This is not glorious whatsoever. This bill runs fast and loose. It runs fast and loose over our environment, over our climate, over our Te Tiriti obligations, and over our community engagement. This bill runs fast and loose over democracy, and I am concerned. We are in the committee stage of this, and my concern, as I’ll mention around the title, is the fact that it was less than 24 hours, the same day that we went into committee, that this huge Amendment Paper was dropped for us to deal with. There were three more amendments that were dropped as well from the Government, which is outrageous and wrong. Democracy is at stake in this bill.
Hon Member: Title.
GLEN BENNETT: That’s what I just said. He just mentioned the title, and I mention I’m about to speak about the title, so I will. The fact of this bill is that it is outrageous, it is wrong, and we need to name it for what it is.
I want to support my colleague Arena Williams in terms of her amendment to change the title of this bill. I agree with her. I think that “Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill 2024” is a better name for this bill. This bill runs roughshod over democracy and our responsibility in this House to the public good. This bill is about private benefit and we should name it for that, and therefore I support her amendment.
I’m going to speak shortly about my amendment, which is on the commencement, but I just want to reflect because as we consider what the title should be, I really want to bring in the voice of submitters from the select committee. The reason I want to do that is because when I say that democracy is at risk here, there have been so many spaces where this has been truncated and challenged, and the public have not been able to engage as they should—as a good democracy should. This bill is running fast and loose and it is wrong.
We had 27,000 submitters on this bill, and only a fraction of those were able to submit on this bill, and the majority of submitters were against this piece of legislation. I thought, if we’re talking about the title, why don’t we use some of the words from the public of New Zealand who actually spoke out against this legislation. There’s one I kind of like—it’s a bit outrageous—and it’s the “Cloak, Choke, and Destroy Bill”. I thought that was quite good, and quite thoughtful of that submitter, who is concerned about coalmines, is concerned about quarries, and is concerned about the challenge to our environment and our climate. The “Cloak, Choke, and Destroy Bill”—it could be that.
Another submitter spoke about the “Shortcut Bill”, because this is a shortcut for private entities to get things done as quickly as they can.
Tim van de Molen: Point of order. The opportunity to debate the title clause is very much constrained to that title and potentially new amendments, and Speaker’s ruling 130/2 makes it clear that they must be serious or objective amendments, and the comments we’ve just heard from the member are far from that.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I thank the member for the point of order, but debate on the title and commencement often does come up with some interesting names and I’ve heard it a lot in this House over my time. I’ll ask Glen Bennett to continue this call, but I will remind people—and this member has touched on the title, albeit that people don’t like the titles he’s suggesting—that we will keep it very focused on the title and commencement.
GLEN BENNETT: Kia ora, Madam Chair. The reason I am using these titles is because they are from members of the public who are speaking out and wanting to say, “How do we get democracy right?” In the select committee process, a lot of them spoke and felt like their voices were choked and they weren’t able to actually speak out about this bill.
The other title I want to mention, before I come to the commencement, is the “Backwards Off-track Bill”. Again, this was from another submitter who came to us and said, “Let’s look at this quite seriously.” People spoke during the select committee stage and said that this bill takes us backwards. Someone said this bill takes us back to the 19th century and that this is legislation that has never been seen before in this Parliament. We don’t want a repeat of the 19th century because of the outrageousness of what went on and the destruction to our environment, to democracy, and to land, quite frankly. I want to commend my colleague Arena Williams in terms of her amendment on the Table and would like us to consider calling this bill the “Fast-track Public and Private Benefits Bill 2024.”
I want to come to the commencement date because I have an amendment on the Table that I want to talk about. Currently, it says, “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” My amendment is on the Table here.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 144 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Approvals” with “Public and Private Benefits” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Fast-track Decisions Act” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Fast-track Approvals Act” with “Fast-track Approvals Process Act” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Celia Wade-Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Celia Wade-Brown’s amendment to insert new clause 2A set out on Amendment Paper 145 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. The Noes have it? The Noes have it.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Party vote, please?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Too late. I’ve declared. The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 2A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, if you can just give us a moment to put some new paperwork on the desk, because, as you imagine, there’s a lot of paperwork from that particular piece of legislation.
Bills
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Tenancy agreements, bonds, and related matters
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 20, “Tenancy agreements, bonds, and related matters”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good to see the Minister of Housing, the Hon Chris Bishop, back on a different committee stage bill—welcome back.
My first question is on the definition in clause 4(1). Now, within this, I understand that there’s been a new insertion of the definition of what “keeps a pet” means, and we can discuss that a little bit later. But my first question is: what is defined as “pet”? What I’m seeing here immediately is “pet does not include a disability [assistant] dog”, which has given a specific definition within an Act, but it doesn’t actually define pet more broadly. I do apologise; I haven’t had the time to check the principal legislation to see if the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 already contains a definition of “pet”.
I guess, with this, the bigger question is that people keep different forms of pets. Is there, I guess, a scope or some sort of boundary around what that could look like, whether anything can be considered a pet in this regard as long as the owner themselves declares that that is a pet? That would be my first question. I’m sure other people will have many other questions on this particular section.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thought I would start by touching on the broader themes around the pet bonds and then specific questions about an amendment that I have put in. I’m keen to understand, from the Minister of Housing’s perspective, what alternatives were explored here. By way of reassurance, I’ll get out from the get-go that we support this part at least. In general, we don’t support the bill as it currently stands, but there are some things in this bill that we are supportive of, and we’ll make that clear throughout.
Pet bonds are one of those. We take the view that we support measures that will look to make it easier for tenants to have pets. That makes sense for us. We know that it’s an issue and that it has been a longstanding one. The question is: are pet bonds the best way to go about it? We don’t know the answer to that, and I don’t think that the Government does, because it hasn’t been tried before, but in general we support it because it’s worth a go.
I am keen to understand what other mechanisms were considered, and what advice or examples overseas did the Minister look at to get a gauge as to how effective a pet bond might be in allowing tenants to have pets? I get the rationale that in having a bond, landlords may be more willing to allow tenants to have pets, because if there are any issues that arise from that, they have a bond there that they can extract from to cover damage, etc., but I think it’s important that we understand the broader work that was done to land on pet bonds and the alternatives that were considered.
Speaking on that, I want to speak to an amendment that I have tabled to insert a new subsection—this is to clause 8—and it, essentially, proposes an exemption for greyhounds. We’re in a situation where, this week, the House has unanimously supported a bill through the House that would look to protect greyhounds as the first step towards banning greyhound racing. What we do know from that is that there are roughly 2,900 greyhounds that will need to be rehomed. On the whole, there has been a broad level of support for this, but then that support inevitably leads to how we’re going to find a home for these dogs. It’s a question that the Government is going to have to grapple with, and it’s one that the Labour Party are more than willing to work with them on to try and find a solution to that. It’s in that vein that I ask the Minister to consider this amendment, because it is made in good faith and it is a genuine attempt to try and address that issue. It seems to me that this is an appropriate way in which to look to solve that.
At the moment, we have a situation where the bill proposes that, outside of assistance dogs, a bond can be placed by a landlord for any tenant that wants to have a pet, but when we’ve got a large number of greyhounds about to be seeking a home, we need to also look at ways in which to assist that. What this amendment proposes is inserting a new subsection that a landlord may not require payment of a pet bond for a maximum of one greyhound which was previously engaged in greyhound racing or bred for greyhound racing for a period of four calendar years following the assent of the bill.
I’ll just walk through the rationale here and the thinking. We don’t want it to be all greyhounds, because we wanted to be reasonable and try and find a pragmatic way forward. We were concerned that if we just said greyhounds, that would include whippets and Italian greyhounds as well. Now, they are quite—
Dr Tracey McLellan: What’s the difference?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: “What’s the difference?” is a very good question. Look, I’m no expert, but they’re not greyhounds. They are kind of like exclusive breeds—you know, they’re fashionable dogs. Italian greyhounds are very, very small. Whippets are in between an Italian greyhound and a greyhound. The point is they’re not used for racing and there’s no surplus. They are bred commercially and people have them, and that’s all good. The point here is to try and limit the scope of this to greyhounds that had been engaged in racing or bred for racing. Any greyhound that was purchased through a commercial breeder wouldn’t count.
The reason we’ve suggested a period of four calendar years is because, once the legislation passes, it looks like greyhound racing will wind down by 2026. Now, I know, with conversations with the likes of the SPCA and Save Animals from Exploitation and other stakeholders that have been engaged in the debate about this issue, they’ve indicated that it could take up to 18 months, two years to make sure that every greyhound gets a home. I thought it would be pragmatic to have a window of four years to account for the period from now leading up to when the ban on greyhound racing comes in, and then an up-to-two-year period after that to help find a home for greyhounds.
Hon Penny Simmonds: Have you mixed up your speech notes?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No. I mean, this is typical of this Government, isn’t it? We come with a genuine proposal to try and help the Government find a solution to an issue, and Penny Simmonds has a go.
The thing is, after those four years, pet bonds can come in. We’re not saying it’s a ban for the rest of time, and we’re not suggesting that a landlord that allows a greyhound in can’t then bring in or request a pet bond after that period. It’s just a pragmatic way to try and help home greyhounds. It is proposed in good will. We are happy and flexible to work with the Minister. I’m quite happy to have a back and forth throughout this to try and get the details right. We might want to work on the definition; we might want to work on the window, how long that is—whatever they’re comfortable with—but the guts of this is that we have an opportunity through this bill and through this clause to assist the Government in finding homes for those greyhounds that will no longer be in the racing industry.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. While I am also waiting for the Minister to respond to my earlier question on the definition of a pet—and I want to speak more in depth to that question—I think, first of all, we also would like to support the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s proposal around rehoming of greyhounds in light of the bill that went through Parliament this week with unanimous support. We too have an amendment of our own on this matter, Amendment Paper 218, which is an amendment by Steve Abel which also says the same thing. We genuinely would like to ask the Minister to consider either or both of these two amendments seriously.
In terms of the pet part, the reason I asked for the definition is that when we are looking at clause 16—when it goes to “When tenant may keep [a] pet”, more specifically—there is nothing in there on not allowing landlords to prohibit a pet as not being suitable for the property without first providing relevant evidence that a pet would not be suitable for such a property because of its size or type or premise or other form of prejudice. We have an Amendment Paper on this—Amendment Paper 220—that would prevent arbitrary discrimination based on stereotypes of the type of animal and prevent landlords from using these grounds baselessly. This is a part of a new section 42F that we are proposing.
Along the same lines of that, another Amendment Paper—No. 224—is also on clause 16. This ties back to clause 4, when I’m referring to the definition of a pet. It also clarifies that a pet being not suitable for the property due to a propensity for causing damage does not include reasonable wear and tear. Again, I think for many of us who do have pets, it’s a general fact that sometimes your pet—your cat, your dog, whatever—doesn’t quite do what you tell it to do and may act up. However, that shouldn’t be a reason, if it’s a genuine wear and tear of the property. Amendment Paper 224, on clause 16, which is also part of introducing a new section 42F, would also prevent propensity for causing damage to be misused for minor and reasonable wear and tear of a property. I would like the Minister to provide some clarification or at least some certainty—if the Minister isn’t going to consider the amendment—to give reassurances that tenants are not going to be arbitrarily ruled out because the landlord thinks the pet is unsuitable, and that the tenant isn’t going to be unduly punished for reasonable wear and tear just by having a pet.
The next point I want to address is around the other lack of clarity in terms of the definition, and again, this comes from the definition of a pet under clause 4. Now, in clause 4 the definition of a pet is very specific in terms of what he has ruled out, particularly with regards to “does not include a disability assist dog”. However, there is nowhere in clause 8 or clause 16 that talks to whether a disabled person would be ruled out for having a disability assistant dog. My colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has Amendment Paper 219, which includes a clause to emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that the landlord may not prohibit a tenant from keeping a disability assistant dog which is not a pet. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on those three amendments, as well as my question earlier on the definition of pet.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Madam Chair—some good questions raised by members so far. Let me deal with them.
In terms of the first contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan, in terms of the definition of “pet”, I’m advised that no country, when it comes to tenancy law, defines “pet”, basically. It’s deliberately left as open as possible because people with a definition of pets—I mean, members can think through the logistical challenges with that. However, the bill makes it clear that disability support dogs are exempt from the pet bond. To, I think, address his concerns: if you are disabled and have a support dog, the landlord cannot charge a bond for that. The bill makes that clear. I think most people would agree that is the right thing to do, and so the definition of “pet” explicitly excludes a support dog. The whole point of that is to make sure that a bond can’t be charged for it. In terms of the definition of “pet”, we deliberately left that open.
In terms of his other point around possible discrimination against people on the grounds of what particular pet they have or suitability, I think the key point here for him and everyone to bear in mind is quite a significant change to the law, which is at new section 42E, particularly subsection (4). What we’re doing is reversing what we have at the moment. If the bill passes, the landlord will not be able to refuse consent to have a pet without reasonable grounds or attach an unreasonable condition to the consent. That is sort of buried in the scheme of the legislation, but that is the kind of core operative thing: landlords can’t now refuse consent without reasonable grounds for tenants who wish to have pets.
It’s, essentially, a reversion of the status quo, and so it reverses the presumption. You’re allowed a pet and you can have a pet as a tenant. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders are tenants, and thousands of them either have pets or want to have pets. I think members broadly agree with the proposition that we want to make it easier for tenants to have pets, and so we are taking quite a significant step in saying that’s fine. Landlords can only refuse consent with reasonable grounds.
In terms of what that means, there will be guidance published by the bureaucracy—officialdom—about some suggested definitions about what “reasonable” means, but ultimately this will be worked through the tribunal, and there will be cases in which landlords refuse consent and tenants challenge that through the tribunal. That’s appropriate because, ultimately, they are the arbiter of tenancy law; that’s the appropriate appeal authority, so to speak, when it comes to tenancy law and that’s completely right and proper.
In fact, the bill, in other parts, makes some changes to the operation of the tribunal, which is a good thing. We’re comfortable with how it’s drafted at the moment. I think we’ve got the balance right, and I think it will provide a lot of benefits for tenants who want to rent but also want to have a pet. We know that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have pets, and they’re a very important part of stability and social life for many people—friendship, fellowship, mental health; very, very important. That’s why we’re doing this. To recognise that pets can cause damage and to try and incentivise landlords to be encouraging of pets, encouraging of tenants to have pets, we have put in place that pet bond provision.
Now, the Hon Kieran McAnulty asks about what other countries do. The truth is there’s a variety of different approaches, broadly in line with what the Government’s proposing around not unreasonable withholding of consent. Some countries give nearly an absolute right to have a pet; other countries have a slightly softer approach. It varies depending on the law and the jurisdiction. Western Australia, I’m advised, has pet bonds, and so we think this is a good step forward.
In terms of the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment around greyhounds, we had a good look at it and I’ve had a conversation with Mr Abel, who has a similar proposal as well. We’ve had a good look at it. I can advise the Government will not be supporting it, and I do want to explain why. It goes back to the point I made before around the incentive to take a tenant who wants to have a pet, that the quid pro quo of allowing pets or making it easier to have pets is the bond for the potential damage, the extra two-week bond that can be charged—Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Chris Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll just finish this point briefly. The quid pro quo is the extra two weeks that can be charged. If you exempt the ability to charge the bond, it may actually be counterproductive and have the sort of perverse effect of incentivising landlords to encourage tenants to have pets that are not greyhounds. If you exempt greyhounds out of the pet bond provision and say you can’t charge a bond for a greyhound—and look, I love greyhounds as much as the member who suggested the amendment does.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: I don’t know about that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s possibly true. I don’t have one, so that’s a good point. But we thought about it. I love greyhounds.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You can get one now.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, indeed, and there’s quite a few to get. There’s a bit going on in our house at the moment, so we might just wait. I’m not sure my family would be too keen on me committing to that on the floor of Parliament. We’ll see.
That may actually be—perhaps could have—a perverse outcome. We think the better approach is to allow landlords to charge pet bonds. I’m fully on board with his desire and drive to make sure that we rehome those roughly 3,000 greyhounds that will need a home in the next 20 months or so as the industry closes down. I appreciate the drive. We had a good look at it, because we kicked it around a bit, but we won’t be supporting his amendment.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for the response to that. I understand where he’s coming from, but I would still like to use this opportunity to try and work through a few things and see if we can find a way through.
It seems to me that the Government’s position is that what we’re proposing will work as a disincentive to landlords. What we’re trying to do is incentivise people to take on a greyhound, and make it easier and more practical. If the Government is concerned around the position that landlords may take, would he be open to any provision that, if there were to be damage caused under this scenario we’re talking about, where the tenant has been exempt from having to pay a pet bond, there is also another provision available to the landlord to be able to claim more if there’s damage within that four-year period? They won’t be disadvantaged, because they will have the protection and the provision to be able to go beyond the cap of damages. The tenant won’t be disadvantaged, because they won’t need to front up with the bond, but it still preserves the landlord’s ability to seek damages.
Hopefully, that would then address the concerns the Government’s outlined—the perverse outcome that he’s described—because, ultimately, the landlord would still have that provision available to them if there’s damage, but it means that the tenants won’t have to front up with two weeks’ rent from the get-go.
Now, I have a few questions around the level of the pet bond and talking about what’s in the regulatory impact statement. I’ll come to those later. I will just refer to the fact that it does indicate that, for lower-income people, this could be a barrier even if the landlord was willing to take on pets. If the Government was willing to at least explore extra provisions available to landlords solely in this specific instance, we might be able to achieve what we’re trying to, making it easier for people to take on a greyhound but addressing the concerns that the landlords have.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I’m going to continue on this and just say that, having been on the select committee, there was a lot of support for the pet bond provision. However, there were some concerns raised and I think now is the time to flesh them out a little bit.
I am interested in what the Minister was saying about not being able to define a pet and interested to hear that overseas jurisdictions do not either. I’m wondering whether tenants will have the opportunity to challenge the landlord charging a bond if the pet is deemed to be such that really damage would not or could not or is unlikely to be caused. I’m thinking about things like a caged bird, perhaps, that is maybe not even kept in the house. I’m wondering whether a tenant would be able to challenge the idea that they would be charged for having a pet or made to pay the bond if, really, when things are weighed up, the pet is not really deemed to be one that is a risk or will cause any damage.
The other question comes a little bit off the back of something that Kieran McAnulty was saying, and that is around those families that financially struggle. I wanted to check with the Minister whether or not the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) housing products—particularly access to support for bonds—is going to be extended to the pet bond as well, and whether that will come into effect at the same time that this bill comes into effect. Many of those whānau that Kieran McAnulty referred to earlier struggled to pay the bond in general but, like many whānau, do enjoy the company and what is part of their family is actually a pet. I’m wondering whether MSD has included that in their housing products support, and I believe it is a recoverable product anyway. It’s something that they have to pay back, but I’m wanting to know whether or not access to bonds through MSD will be extended to pets.
I also wanted to touch on the issue raised around assistance dogs and support Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment on this. One thing that was really clear when we were going through the select committee submissions was that there was real concern that there would not be a differentiation and that landlords would not know the difference between an assistance dog versus a pet, and that disabled people or those that have assistance dogs would get caught up in this. Now, I do recognise that Part 1 does say “not include a disability assist dog” within this; however I think it needs to be re-stipulated, and Ricardo’s Amendment Paper 219 goes quite some way to doing that. I think it would provide assurance to the disability community that they’re not going to be discriminated against with their assistance dogs and go through the rigmarole of having to negotiate and argue with a potential landlord about their situation and their assistance dog and why it is not to come under the pet bond provision.
Those are just a few points that I wanted to make for now. If the Minister could respond to those, that would be greatly appreciated.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on the last point, in terms of disability, I’ll also acknowledge the concern that the member raises around what was heard at select committee. I think it’s pretty clear in the bill, which will become the Act, assuming it passes, and there’ll be clear guidance issued from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Tenancy Services around that, so we’re comfortable with where we’ve landed there.
In terms of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—good question—I am advised that tenants may be able to apply to MSD for bond grants to cover a pet bond or part of a pet bond in an application for recoverable assistance under the housing support products, but bond grants will only be allowed up to a maximum of four weeks’ rent per grant for both the general and the pet bond. MSD will cover up to four weeks of recoverable assistance in total.
In relation to Hon Kieran McAnulty’s point, I mean, we can have a think about it. I think the key point is just really what I said before, which is we want to get the balance right between encouraging landlords to not look askance at greyhounds because they can’t charge a bond. The simplest way of doing that is allow them to charge a bond. I appreciate his point that we’ve got all these greyhounds to be rehomed, but I genuinely think the best way of doing that is this bill, plus a wider community effort, which is a subject of a bigger discussion around the shutting down of the greyhound industry and making sure we can rehome the dogs. There’s a whole lot of other things that will need to be worked through, which I’m not responsible for, although I’m interested in it.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Just as a follow-up, it’s quite disappointing that the Ministry of Social Development housing product for bonds has not been extended to cover a pet bond. My understanding is—and the Minister can correct me if I’m wrong—that, generally, most people will expect to pay four weeks’ bond. That’s certainly what I’ve seen. The Minister’s stating that that can also be inclusive of the pet bond is a little bit disingenuous for those that are in the situation where they need to seek out housing products, because they would then be limited in terms of it actually being, potentially, the four weeks’ bond for the house plus the two-week pet bond, but not actually any additional housing support or housing product support to cover this pet bond.
It disadvantages them. Even those who are financially struggling enjoy the company, as I said, of a pet, and I don’t think that they should be excluded from being able to do that. This is a recoverable assistance product, so it is something that those families would need to pay back. My expectation would have been not that it would just be included in the current housing product provision but that it would actually be extended to ensure that not only could they pay the general bond but also be able to pay the cover for a pet bond if they chose to take that up. I do want to put to the Minister that I am concerned that no consideration has gone to extending that housing product and ask the Minister whether or not this is something they could turn their minds to or perhaps something that we may need to look at making an amendment for.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Well, Ministers have turned their mind to it, and we’ve decided not to. We’ve thought about it, we’ve looked at it, and we’ve decided not to do that. To just repeat what I said before, which is that within the four weeks, the pet bond can be inclusive, and there’s a variety of tenancy arrangements out there—one-, two-, three-, four-week bond requirements; four is the max—and there’s a variety of different arrangements out there. The status quo for now, or the position as of now, is that the recoverable assistance under the Housing Support Programme can include a pet bond, but the max is four weeks for both.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin my contribution, I just want to thank the Minister of Housing for attending the event that I co-hosted with Paulo Garcia last Thursday evening, the parol celebration that we had with the Philippine Embassy and the Bulwagan Foundation—and the colleagues across the House who also attended.
Hon Chris Bishop: Magandang umaga.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Great. I have a couple of questions to do with clause 14A and clause 16.
My question around clause 16 revolves around new section 42E(1), which it inserts. My question around clause 14A—which amends section 26, replacing “6 months” with “1 year”. I think it’s a good change. My understanding is that section 26 gives effect to section 25, which, basically, enables the Tenancy Tribunal to give an order to force the landlord to charge market rent if someone’s getting overcharged. It’s been changed from six months to one year. I think that’s a good change. I think it’s a change that we do support, in the sense that it gives the people who’ve been overcharged more security, but I just want to explore with the Minister why the change from six months to one year—was a longer period considered?
I also want to ask about clause 16 and the new section 42E(1) that it creates. It says, “If the tenant makes a written request to the landlord for consent for the tenant to keep a pet on the premises, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days of receiving the request.” My first question is: is that standard days or working days? The other component of the question is: what other days were considered within that? Why was 21 days picked? Is there perhaps an option to reduce the amount of days? Twenty-one days seems like quite a long time to wait for an answer if you’re wanting to keep a pet. Yeah.
I was just wanting to make a very short contribution to ask these questions of the Minister. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Just very, very quickly on the question of the six months to one year, the residential tenancy laws are amended quite frequently, and it’s just an opportunity to improve the situation—so, more fair, as the member, I think, acknowledges. Our view was that it was a better situation, so we’ve taken the opportunity.
Members will see as you go through the bill that the main thing is the no-cause terminations and pet bonds, but there’s a suite of other quite sensible system changes and pro-tenant moves, frankly, throughout the legislation. We just took the opportunity as part of the vehicle that is this bill.
I’m sorry, I was getting an answer on the first one, so I missed the second part of his question. Just very briefly, what was it?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the member would like to re-ask. It was around working days—
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, the other one.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, the other one.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was the other one?
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): It was around the working days. Do you want me to re-ask that?
Hon Chris Bishop: Yes, and the thing you got on to as well for the last point.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Great. So my question is around clause 16, which is inserting new section 42E, and is about the changes it makes for the written consent for tenants to keep a pet. It says, “If the tenant makes a written request to the landlord for consent for the tenant to keep a pet on the premises, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days of receiving the request.”
My first question was: is that working days or just calendar days? My second question is: what other dates were considered as part of that and was a shorter period considered, because 21 days seems like quite a long time to be waiting on a reply from a landlord? I think people who make decisions to get pets—they’re not taken lightly. I am a tenant, but if I was looking to get a pet, I would probably like an answer quicker than 21 days. I’m keen for an answer on that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): It’s 21 days, not working days—to answer that. As to “Why 21?”—I mean, is there an argument for 28? Sure. Is there an argument for 14? Sure. You’ve got to put a number at some point. There’s no science to it, and it’s not rational in that sense; it’s just what we think is reasonable. This provision hasn’t been used before. Let’s get it into law, and if it—I mean, seven days, I think, would be too low. You can make an argument for two. Equally, there would probably be landlords who would say that a month, which is basically 28 days, would be fine as well.
Look, let’s see how it goes—I mean, this will probably be an iterative process. This is quite a change to New Zealand tenancy law around pets. There will be wrinkles we need to work through as part of that. The tribunal will play a part in that, but also Parliament may have to respond to tribunal rulings, as well. One of the things this bill does, for example, is in relation to smoking in properties, which deals with a somewhat unusual view from the Tenancy Tribunal a couple of years ago.
It will be a bit of an iterative process; that’s totally appropriate. You’re not going to get everything right the first time, so if it looks like we need to go down to 14 days, we’re happy to have a look at that. Equally, the feedback may be that it may need a bit more time. There’s no science to it. Three weeks—21 days—I reckon is pretty reasonable for a tenant to say, “I want to have a pet.” Landlords are busy people; equally, so are tenants. Let’s just see how it goes. We’re open to change if it doesn’t work.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your answers. It’s great to be here. I’m really keen to have a good, robust discussion with you about this bill. Because I missed the first part, I’m going to start, but just cut me off if this has already been covered. Thankfully, there are lots of areas that we can go into. I want to ask a question about the evidential basis behind this bill, because, from following this bill through the select committee process, it became apparent to me that it seems like there was a decision that you arrived at, Minister, that you decided—no-cause evictions coming back to New Zealand. As you do—as you’re the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just point out this is Part 2—if we can keep to Part 1.
TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, I guess the evidence that I’m talking about underpins every part of this bill, so that’s—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Well, it’s fair to ask about evidence, but if you’re referencing things, make sure you’re in Part 1.
TAMATHA PAUL: Yep. I guess, focusing on the evidence behind this part in this bill, I want to understand how you arrived at this bill and what evidence underpins these particular parts that we are discussing currently. To me, it seems like you had an objective that you wanted to achieve, but then it seems that we’ve worked backwards to find the evidence to create the basis for the bill. What I want to understand is: what is the evidence? In my view, the regulatory impact statement that underpins this bill and these parts was uncharacteristically not as detailed as other regulatory impact statements that there have been prepared by the officials. I felt the evidential case wasn’t particularly strong, which is unlike that particular ministry.
I would love for you to stand up and tell us what the evidence is behind it, particularly given that there isn’t a lot of support for this bill, with 97 percent of submissions being opposed, and then 53 percent of property managers and landlords being opposed to this bill as well. If there’s not the support there—not this kind of overwhelming call from landlords and property managers for this—then why was this pursued as a political objective if that evidence is not there? I think you get what I’m getting at, so I’ll give you a chance to respond.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): The member’s talking about stuff in Part 2. We’re actually on Part 1, but I’m happy to address the point if we want to do it as all parts as one.
Hon Members: No.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No? OK. Well, OK. We’ll, I’m going to be—
Tamatha Paul: It’s still relevant to Part 1, Chris.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, not really, because you’re basically talking about—I mean, OK. The evidence for pet bonds, which is Part 1, is really clear. I think the member would probably agree with me that there are a lot of tenants who wish to have a pet who can’t have a pet. I think most reasonable people realise that’s been a bit of a gap in the law. The law’s been unclear. Probably most people would agree it’s been too hard to have a pet, so the evidence underlying it is that we want to make it easier, and I think most people broadly accept that.
The member wasn’t here, but we’ve traversed the provisions around not being able to unreasonably withhold consent and the quid pro quo of that being the ability to charge up to two weeks for a pet bond.
Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Chair. Aren’t you not supposed to mention when a member isn’t in the House? Isn’t that a thing, a convention?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Technically yes, but it’s more for when it’s a pointed comment. I’ll take it on board. You are technically right, yes.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’ve amended my amendment to try and address your responses, and to be honest, this is exactly how a committee stage should work. It’s really good to see that you are, as you said, at least willing to consider it. In responding to your concerns that the original proposal might have a perverse outcome, primarily focused on the disincentive that this may prove with landlords who would be less inclined to take on a pet if the bond wasn’t there—I get that; there’s some logic there.
What I’m proposing is to add wording to my amendment on clause 8, inserting a new section 18AA(1B), so that during this period—the four-year proposal, after which, obviously, a pet bond can be issued—“Tenant liability for pet damage caused by a greyhound as defined above”—so, those that have participated in racing or have been bred for racing—“could be extended by up to two weeks’ rent to account for the lack of a pet bond.”
From the landlord’s perspective, if they allow a greyhound or a tenant with a greyhound, they actually—if there’s damage caused—are able to claim more than they would otherwise, to account for the fact that there was no bond. In essence, if there’s damage caused, the landlord has the ability to claim that, but the exemption of the pet bond allows more people to take on a greyhound without having to stump up with two weeks’ rent. You incentivise people to take on a former racing greyhound, and you incentivise landlords to allow those people to take on a greyhound, knowing that if there is damage caused, they can claim up to what they would have been able to do if there was a pet bond.
I’m hoping that the Minister will see that this addresses his concerns. It’s consistent with the intent of the pet bond. It will assist the Government in the challenge that it now has in terms of finding residences for former racing greyhounds. I hope it’s seen as a bit of a win-win. Like I say, I’m genuinely approaching this with goodwill, trying to be pragmatic, happy to work on specific detail. I’m not going to die in a ditch on wording or whatever. I’m just trying to find a way to make this work.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I haven’t seen the revised amendment. I’m happy to have a look at it and see it in its full context. I suppose my point would be that, if you exempt greyhounds from the pet bond rules and you’re not allowed to charge an upfront bond—so that tenants don’t have to pay an upfront bond, so it’s more likely that a landlord will take on a tenant with a greyhound or it’s more likely that tenants will go and get greyhounds as they’re more likely to be able to have a home with a pet in it—but then you say at the back end of it that you can charge up to two weeks for damage, why not just have a two-week bond, because that two-week bond is meant to cover the damage? Maybe I’ve misunderstood the member’s point, but why don’t you just charge a pet bond?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): The reality is that there’s going to be a hell of a lot of greyhounds that need a home. There’s going to be people that want to take on a greyhound but can’t front up with two weeks’ rent to issue a bond immediately. I know that for a fact because I’ve had people contact me saying, “This is great. I want to take a greyhound, but my landlord won’t let me”. That’s not uncommon, right? That’s the whole point of a pet bond. If the rationale is true that if we allow landlords to issue a pet bond, then they will be more forthcoming to the idea of a pet, it actually doesn’t address the instance that for some people they won’t be able to front up with two weeks’ rent.
Now, I actually agree with your argument that, in general, if this was a proposal across the board, it’s counterproductive and sort of misses the point—I get it—but this is specific for former racing greyhounds and greyhounds bred for racing. We know there are people that would take them but can’t afford the bond. We know that there are landlords that will allow them if the tenant pays a bond. Exempting tenants from the bond if they adopt a former racing greyhound deals with that issue. Extending the potential liability if that greyhound causes damage addresses the potential barrier to a landlord taking it on without a pet bond. I think it’s a pragmatic response to both realities.
If tenants wouldn’t have an issue fronting up with a bond, I don’t think there’d be a need for this, but we know that there are people that will. It’s in the regulatory impact statement. There’ll be some people that simply cannot afford the bond, so it’s logical that, if that is a fact, there will be people that would love to take on a greyhound but can’t afford the bond. Look, we’re not talking about thousands of people here. It might only be a couple of hundred, but when we’re trying to find homes for 2,900 greyhounds, this is a practical way to help to get there.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I get what he’s saying. One practical problem is that the pet bond system won’t be operational until late next year anyway. There’s a bunch of back-end stuff that the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment is in the middle of: quite a large upgrade to the tenancy system. It’s pretty antiquated, to be honest. As I understand it, the bond system is called Bond 2000, which gives you a sense about when it was built. It’s 24 years old—so credit to the last Government, which kicked off a process of upgrading it; it’s probably overdue. Actually, the first stage of it went live a couple of weeks ago, and there’s other stuff happening. The pet-bond system won’t be operational until probably late 2025, early 2026. That’s OK, but we do have an issue in the next year or so around these greyhounds.
I think we’re unlikely to support the amendment. I understand what he’s trying to do. What I will give him a commitment on is that there is going to be further legislation around greyhounds which has been signalled by the Deputy Prime Minister next year. I’m not the responsible Minister; I’m happy to try and facilitate some constructive conversations around how we might look at this issue of rehoming in the context of tenancy law, in the context of that legislation. I’m just reluctant to commit to something here on the floor of the Chamber that we just haven’t thought through; that’s not a great way to make law.
I’m happy to go away and consider it properly, and it may be when we legislate in the new year around greyhound racing generally—which I hope the Opposition will support as well—we can do some maybe other wider changes around tenancies in relation to greyhounds. I’m getting a little bit ahead of the Government and the Cabinet here, but it’s pretty clear we’ve got 3,000 dogs to rehome, as the member knows, and we want to make sure we do right by those dogs. I’m happy to look at it in that context. I’ll keep looking at it, thinking about it, but I think we’re unlikely to support his amendment. But I acknowledge the issue.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. I thank the Minister for the response. I would encourage him to at least seek advice on this now. I thank him for his commitment to consider this later, but just to address his concerns around the pet bond thing not being up and running for a while, that’s all good because greyhound racing isn’t set to be banned until 2026 and the proposal in the first part of this is for a period of four calendar years to account for that. Whether this is in or not, we’re still going to be facing the same problem, but we’re certainly going to be facing it in greater numbers from early 2026 onwards as the industry starts to wind down.
Now, we don’t know how long this debate will go on for. It’s possible that you might get advice on this and a response, potentially, from coalition partners on this before we finish the committee stage. That’s possible. It might be that your officials look at this and go, “Oh yeah, we can make that work.”, and then—given the goodwill that was shown in Parliament yesterday towards the greyhound issue—it might be that your coalition partners see the logic in this as well. Who knows? It’s worth a crack.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I just wanted to go back to the issue around bond support through the Ministry of Social Development’s housing products and my concern that they are not being extended to ensure that pet bonds can be covered on top of the existing general bond. I’m referring to the regulatory impact statement, where it looks at impacts on others—Government, consumers, etc. It does make it really clear in the regulatory impact statement that lower-income tenants, including beneficiaries and pensioners, will be disproportionately impacted by the upfront costs of pet bonds.
Again, I’m still disappointed that no consideration has been given to the extension of housing product to support pet bonds to beneficiaries or those on low incomes. I wanted to put forward an amendment but it doesn’t seem to be within the scope of this, so I’m unable to do that.
The other thing is that the Minister has said that the pet bonds won’t be up and running for quite some time. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider going away and having a discussion with the Minister for Social Development and Employment to see whether or not that recoverable assistance—they do pay it back—can be included. I’m concerned that there are some landlords who have allowed pets already and have charged a pet bond. Some beneficiaries and those on lower incomes have been able to keep pets in rental properties but, actually, that ability is going to decline for them because once this is introduced, yes, it will mean that more tenants are able to keep pets in general, but it will be fewer in terms of those on lower incomes or a benefit.
The other thing I want to point to is a submission made by the Citizens Advice Bureau and their comment on the pet bond. Although they were pleased to see that landlord will have to provide a written response to the tenant’s request to keep a pet, and where consent is refused will have to provide written reasons for the refusal, they are anxious about the workability of proposed section 42F, “Reasonable grounds for prohibiting tenant from, or refusing tenant consent for, keeping pet”, in clause 16. They say that the broad categories of “(a) the premises are not suitable for the pet or pets … (d) the pet or pets are not suitable for the premises” invites subjective assessment by the landlord. They also state that the legislation as drafted already deems these to be reasonable grounds for refusal but there are no requirements that the decisions about suitability are on reasonable, objective, evidenced-based grounds, and they are concerned that this could lead to more disputes that require the involvement of the Tenancy Tribunal.
With reference to that particular section, I would like to know from the Minister what is the workability of that proposed section, and has he received any advice that this particular section could lead to more disputes that require the involvement of the Tenancy Tribunal as a result of these changes?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I just saw the Minister get up, so I was going to let the Minister respond first.
Hon Chris Bishop: I’ll let you go first.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I just want to go back to something the Minister said before, regarding disability assist dogs. I thank the Minister for mentioning that, yes, the bill does make it clear that people do not need to pay a pet bond if they have a disability assist dog, but one thing the Minister said that kind of got me a little bit alert was around the fact that we think that this bill has the right balance.
The problem is that this bill has no balance, because by not including “disability assist dog” under the definition of pet, nothing in clause 8 or clause 16 includes it. If that isn’t supposed to be the Minister’s intention, if we can get the Minister just to explicitly state that, actually, yes, disability assist dog is not part of the definition of pet and absolutely this does include disability dogs, and disabled people should not be discriminated against because of the fact that “disability assist dog” is not part of the definition, ergo not covered under clause 8 and clause 16.
My question to the Minister is around the written consent, and I’m kind of following on from what the Hon Carmel Sepuloni said in terms of reasonable grounds. I think one of the things is—well, two things. Number one is that, although in new section 42F there’s a list of what is considered reasonable grounds—and we’re looking at new subsections (a) to (f)—there is no mention in this bill of what unreasonable grounds may be. I think it is important, if the Minister wouldn’t mind, enlightening the committee by giving a couple of examples of what he considers to be unreasonable grounds for prohibiting tenants from keeping a pet. That’s my second question.
The third question I have is around one of our amendments—and this is Amendment Paper 225, by my colleague Tamatha Paul—around the list in new section 42F. Now, one of the other things that I think the Hon Carmel Sepuloni put very nicely from the Citizens Advice Bureau is: what is the workability of some of these reasonable grounds? But, from my perspective, just going a little bit deeper, what was concerning, and what we’re hoping to address with Amendment Paper 225, is the fact that the list is non-exhaustive. It says, “include the following (for example)”. What is going to go beyond this particular list, which I feel is already quite exhaustive? What are some of these additional examples that the Minister can think of for reasonable grounds for a prohibition that is beyond what is listed here in (a) to (f)? If there isn’t, I would ask the Minister to consider the Amendment Paper, which changes the phrasing from “include the following (for example)” to “are limited to the following” and make (a) to (f) an exhaustive list. That is my third question.
I think my last question is sort of, I guess, a consequence of a tenant being denied consent to keep a pet under new section 42E. We know that there are good tenants, there are good landlords—all of those—but we also do see some horrible cases where landlords do use the power that they may have to deny certain rights to the tenant and use the legal system or the tribunal system as a way of doing that. I want to know: what is some of the scope around if a landlord refuses and the tenant challenges that? Yes, new sections 42E(5) and (6) are very clear on committing an unlawful act, but that will only stand if the proposed or the potential tenant takes them, presumably, to the Tenancy Tribunal. That is an extra burden, again, on the potential tenant. What are some of the mechanisms to prevent some of that? Those are four questions for the Minister. Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve sort of covered these issues about three or four times now. Just very briefly—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Not necessarily.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I just—the member’s really worried about the definition of “pet” in relation to disability dogs. I’ve addressed this three times now, but for the absolute avoidance of doubt: the definition of “pet” in the bill expressly excludes disability assistance dogs as defined in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996. It’s a standard drafting practice where a definition typically applies to the entire Act. The exclusion of disability dogs as pets is relevant to the pet bond provisions, the pet consent provisions, and the pet damage liability provision. As I said—I’ve said it twice now—guidance issued at the time the bill passes, available online, makes it clear that the pet provisions cannot be applied to disability assistance dogs. We’ve thought about it, covered it off, said it three times now. I think we’ve dealt with that issue.
In relation to his points around new sections 42E and 42F—this is about reasonable grounds. The word “reasonable” is used in the Residential Tenancies Act over 140 times, OK? It’s the basis of tenancy law, largely, and so it’s used extensively.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: And abused extensively.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, it is used extensively. I think the member suggested at one point that we make the provisions in section 42F exclusive and exhaustive. I don’t think he actually wants that. Section 42F includes without limit—so it makes it clear, essentially, some examples of where reasonable grounds for prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet in a tenancy agreement would be. These are things I think most people would think are pretty reasonable: premises that aren’t suitable for the pets because of the size of the fencing, tenancy hasn’t complied with relevant bylaws related to pet, pets not suitable due to the number, propensity for causing damage. People might be able to disagree about some bits of it.
Well, I think it’s a non-exhaustive list for a reason: because it’s one of these things where lawmakers can’t always envisage every different scenario that might possibly happen, because we don’t have the wisdom of Solomon. We don’t have the wisdom of Solomon, and the law needs to be general to allow for a range of different circumstances. The aim of section 42F is to outline some non-exhaustive examples of unreasonableness, but, ultimately, the test of that is through the Tenancy Tribunal. That is just the status quo. As I say, “reasonable” is in the Act, I’m advised, over 140 times.
I mean, there will be—I think this deals with the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s point as well—tribunal cases as a result of the pet provisions, and that’s entirely appropriate. My advice to landlords and to tenants is as it is for everything in tenancy law, which is: things are always better when people don’t go off to court. No landlord wants to be stuck in the tribunal and no tenant wants to end up in the tribunal complaining about their landlord and fighting through the tribunal. It’s time-consuming, it’s expensive, it’s mentally taxing, it’s a nightmare for everybody. No one wants that. My general advice to everybody—and I say this all the time when I meet with landlords and I meet with tenancy groups, which I do—is just be reasonable; just act with compassion and common sense. Life would be a lot simpler if everybody just was reasonable.
Now, I’m a reasonable guy—I’m a reasonable guy—but clearly not everybody is reasonable, otherwise, life would be a lot simpler. They aren’t, and that’s why we have the court system and that’s why we have the tribunal system. If everyone followed the law, life would be good, but they don’t, so we have things to make sure that rights and obligations are enforced. So we have a tribunal.
Will there be tribunal cases as a result of the pet laws? Of course there will. Because it’s not been legislated before in New Zealand and it’s new, and we’ll just work our way through. That’s fine. I’m comfortable with that. If there’s some really weird tribunal rulings coming out, well, as I said to the Hon Kieran McAnulty, this will be an iterative process. We won’t get everything right the first time. It’s new to New Zealand law. It’s the right thing to do. I think broadly people support that. We may have to come back and legislate in the future. That’s OK; Parliament legislates all the time. It’s all good, and we’ll do that.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carmel Sepuloni—we will be looking for new material.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Actually, a lot of the questions that I asked previously were responded to, except for one, and so I am going to re-ask it. Given that the Minister of Housing has said that there will be a longer lead-in time for introducing the pet provisions, is he going to go away and talk to the Ministry of Social Development about extending the housing product that will support lower-income New Zealanders and beneficiaries to get access to additional bond to cover the expense for the pet bond, given that his own regulatory impact statement does state very clearly that it is low-income New Zealanders and beneficiaries that will be disproportionately and negatively impacted by a pet bond being introduced?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a new question related to pet bonds. New section 18AA(3), inserted by clause 8: “If the landlord lawfully increases the amount of the rent, the landlord may require payment of a further sum of pet bond not exceeding the amount by which the rent payable for 2 weeks has been increased.” I know the Minister is trying to find a balance here, but we’ve established through various exchanges that for some people the level of pet bond may well be a barrier to them being able to have a pet, even if the landlord is willing to do so.
My question around this relates to what will potentially be an annual increase in the pet bond. Now, we already have in the material here that at two weeks, the average national weekly rent is $1,160, and that’s 2.9 times the median pet damage awarded by the Tenancy Tribunal in recent decisions, of $402.50. The amount of damage isn’t actually linked to the rent, and so if there’s a provision where the pet bond is likely to increase on an annual basis alongside rent increases, that doesn’t actually mean that the median pet damage is likely to increase at a similar rate every year.
If the median pet damage is $402, and two weeks’ rent is pretty much three times that, with the potential for an annual increase, my concern is that for some tenants they will rummage up the two weeks’ pet bond but they may struggle to absorb the increase in rent. Now there’s going to be an additional amount on top of that as the pet bond increases.
I’m not disputing the rent increases. That’s a discussion and argument for another time, possibly at another part of this bill, but in this one, I’m not sure that’s necessary and I can’t see how this inclusion would act as an additional incentive to landlords, when they’ve already got the bond, which is already three times the damage. If the rate of damages was going up at a similar rate, I could understand, but linking it to rent increases means that the discrepancy between the weekly rent—i.e., that’s linked to the bond; two weeks’ rent for the bond—and the damage is just going to over time steadily grow.
If we look at the advice that was provided around the three weeks’ rent—and I’m pleased the Government didn’t go there; they did say they were trying to find a balance—it demonstrates that that would be too high and it wouldn’t be effective. But, over time, with this provision in here, we will get to that point and we would end up in the situation that the Government has been advised not to do. I’m keen to hear from the Minister the rationale behind this and whether he would be willing to consider adjusting this so that we don’t have an increasing discrepancy between the two.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I’ll just deal with that point because it’s a good one. Firstly, in relation to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s point, we’ve made a decision not to do that. She’s asked me to go away and talk to the Ministry of Social Development. I’ve done that. We’re not doing that at this time.
In relation to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s point, basically, this replicates what is the existing law for general bonds. If you are a landlord and you increase the rent lawfully, say $20 a week, technically you can require a bond payment—the bond that has already been lodged—because you’d be increasing it. You might be charging $500 a week, you might charge four weeks’ bond—$2,000—and you increase the rent to $520. Technically, you can require an additional bond payment on top of that to reflect the maths around four weeks. I’m advised most landlords don’t do that. I don’t know, there’ll be plenty of tenants and former tenants in the Chamber. Certainly my time renting and flatting, I had the landlord increase the rent but never had the landlord say, “Oh, actually, also you need to go chuck another $20 or $40 bucks with tenancy services to reflect the four weeks”. That just remains what was lodged at the time of the initial bond.
The provision in new clause 18AA just replicates that provision for general tenancies without pets into the pet bonds, but I’m advised that most landlords don’t do that, and my expectations would be that the same thing would happen. It just replicates what the existing law was.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on my amendment. This hasn’t been discussed in the committee stage, and I appreciate the Minister’s engagement on the issue of greyhounds. This is a new solution to the same problem, but an entirely different approach.
Because the Minister has really helpfully outlined for the committee what the problem would be with the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s approach to add on, essentially, an ability for a landlord to claim back more costs if the damage was caused by a greyhound, thus eliminating the risk of discrimination by landlords against tenants for those who own greyhounds, the suggestion here is to prohibit discrimination against tenants who own greyhounds.
This is something which is pretty common in the law. There are lots of things that landlords can’t ask their tenant and can’t be required for their tenant to explain to them and also can’t then make decisions about whether their tenancies can continue based on those factors. My amendment as it is drafted now would add in a prohibited grounds of discrimination if someone owns a greyhound.
That’s a good point from the Minister that we don’t want to accidentally cause a situation in the law where it’s cheaper and therefore easier for a landlord to limit their risk to pet damage by making sure that if there is going to be a dog in the property, it’s not going to be a greyhound. This would simply not allow them to ask the breed of the dog and it would mean that it was prohibited grounds if they did know that the dog was a greyhound—some simple changes there which the House is probably ready to take a policy position on because it’s quite simple and it would amend the law in a way which also doesn’t require any further work to be done to bond $2,000.
As the Minister said, one of the concerns he had with the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s amendment is that there is some work to do by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment here to get the system up to speed. Because this amendment is drafted in a way that means the landlord may not require the payment, there is no need for the payment to be made in the first place, and therefore there’s no requirement for the payment to be paid back. It doesn’t hit the system at all. If we do it this way with a prohibited grounds of discrimination, no money’s changing hands and there’s no system requirement to push it out.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment inserting new subsection (1B) to his tabled amendment to clause 8 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 8 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting new subsections (1A) to (1AC) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Steve Abel’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 218 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 219 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 220 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 224 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 16 set out on Amendment Paper 225 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 16 new section 42E(1) replacing “21 days” with “14 days” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Termination of tenancies
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 21 to 29, “Termination of tenancies”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have two questions for the Associate Minister of Housing to start this section off. This is the part of the bill where the rubber hits the road for tenants, where their rights are being stripped away by a Government that does not care that it is weakening their position, where it is making landlords empowered to not only kick their tenants out with 90 days for no reason but also to weaken their rights in other ways.
We’ve spent a whole part discussing how the Government is being so kind with its approach to pet bonds, without any sort of analysis about how the market will be affected. Not only will rents continue to rise under this approach, as the Treasury predicted at its Budget predictions, but also people will be affected here. There is no intention, as the Government Minister in the chair previously said, for Ministry of Social Development clients and those receiving a benefit to be able to use the benefits to increase the availability of pet bonds. There’s no intention here for further work to be done on that.
My question to the Minister is: if we’re weakening the rights of tenants here by increasing the incentives for investors to buy up more of the existing stock of properties—that’s the effect—and at the same time we’re making insecure tenants feel even more desperate that they need to get into a house of their own, both of those factors will push rents up, up, and up. Is it his position that clause 22, which reintroduces 90-day no-cause evictions, will drive up rents? And does he agree with Treasury’s predictions at the last Budget that rents will continue to rise under his watch?
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Chair, and kia ora Minister Potaka—nice to have you here and hope that you’ll be able to respond to some of my concerns that I’m about to bring up.
I believe this is the appropriate part to bring up what I was trying to get at previously. I want to dig into the evidential basis behind no-cause evictions, because, Minister, you’re making a really big call in bringing these back, given that this is going to impact more than 1 million renters in our country and make them vulnerable to being evicted and kicked out of their home for no good reason. I want to understand: where’s the evidence? We were told throughout the select committee that the rationale behind this bill was that it would allow landlords and property managers to take a chance on risky tenants by bringing them in and being able to kick them out if they don’t like their behaviour. Where’s the evidence for that? I mean, that didn’t come up at all throughout the select committee process in my recollection of it. I’m just trying to understand where the facts are to back that up, because I don’t think they exist.
I believe that the reason that these no-cause evictions were brought back was because it’s politically popular to do so, despite the fact that in the submissions on the bill around no-cause evictions—again—97 percent of submitters were opposed to no-cause evictions being brought back, and 53 percent of property managers and landlords were also opposed to no-cause evictions being brought back. Where are the facts to back up bringing them back, given there’s such huge risk to the 1 million - plus New Zealanders who are now vulnerable to being kicked out for no good reason at all?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I sat through the submissions, and this was the most contested part of the bill. So many issues were raised with the additional vulnerability that will be put on tenants as a result of reinstating the no-cause termination for tenants. We were all concerned, sitting in the Social Services and Community Committee, that we’re going to see more transient families, concerned that we are going to see families discriminated against, and they will not take up their right to that retaliation clause that’s in here because that is incredibly complex. As we know, many of these vulnerable families are not likely to go to the Tenancy Tribunal to complain about the landlord.
There are a number of things that I’m concerned about when I look at even the disclosure statement for the bill and also the regulatory impact statement. I want to know from the Associate Minister of Housing why he has decided to ignore the advice in the regulatory impact statement where it states: “Landlords’ ability to terminate a periodic tenancy ‘in any other case’ (a no-cause termination) was considered to negatively impact tenant wellbeing and disincentivise them from exercising rights and raising concerns”. That’s what I was just speaking to and it’s actually in the advice that accompanies the bill. The statement also noted that “although the RTA enables tenants to challenge terminations they suspect have been issued in response to them exercising their rights, tenants may not feel empowered to do so as it may be difficult to prove this if no reason is provided.”
I need to question the Minister on how he would allow this to go through, why he will not consider any changes, given the fact that the submissions were overwhelmingly opposed to this and even the officials’ advice states or reiterates the same concerns that were raised by—I do believe, as Tamatha said—97 percent of submitters.
During the select committee process, I raised a question that was unable to be answered by the officials. However, I wanted them to go away and see if they could find the answer. I’ll put that question now to the Minister. That question is in relation to how long it actually takes an individual or a family to find and secure another rental property once they leave—have their tenancy terminated—the property that they are residing in. I’m concerned that we were never presented with any evidence to show that. In cities, in areas where there are housing shortages—places like, I can say, West Auckland, Auckland, where it’s quite often difficult to secure a rental—90 days may not even be sufficient for that family or individual to be able to secure their next rental property.
As an electorate MP, we have seen this over the years—particularly, I have to say, between 2008 and 2017—where we had a number of constituents who would come through our office very clearly stating that they were not able to get into another rental property so, therefore, were in a position where they were seeking out emergency accommodation because of the fact that rental properties were not widely available or easy for them to access.
I want to know from the Minister whether or not he received any advice on the risk of those who have their tenancies terminated and are not able to find their next rental property are having to seek out support from the Ministry of Social Development for emergency accommodation, and what that might mean for the Minister’s own target of reducing emergency housing in this country.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s pretty disappointing, to say the least, that the Associate Minister of Housing hasn’t taken the opportunity to stand up and respond to what are genuine and, frankly, straightforward questions. If we are actually to be able to dive into this part—the substance of the bill, essentially—we need to understand the Government’s rationale. We need to understand what they have based that on before we can actually look in great detail about why they’ve landed where they’ve landed, the number of days, etc. We know that when this bill was announced, and as it has progressed through the parliamentary system, the Government have claimed that this bill will help address the housing crisis.
Now, in the first part, we have discussed this, I think, quite constructively—we’ve come with ideas on how to improve it—but we can’t even start to look to improve this until we understand what it’s based on. Previously, if a Minister wasn’t getting up to answer questions, we could rely on the regulatory impact statement to give us an idea, but it’s quite clear when this is read that the Government didn’t give departments enough time to actually come up with analysis to assist Parliament. Now, that’s not the department’s fault. It’s another example of the Government cutting corners to try to avoid scrutiny, which makes it even more important that the Minister stands up and answers questions. If we dive into the regulatory impact statement enough, we will see that the Government’s claims that this bill will help the housing crisis appear to be unfounded. I say “appear” because it hasn’t been able to reach that conclusion because they weren’t given enough time. The only way that we can get to that conclusion, or otherwise, is if the Minister answers questions.
I’ll bring it right back to the most basic point. In the absence of a response—once the Minister does respond, we will certainly have more questions—I’ll keep it real simple. How does this bill help solve the housing crisis? There’s no mention in this bill about building houses. Actually, we’ve got to look at this bill and this part in the context of the other changes that this Government has made, because the Minister needs to answer that pretty simple question in the context of them reversing the changes the previous Government made around interest deductibility, in the context that at least in part—but, I would argue, predominantly—because of that change, rents have gone up 7 percent according to the regulatory impact statement in the year leading up to this. What is going on here? We need to know from the Minister how this is going to solve the housing crisis.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and respond to some of the questions today. It was really unfortunate I was unable to sit in the chair in relation to the pet bonds, because that’s quite an issue dear to my heart here in the fishbowl of Wellington.
The changes that are being proposed in this part of the bill are sensible and much needed, and they remove some of the barriers to ensure supply and flexibility for landlords in the market. Of course, there have been some observations—or may I say allegations—around rent increasing as a result of some of these changes, but, as we know, rents have dramatically increased over the last five or six years, and over the last 12 months there’s been some stabilising of rent.
Rents do get influenced by a number of matters—for example, immigration, supply, wage growth—and it’s clear to us that an increase of an average of $170 over the six years prior to the 2023 election, despite an extraordinary amount of coin being tipped into the housing market by way of subsidies and build costs, rents continued to increase. Despite some of the current determinations around terminations being put in place, rents continued to increase at a pace that has actually contributed significantly to the cost of living catastrophe that has faced ordinary New Zealanders, including those ones in West Auckland.
The view is that changes will increase supply, and whilst that might come as a surprise to our colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, it is our view that the changes that are being proposed—in the context that they’re being proposed, and together—will increase supply at the margins by giving landlords greater flexibility to rent to tenants and to a broader suite of tenants. That’s something that I’ve, obviously, witnessed, being involved in the property sector myself for the last two decades. The sense and the view that our team has on this side of the Chamber is that, by making these changes, we are able to see a lot more landlords be interested in broadening the suite of tenants and people who may rent homes, rent tenancies, from those landlords, because there’s an increasing flexibility to deal with some complexities which currently cannot be dealt with under the current legislation. You actually get more choice for access by tenants.
Whilst there have been some observations around 52.8 percent of property associations and landlords opposing the change, actually, within some of those associations and groups who presented or who submitted during the select committee process, there were a number who submitted on behalf of many, many other landlords. So, yes, I acknowledge the submitters and the percentage of submitters, but when you actually get to the percentage of landlords opposing or not opposing, we haven’t been able to penetrate that number. Whilst there are some observations around the reletting and the impact on the tightness of the market, recent evidence suggests that the time taken to re-let properties is actually longer, suggesting that the changes and the approaches that we have made are showing that the tightness in the market is easing.
Again, we believe that there is a sensible, much-needed change, and that’s captured here in this part of the bill. We do believe that it will increase flexibility for landlords, but it will also generate a greater opportunity for tenants to access rental arrangements. It’s very sensible, and I commend Minister Bishop for his hard work on this matter.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’d just make the note that, of course, the Associate Minister of Housing, by covering quite a broad range of issues there, has actually opened the debate considerably, and that will be no doubt taken into account in considering the subject matter of questions.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to continue on. The Associate Minister of Housing started by stating that he wishes he’d been here for the previous part of the bill with respect to pet bonds because pet bonds are close to his heart. I want to know whether or not Treaty of Waitangi obligations and Māori are close to that Minister’s heart, given what is in the regulatory impact statement for this bill.
It’s important to note that in this bill it states: “Evidence suggests that the termination related proposals will negatively impact on actual and perceived security of tenure for many tenants compared to the status quo. These negative impacts are likely to disproportionately affect Māori, as Māori are more likely to live in rented accommodation, have a lower overall median income, and are more likely to experience discrimination than the general population.”
It’s lovely that that Minister cares so much about pet bonds and that those are close to his heart, but this part of the bill is about the termination clause that he’s bringing back in so that there will be no cause for termination and people can be booted out of their homes with no reason whatsoever. His own advice is telling that Minister that Māori are going to be disproportionately impacted.
Now, I want to know if Māori are close to that Minister’s heart, and how he can justify this particular change, given that the evidence is right in front of him to say that, actually, they will be negatively affected. We heard the spin from the Minister: that this will result in more properties being tenanted and a “broader suite” of tenants getting access to rental properties. I don’t know what “broader suite of tenants” means, but I do want to assume that he means Māori getting access to rental properties as well. However, if he is inferring that, then it’s interesting to see that the evidence he was giving contradicts what he said when he took his feet.
Minister, I want to hear from you that Māori are close to your heart and to understand why you think this particular provision is going to be a benefit to Māori when what we have in front of us in the regulatory impact statement says the exact otherwise.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Chair, and I’ve got a number of questions for the Associate Minister of Housing about Part 2, clause 22, which seems to return the imbalance of power between tenants and landlords.
The benefit to landlords is clear, but what does the Minister think is the benefit to tenants? Does he think that tenants will really be empowered to raise the retaliatory power? Do you think that they will be able to take that up? I’m a car owner and I am a landlord. To check that my car is safe and healthy, it’s not me who says my seatbelts are fine and my brakes are fine—I take it to the garage to have that checked. Healthy homes—I just make a declaration about the house, which I firmly believe is a healthy home, but there’s no inspection unless there’s a complaint. That’s not fair. If a tenant wants their home to be healthy, not cold, not with non-compliant fires, poor heating, non-compliant smoke alarms, they are not in a position of power to raise those things.
Let’s look at what this removal—this return to no-cause evictions—does for tenants’ health. Their physical health I’ve alluded to with the healthy home aspect, but the mental health, the insecurity, the chance that they will have to move not just within the suburb where their child goes to school or they’re on a doctor’s list—if they’re lucky—but they might have to move somewhere else, and the worry about it, even if they don’t, is completely unreasonable.
I have a little bit of insight into this issue, both as a landlord who is happy to have a healthy home but also I grew up in a council flat in London. At the age of 18 months, which I do not remember, we actually did have to move because the house was demolished for widening a road—which may have formed some transport views, I admit! But then my grandmother, my half-sister, my parents, and I were rehoused in another home, and we never worried about whether next Christmas would be somewhere else, whether I’d be able to go to the same preschool or the same school. We were able to be in the same place.
What does the Minister think this change, making families move, will do for school attendance rates—which are very important, we agree, across the House? Would they consider an exception for families with school-age children? Would they consider—and I’m surprised New Zealand First hasn’t perhaps brought this up—an exemption for 65plus? My other half-sister—I have a few—lives in Austria. She lives in a private rental. She’s lived there for years. She’s got gardens, she’s got chickens—I don’t know whether they count as pets—she’s got a cat and a dog, and she feels safe there as long as she wants to continue living there. She’s been there for eight or 10 years, whereas most people’s tenancies in this country are far shorter. She knows that she can invest in furniture, curtains, the garden, the fencing without fear of being moved on in three months.
In fact, we are completely out of sync with many countries in our rules about tenancies. I’d like the Minister to respond as to whether he thinks Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain are mistaken in not having no-cause evictions. There’s got to be a serious reason. In Spain, for example, if the landlord wants to sell the house, first of all, the tenant has the right of first refusal, I think; but secondly, if the house or the flat is sold, the tenant can remain through that process and be a tenant of the new owner. We are very, very unreasonable, unfair, and uncompassionate towards people who rent, and that results in them being regarded as second-class citizens, whereas in other countries it’s perfectly fine to rent all your life, to expect that your children will carry on renting in the same place.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to get some more information from the Associate Minister of Housing, Tama Potaka, because he made some interesting statements and we still haven’t quite managed to get to the point of what the policy problem is in relation to reintroducing those 90-day terminations. He did say, and I think the term he used was “wider suite” or a “broader suite” of tenants would be available, like it’s a box of chocolates or something. I didn’t quite understand that.
When we go back to the regulatory impact statement, what it says in there is that the National Party’s manifesto document and the ACT Party, in the coalition agreement, committed to reversing some of the changes made in 2020 to the Residential Tenancies Act. My question to the Minister is: maybe that’s the primary underlying purpose? Maybe he would like to speak to that, because the regulatory impact statement does say that there is no clear evidence that the changes in 2020 caused an increase in rental supply or caused rent prices to go up. It states in there that a wide range of complex factors influence rental supply and rent prices, and that assessing the impact of individual factors is not possible. It is not able to be stated that that is, in fact, the case.
The Minister’s own regulatory impact statement states that landlords, property managers, and investors, and organisations representing these stakeholders made a big plea to the Government and wanted those 90-day terminations with notice given to be reinstated. From the regulatory impact statement, it does appear that there is no causal link between increased rent prices and that it is a clause or a part of a political agreement that underpins how this Government got power, and that they were strongly lobbied by those landlords and those who stand to gain from kicking out people with no notification.
That is a real concern. The Minister needs to provide some evidence regarding the impact of the 2020 tenancy law reforms on rental supply and rent increases to demonstrate why this has been lifted. As we’ve already seen from recent evidence provided by Statistics New Zealand, rent prices have continued to be high for tenants. In fact, their inflation rate is going up at a higher rate than the Consumers Price Index given what the Government’s already done to take away the interest deductibility from landlords. If they’ve already given landlords a tax cut and that’s made no real impact on rents coming down—they are going up more than food—then how is this additional provision going to? It looks like he’s just helping out his mates by giving tenants a rough deal.
Does the Minister think that by giving tenants a puppy, they’re going to ignore the fact that they can get kicked out of their house with no real cause? That’s the kind of sickening part about this bill, when you put Part 1 and Part 2 together. Does the Minister think that giving people a puppy or a kitten compensates for the fact that he’s taking away their right to live in a home? His own regulatory impact statement talks about the direct impact upon tenants in terms of family violence risk, mental health risks, and children attending school—all of those crucial factors that already impact on people receiving lower wages. If they are kicked out of their home without any real reason—because landlords can—what are the social impacts on those people and how they continue to provide for their families and have stability in their lives?
It seems to me that the regulatory impact statement provided by the Minister indicates that there are some significant risks. I think it is incumbent on the Minister to explain the actual policy problem that he is trying to fix with this legislation, which does appear just to be serving his mates.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Noting that the previous Chair, Greg O’Connor, had talked about broadening the scope of the debate as a result of the Associate Minister of Housing, and noting how Part 2, particularly, touches on the impacts of no-cause evictions on people, I wanted to take it first of all to the Growing Up in New Zealand study, which identified that young people who had to move from their homes for reasons outside of their control, such as tenancy terminations, were more likely to experience homelessness and live in greater levels of hardship.
My first question was: how can the Minister say this is to help landlords take a chance on people who might otherwise be homeless when the flip side of that is that no-cause evictions and weaker security of tenure also lead to more people becoming homeless?
The second question I have in relation to this is: what difference does it make if you’re hoping that this Government policy will reduce homelessness on one side and then the policy causes homelessness on the other?
My third question was in relation to the language that has been used by the Minister and other Government Ministers about landlords taking a chance on people. I wanted to understand if the Minister had a more granular definition on the types of groups that he believes landlords will be taking a chance on. I have heard language like “risky tenants”, for example, from some Government Ministers, and I want to understand: what does that mean to the Minister, actually? I actually think there is a bit of marginalisation happening when it comes to the language that is used in relation to the types of tenants that we’re talking about, particularly in Part 2, when it comes to the argument that landlords will take a chance on specific people. Like, what does he mean by that? To me, I can imagine some of the types of people that he may imagine, but I don’t think those people deserve to be labelled as “risky”.
My fourth question—and then I’ll recap all of those—related particularly to some of the outside influences that he has alluded to in relation to the need for, particularly, the provisions in Part 2 of the bill. I am really curious to understand what evidential basis he’s drawing upon to justify immigration settings to speak to the need for these provisions in Part 2.
I’m particularly interested because he’s made those comments in this debate. I think those comments should be based on evidence and I just simply don’t think that it’s helpful for a Minister to be whipping up immigration settings to justify no-cause evictions when actually, like, no-cause evictions will affect migrants; no-cause evictions will affect other members of the communities, and if the Minister wants to summon immigration settings to justify this bill, I think we deserve an evidential basis for that. What we do not deserve are Ministers whipping up anti-immigration sentiment to justify this bill when actually the reality is that this isn’t even a Government that is committed to building enough public housing.
Anyway, to recap my questions, I wanted to understand whether he used the Growing Up in New Zealand study at all when it came to making decisions on this bill. How did the research that’s available to the Minister play a role into this? Then the second part is around the evidential basis for his arguments that this may reduce homelessness versus, for example, the risk of increasing homelessness. I wanted to get a clarification and a more granular definition of the types of tenants he perceives to be the ones that landlords will take a risk by taking them on, and then, finally, the evidential basis for how immigration settings justify this bill.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Some of mine, I think, really carry on from Ricardo Menéndez March but also some of the earlier questions that I asked. I do want to clarify that earlier I was speaking about the impacts on Māori; I think I might have said it was in the regulatory impact statement, but it was actually in the disclosure statement—just to make that clear.
Now I am looking at the regulatory impact statement and very interested to see that this policy of reintroducing 90-day no-cause terminations has been assessed for effectiveness and efficiency. For effectiveness in terms of landlords and giving them what they’ve asked for and the reassurance that they’ll be able to regain control of their property whenever they want—well, that’s double plus, so highly effective. In terms of supply, though—which I think is important to mention, given that the Associate Minister of Housing said earlier that this will lead to better supply of rental property—it’s zero; this policy will not necessarily lead to more houses or more rental supply on the market.
What I am particularly concerned about is efficiency where it states that, as a result of the reintroduction of 90-day no-cause terminations, there may be more churn in the market and higher residential mobility among renters: “Higher residential mobility is associated with … [lower education,] employment, health, and … [wellbeing] outcomes.” I want to ask the Minister what impact this policy—with that in mind—is going to have on their Government priority targets in various other areas, including their education targets and their target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefits. It’s really clear that the advice is stating that this could lead to more transients, more housing mobility, and that there are social repercussions for that.
So, from the Minister, what is the advice that he’s received on their Government targets and their ability to reach those targets as a direct result of this policy being implemented?
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m grateful to take a call on this, particularly following the previous Chairperson’s, Greg O’Connor’s, guidance around the Associate Minister of Housing’s answers kind of opening up the broadness of what we can cover in our questions.
I will stick to no-cause evictions because, obviously, that is the part that we’re on. I notice that there’s been a number of calls now—three or four of them—and the Minister hasn’t stood up and answered any of those questions, so we still don’t know what the evidential basis of this bill, and particularly behind no-cause evictions, is. That basically leads me to all of my questions, because there’s so much in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and in all of the supporting information around this bill that points to the fact that there is no evidential basis for the bill.
The problem is that he doesn’t answer the question and doesn’t clarify what we’re all trying to understand, which is: what led this Government to make the decision to bring back no-cause evictions? It just leaves a whole bunch of space for speculation. That’s why all of us are all asking the same questions, trying to determine what the driver of this bill was. What was the reason? There isn’t a reason, because if you look even at the RIS, it talks about the fact that this was something that was agreed to in the coalition agreement.
You can see that there’s a bit of a track record going on here, where we’re having decisions made for us and decisions made that impact a lot of people in this House, simply on the basis of a coalition agreement. That’s not a responsible way to make legislation or policy, and then to have the Minister stand up and say in response to the lack of evidence behind it, making all of these claims—if you actually look at the RIS and those statements that you were making, they do not match up at all. How are we supposed to do anything except speculate on the intentions of this bill when we’re not getting any answers and there’s a big vacuum that’s been left?
We can move on from that one, because the question that I want to understand is this. It’s like what Ginny said, and didn’t get an answer to: what is the policy basis and what is the problem that we’re trying to solve for this bill?
That question has already been asked, but my follow-up to that is this: did the Government explore other potential ways to achieve that outcome that you seek? If the so-called intentions of no-cause evictions are to make it easier for landlords to take on “riskier tenants”—whoever that is supposed to be—then, surely, there are other ways to achieve that outcome that actually are founded in evidence.
Clearly, no alternatives have been explored in developing a solution to that policy problem, because the outcome was already predetermined in the first place. They already knew exactly what they wanted to do because, again, it’s in this magical coalition agreement that seems to overtake literally everything, including the founding document of our country—but I won’t go there.
Francisco Hernandez: You should.
TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, I might—I might—because we’ve opened up the can of worms, haven’t we?
Francisco Hernandez: It’s been widened.
TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, the can of worms is open. We’ve got Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke over here—no, I’m just kidding. OK, all right, back to this—back to this.
There was one point in particular that I wanted to touch on in the RIS, and it’s paragraph 106—oh, and it just so happens to be the Treaty of Waitangi analysis of the termination proposals. That’s great—that’s convenient. OK, paragraph 106: “As a result, the proposals may increase the risk that more households will need emergency housing and/or social housing.”
Again, that makes me scratch my head about why we are pursuing this policy that is going to have major implications for the amount of people having to access emergency housing and public housing, because we’re talking about these riskier tenants—and I’m sorry, but it’s hard to not jump to the conclusion of who you’re talking about when you’re talking about these “riskier tenants”—and also those are likely to be the people that do need to access emergency housing and social housing. Have we thought about those implications in terms of bringing back no-cause evictions?
The other thing is that my colleague Celia Wade-Brown made a number of questions and talked about her experience within housing, and I think she raised some really important points that, again, were not responded to about the way that different countries have chosen not to adopt no-cause evictions. The particular example that I wanted to bring up that she didn’t touch on was no-fault evictions—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Mr Chair, thank you for the time to stand and to respond to some of the opinions that have been surfaced. Again, I hark back to one of the whakataukī, or proverbs, of my father: you are entitled to your own opinions but perhaps not your own facts.
The Government’s proposals are intended to support supply and continue to keep downward pressure on rents. Whilst the opinions of various members opposite are very strongly and genuinely held, might I add, the opinion of the Government is that at the margins, the changes that are proposed will support supply.
There has been a comment—quite a podium comment at the hyperbole Olympics—around immigration being a driver of my observations. In fact, I’ve had very, very little comments, and I think that that myopic nature of that particular comment is merely to fill out the Hansard. Please do not put words in my mouth when I didn’t talk about immigration being a cause of my observations and the policy basis.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You did actually, Minister. Check the Hansard. You mentioned it.
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Right, right. I did mention it. However, I did not mention it in substance, and starting to leverage that concern around immigration up and putting words in my mouth is highly unbecoming of that member.
There was also a number of comments around Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Guess what, people? Māori are disproportionately renters in this country, but also Māori are landlords, and those Māori landlords would welcome the flexibility to offer tenancies and houses to renters, whether they are Māori or not Māori. Whilst the members have opined and pontificated about what broadening choices for Māori renters means, I’ll make sure to get those tamariki Māori out of emergency housing, when the members opposite consigned many tamariki Māori to living in dank emergency hotels and motels throughout the country.
Fact: price inflation for new rentals has actually gone down from 7 percent as at the end of the previous Government’s administration, to 0.7 percent in the last couple of months. That, again, is an absolute illustration of the contextual changes and signals that this Government is undertaking. And, again, the provisions in this part of the bill are all about resetting the housing system as a whole and ensuring that we actually do provide for those many thousands of people who actually need a house—particularly those at an affordable level and an affordable rental.
Again, there’s a whole range of comments that have been made by members opposites about risks, but as the previous Minister for social development knows, and knows very well, the actual social-allocation system is based on risk and need. So, again, those members opposite who have commented around risk should take some time to undertake the relevant research required to better understand the housing system.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, it’s been quite interesting hearing the comments from the Associate Minister of Housing, accusing us of having a bunch of opinions when actually he’s responded with zero substance on the matter. I think that does a disservice to the process here, which is to actually scrutinise the Government and the Minister’s own understanding of his own legislation.
I may just test the Minister on a more technical matter, particularly in clause 22 and the changes to termination by notice, particularly in the provisions that allow for less than 90 days to be given. If we go to subclause (2) around the landlord “may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice”, there is a part there that includes “the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family;”.
I want to understand the Minister’s technical understanding of this part of the bill around what recourse exists for tenants who, basically, get kicked out of the place where they live, the home that they live in—if the landlord tells them that they need it for a family member—in the instance that that family member never moves in, also if the family member moves in for just a week. I think this part of this bill, this provision, makes it so easy for landlords to give way less than 90 days’ notice, makes it so easy for a landlord to basically just say, “Well, turns out I’ve got a sibling coming over.”, “Turns out my son’s coming over to stay for the holidays.”, and if those plans never eventuate, you could end up easily kicking out a tenant, with that home remaining vacant and the tenant may find themselves with no recourse.
If there is recourse, I’m keen to know what it is and how easily the Minister thinks it can be accessed—and whether the Minister thinks it’s fair for the provisions of this bill to allow, for example, a tenant to be kicked out under clause 22 for, say, a family member to stay in that property for one week, when actually for the tenant that’s been kicked out there’s a whole life being turned upside down potentially, as my colleague Tamatha Paul noted. It was noted in the regulatory impact statement—which I’m surprised that the Minister’s dismissing as just kind of opinions and ways to fill the Hansard—as potentially increasing the need for emergency housing.
I go back to the fact that it seems to me there are provisions in this bill that have enabled landlords, with very few protections for tenants, to tell someone that they’ve got a family member staying over for a week. That is not good enough. We should not be allowing landlords to actually kick someone out, to turn someone’s life completely upside down, to potentially push them into emergency housing because a family member wants to stay there for a week—potentially, provisions that may not need to even be substantiated by the landlord. I want to understand: what’s the Minister’s understanding of the recourse that exists for tenants to address this, if they find out that actually that family member never moved in, or if the family member moved in for, say, a very, very short period of time—and if that recourse exists, whether he thinks it’s realistic?
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): There’s a reason we keep asking the Associate Minister of Housing for evidence: it is because he has refused to provide any. It’s very difficult to then dive into the detail of this part without understanding what the Government has based their policy position on. We cannot rely on the regulatory impact statement because, as I said earlier, the Government didn’t give the department enough time to provide that detail. If we are to understand why the Government landed on 90 days and why in certain circumstances they landed on 42—as is outlined in clause 22(2)—we need to understand what it is that they’re basing it on. The problem for the Minister in refusing to answer a pretty simple question is that it becomes very clear that it’s not based on any evidence.
The other issue that the Minister has in trying to stand up and be clever is he’s broadening the debate every time he stands up. This was something that was noted by the previous presiding officer, Greg O’Connor. Instead of just answering the question—like, in fairness, the previous Minister did. If you look at the way that Minister Bishop deals with this, he stands up and says, “Now, the question from this member: here’s the answer. The question from this member: here’s the answer.” What do we get from this Minister? Bluster and arrogance.
He has introduced State housing, he has introduced emergency housing, which is very interesting, because the Government claims that by—as outlined here in this part—bringing it to 90 and in certain circumstances 42 days, this will help solve the housing crisis because it will mean that more landlords enter the market. I presume that’s the case. They haven’t actually made that connection. They haven’t based it on any evidence. At the moment, it’s just their reckons. Now, Minister, you are a landlord. Can you honestly tell the committee that these changes are going to help your tenants? I don’t think any landlord can. But it does help landlords. Now, if this was part of a broader policy programme, perhaps they might have a point.
Since the Minister mentioned social housing, let’s look at the broader context in which we need to look at this bill. This Government has sent a letter of expectation to Kāinga Ora which says that houses built next year will be 50 percent of the number of houses built the previous year. The houses after that will be only 400, and in Auckland, that number will reduce by 200. Kāinga Ora isn’t going to be building houses in the future. If we look at the community housing sector, this Government has funded only 750 a year over the next two years. Additionally, during scrutiny week it was clearly established when talking to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development that this Government’s policy of tightening criteria in emergency housing is meaning fewer people are getting in. They’ve accepted that the need has not reduced but acceptance rates have. Now, the way the Government is spinning that is that they’re reducing the numbers in emergency housing. What’s actually happening is they’re not letting people in.
Why is that important? Because the Minister’s made it relevant by his responses, and it is in that context that we ask the Government: how is this going to help the housing crisis? If they are not building Kāinga Ora houses in the future, if they are not funding community houses to the extent that they have been funded and to the extent that is needed, and fewer people are getting into emergency housing, this, by the Minister’s own suggestion, will lead to more landlords entering the market. The level of consents have fallen through the floor and 12,000 construction workers have been laid off since this Government came in. Where are these people going to go? This here means that fewer first-home buyers will be entering the market if, by the Minister’s own logic, reducing it to 90 days and in certain circumstances 42, more landlords will be going for existing stock. How does that solve the housing crisis? Two very simple questions which the committee deserves a direct answer to. What evidence is this based on and how will this help?
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Associate Minister of Housing for engaging on this point about the effect of this change, specifically to 90-day no-cause evictions, to the availability of rental properties, and to the price of rents. It’s helpful to have the Minister’s analysis on the record, although I don’t think we’ve gotten to the bottom of whether this helps or hinders.
Even if we take his sort of framing of what this is meant to do as “just around the margins”, as not something which will fundamentally change the supply and demand for housing in New Zealand’s market, I want to test with him some of what he’s told the committee about the evidence that he has to refute Treasury’s position that rents will continue to increase in this forecast term, because he has refuted that but not said why. I’m going to put to him what I think he’s said, in a way that we would also agree with, and then test it out from there.
I think what he said is, to use his words, this is part of resetting the housing system as a whole. And I think what we are debating here is how to achieve better outcomes for both first-home buyers and renters. I would posit that that requires Ministers to move away from the zero-sum cycle of speculative investment which has characterised the New Zealand housing market in the last two decades.
My question for the Minister is: in the situation where we have a limited supply of housing, where this measure does not increase the supply of housing but, by weakening renters’ rights, it does both incentivise landlords to buy up the existing stock and it incentivises first-home buyers to buy, because it is now harder to be a long-term renter—not at the sort of 25 to 35 stage, but if you’re a 35-year-old to 45-year-old that might have the capital but might be choosing to rent anyway with young children, it now becomes even more important that you are not subject to the vagaries of your landlord’s whims, where you might be required to move within 90 days for no reason. It’s even more of a desperate situation to get into your own house, and so both of those things are being driven up under this law change.
My question to the Minister is: even if we accept that this is just about addressing housing supply at the margins and demand issues at the margins, doesn’t this create a situation which is worse for the housing market—that we incentivise the prices of houses to go up and up, even if it’s just at the margins?
And my question, really, to him is about whether this change is something that could not have been designed in a way where it only was about new stock. Because he has given us a good sense that this is about a suite of changes which reset the housing system, was there not a way that this campaign promise of various coalition partners could have been introduced to only affect new housing stock? The Minister, in his answer to my questions, said that there was a need for more houses to be built. That is right; that’s not what this does. There’s no incentive here for investors in houses—for people who can afford to be landlords—to buy new houses or to build new houses themselves and then rent them out. This actually incentivises them to buy older houses and to sort of play in a market of renters who are “on the margins”—by his own admission. If this is about offering “risky renters” more housing options, then we’re down at the bottom of the market there, rather than the top of the market creating more additionality of housing supply.
Can the Minister help us understand, when he says that this is around the margins, what actual effect this is going to have on rents? And can he clarify for the committee whether he disputes the predictions that rents will continue to rise in the Stats New Zealand figures? Though he’s given us the figures which support his claim for downward pressure on rents, we dispute that, given the official statistics show that there is not a change overall in the market. There are some regions where that does seem to be the case, I’ll give him that—South Auckland is one where migration is having such an effect that rental properties seem to be coming down in price or are hard to rent at the moment—but, overall, the Statistics New Zealand data that is the latest set of data shows that rents continue to rise as Treasury predicted.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, comrade Chair—Mr Chair—for allowing me to take this call. I just have a question for the Associate Minister of Housing—a few questions. My first question is—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll go with “Mr Chair”.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: “Mr Chair”—I clarified and said, “Mr Chair”, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is: I appreciate your reply on the question of immigration, so I just want to invite you, in your own words, to explain why you even mentioned it in the first place in response to some of the earlier questioning. If your intention was, as you say—and I’ll take it in good faith that you didn’t intend to kind of link the issue of immigration to the housing shortage at all. I think we appreciate, I guess, in light of international events and how there’s been a rise in xenophobia and anti-immigration politics overseas, why we might be sensitive to it here.
I also want to ask questions, turning to clause 22, around the question of termination by notice. We know that the regulatory impact statement states that the positive welfare implications that come from security of tenure are one of the most common findings recognised through multiple studies and surveys, which includes reduced levels of stress and depression. I know that this Government has been working on the mental health strategy, and I think that is something that’s been supported by all parties in this House. I think it’s really good that there’s a mental health strategy and we’re working towards addressing that. I do note that the mental health strategy takes into account the social determinants of health.
My question is: has the Minister or the department quantified the impacts of no-cause evictions and the Government weakening security of tenure on mental health, and what the detrimental impacts of that might be on depression? The regulatory impact statement explicitly states the positive welfare implications that come from security of tenure. It also explicitly states, if you look at the impacts of this legislation, that there’s a risk that it will increase the rate of emergency housing and/or social housing. We know that it will definitely reduce security of tenure. I know that there is a section here—you know, there’s some recourse that tenants might have around retaliatory notices, and we’ll get to that later.
Again, restating my questions: if your intention wasn’t to bring immigration to the issue of housing stock at all—because, you know, they’re kind of unrelated concepts—why did you mention it in the first place? What was the kind of rationale behind it? And what is the quantification of the no-cause evictions and the Government weakening security of tenure on mental health and depression? We already know that these services are under severe pressure and in many ways are lacking. I know that there’s a mental health strategy that’s kind of been drafted in place—I know that resources are being progressed to address that—but if there’s no quantification of them, or if there’s no wider analysis that’s actually been done on them, why has the Government been so comfortable in making these changes that are likely to exacerbate the risks to mental wellbeing around New Zealand?
I think we have to acknowledge that mental health is a challenge that successive Governments have not risen to the challenge on, and I know that there is a cross-party plan to kind of work on it together. I think that’s one of the best ways we can get enduring change on mental health issues in the House. It just seems like actions like this, where the Government’s own explicit advice has said that it’ll weaken tenancy security and therefore reduce the positive welfare benefits of secure tenure—why are we proceeding with this in the first place? Thank you.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Mr Chair, I appreciate the time just to stand and make a couple of comments. I just want to address the observation that perhaps my name is on the door of xenophobia and the innuendo that’s been introduced in some of the observations in the Hansard today. Just to reject that innuendo, the comment that I made was that rents and supply can be affected by a number of factors: wage growth, cost to build, immigration—a whole range of things can influence supply and can influence rents. That’s the context in which it was made, and we got a little bit of a run-on of what the implications or consequences or interpretations of that might mean.
In relation to tenants and retaliatory notice provisions, the Residential Tenancies Act proposals actually give tenants a little bit more assurance that they can’t be removed from a tenancy for enforcing their rights. The bill will do this by expanding the retaliatory notice provision to include a notice given by a landlord in response to enforcement action taken by a person or regulatory body such as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and repealing the 28-day time limit for tenants applying for an order that a termination notice was retaliatory, and, of course, misuse of termination ground is an unlawful act that may result in a $6,500 penalty.
The additional item that I thought it’d be useful to mention is just around the point that for tenants who want to terminate a periodic tenancy, it will be reduced back down to 21 days from the 28 days that it is currently, and this actually, in our view, provides a little bit more flexibility for tenants.
There were other comments that were made, and I was invited to make a response on them by the member for Manurewa. I’d just say that if I was in a situation where I was a developer and I wanted to build some rental apartments or some rental houses, but I knew that I had no flexibility—if I am the landlord—around no-cause terminations, that, in the view of the Government, is a disincentive to actually build those houses or those apartments, and that’s the sort of context in which we view these.
Again, the Government is very, very clear that we want to ensure there’s the right balance and flexibility for landlords putting on rental arrangements and to ensure that sensible and considered changes are made in alignment with our coalition arrangements, and, of course, we’re trying to ensure that there’s a better housing system in place. Kia ora.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I spoke a little bit to the departmental disclosure statement with respect to Māori, and I know that Tamatha Paul has spoken about this, but I have a couple of questions. If we turn to the regulatory impact statement and the Treaty of Waitangi analysis of the termination proposals, it’s really clear that it will negatively impact Māori for a number of reasons, and I won’t traverse that all again.
The point that I think is of note is that the Waitangi Tribunal has indicated that where disparities exist, active intervention may be required by the Crown to remove those disparities, and it is likely these proposals will raise concerns and criticism from the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to the risk they result in further inequity—article 3—the lack of consultation with Māori, and inconsistency with the principles of partnership, participation, and active protection. I think this is big, and I want to know from the Associate Minister of Housing how he thinks that a policy like this that has that type of description about it is therefore conducive to good Crown-Māori relations.
I would also like to know from the Minister why he has chosen to actively reinstate the disparity, given that it was only a few years ago that we took this away and ensured that landlords couldn’t enforce no-cause terminations. Now he is reinstating the disparity that, clearly, disproportionately impacts Māori.
There are two questions there, relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and to Māori, and I’d really like an answer from the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, I do note that the Associate Minister of Housing has addressed some of the broader questions that are being asked. If I can ask members to make their questions specific to clauses in Part 2, it would help the committee.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): All right. Thank you, Mr Chair; I’ll set aside my notes on the economics of this change and focus now on clause 17, which inserts new section 43AA. This is the provision that clarifies the extent to which a tenancy agreement may prohibit smoking in—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s in Part 1.
ARENA WILLIAMS: Sorry, Mr Chair.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I have a very specific line of the bill, found in clause 22(1), which inserts new section 51(2)(b). I was asking about paragraph (a) beforehand. I think these deserve separate scrutiny because they’re actually quite different ways in which a landlord can actually kick someone out way earlier than 90 days. The previous question I asked was in relation to a family member moving in. It seems to me that the Associate Minister of Housing confirmed to me that there’s nothing stopping a landlord from literally lying and saying to a tenant, “I’ve got a family member moving in”, but that may never eventuate and someone’s tenancy gets basically ended in 42 days and someone’s life gets turned upside down, or that family member just moves in for a day or a week. I’d like some confirmation of that.
In subsection (2)(b), in clause 22(1), though, what I’m referring to—which is my new point—is the line that says, “the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession;”. It is our view that tenancies should transfer to a new owner. A landlord doesn’t actually have to sell the property with a vacant possession. It’s often considered that those properties may be worth a bit more, and I wondered whether the Minister did any analysis of exactly how much more those properties are worth when they’re vacant as compared to otherwise, and compared that with the negative impact of someone’s tenancy being terminated—in 42 days, in this case—as a result of this.
I say this because this is a genuine issue. This has been raised in The People’s Review of Renting. We have people who said, “I usually need to move house every 12 months due to landlords selling the house I live in to realise their capital gain. This has happened three years in a row and it costs me upwards of $1,500 for movers and cleaners and uses up my annual leave. Emotionally exhausting. No security at all when renting.” And this is why I asked this question.
We do know from tenants about what this specific subsection (2)(b), found in clause 22(1), will cause to them. Therefore, I think the onus needs to go back to the Minister—because he claimed to care a lot about facts—to actually tell us what robust analysis has been done in terms of ensuring that, actually, this provision doesn’t create financial hardship, stress, as has been identified by tenants and The People’s Review of Renting, compared to, for example, the additional capital gains that a landlord or a property investor will be able to make by having a property being vacant when trying to sell. I’m worried that this isn’t substantiated. For somebody who’s been criticised—well, several of us have been criticised—for just putting out their opinions, it seems to me that he wasn’t able to substantiate subsection (2)(a) in clause 22(1), and I’m really curious to know whether he can substantiate with facts why this paragraph (b) was put in when we do know from reviews that it has caused harm to tenants.
I recommend, if the Minister hasn’t read The People’s Review of Renting, which was launched in 2017, that he does so, because he’ll find plenty of robust analysis from people who have experienced his policies about what this specific paragraph in the legislation will cause.
I do want to signal to the Chair that I do have other questions that are yet to come, particularly on clause 24—that’s paragraphs (a) and (b) of new section 54(2), inserted by clause 24—but I’m hoping that the Minister will address my comments and questions in relation to clause 22.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. It’s interesting listening to the debate this morning. I’m going to speak on clause 24, but I did want to make one brief comment before I jump into that, and it was the previous address by the Associate Minister of Housing around making it easier for developers to build and certainty for them and the fact they can kick people out whenever they want and do whatever they want. I think we’ve got to consider, firstly, a mindset change here, because in New Zealand owning rental properties is an investment, whereas in Europe it’s a home for life, right? We’ve got to, I think, challenge the Minister to really consider the fact that it’s a mindset shift in terms of what actually being a good landlord is. That’s just a comment, but I’ll move to clause 24, in Part 2.
This is around the replacement of section 54, where the tribunal may declare a retaliatory notice of no effect. This replaces section 54 where the tribunal may declare notice around retaliatory issues. We’re considering this, because this is important, and so I guess my question is around whether you feel like the settings are right in this section. If I go to clause 24, inserting replacement section 54(2), “The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds:”—and it goes on with (a) and (b). Again, we’re being thoughtful around this, because I think this is the issue, and the power imbalance of tenants and landlords is that there can be things done and issues created and then retaliating. The power imbalance means that the landlord obviously has all the power, whereas the tenant has less power.
We think this could be OK, but we just want to get assurance from the Minister that he feels this is tight enough. I note that in section 54(3) the tenant is able to make an application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, and the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. And then, of course, it’s around what the Tenancy Tribunal then engages and does. I mean, it saddens me that we even have to have the conversation about what landlords may choose to do, but I think this part actually is potentially around the protection of the tenant. Does the Minister believe that he has got this right; that it’s tight enough and that it has good checks and balances to ensure that the tenant is protected when it comes to—I can’t even say the word!—retaliatory provisions and just meanness from the landlord?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Thank you, again, for the opportunity to have a kōrero on this matter in relation to the questions that were just asked regarding the retaliatory provisions. We do believe that there is a strengthening of the notice provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act, giving tenants a high level of assurance.
In relation to the notice periods and the comments made around the notice periods for vacant position, there already exists one of those and it’s called periodic tenancies. Of course, with fixed-term tenancies, that’s slightly different because tenants continue to stay on, but for periodic tenancies, that notice period in the proposed legislation reduces from 63 to 42, and we believe that’s a better balance and a sensible change. In addition, where family members move in, whilst there was an implication, from the comments, around landlords potentially lying, there’s also a requirement that family or whānau members that move into a home stay for at least 90 days. Of course, if not, then there’s potential to give rise to a Tenancy Tribunal matter. Kia ora.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Ricardo Menéndez March, because you referred to some questions you had around clause 24, if they are different from the questions that Glen Bennett just asked.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Well, there are several amendments we haven’t had a chance to speak to either, so—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m suggesting that it be specific to the point. It’s not always on every bill that every amendment gets spoken to, because there’s been lots of chances to do that, so stick to the clauses. If you want to bring an amendment into those clauses, then that’s fine.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I appreciate that. And if you check the Hansard, beyond the stuff that one of the previous Chairs, Greg O’Connor, talked about on the broader economic settings, two of my other calls have been incredibly granular about the clauses that I am referring to. I hope some grace is given in relationship to that, and that I am doing my best to pinpoint where I am talking about in the bill.
I want to talk about one of our amendments around the limit of the number of times no-cause evictions can be used for. This particularly relates to, actually, several provisions, including in clause 24 around the retaliatory way in which these no-cause evictions are used. The reason for that is that as we identified in the debate around clause 22, some of the provisions actually allow for some retaliatory methods to be used by nature of just a landlord lying—for example, around a family member—and then that actually can leave very little room for the provisions in clause 24 to take effect, particularly around paragraphs (a) and (b) in clause 24(2).
The amendment that we’ve got would restrict the number of times a landlord can use no-cause evictions to three times a year. This is because in the analysis that we’ve heard from tenants, we’ve heard from tenants that no-cause evictions had, in the past, been used multiple times a year for people. I wonder whether the Associate Minister of Housing had—particularly when it comes to the provisions in clause 24 to protect tenants against retaliatory measures, but how those interact with how, actually, other parts of the bill—given any thought to the number of times no-cause evictions should be used in a year.
Actually, if we go back to some of the provisions I was speaking to in clause 22, there’s so many days in a year that you could—you know, if you divide it by 90. Because some of those provisions allow for 42 days to be given, you could have a landlord literally using no-cause evictions several times a year. Our amendment would actually put some protections in place to ensure that no-cause evictions can only be used by a landlord three times a year, which we none the less don’t believe will mitigate all of the harm but it will go some way towards addressing what I believe is a lack of answers and even addressing from the Minister from the questions I asked in relationship to clause 22.
When he refers to the retaliatory issues, that actually leaves the gap, because I feel like he’s going back to clause 24 when I asked questions about clause 22. Actually, those are quite different issues. I wanted to understand—and I do still have more questions on clause 24, but I did want to make sure that we brought our amendment. There are many other provisions in the bill, in Part 2, and several clauses that are yet to be addressed, but I did want to check whether the Minister had considered whether there’s a balance to be struck here in the intent he’s trying to achieve and then the number of no-cause evictions that can be executed by a landlord.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to take a call on this. I realise that there are some areas that may have been traversed, but I need to, particularly with this Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, traverse some of the impacts for Māori on this.
Obviously, I’m talking about clause 22(1), replacing section 51(1), where a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case or at least 90 days. As I said, I do appreciate that there’s been some areas that have been traversed in terms of Māori, but we have to ask today, particularly given the climate at the moment, what this Minister in particular has done in his relationships—what has he done in terms of his relationships with Māori?
I appreciate he’s got quite a wide brief in terms of what he’s doing in terms of Māori development and Māori-Crown relations—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think the questions to the Minister should relate to the clauses in the piece of legislation. Thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I was coming to it. I just talked about the clause, and I’m talking about Part 3, clause 3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given affect by this bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considered this bill and whether it is consistent with the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations. HUD has considered the impact of the proposed bill through a Treaty of Waitangi lens, including discussions with HUD’s legal team and Māori policy team. HUD also consulted with Te Puni Kōkiri during the policy development. There’s a bit of an overlap here with this Minister, who has Māori development and iwi relations and, of course, this particular kaupapa. We always say that Māori development goes across all different portfolios. And the good thing about this is we have a Minister who has an associate housing responsibility.
I would like to know from the Minister what type of kōrero has gone down with him and Māori, not just as mana whenua but with our different Māori providers around the country. Has he signalled and is he looking to work in coordination with some of those Māori providers—which is incredibly important at the moment, as we have, as he well knows, the Whānau Ora kaupapa now being put up by this Government and being tendered for by many organisations, not just Māori organisations. So, coming back to this 3.2—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you just refer us to the page? We’re just having a task finding—
Hon Member: Are you on the right bill?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think I’m on the right bill, but I’ll come to you. I’m talking about page 12, clause 22(1), replacement section 51(1) “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.” And what I’m talking about here—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, right, OK. You were talking about 3.2 and we lost you. Right, OK, thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right—yes, yes. No problem to clarify. Anything else you want to clarify?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, that’s it. Thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m happy to clarify and continue talking about this kaupapa because the ramifications for Māori are huge. I can see the Minister thinking about this—whether he’s actually consulted with any Māori with regards to this kaupapa.
Now, we know he has a relationship with the Iwi Chairs Forum, but there is some kōrero on the street that he has forgotten to speak with Maataa Waka and some of the key providers here—[Interruption] No, no, this is important for the other side, because the Māori rate has dropped in terms of housing ownership, which this Minister is in charge of. In terms of rentals, Māori are transient—they’re moving from house to house. Now, this 90-day clause, as he well knows, threatens to put so many Māori out on the street. What is the plan around that? What are the Treaty ramifications? Should Māori be scared because this Government is proceeding with this Treaty principles legislation? What are the effects in terms of our different communities going forward?
Can I ask him—has this been part of any kōrero with the Whānau Ora kaupapa, for instance, which is a major kaupapa at the moment because the Government—[Interruption] Everything is Whānau Ora, but I’m happy to explain this to members—particularly to my good friend over there, Dana Kirkpatrick. Very happy to take another five minutes to explain the consequences of this decision in a Whānau Ora sense. This kaupapa has been put on the floor.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 22 set out on Amendment Paper 226 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 22 set out on Amendment Paper 227 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clause 22 set out on Amendment Paper 228 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clause 22 set out on Amendment Paper 229 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clause 22 set out on Amendment Paper 230 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 24 set out on Amendment Paper 231 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 24 set out on Amendment Paper 232 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to clause 27 set out on Amendment Paper 233 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 2 agreed to.
Part 3 Tenancy Tribunal and administrative matters
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 30 to 39, “Tenancy Tribunal and administrative matters”, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 3 stand part.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question relates to clause 31(3). This touches on the jurisdiction of the tribunal. I note that there are two other parts to that which other members may wish to explore, but I’m keen to understand the rationale for this.
It specifically states that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute so far as it raises a question as to whether, in respect of a tenant who gives notice accompanied by qualifying evidence under section 56B—now, this relates to family violence. I had hoped to be able to ask questions about that in the previous part, but I also note that there are quite detailed provisions in Schedule 2, so we’ll get into it then.
Now, look, I’ve been very critical of the Government’s approach in Part 2, and I was very disappointed with the Minister’s answers, and said as much, but we had a very constructive conversation in Part 1, and I hope the Minister takes these questions in that vein. It is a very serious issue and I’m taking it as such.
I would just like the Minister to explain why these disputes are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. I get that there are provisions outlined in this bill in other parts—and I’m not traversing that, just purely for context—that outline the process by which a tenant is to provide qualifying evidence to this. My concern with this is what happens in a scenario where a tenant provides qualifying evidence and that is disputed by the landlord. That is a dispute, and what this is saying is that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine that.
There may be a reasonable explanation to this, and if there is, that’s all good, but if there isn’t, I think that is an oversight, because what we’re talking about here is the ability for people who have been a victim of family violence or their dependent has been a victim of family violence to have special provisions available to them.
We fully support that; absolutely. In fact, we think that there were grounds for it to be stronger, but nevertheless, we support it, so we’re not disputing that, but I’m concerned that with those special provisions available to people in those horrific circumstances, if a landlord declines or dismisses the evidence that’s provided, where does that leave them? The landlord could say, in that scenario, “No, you don’t qualify.” or “I don’t accept the evidence.” or whatever. That becomes a dispute, and the tribunal is there to address that dispute. But, if it’s not in the jurisdiction, where do they go?
Now, we mustn’t forget the circumstances that bring this about. Like I say, there may be a reasonable explanation, and if there is, fine, but I would like the Minister to take this seriously—it’s a question in good faith—and not just cover it in high level, but actually answer it for the benefit of the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions also relate to clause 31, on page 15, but they’re a bit different in nature. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the committee a little bit of context about these provisions here, in the context of the legislation that changes the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal having been passed after the select committee was able to consider these changes.
Those two things interrelate because the programme of work to improve court timeliness that was begun by the Labour Government—and really helpfully, I think, picked up by this justice Minister—changes the way that lower tribunals intend to deal with lower-order disputes, and that more disputes will be handled by those tribunals. The intention for the piece of legislation about the disputes tribunal is that more small claims will be able to be heard there. In this piece of work, there are none of the same sorts of provisions to essentially allow more sorts of disputes to be heard by the Tenancy Tribunal. I want to know why that is and whether the intention is for some claims to be heard at the disputes tribunal level as it would have in the past—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry to just interrupt the member. I don’t want to have to ask you to say that again, but the Minister was taking advice, and I think they’re important questions. We’ll start your time again so that the Minister can actually—
Hon Tama Potaka: Apologies, apologies.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, no, it’s not a problem, Minister. You need to take your advice. I was just concerned with the level of questioning that it wasn’t being heard, so could the member start again.
ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. And fair enough too. I’ll ask them in a different way so as not to bore my colleagues listening along intently.
One specific question is at page 16, clause 31(2), which creates a new section 7AA. This new 7AA, for instance, Minister, has a limit of $100,000 in instances like these, which is not a new limit. My question is around asking the Minister to compare these provisions with the provisions of the legislation which has recently passed in the House to change the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal. Is it the intention that the Tenancy Tribunal would be able to deal with more sorts of low-level claims like this in a more timely way? I think that’s probably yes. In which case, why isn’t the $100,000 limit higher? That limit, effectively, means that the District Court—the District Court is the court after the Tenancy Tribunal—would have to consider a claim that was above the $100,000 limit. That seems to be going in the opposite direction of the other changes to the tribunals at this level, which have been made by Minister Goldsmith, which are intended to capture more of these lower-order disputes.
The next question is about the change in the disputes tribunal legislation which was intended to allow an order made by a referee in that jurisdiction to require a respondent to pay the cost of the filing fee of a successful applicant. That’s a new change at the disputes tribunal level. Why didn’t the Government consider that change, or changes like it, which essentially allow a referee more tools in the toolkit to award costs and different sorts of costs against a party who is found to be at fault and might, in the opinion of the referee, be using the tribunal vexatiously to pursue a claim against either of the other parties? Is it because, in the housing context, the Government deemed that not to be appropriate? Or was it simply because that piece of work that was happening at the disputes tribunal had not been considered when this piece of legislation was drafted?
I ask the Minister that because that is a useful change at the disputes tribunal level. It means that applicants are less likely—well, they will consider carefully whether the costs that might be awarded against them in all sorts of circumstances—those fees are usually pretty low. They can be between, I think, $59 to $249, but for a tenant, that might be a significant amount of money when looking at the sort of award that might be made against them. In a pet bond context, I think the average award that was awarded in the financial year to the end of June 23 was $400, so we’re talking about a reasonably substantial fee there. Why would we not make a change here where, in the opinion of each individual referee and each individual case, there was an ability for costs to be placed on the party at fault or any of the other sorts of costs that you might anticipate in a housing context?
Ricardo Menéndez March pointed to a number of other costs which are associated with the tenancy dispute. That was in response to the previous Minister in the chair talking about the kinds of situations where you don’t want to get into a tenancy dispute and you don’t want to be in the tribunal in the first place. Though we all agree with that, there will be lots of disputes which come out of this which result in situations, like the ones that Ricardo Menéndez March has spoken about, where people lose their wages, where people lose their time, and where people are not compensated for time off work. Those are all costs which are harder to quantify, but then there are a number of costs which are easy to quantify, like the filing fee, the cost of travel, things that you might in certain situations want to award against a vexatious litigant.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. If I refer to clause 31(1) and then to subparagraph (i) and subparagraph (ii), I wanted to, I guess, just get a sense of the implications—and we do have an amendment to address this—of, I guess, a double-dipping when it comes to the pet bond and the general bond.
I think this is quite concerning, because it’s like we have this whole narrative that the Government’s created around the purpose, of how people are going to enable pet bonds to then allow pets to more easily cohabitate with tenants in their property, but the way that this is written, in my view, prevents the ring-fencing. It prevents the ring-fencing, which I think is really, really problematic, because, effectively, what it does is it allows landlords to dip into either bond, the general bond or the pet bond, to try and literally maximise profit when somebody’s exiting a tenancy. I think this is quite problematic because it could end up resulting in landlords trying to find ways in which the amount of money that they want to claim back from the general bond is high enough that it exceeds it, but they know that they can tap into the pet bond to make up for it, and therefore the amount of money that landlords will try to recover will start becoming higher.
We do have an amendment—and I’ll just bring up the numbers so that we can be granular in this regard. It’s Amendment Paper 234 under, I believe, Tamatha Paul’s name that seeks to address this. Basically, what our amendment would do is ring-fence it—basically, not allow the general bond to be dipped into to cover, for example, incidents where a landlord deems that the pet bond exceeds what was put in, and vice versa. I think this is really important, because when we think about low-income workers, people on the benefit, etc., trying to access a tenancy, saving for a bond actually requires multiple weeks of savings for people who are often living week by week. For people on the benefit, accessing assistance for bonds often comes as a debt. We’ve got to remember that, actually, this is not just money that many people will find it hard to access but they’ll have to then eat away from their own weekly incomes to eventually cover.
If we have a situation where landlords are enabled to dip into either type of bond and find, basically, as many excuses as they can to maximise profit, I think they will. The evidence has shown us that, when landlords are given an inch, they will take a mile. Multiple reviews have shown us this. I am concerned that the way in which clause 31(1) and (2) are written undermine, actually, the intent of being able to ring-fence the pet bond and then actually have mechanisms in which we’re just dealing with the issue of pets. If, in my view, landlords want to raise issues in relationship to the recovery of the general bond, that should stay within the limits of the general bond. We shouldn’t be allowing landlords to dip into this otherwise.
I’m keen to understand what the rationale is to allow this, whether the Minister in the chair, Tama Potaka, has any views about Tamatha Paul’s amendment to ensure that, actually, this can be protected, and whether the Minister had any analysis, in fact, around the implications for tenants of potentially being able to access less of their bond as they move out of the tenancy.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Madam Chair, thank you for some time to respond to specific questions raised by various members opposite, in relation to Part 3.
Just to note one of the comments by the member for Manurewa around awards through the tribunal process: if a party is successful, their filing fees can actually be awarded against the unsuccessful party. That’s one pathway for an award that offsets things. The other item that was raised, around the $100,000 threshold, or current level for Residential Tenancies Act disputes, it has been in place for nearly 15 years. It actually was a bit ahead of its time—or ahead of the disputes tribunal, anyway.
There was a comment made by the member opposite, member McAnulty, around the provision around family violence. Actually, it’s quite tragic some of the levels of family violence that are out there, in tenants’ arrangements and other arrangements, but it is not the role of the tribunal to determine whether or not family violence has actually occurred. That’s probably more in the criminal space. The tenant only needs to provide the qualifying evidence that it has occurred, and whether or not it has is a matter for another body.
The commentary about the Amendment Paper that member Ricardo has mentioned—so the ability to use pet bond funds for other matters, in our view, approves efficiency by avoiding situations where the landlord has to issue money—
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is that a fact or an opinion?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, and the member has voiced many of his own opinions today—are owed through other avenues despite there being untouched funds available. A landlord would only be able to access those funds that are set aside on the basis of pet bonds for non-pet-related damage or costs with the agreement of the tenants or by a Tenancy Tribunal order. This provides, of course, a little bit of flexibility for the tenant as well but also encourages the expeditious payment of any costs owing.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair—a quick question before I move on to clause 35. The question that was put to the Minister by the Hon Kieran McAnulty about family violence: this is an important issue and we don’t mean to ask trivial questions, but just to clarify what the intent was.
With the qualifying evidence that violence has occurred in a situation of a household, it may not be clear to the Tenancy Tribunal whether that meets the wording here that it is family violence. If violence between my boyfriend and I has occurred in the first three weeks of our relationship and living together, I can prove that to the Tenancy Tribunal but I cannot prove that it is family violence. I also can’t prove, if there is violence going on in my household between two flatmates, that it is family violence.
We’re asking the Minister to clarify what sort of violence will mean that the Tenancy Tribunal automatically declines to hear a case and that there is no jurisdiction for the tribunal. There will certainly be cases about this. We are simply trying to draw out here what the intention is when Parliament sets down that family violence is one of the prohibited grounds. Should that be the meaning of family violence in another Act? Should that be up to the referee in each given case to determine?
Now, clause 35: this amends the provision in the current Residential Tenancies Act about facsimiles. It’s useful to update that. The problem here is that it’s not an equivalent. What we are replacing here is any “electronic address”. In the current Residential Tenancies Act, if a tenant is served with documents through their fax, then they will receive that—you can only send a fax if the fax is plugged in and is at the number that it expects to be at. That’s envisioning a situation where, in the household that you’re trying to send a fax to, a printed-out copy of the legal documents will appear in that household. That’s what was intended in the original Act.
What we’ve replaced it with here is any “document transmitted to an electronic address”. What that means is that, if I was to send Minister Potaka a set of documents now via his Signal or via text message, that would suffice for the definition that’s set out at clause 35. It’s pretty unusual. Usually, service of documents in most courts is pretty clearly in a way that the person is deemed to receive it. For superior courts, we’re talking there about legal service, which is a profession in itself and regulated as such, where the person in charge of service is in charge of also being able to give evidence to a court; that they did, in fact, give the documents to the person.
That’s probably not appropriate here, because we do recognise that in situations where pretty low amounts of funds are being contested and that we’re in a situation where people have reached the dispute over many, many days, weeks, months of dispute, there might be real issues with service if we were to require that level of service, but we still need some sort of level here that we think is appropriate. Sending a text message doesn’t seem to be that. It’s certainly not equivalent to the provision which it was replacing, which is a fax.
My question to the Minister is: how can we be sure that we’re not setting the bar so low that people can honestly not reasonably be expected to have read the documents that they are meant to have?
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I’ve just come down to the Chamber to make a brief intervention on this really important piece of legislation. Someone’s home is their castle; it is critical that we provide proper process.
In dealing with Part 3 of the bill here, to follow on from my colleague Arena Williams, clause 35 does address the issue of email address and facsimile number and moves us forward into the new world of electronic addresses. It assumes, of course—and it’s an issue for rural New Zealand; I know you will understand this, Madam Chair—that everyone has access to electronic communication instantaneously, every day, and every minute of every day. Actually, the provisions here do work through the timing of the issuing of documents, or the notification, and it moves us into the electronic world, and I think we all accept that physical documents are no longer necessary, but it is important to know that at the other end there is access, and in rural areas in New Zealand, for a number of reasons, often that is erratic.
The question I have of the Minister is: was this considered and was there some flexibility? In reading through, I see no flexibility. Clause 35(4), inserting new section 136(10), says, “In proving service of a document transmitted to an electronic address, it is sufficient to prove that the document was properly transmitted to that address.”, and we know that often—and I certainly do—whether it’s texts or emails, sometimes you think you’ve sent it and for some reason it hasn’t gone. Now, it’s a rare occasion, but it does happen that the server might have gone down. More often than not, if there is a problem in rural areas, it is related to the capacity of the system or something that might have intervened in some way.
In asking questions around this clause 35, it is whether the Minister is prepared to have some flexibility in there to ensure that that wise adjustment—you know, if it’s taking on board some of the realities of the move into the electronic world—also makes provision for the interruption of what is a well-intended serving of notice, and that is the transmission of it. Actually, I think there should be in here some confirmation obligation or some ability to confirm so that, actually, the person receiving it can confirm it, in a way.
I know that there may be some questions, and, say, well, the person doesn’t want to confirm that, but actually there is an ability to confirm the receiving of that and that should be written in here. This just says, “properly transmitted”, and proof of acceptance or opening of that document. That can be done—anyone, now, can actually ask that of a provider. It’s way beyond my technical knowledge, but you can tell whether someone has opened a document. Whether that should be included, or whether the Minister has asked or received advice on that would be something that I’d like to know, and perhaps he could clarify for me.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m hoping to ask the Minister some questions around clause 33, around the decision on the papers bit. Now, I really want to ask: when does the Minister consider it may be appropriate for the tribunal to decide proceedings on the papers, beyond the limitations on new section 91AB(2)? I also wanted to ask the Minister whether he or his officials had statistics on whether there’s differences in outcomes when a Tenancy Tribunal case goes to the papers or whether it actually goes to an actual trial.
I think it’s really important that we make sure that, in allowing the Tenancy Tribunal to hold decisions on papers rather than doing the full thing, we’re not creating barriers for justice, and we’re not exacerbating any existing inequities. It would be a shame, for example, if the Minister’s officials had figures that showed that, for example, Māori and Pasifika were less likely to win cases on papers, and if we’re moving to a system that does rely on decisions on papers, then that may contribute to exacerbating inequities. I’m sure that none of us in the House would want to see that.
I think that is a broader concern that we have that this does give the Tenancy Tribunal too much leniency in deciding whether proceeding on the papers is appropriate. Maybe there should be some sort of component on making sure that the tenants are OK with that, because there is a kind of power differential in this situation. In most cases—not all cases but in many cases—it’s the tenants that will be the underdog in the situation. It’s especially true in my—well, not my electorate; I notice that the Hon Rachel Brooking is here, so I’ll say in the electorate of Dunedin, which I’m based in. I think that’s especially true in the electorate that I’m based in, of Dunedin, where a lot of the cases in the Tenancy Tribunal are from students who are renting for the first time.
I think that’s a really tough experience for people renting for the first time, particularly for young people. I remember when I moved down to Dunedin when I was 16 years old. I was very young, wasn’t old enough to actually legally drink, but I was old enough to be signed on to a lease for some reason. I think that, in the first flat I was actually in, there was a flatmate who set up a meth lab in the flat. I think that just goes to show the kind of situations that young people can get themselves into and the sort of inequities that might arise with tenants that deal with the situation.
We do have a suggestion that might address this power gap a little bit. Our amendment would require the tribunal to consider various factors in deciding if it’s appropriate so that the tribunal can give appropriate weight to the complexity of the case and other factors. That amendment is—do you know what it is off the top of your head?
Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s there.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: It’s there. It’s one of these many amendments that me and my colleagues have—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It might be Amendment Paper 235, we think.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Yes, great. Thank you for the assistance, Madam Chair. I would hope that the Minister would consider that. I am keen on the statistics that are requested on the decisions.
I just wanted to close my contribution by asking what the rationale is for the change. We know that the Tenancy Tribunal has been—as well as the wider court system—under considerable pressure over the past—well, just over the past decade or so; I think there’s been a lot of things that are. We know that there’s probably going to be more cases going to the Tenancy Tribunal because of the changes that the Government is making. Is the motivation just to make sure that the cases can proceed faster through the Tenancy Tribunal? Is it because of resourcing reasons?
We really want to make sure that this is being done in the right way. Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): A number of pātai have been asked, and very diligently and professionally, might I add, in relation to a wide gamut of issues in this part. Certainly, the view of the Government, in relation to the qualifying evidence in the family violence issue, is ultimately that the Tenancy Tribunal is not the right body to assess whether or not family violence has occurred.
The mention of the facsimile actually gave me some serious flashbacks to the postal rule in the Law 101 class 30 years ago and the main guy, John Muller, a well-known lawyer, teaching us about that. Certainly, I respect the observations as being very genuine, but it is up to the tenant to advise whether or not the fax machine is a method by which the tenant is happy to be contacted. There are other options, of course, open to that tenant, whether or not that be email or, of course, the well-known snail mail.
There was some mention from one of the members from Dunedin in relation to, I think, whether or not paper is being used as an appropriate method. I have confidence in the expertise of the tribunals and the Tenancy Tribunal, but if a tenant can’t represent himself or herself adequately, this would, I expect, be considered by any tribunal. Parties can also share their views on the hearing format. Of course, the Tenancy Tribunal considering the matters on the papers can help expedite the Tenancy Tribunal decision and also have an implication for the rent payable. The tribunal has guidance available to them as to whether or not they consider hearing a case on papers or having an actual hearing in person. Certainly, the comments by the members are well appreciated.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair, for an opportunity to talk on this Part 3 debate of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I just want to go to Schedule 2, which makes amendments to Regulation 9. This relates back to what will be the new section 56B, which is “Withdrawal from tenancy following family violence” and talks about the notice being “accompanied by qualifying evidence”. That’s the key term here: “qualifying evidence”. Then what happens, I think, is that the regulation then specifies what the types of qualifying evidence are. It’s got an (a), (b), (c), and (d) there of qualifying evidence: a “first page of a protection order” at paragraph (b), a “Police safety order” at paragraph (c), a “charging document” at paragraph (d), or “a written statement” at paragraph (a). That all looks, on the face of it, to be very sensible. I’ve got no questions about that.
My only question on this is that at Regulation 9(2) there’s the phrase “all or any”. It says, “The types of qualifying evidence … if notice is given … of the Act, all or any of the following:”. It’s that phrase “all or any” that I’m interested in—why it’s needed to be “all or any”—because that provides some subjectivity and some question whether all of those different paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) are required, or any—meaning just one. Wouldn’t it be better just to be “any of the following” or “one of the following” or “the relevant of the following”—or something to suggest that it’s the relevant document? Without going through exactly the differences between them, presumably under whatever sort of violence was at issue under paragraphs (b), (c), or (d), there would always be the opportunity for a written statement at (a), so there’s always going to be an option of having at least two of the following. Then does that mean that there will always need to be a written statement, and one of the others, or should it be interpreted that it would be the relevant paragraph (b), (c), or (d) depending on the circumstances?
If the Minister could offer some advice on that, I think that would be helpful for the Hansard at least. Also, if he would consider changing that “all or any” to be more specific, which could just be “any” if you deleted “all or”; if it’s only one of those that is required, then to say “any of the following”. Thank you.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Turning my attention to clause 39, around section 91A and, well, the parts that changed in section 91A—particularly inserting subsections (e) and (f)—I’m really interested in, well, two parts around this.
I have two key sets of questioning. The first one is around the communication by email. I’m really concerned about how this was written, because I think, particularly in subsection (f), where we’re allowing for a landlord to basically take issues to the Tenancy Tribunal two years after a tenancy’s been terminated—to use the email address that the tenant had used to communicate with the landlord, or otherwise apply to the landlord, in writing within the two years before the application—it assumes that people operate like, frankly, older generations, who tend to hold an email for decades, and that is not the case for young people, actually, and young tenants. Many young people actually don’t tend to use the email address they had, perhaps, when they were 18 and carry that email forward into their, for example, 30s. I know that’s the case for myself and many of my other millennial peers, as well as those people younger than me, because a lot of those emails that we create when we’re 18 often, frankly, have quite embarrassing names, because we made them when we were young.
On a more practical level, I do think this actually poses a real question: how will the tribunal be able to determine that, actually, that former tenant had received those communications? One thing is to rely on an older email, and the landlord will say, “Well, that’s the one email I had”—from, say, it could have been eight years after the tenancy had terminated, but it may not be the email that the person uses. That is in the same way people move addresses, they change phone numbers, etc. I don’t think former tenants should be under any obligation to notify their former landlords of changes to their email address. I think this is an incredibly impractical way of putting in place these provisions.
The other one, I think, goes more to the core of clause 39, which is: why is it that we need to give the ability for landlords to pursue issues with the Tenancy Tribunal more than two years after the tenancy had ended? What is the evidential basis that gave rise to this? Again, the Minister has talked a lot about how he wants facts rather than opinions—da, da, da—but, actually, I don’t think we’ve been given robust justification by the Minister so far as to what is the evidential basis that should allow landlords to pursue issues with the Tenancy Tribunal more than two years after the tenancy had ended. I say this because I think (a) we know that the Tenancy Tribunal already isn’t the best way to address issues, but if we start giving landlords the ability to pursue cases in this way, it could (b) clog the system in a way that is deeply unhelpful. In a way, I think it prevents those former tenants from being able to have the evidence freshly available for them to defend themselves.
Then, if I think again of some of our most-at-risk-of-homelessness populations: low-income people, disabled, people in rainbow communities—if we’re talking about people who’ve been transient for several years, it’ll be impossible for those communities to adequately engage with the tribunal process. I just don’t think there has been robust justification to add subsection (f), and I don’t think the way this is written takes into account the real-world implications, particularly for younger generations, around changes of email addresses over the course of one’s life. The way that this is written basically makes it just so easy to assume—both for the landlord but also for the Tenancy Tribunal—that all that is required is to use a potentially really old email.
I want to test the Minister’s understanding of how this will work in practice, how the Tenancy Tribunal will actually assess that the former tenant had actually received the communication, whether they’ll be expecting a reply of some sort, and if they don’t receive a reply, whether they’ll just assume that that wasn’t the correct email address. I’m just worried that this clause 39 will just give way more opportunities for landlords to cause harm and to bring up grievances that are way, way older. I just really need an evidential basis to give myself and the broader public the guarantee that this has been thought of in a careful and constructive way, because the rest of the bill doesn’t seem that way, and at least I want clause 39 to be adequately justified in Part 3.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Just in relation to the matter raised around “all or any”, as you’d expect to interpret it, it does not need to be all. No concerns have been raised along the way in relation to this particular provision; no concerns have been raised by officials.
In relation to the email issue that member Menéndez March has raised, certainly there’s flexibility for tenants to provide multiple contact arrangements. I too have had the experience of having a series of emails where I’ve completely forgotten the passwords and am unable to access those, especially that tama_potaka@yahoo.com—gone, never to be forgotten. Certainly, providing a bit of flexibility to the relevant authorities and/or landlord around contact details is something that we would continue to encourage.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is suspended until after question time today.
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Debate interrupted.
House resumed.
Speaker’s Rulings
Admissibility of Minister’s Amendments—Criteria
SPEAKER: Yesterday, I said I would return to the House in response to a point of order by the Hon Kieran McAnulty on the basis of the ruling I made to the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.
There’s been a lot of comment about how my decision on this matter differed from the Chairperson of the committee of the whole House. I would like to emphasise that the Chairperson was applying the rules and precedents available to her at that time. It’s the Speaker’s role to determine questions that arise about interpretation and application of the Standing Orders—Standing Order 2. In this case, I have now set out three tests for future application when determining whether provisions are private legislation, and I have determined that the legislative effects of a provision should be seen in the broader context of the bill’s proposed provisions. This does not mean that policy trumps the Standing Orders.
As always, I was guided by rulings of Speakers in the past about the classification of legislation. As I said yesterday, there are very few Speakers’ rulings on this issue—only two that touch on it more explicitly than others, and I considered them, alongside chapter 34 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand.
Those Speakers’ rulings are 109/2 by Speaker O’Rorke in 1884, where the issue was the Government of the day providing a guarantee to a private corporation. It was deemed to be a Government bill. Speakers’ ruling 132/4, reiterated by Speaker Hunt in 2003, Deputy Speaker Hartley in 2006, and Speaker Mallard in 2018. It talks about how “Generic amendments, even if of limited application because there are few such establishments, are permissible.”—in this case there were many establishments—and make the bill a Government bill and the amendment permissible.
In addition, I looked at Speaker’s ruling 109/6, Speaker Smith in 2009, and Speaker’s ruling 110/1, Barnard in 1939. Speaker Smith’s issue was a local bill enacted in the 1800s but specifically for a body—Christ’s College, Canterbury—and their needs; very specific. It was introduced as a Government bill, I understand, but then deemed to be private. Speaker’s ruling 110/1, Speaker Barnard in 1939—he ruled that if a licensing body wanted to license certain activities outside of the general law that were permissible in the general law, then in fact that would be a private bill and not a Government bill.
So it was a combination of all of those things, in conjunction with Chapter 34 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, that guided my thinking for this matter.
From my perspective, I have gone further than Speakers in the past, in outlining processes for making the decision, by describing in detail the three tests for whether legislation is to be considered in the nature of private legislation. I hope these will help guide future Speakers in their responsibilities in classifying legislation, as was my responsibility under Standing Order 257(2).
I do not say that past Speakers were incorrect in applying the tests to specific bills and amendments. They are considered; the tests are based on previous decisions. I found the past decisions very useful to consider when applying the tests to the particular matter. This was not like any other bill, other than the COVID-19 legislation, which was also a guide—remembering that no one in this current bill actually gets any consents. That’s a policy matter and wasn’t part of the consideration.
The three tests are: does the proposed provision affect a particular person or body in a private capacity? Does the proposed provision affect the person or body but not affect all others belonging to the same category or class? And does the proposed provision have a legislative effect that gives rise to a particular benefit or interest for the person or body?
As I have stated repeatedly, I think that the legislative effect was not sufficiently clear as to give rise to a particular benefit for the authorised person for a listed project, as distinct from referred projects permissible in the bill.
I reiterate that my decision was made subject to the three tests used by previous Speakers and set out now by me, in slightly more specific fashion and in a context that I think allowed the bill to progress.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the third reading of the Fast-track Approvals Bill as well as the first readings of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, the Gene Technology Bill, the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.
On Wednesday morning, there will be extended hours for members’ business to make up for at least one members’ day we have missed this year due to a range of factors outside the control of all members, and on Wednesday afternoon the plan at this stage is that the House will adjourn for the year.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for that. Between now and then, given the number of relatively late—shall we say—amendments in the Minister’s name to that piece of legislation, the fast-track legislation, will the Government recommit the bill if it’s found that there are drafting errors in it?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, I don’t want to get ahead of finding those errors. At the moment, there are no errors, and so our provisional view is no.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, with the traditional caveats.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Would the Prime Minister agree that Nicola Willis was not up to the job, which is why he’s had to give it to the person who first signed off on the original ferries?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Those are, seriously, laughable questions. Of course, to answer the second question first: the Minister who originally signed off, he signed off to a total purchase price of $400.1 million, which blew out to $3.2 billion on the way to $4 billion, according to the Treasurer, in both cases. Minister Willis made the most compelling and brilliant decision when she cancelled the contract.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, just wait till your own side settles down. And I’d ask people to ask themselves just what their interjection adds to the answer.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did David Seymour’s public disclosure of indicative costings for the new ferries contradict the wishes of the Prime Minister, the finance Minister, and the Minister for Rail; if so, will he now be open with New Zealand taxpayers, given the cat is out of the bag thanks to Seymour’s indiscretion?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Words matter in politics, and no more when you were acting as a Prime Minister, and Mr Seymour was very careful to point out to the media of this country that he used the word “approximate” and how wide that approximation could be.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Nicola Willis, who said last year that she wants to “look taxpayers in the eye and say this is a good deal; we’re doing this right’”; if so, how does delivering inferior, smaller vessels at far greater cost at least three years later represent a good deal?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If you start by turning back a deal that began at $401 million, blew out to $3.2 billion and is heading for $4 billion, and where the actual cost of the ferries would be then about 14 percent of the total plan that was announced as being a plan for ferries, you’ll get the drift of things. That’s why we are able to say to those people—
Hon Member: Drift is right.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You are adrift!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, to use the shipping expression, an old saying: if you leave port with no port to go to for that boat, no wind’s a white wind. We know where we’re going. We’re going into Christmas and people will know that they can look forward to a bright new announcement in the new year whilst they’re worried about that more than anything else.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the CEO of Mainfreight that David Seymour’s aspiration to privatise interisland ferries makes him “a bit off the planet”; if so, what measures will he take to ensure the ACT Party can’t act on their impulse to pawn off vital national infrastructure to their mates at bargain basement prices?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, I’m certain that when that member was getting ready for leadership at Celebrity Treasure Island, she would have learnt on the way through—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, come on!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know I’m hearing a leadership bid now. But the fact is Mr Seymour was very careful about his words. And all of a sudden, now that the project is—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: We’re talking about the man who did Dancing with the Stars.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You’re talking about the man who did Dancing with the Stars. Keep going.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Hang on—hang on. Well, I thought that member came to ask a serious question, but the reality is surely they did not think that the public could accept $4 billion of expenditure, particularly when there was so much wasteful expenditure of the period 2020-23. So we’ve got things back now where, by the end of March or before, we’ll be able to announce what the New Zealand people want, which is the appropriate vessels for the appropriate passage across the Cook Strait or elsewhere and have it all ready in time—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Elsewhere?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and having also—well, of course elsewhere. Have you ever thought—I mean, this is a person who used to belong to a party called Labour, who knew what they were doing because they are understood workers. I bet they’ve never talked to the maritime unions or anybody else, but we are—all in space at the end of this week.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he confident that Winston Peters will be able to follow through with his assurance that “That’s not the way. If I was in charge of it, I’d have done it anyway.” when looking back at Nicola Willis’ inability to make any meaningful progress in securing new ferries?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Minister of Finance was left with an awful prospect of something that we did not need and could not afford. And what happened downtown was they were asked to get two ferries and they decided, “Here’s a chance to add every other feel-good thing we want and make the taxpayer pay.” And then, coming to Government was a group of rational, sane, and experienced people in politics who understand the very character and nature of business. And that’s why some questions cannot be answered now and some will have to wait. But what I can promise is the turnaround and restoration of rail circa 2017 and 2020 is going to be very shortly back on track.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s really important at times like this—a point that I’ve made previously—that when a Minister is acting as Prime Minister, they make that clear. So just for the record, was that Chris Luxon complimenting the Labour Government between 2017 and 2020 for the work they did on rail?
SPEAKER: I doubt it, but the point you make is that whoever is here answering questions for the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why was he unable to commit to the ferries being rail-enabled and what does rail compatibility mean instead?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What was being told to the media and the country yesterday was that all matters are on the table in terms of consideration. And we’ve got to ensure that we speak to everybody who can possibly help here. We were the inheritors of a disaster. Can anyone seriously believe that $4 billion or worse was what the project should have been about and what was needed to ensure rail, which is all over this country—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What’s compatible? What’s enabled?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?
Hon Willie Jackson: We didn’t agree to that.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, you didn’t agree to it. Oh, so, “We didn’t agree to it.” Well, that shows how impotent he was. He didn’t agree. He’s a frontbencher but they went ahead regardless. Now—
Hon Chris Bishop: You were a senior Minister.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Willie was a senior Minister. He was the head of the Māori wing of the Labour Party, and now he tells me they weren’t consulting with him and they never asked him and never listened to him. Now, I’m not surprised that’s a fact—I always suspected that. But back to my original point. The reality of it all is that constraining ourselves on the answers that are dependent on future discussions and future negotiations is a critical part of being a responsible Minister. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: It is perfectly reasonable for a Minister answering a question to respond to an interjection. And when that happens, then the place turns into something that is in the nature of a debate, but somewhat one-sided because only the Minister has the mike. I suggest that people wanting to make interjections think about that.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will more of Nicola Willis’ catastrophes be passed on to Winston Peters—
SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry. That’s not a reasonable way to ask a question.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, OK.
SPEAKER: So try—yeah, well, I’m very pleased the member knew that. So please ask it again.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: OK. Will more of Nicola Willis’ responsibilities be passed on to Winston Peters to clean up; perhaps some of the responsibilities like the rising unemployment rate, record company liquidations, and an anaemic economy ravaged by austerity?
SPEAKER: Well, I would point out that none of those things are direct responsibilities of the Minister.
Hon Damien O’Connor: They could be, though.
SPEAKER: Well, maybe under some other Government.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, could I just say that the three examples that the questioner used are all examples which were part of the inheritance the present Government received, and now we’re being blamed for it. The reality is the Minister of Finance is doing a fine job at the moment. I want to make it very clear: she shows all the signs of doing a fine job in the future in the most difficult of circumstances. And the last thing I want to say is I don’t want to have a duel of wits with a whole lot of unarmed opponents.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: When will the next Budget Policy Statement be released?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I will release—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, wait on—a bit of reasonable behaviour would be a good thing.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I will release the Budget Policy Statement this coming Tuesday, 17 December. The Budget Policy Statement is my document as Minister of Finance. It previews the next Budget and is a check-in on the Government’s fiscal strategy. At the same time, Treasury will release its half-year update. This will contain updated economic and fiscal forecasts.
Catherine Wedd: Will these documents show any changes to the economic outlook?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are always changes to the economic outlook. Forecasts are inherently uncertain and rely on assumptions that change. I have learnt that it doesn’t pay to get too attached to a particular set of numbers in the forecasts. In recent updates, the economic outlook has been progressively revised downwards, independent of Government policy. That is because Treasury has been winding back some assumptions made when the previous Government was in office that, in hindsight, were far too optimistic about future economic growth. At some point, the series of downside revisions will end, and I look forward to that day.
Catherine Wedd: Will there be any changes to the fiscal outlook?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, downward revisions to the economic outlook will flow through to the fiscal outlook. Forecasts of GDP, for example, affect tax forecasts. Taxes by far—
Hon David Parker: It’s called softening up the public for more bad news.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m being interrupted by a member who sat around a Cabinet table that spent so much they fuelled inflation, left New Zealand with the burden of rising interest rates and a prolonged recession, debt that grew by more than $100 billion, and yet he sits there interjecting. Forecasts of GDP, for example, affect tax forecasts. Tax is by far the Government’s largest source of revenue, and revenue is one half of the Government’s operating balance. So changes in the economic outlook matter for fiscal variables and fiscal targets. Next week’s changes to fiscal forecasts are almost entirely driven by changes to revenue and expense forecasts—they are not driven by discretionary fiscal decisions. Relatively few fiscal decisions have been made since Budget 2024, outside those managed within existing allowances and contingencies.
Catherine Wedd: Will there be any changes to the Government’s fiscal strategy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Fiscal Strategy Report released in May set out the Government’s fiscal strategy. It also stated there would be two reviews, and these could result in minor changes to the strategy. One was of the multi-year capital allowance introduced by the previous Government—another tool that was used to fuel gross amounts of spending. The other was of operating balance indicators used in setting the Government’s short-term fiscal intentions. As noted in the Fiscal Strategy Report, having Crown entity deficits in the current operating balance before gains and losses measure risks undesirable fiscal policy responses. This is because some entities, like ACC, are set up to be self-funded and financially sustainable over the long run, even when running large deficits in particular years.
Question No. 3—Rail
3. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that “It will be, and can be, rail-enabled”; if so, is he confident that he can deliver them for less than the $551 million that was under contract with Hyundai Mipo Dockyard?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): I want to thank the member for that question because, with all the controversy going on about this issue, the facts, after all this time, are still not out there. The $551 million the member refers to relates solely to the cost of the two ferries contracted under the iReX project. It does not take into account the extra landside cost required to accommodate the ferries, which pushed the total cost of the project, according to Treasury, past $3 billion and potentially up to $4 billion. We are very confident that this Government will deliver a safe, reliable, and resilient service for much less than the previous Government signed New Zealand up to. But going back to the point, two ferries were ordered. When the whole thing was over in terms of their contracting ability, the ferries were barely 20 percent of the total project. Which part of that did those guys up there miss?
Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker, this is a primary question. The Minister, I accept, has addressed the second leg, but he has not referenced whether or not he stands by the specific statement that is on notice.
SPEAKER: Yeah, but if you look at the question, it’s requiring a Minister to speculate, and that’s not something a Minister will often want to do or can do, so I think the answer the Minister gave sets out some parameters. I think it’s a reasonable answer.
Tangi Utikere: Supplementary?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sorry, I apologise; point of order. With respect, he was referring to the part of the question that asked the Minister if he stood by his statement, and that’s not requesting that the Minister speculate on anything. The Minister made the statement this morning. He should be able to respond to that pretty clearly.
SPEAKER: Well, that was the first part of it, and that would be something the Minister can address, but the second part, “is he confident that he can deliver”—well, give me a crystal ball. Would the Minister like to respond to the first part about the rail-enabled—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My answer is it’s hugely axiomatic. To get up and talk about the total project being $551 million is being wantonly—hopefully, in this case, innocently—misleading.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.
SPEAKER: Just before we go into that, I think the issue is the first part of the question, “Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that ‘It will be, and can be, rail-enabled;’ ”.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the reality is that we have said that all options are now on the table. But it goes on to say, “is he confident that he can deliver them for less than $551 million?”. Well, if the total project was $551 million all up—landside ferries and all—then there’s a question to be asked. But it was never that; it was $4 billion when we got there.
Tangi Utikere: Can he guarantee that he will announce the actual procurement of new ferries in March next year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is we are working with all the speed we possibly can put behind this so that sometime by the end of March or before, we’ll be telling the public with great transparency what we’re going to do.
Tangi Utikere: Can he guarantee that the new ferries will arrive in 2029, and how much more are KiwiRail having to spend to nurse the current Interislander fleet along until new ferries arrive?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, they’re not nursing anything to do with the current fleet. They are going to be required to do their job with the utmost professionalism and not have the kind of thing that happened recently when it ran aground in the Sounds. That’s when the member should’ve been asking those questions, right back then. What they’re going to do is ensure that we can perhaps answer those questions well before, in terms of delivery, 2029 as a possibility.
Tangi Utikere: Why did the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, say today that the Government has a solution but did not mention the solution yesterday at the Government’s announcement?
Hon Shane Jones: Judiciousness.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well put. Well, for a start, I didn’t hear the Prime Minister say that, and I’ll check it out with him because he may have meant that as part of the all-up considerations there is a solution in there, and that, really, is obvious as well.
Tangi Utikere: So is the Prime Minister correct when he said today, “But, for right now, we’ve got a good solution, and if we can improve on it, great, and if not, we move forward with that solution.”; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, again, I have to confess that I did not hear the Prime Minister say that, and until I do, I will not confirm what I should make of it, other than to say the Prime Minister’s in the best possible space at this point in time, because he has got the main solution, a united Government that is setting out to correct a grievous fiscal wrong.
Tangi Utikere: Has Cabinet already confirmed a preferred replacement option for the Cook Strait ferries; if so, what is it?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to the question is no.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the total potential impact on the viability of our rail network in the South Island be taken into account when making the decision to go with rail-enabled ferries versus rail-capable ferries?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes.
Question No. 4—Justice
4. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government’s introduced the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, which will make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years. Stalking and harassment pose a threat of serious harm to victims and can be a precursor to more serious and violent crime. We want to ensure that the harm victims experience is recognised and prosecuted effectively, as the current settings do not adequately respond.
David MacLeod: What does the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill do?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the amendment bill principally combines stalking and harassment into one offence whereby if a perpetrator engages in a pattern of specified acts to another person on three separate occasions within a 12-month period that is known or likely to cause fear and distress, they will be liable for convictions of up to five years’ imprisonment.
David MacLeod: What specified acts or behaviours are covered by the stalking bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the new offence of stalking and harassment will capture acts that include a stalker watching and loitering around their victims, tracking or communicating via the use of technology, damaging or interfering with property, and other less tangible harms like undermining the reputation or relationships of victims. The current criminal system does not adequately respond to modern stalking methods, and this legislation will.
David MacLeod: What are the consequences of a stalking offence as proposed in the new stalking bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, those convicted of stalking and harassment will be liable for up to five years’ imprisonment, as opposed to the current three years for harassment. Two new aggravating factors at sentencing will be introduced to strengthen consequences for stalkers in certain circumstances. We’re also making changes to prevent a defendant charged with stalking from cross-examining an alleged victim. There’s been a lot of talk about this for a number of years, and I’m very pleased that tonight the House will be having the first reading of this important legislation.
Question No. 5—Māori Development
5. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: What measures, if any, has the Government taken to ensure the financial sustainability of Whakaata Māori, and have these measures been adequate?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Whakaata Māori has received nearly $48 million in Budget 2024. The Minister of Finance and I, as shareholding Ministers, have issued a letter of expectation to the Whakaata Māori board. The board chief executive and management of Whakaata Māori are responsible for its financial sustainability, and it’s important to understand that the sustainability of any media organisation is dependent on its ability to meet audience needs and providing relevant content on platforms that can be accessed by anyone anywhere at any time.
Hūhana Lyndon: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the Crown’s relationship with Māori is “probably worse” than a year ago, and is the Whakaata Māori news bulletin ending tomorrow after 20 years going to improve or worsen that relationship?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that pātai. The selection or the choice of moving content online is one that is at the discretion of the Whakaata Māori board and/or management, and we’ll leave that discretion with them. But I tautoko and have great confidence that the board and management will make those decisions very carefully.
Hūhana Lyndon: Why couldn’t the Minister find a few million dollars for Whakaata Māori’s budget, like the last Government did, or are the only broadcast Te Reo channel and te ao Māori evening news just the acceptable casualties of the Government’s cost-cutting drive?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I won’t be trifling today with the chicanery of financial conjecture. Funding for broadcasting is a challenge that Minister Metekōura—Goldsmith—and I share, and as I said earlier, media organisations need to meet audience needs in providing relevant content on platforms that can be accessed by anyone anywhere at any time, and my sincere hope is that there is more content generation in te reo Māori, ensuring across platforms, as we’ve seen quite regularly, from people such as Te Aorere Pewhairangi and his magnificent effort at the Olympics.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t make a habit of doing a point of order when parties are asking questions. However, it is the second time I have heard that Minister use the word “chicanery” in this House—
SPEAKER: Used the word—sorry?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Chicanery. The first time, I didn’t know what it meant, so I looked it up. And I looked it up again just to make sure that I’m clear, but it means “deception”. Now, surely accusing a member of deception is unparliamentary. There are clear rules around other versions of that word to suggest the same thing. I’m not asking to make this a big deal, but if we’re wanting to hold up the standards, some guidance as to whether that is an appropriate term.
SPEAKER: There used to be a thing called the “Blue Book” of words that were unparliamentary. It went missing some time in the early 2000s. I think Speakers ever since have been reluctant to rule specific words out, although Speaker Mallard did rule out some combinations of words. I would just suggest to the Minister that perhaps he find another way to suggest it, but I think the term “chicanery” does imply something far greater than just the intention of his commentary.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: was the questioner right when she said in her supplementary question that there was only one te reo Māori station?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Of course, there has been Te Reo as one of the Māori television channels that has also moved online, or will move online shortly, at the choice and selection, discretion, of the Whakaata Māori board and management.
Hūhana Lyndon: Does the Minister accept the Wai 11 claim that the Māori language is an essential part of Māori culture and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession, and, if so, the loss of the broadcast Te Reo channel being of the Government’s underfunding—is it acceptable to the Minister?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: We continue to commit to the funding track that was provided by the previous Government and, in addition to that, we have also provided new money for te reo Māori revitalisation through the form of kapa haka.
Hūhana Lyndon: Did he make any effort as the Minister for Māori Development to find funding for Whakaata Māori to avoid the savage funding cuts to Māori media, or was it all out of his hands?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I continue to work very diligently and professionally with my colleagues to ensure that we have prudent fiscal spending across all things Budget, but also to recognise the importance of te reo Māori as a taonga in our communities and also within the Maihi Karauna and Maihi Māori.
Question No. 6—Police
6. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Police: Does he accept the findings of the New Zealand Police in their Understanding Policing Delivery report that Māori men are stopped, tasered, and prosecuted by the Police at disproportionately higher rates than any other group as a result of structural racism?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: That was not the finding of the New Zealand Police.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he accept that this same structural racism impacts how the police enforce the gang—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the Minister’s answer, I want to know whether or not, when that question was put in, there was any evidence to back it up, rather than just make a claim which we are now about to find out is false?
SPEAKER: Thank you. I’ll just—[Clerk hands report to Speaker] Is this it? This was what was supplied?
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It’s the Understanding Policing Delivery (UPD) report.
SPEAKER: Sorry? [Seeks advice from Clerk] The Rt Hon Winston Peters makes a good point and asks a fair question. The question has been allowed, but the answer has made it clear that that is not a Police document. Is that correct?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: If I can clarify, it was not the finding of the New Zealand Police. It was an independent panel that made findings, not the New Zealand Police that made the findings.
SPEAKER: OK. I now understand.
Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker. So the report in question is the Understanding Policing Delivery report that was conducted by an independent panel—however, with the consent of the Police, who opened up their processes and everything so that that panel could investigate it. So that point doesn’t stand, because the Police were fully involved in the Understanding Policing Delivery report, and the Police Commissioner said that too.
SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that actually was the point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: We don’t want to carry on with this too long.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, but I just want it very, very clear. The question reads: “Does he accept the findings of the New Zealand Police [Force]”. That’s what that question is caught by—no evidence to back it up and this question should be ruled out.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. There is a reliance when we come to the House that these questions have been qualified. There was nothing that came back to suggest that there was anything wrong with it. The report, again, to emphasise, is the Understanding Policing Delivery (UPD) report. That is the report that is at question here. If there was a problem with the question, that should have been brought to our attention before we came to the House.
Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. There’s nothing really to be done here. The point is the question’s been accepted, it’s on notice, it’s been asked. The Minister disagrees that that is the finding of the report—that is an answer. That addresses the question. She says that is not what the report says. There’s plenty of opportunity to investigate whether or not that’s actually true, or various different things. The question should just proceed.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Last call on this one.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m more than happy to answer the questions; I was just clarifying the position of the Police.
SPEAKER: Yep. And it’s just been pointed out to me that while I do intervene if there is controversy about a question at the time of its lodgment, that was not the case today, and this report is on the Police website and has been there since March of this year.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he accept that this same structure impacts how the Police enforce the gang legislation, as we have seen recently in Wellington and Auckland, where rangatahi Māori have been profiled and arrested at gunpoint on suspicion of gang affiliations that were never proven?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: What I will say is that the UPD report was commissioned under the previous Government by the former commissioner. As stated, it was an independent panel and the findings of the report are not the Police’s. However, the authors of the report have said themselves that the report is not indicative of structural racism or bias in the Police. The research states that the findings show that the age of an offender, prior convictions, recent and long-term history of proceedings, and gang membership were significant factors that influence the likelihood of prosecution. We have a world-class police force, who do an outstanding job, and it is a disservice to them to have a narrative that suggests our police are anything but the consummate professionals they are—the 14 percent of New Zealand police that are themselves Māori, the enormous initiatives that invest in Māori across this motu. We continue to provide the services. What is ignored in this narrative is the 60 percent of victims who are themselves Māori. What is ignored in this House is the fact that Māori are twice as likely to be the victims of crime, and that is the narrative that that member should be considering. Thank you. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to settle itself.
Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he think that it is appropriate for armed police to barricade the road and intimidate and harass whānau attending the tangi of a loved one, to enforce the gang patch ban?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think that is a very wrong and flawed reflection of the response of police at Māori tangi. They work tirelessly to engage directly with the whānau, directly with the marae, directly with the kaumātua to ensure sensitivities are maintained. But what they will not ignore is the fact that the rest of the community need to be able to go about their business without the fear of intimidation, and they will continue to police in that manner.
Question No. 7—Agriculture
7. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he seen on export revenue forecasts for the primary sector?
Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Today, along with Ministers Jones, Hoggard, Patterson, and Grigg, I released the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report, which shows that the hard work and innovation of our world-leading farmers, growers, and foresters is paying off. Today’s report shows New Zealand’s high quality, sustainable, and environmentally food and fibre exports are forecast to hit $56.9 billion by 30 June 2025 and climb to a record $58.3 billion the following year, demonstrating the farming and primary sector’s significant contribution to the New Zealand economy.
Mark Cameron: What growth is driving this rebound in export revenue?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Export growth in 2024-25 is expected to be driven by strong global demand, tight global supply for high quality, safe, and sustainable food and fibre products, and the hard work of our farmers. I’m pleased to share with the House that dairy exports are forecast to grow 10 percent to $25.5 billion by mid-2025. Meat and wool revenues are expected to rise to $11.4 billion. Horticulture has had a fantastic year following last year’s cyclones and surges to a projected record of $8 billion. Kiwifruit alone is set to exceed $3 billion for the first time. Foresty is expected to rebound by 4 percent to $6 billion, and seafood export revenue is forecast to increase to $2.2 billion in the year to 30 June 2025.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What actions has the Government taken in the past 12 months to support the growth of primary exports?
Hon TODD McCLAY: The primary sector is the backbone of our economy, responsible for over 80 percent of our goods exports, and it will continue to play a key role in the Government’s ambitious target to double exports by value over 10 years. We’ve ended the war on farming and are focused on unlocking opportunity, including bringing the new free-trade agreement into force many months earlier than expected.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. For the second time this week, this Minister has used a question from his own side to make a statement about the previous Government that is totally inaccurate. To accuse any Government of being on a war with any industry surely cannot be in order.
SPEAKER: That is correct, and I didn’t hear that. If that was the case, then I think a withdrawal and apology is appropriate.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Speaking to the point of order, I said we’ve ended the war on farming; I didn’t say who had conducted the war.
SPEAKER: Every day there is a concern about questions from the Opposition that might have some sort of supposition in them that might lead to a conclusion—and there’s another word I’m searching for but I can’t quite get into my head. But, in any event, the mirrored conditions apply to answering questions as well. I think it would be appropriate to withdraw and apologise for the remark about being at war with farmers—or ending the war with farmers. It implies there was a war and we all know what that means.
Hon TODD McCLAY: I withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, all over the world in sound democracies, debates are often very, very heated, and they are sometimes very, very personal, but it’s been part and parcel of the theatre of debate and the essentiality of getting to the truth of things. With the greatest respect, sir, I’ve never seen so many people who can’t take any criticism at all or any question on their past performance, and that’s not the way this Parliament should be in future, it’s not the way it should be now, and it never was the way it used to be in the past. If members can’t take the heat of this place, then get out of the parliamentary kitchen.
SPEAKER: Thank you; that’s an interesting point. Before I hear anything else, let me just say this. The question that is often being asked by the Opposition is: is it appropriate for the Government to use its own questions to attack the previous Government? Quite clearly, it’s not. When it comes to answers, you will have found over time that I have ruled that if Ministers in their answers talk about situations they’ve inherited, talk about situations they are changing from a previous Government, they are fine. It’s the nature of debate and questions and answers that causes the problem.
Hon Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker, this has become a theme from Mr McAnulty—that he wishes that we should not discuss the context prior to the 2023 election in any way, shape, or form. There has become a verboten period of history—the six years of the last Labour-led Government—which, if described in this House in accurate terms, is somehow too much for Mr McAnulty, who becomes very sensitive and issues multiple points of order. That cannot be the basis of debate in this House. This is a robust place where we talk about facts, history, and reality.
Hon Chris Bishop: I just want to make the point, sir, that question time is partly about seeking answers from the Opposition, and it’s always been a place with a bit of flamboyance and a bit of political theatre. I’ve been around this place long enough to have sat through the last six years, in which members opposite who were then Minsters said over and over again things like, “Nine years of neglect. Nine years of this, nine years of that.”, all of which we obviously disagreed with, but you let it go through to the keeper because it’s a bit of political rhetoric, and that is part and parcel of question time. So I’m just saying, quite clearly there has to be a bit of a balance. We don’t want to make this place so sterile that it’s just about facts back and forward and there’s no rhetoric and no fun to the place.
SPEAKER: OK, I get the point.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that—
SPEAKER: Just give me a moment. The first point I want to make is that it’s not appropriate to make personal references in general debate, in answers to questions, or in points of order. While people might want to make an observation about the content of points of order, it’s not appropriate to personalise that in the way that we’ve just seen, and I don’t want any more of that. I have ruled on this matter, but if you want to add to that—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, it’s important to note that there is a clear distinction between questions from the Opposition and questions by the Government. You made that point. Now we’ve had two points of order which are questioning that and turning it into a broader debate. This is not about the Opposition not wanting a robust exchange in this House; it’s about following the clear guidance that you have given everyone. I would like to think, in fairness, we only raise points of order when we deem it appropriate. If we wanted to make a political point, we’d be doing it all day.
SPEAKER: And quite possibly you just have, but that’s a reasonable position. I accept that, but I did not take those points of order as being in any way a reflection in this direction. I made the point that it can’t be personalised and won’t be taken in the future. We’ll go back to the question that was asked, for a start, and then we’ll politely answer it.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What actions has the Government taken in the past 12 months to support the growth of primary exports?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the primary sector is the backbone of our economy, responsible for over 80 percent of our goods exports, and will continue to play a key role in achieving our ambitious target of doubling exports by value over 10 years. So far this year, we’ve brought the EU free-trade agreement into force many months earlier than expected, saving horticulture $46 million in tariffs; completed the trade deals with the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council, meaning, from day one over 10 years, 99 percent of exports entering tariff-free; and eliminated $733 million in non-tariff barriers. As a farmer in the South Island said to me last week, it feels like when a war is over.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What has contributed to this result?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, today’s positive outlook is a direct result of the 360,000 hard-working men and women who get up every day and go to work in New Zealand’s food and fibre sectors. Our rural workforce leads the world in innovation and adaptability, out-competing larger economies and international players. Our farmers, growers, fishers, and foresters are the best in the world, and on behalf of every member of this House, may I thank them for their hard work and their commitment this year and wish them a merry Christmas.
Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister, how does—
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order. Just before we went into the previous point of order exchange, I do remember hearing the Minister actually withdraw and apologise for his comments—comments that he literally repeated in subsequent answers to supplementary questions. I do want to bring to your attention the point of withdrawing and apologising for something you’re just going to basically repeat immediately after.
SPEAKER: Well, I have to inform the member that a past member in this House made it very clear, in both document form and contribution in the House, that words matter. The way in which the words were used by the Hon McClay may have referred to the comment made earlier, but were in an entirely different context. That is the difficulty for the Chair in these matters. Look, the member should read the Hansard and he’ll understand what I said.
Hon Shane Jones: In relation to export revenue forecasts, how have matters improved since significant natural areas have been taken away, unworkable water regulations, other impediments imposed by the last regime on the viability of farming—how has the stripping away of those impediments improved revenue forecasts?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, farmers tell me they no longer have to spend up to 30 percent of their time in the office filling out paperwork. They can innovate; they can work hard; they can continue to care about their environmental obligations; and they can produce the world’s highest-quality, safest food, fisheries, and forestry product to sell to the world. Consumers around the world are willing to pay New Zealand farmers more for what they produce. That’s why they have a coalition Government that backs them.
Hon Shane Jones: In relation to revenue forecasts and the $600 million of earnings associated with aquaculture, how does the extension of all resource management permits for marine farming until 2050 improve the viability of the aquaculture sector, as opposed to being embroiled in red tape, as was the case in the last regime?
SPEAKER: That question was all good—it would have had a great answer—until the last part, which I can’t sit here and know about red tape. All I can assume is that it is a dig at some other party—and in the context of today, not helpful.
Hon TODD McCLAY: I can answer without the last bit—I didn’t hear it.
SPEAKER: The Minister should answer.
Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you very much. Well, I know Minister Jones is a champion of many things rural, and particularly the fisheries sector. Can I say that certainty is now being given to aquaculture in New Zealand so they can get on and do what we need them to do, which is produce high quality products, continue to care about the environment, and produce high quality food that we can send around the world for consumers, as well as Mr Jones, to enjoy.
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The reference in a robust chamber of debate during question time to the existence of red rape is beyond cavil; it’s beyond dispute. It’s not unreasonable to state that this Government has passed laws liberating the rules and regulations pertaining to a key sector. The fact that we’re liberalising is evidence that there was red tape—it’s a fact.
SPEAKER: Thank you for that.
Question No. 8—Children
8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: To what extent does she accept responsibility for the outcomes of Oranga Tamariki’s actions in relation to community provider funding cuts and military-style academies?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I refer the member to the Cabinet Manual. I am accountable to this House for ensuring that Oranga Tamariki carries out its functions properly and efficiently. In terms of the actions of individual public servants, this may be a matter for the chief executive, or in the case of the chief executive, the Public Service Commissioner. To be clear, there have not been funding cuts overall. Oranga Tamariki received more money in Budget 2024 than it returned. Some provider contracts have expired and not been renewed. Some other contracts have been reduced and others have been increased. Oranga Tamariki allocated over $500 million in contracted funding last year, and I’m advised they will do so again this year.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she responsible for making sure that Oranga Tamariki meets her expectation “that there will be no gaps in service provision” for children in care or who have come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My expectations are that we are focusing where there are gaps and trying to make sure that we plug those gaps, which was the whole point of relooking at how we contract so that we do it better, not like it used to be done where we actually accepted the fact that money was sitting in bank accounts and not being spent on our kids. Contracts were underutilised, contracts were not being delivered properly, and we’re making sure that that is better.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she take responsibility for the thousands of highly vulnerable children and their families, 70 percent of whom are known to Oranga Tamariki, who will in just a few weeks lose Stand Tū Māia’s specialised trauma treatment and intensive wraparound family support and alternative to statutory care because Oranga Tamariki has suddenly cut their funding mid-contract due to her budget decisions, and, if not, why?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I disagree with the assertions that have been made in that question, I understand this matter is currently before the courts, so I’m not going to comment on that specific contract.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it correct that she received a letter from Stand Tū Māia’s chief executive, Fiona Inkpen, that told her that Stand Tū Māia acts as a fence at the top of the cliff, and that “The impact of removing the fence will be that these children and families are failed once again, trust will die, and I do not say this lightly, but potentially so will some of them.”, and, if so, why is she not taking control of the situation?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have said in the previous answer that this matter is before the courts, so I’m not going to comment on that specific contract. Yes, I did receive a letter, but the reality is that what we were doing was not working. There needed to be changes within Oranga Tamariki to reset their focus to make sure that we are getting the best results for our young people. This will mean sometimes contracts won’t stay the same and this will mean that it will upset some contractors. But does it mean it’s not the right thing to do? No, it doesn’t.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she take responsibility for the situation described by a front-line social worker who says, “People are becoming more disheartened and looking more exhausted as we try to do more with less under the cuts. Our sector is at risk of major burnout. I have never in the 18 years of being a social worker seen things this bad. I have become completely disillusioned and disheartened with what this Government is not only doing but getting away with.”; if not, why?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t know who that comment came from and I can’t speak to how they’re feeling, but what I would say is we have been given something that was incredibly shambolic to try and fix. This has been a problem for many, many years within Oranga Tamariki. It couldn’t continue the way it was. Report after report after report was telling us we were not meeting the national care standards for our young people. I am determined to make sure that all young people in the care of Oranga Tamariki are as safe as possible and I’m going to continue to do that.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is there anything new, to her knowledge, since I last asked in the House, regarding how many military-style academy pilot participants in total have allegedly reoffended, including offending not involving the police, or breached the conditions of their in-community transition plan?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. But what I would say is it is incredibly disappointing that the Opposition is so eager to exploit these young people and the work that they’re trying to do to better themselves. They conveniently forget that these are young people that have volunteered to be part of a programme to try and turn their lives around. Singling out these nine young men and making a soap opera out of their lives for political gain is disgusting. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: We’ll all just calm down.
Question No. 9—Prime Minister
9. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government’s progress?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, yesterday, I was pleased to announce the Rt Hon Winston Peters as the new Minister for Rail, someone of great experience, knowledge, and an all-round humble and good guy to work with. He said he would take on the role and told me, in the words of the Little River Band, “Hang on, help is on its way”. This new ministerial role shows how important rail is in our country and how seriously we take its future. However, rail is just one example of the Government’s focus on infrastructure and building our economy all around this country.
Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government’s commitment to restoring law and order?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Government is delivering on its promise to empower our police and courts and not our criminals. We’re on the side of the victims. We focus on victims, not offenders. We focus on community safety, not cultural reports; on personal responsibility, not colonisation or victimhood. Ministers Mitchell and Goldsmith are doing a great job at restoring law and order, and recent data showed there are fewer victims of violent crimes.
Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government’s focus on Pharmac funding?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, Minister Seymour has led the work on Pharmac and medicines, a key feature in both coalition agreements. Not only have we produced Pharmac’s largest ever budget, with a boost of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing up the $1.774 billion fiscal cliff which we inherited, but, more recently, we have improved access to medicines by requiring Medsafe to approve pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand. We are getting funding for Pharmac for the medicines that Kiwis desperately need.
Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government’s coalition commitments in the education space?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as part of our coalition agreement, Minister Stanford has recently announced that the Relationships and Sexuality Education guidelines will be removed from schools by the end of term 1 next year. The Education Review Office report was critical of these guidelines, and these guidelines will be replaced with better, more suitable, and more appropriate material. Minister Stanford has also led the way—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What, from the Stone Age?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —in ensuring schools are focused on educational achievement and focused on the three Rs. For those people shouting out over there, who just got here five seconds ago, our kids are going to be educated again, not indoctrinated.
Tanya Unkovich: What update can he provide on the Government’s achievements in regional development, customs, and foreign affairs?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Regional development Minister Shane Jones has established a $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund to revitalise provincial New Zealand. Progress has been rapid. Within the Regional Infrastructure Fund, there has already been $167.7 million in approved funding. He’s announced 15 regional summits and held 10. The remaining five are planned for early 2025. In completing these, the Minister has been up and down the country, or, in his words, “I’ve been everywhere, man.”
Hon Paul Goldsmith: In regard to the progress on restoring law and order, does he agree that it makes more sense for a Government to focus on reducing the number of victims of crime than it is on focusing on reducing the prison population, irrespective of what’s going on in our communities?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a superb question and it’s possibly the first principle of sound criminology.
Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety
10. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that the Government is “delivering for all workers”; if so, how is reintroducing pay deductions for partial strikes delivering for workers?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Yes, the Government is delivering for all workers by setting fair rules so that businesses and workers alike can thrive and realise their full potential. It was everyday members of the public, including workers, who suffered because the previous Government removed pay deductions for partial strikes. Because of partial strikes, workers have had to face delays to their medical care, they’ve been left waiting on train platforms, they’ve had to unexpectedly miss work and take care of their kids because teachers refused to teach certain year groups. The Government is reintroducing pay deductions for partial strikes because too often it is the public who suffer as a result. If a worker turns up to work but refuses to do a key part of their job, intentionally causing disruption to customers, employers should be able to deduct their pay. It is a sensible, proportionate change that should minimise potential disruption to public services. That is fairness; something that Labour used to believe in.
SPEAKER: I think the last part of that answer is not part of the spirit of question time. The other point I’d make is that was a very, very long answer. I know that the Minister himself is generally much more concise and would perhaps want to protect his reputation by editing some of the answers in front of him.
Camilla Belich: Does she stand by her statement that an employee’s right to strike “should not continue without consequence”, and, if so, is she comfortable with those consequences, including being paid less than the minimum wage?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: To the first part of the question, yes.
Camilla Belich: Is she comfortable that under her proposed bill, nurses, teachers, and other front-line workers could have their pay deducted for wearing a t-shirt?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: All these situations will depend on individual situations as to what is in the employment contract. Now, I know there was an example many years ago where St John workers were penalised for refusing to wear high-vis vests over these t-shirts. That was a health and safety issue. Often, people will be required to wear certain items, for their job for health and safety reasons. So it will be in their individual contract agreements, and that will set down what is required.
Camilla Belich: Does the Minister believe that workers should have their pay docked for not completing a task that is outside the scope of their core role?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Again, this will be as part of what is in their employment agreement. What is in their employment agreement will stipulate what it is that their work requires. If they have an argument with what they’re being required to do, then they are able to go to the Employment Relations Authority.
Camilla Belich: Does she accept that this bill penalises workers for exercising their freedom of speech?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: No, I don’t believe it does at all—sorry, on behalf of the Minister, no, she does not. People are allowed to have free speech, but there are consequences. If you do not do your job, you do not get paid.
Camilla Belich: Would a worker, under her bill, who turned up for work—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on, wait on—wait. Your own guys talking away there—unbelievable. It’s like a choir.
Camilla Belich: Would a worker, under her bill, who turned up to work wearing a political pin be considered to be partially striking, and, if so, has she told David Seymour that these changes won’t be retrospective?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Oh, I can recall a situation where that did occur recently, and there were consequences for that action.
SPEAKER: I should just congratulate the member who just resumed his seat on his excellent memory.
Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
11. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps has the Government recently taken to enhance competition and boost economic productivity?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It doesn’t take an expert to know that competition is not working as well as it should be in New Zealand, and the effects are painful for Kiwis. Lack of competition means less choice, less innovation, and, usually, higher prices. That’s why the Government is progressing an ambitious review of New Zealand’s competition law to ensure we have sufficiently tough settings to deter monopolies, duopolies, and cosy oligopolies from forming in the first place.
Rima Nakhle: What are the key components of this competition review?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The review comprises two main components: first, updating the competition settings in the Commerce Act—these settings have not been reviewed for over two decades and have allowed duopolies, like we see in the grocery sector, to occur—and, second, we’re reviewing the governance and effectiveness of the Commerce Commission to ensure it is a formidable, commercially savvy regulator.
Rima Nakhle: Why is a review of the competition settings in the Commerce Act necessary?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I think we can all reflect on mergers and acquisitions that, in hindsight, should not have happened. The current law failed to prevent this. The review will consider our mergers regime to prevent excessive market consolidation from happening further. Another important component is the inability for market participants to collaborate in the genuine best interests of consumers. An example of this is the inability of the banks to collaborate to provide banking services to small provincial towns.
Rima Nakhle: Why is a review of the Commerce Commission necessary?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I want to acknowledge the work of the Commerce Commission. The work that they do is very important. That’s why we need to make sure that there is sufficient commercial skills to shape its decision making and it is fit for purpose, given the regulatory role has expanded significantly over recent times. We’ve appointed Dame Paula Rebstock to lead the review, alongside former Australian competition professor Allan Fels, and David Hunt.
Question No. 12—Children
12. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: What changes, if any, will she consider making to ensure that tamariki and rangatahi in Aotearoa are safe?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I’ll do more than just consider; I’ve actually done things—that is why this Government is repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. To ensure the safety and wellbeing and best interests of young children, a new Child Protection Investigation Unit is being set up to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in care, and I’ve introduced public reporting on key performance indicators for the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. And we are giving Oranga Tamariki the power to search people entering youth justice facilities to prevent the introduction of harmful contraband. What I won’t consider doing, because I know it won’t keep young people safe, is sharing this information online about young people in attempts for political gain.
Tamatha Paul: Why does she think that some young people in the boot camp pilot have reoffended despite the highest levels of intervention and investment?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can’t speak to individuals who have allegedly reoffended. But what I can say is young people who sit in a youth justice facility—the research shows us 88 percent of young people re-offend within 12 months of release from a standard youth justice facility that doesn’t have this extra intensive wraparound support. I’m not willing to give up on those 88 percent, and I don’t think the Opposition should too.
Tamatha Paul: Does she accept that akin to the young serious offender declarations, labelling young people as “the most serious offenders” and similar language can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and, if so, will she and her Cabinet colleagues reconsider the way that they talk about these young people publicly?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m actually not going to take a lecture about how we speak about these young people from that member. That member, over and over again, and the Opposition, has used this House to drag those young people through the mud every week. And so I’m not going to take that, actually.
Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question asked earnestly.
SPEAKER: It may well have been, but the answer was equally earnestly delivered. Do you have another question?
Tamatha Paul: How can we work together to make sure that Oranga Tamariki are the best that they can be and that the rights, protection, and safety of tamariki comes before everything else?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That’s what I’ve been doing for the past 12 months as Minister—working with Oranga Tamariki to make sure that they are doing everything that they possibly can to pull up the standards that weren’t to my expectation when I took over as Minister. And we’re working very hard to get better every day.
Tamatha Paul: What can we in this House, across political parties, do to uphold and protect the mana of our mokopuna, working together?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Opposition could stop using these young people as a political tool, for starters.
SPEAKER: That’s—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, you never did, did you, Minister? You’ve never done it, have you, Karen?
SPEAKER: Please—over there. That concludes oral questions. We’ll now leave silently if we have to.
I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.
Bills
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 3 Tenancy Tribunal and administrative matters (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, when the committee suspended at 1 p.m., we were debating Part 3 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 30 to 39, “Tenancy Tribunal and administrative matters”, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is, again, that Part 3 stand part.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Madam Chair, if you’ll permit me, before I make this contribution, can I just clarify something? Are we able to debate Schedules 1 and 2 now?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Excellent. Before I get on to the schedules—because I don’t believe that it’s actually been touched on yet—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, the schedules have been touched on prior to—your issue may not have been, but we have—
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Sorry, that’s what I meant—that’s what I meant. The one thing that I did want clarity on—and I’m pleased, frankly, that the Minister of Housing is back in the chair, because I was hoping that the previous Minister in the chair would have treated this issue seriously. I think there could be serious issues arising from this if it’s not addressed properly.
What we’re talking about is clause 31(3): the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute in regards to issues of family violence. Now, for the Minister’s benefit, I made the point that we do not dispute this; in fact, we support it. We think there are grounds for it to be potentially strengthened. My concern, which I haven’t had a direct response about, is that if the tribunal is not going to rule on these disputes, what happens? The tenant in this situation—a very serious situation—is required to provide qualifying evidence. If the landlord disputes that, and therefore the tenant isn’t able to take advantage of the special provisions available to them in this bill, what do they do?
What we did hear from the Minister was that the Government doesn’t believe that it’s the tribunal’s job to assess this matter, but in the absence of the tribunal, what avenues does the tenant have available to them? Given the situation, Minister, I think it’s important that we simply don’t leave them in the lurch. Now, it’s fine if the Government’s position is that another body will deal with these disputes. In the absence of that explanation, the only conclusion we’ve got it that there isn’t a body to deal with these sorts of disputes. Again, given the seriousness of this, and the circumstances under which someone or someone’s dependant finds themselves when they’re a victim of family violence, some reassurance is required here.
Now, as I said in the last contribution, when I last asked this question, this could be a simple explanation. If it is, I think it’s a shame that the previous Minister in the chair didn’t just stand up and explain it. They didn’t, and so I’m hoping now, particularly with the change in Minister, that we’ll get a serious answer.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am interested in clause 33, which inserts new section 91AB, and that gives the tribunal the power to make decisions on the papers. In terms of speed and efficiency, I’m all for it, and it’s obviously a discretion to decide a matter on the papers, but I’m interested, really, for the Minister of Housing to put on the record the basis upon which that discretion should be exercised.
I just want to explain why I think that’s important. The fact of the matter is that landlords, by their endeavours, have shown that they’ve got a bit of nous—they’re a bit savvy—and, say, putting their case for damage or whatever on paper and in writing is not going to be a challenge in most cases. Tenants, on the other hand, are more likely to be less adept at expressing themselves in writing. I see recently men fell down the literacy scales in New Zealand, so maybe blokes are in an even worse position. But my point is this: will the tribunal officer, the referee, have regard to what they see, and, in particular, will they call an oral hearing when they see that there may be a problem of literacy or expression or capability? I think it would be really good for the Minister to just take a call and essentially outline what the parliamentary intent is around how that discretion should be exercised.
In particular, where there appears to be an imbalance of abilities, there should be a presumption in favour of an oral hearing. That may be something to note, as well, that this certainly gives that ability to decide on the papers, but is it a presumption that it’s decided on the papers or is it a presumption that you do an in-person hearing? I do think that, in terms of the pretty fundamental natural-justice principle of a fair hearing, the presumption should be an oral hearing unless it can be clearly shown that everything you need to know is there on the papers and no one’s under a disadvantage as a result of it.
I’d really appreciate it if the Minister could set that out, because it’s actually quite an important point, whether you default to an oral hearing or you default to an on-the-papers hearing. I won’t take all my time, because I think I’ve expressed the question pretty clearly.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, and thank you to the members for explaining what was apparently being discussed before the break when I wasn’t here. Let me deal with Duncan Webb’s question first. The change we’re making is to allow Tenancy Tribunal issues to be dealt with on the papers, but there is the ability to do oral hearings—I’m advised that that is essentially standard practice for a range of tribunals which have that discretion, and, clearly, in complicated cases you would want the tribunal to do hearings. I envisage the papers-only hearings to be relatively simple matters. I’m also advised that any termination has to have a hearing rather than be dealt with on the papers, and I think that is wise. In relation to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s issues—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Excuse me, Minister—could you bring the mike a bit closer please?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, my apologies, my apologies.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You good? OK. In relation to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s questions—so, look, what’s happening here is the previous Government amended the Residential Tenancies Act in a way that I think all of Parliament supports around family violence. I’m advised that the change being made through this amendment bill deals with the issue of dependants of victims of family violence, which was not picked up during the 2020 changes—could be 2019, might be wrong. I think it might have been 2020—there were about three different bills at one point going through. That wasn’t picked up, so it’s just a minor clarificatory change to deal with that, but the rest of it is in substance the same.
In relation to points around evidence, that’s dealt with in Schedule 2—types of qualifying evidence: protection orders, police safety orders, and charging documents. There’s no intention for the tribunal to get involved. The tribunal is not going to replicate the role of the police or the courts or safety orders or anything like that. It’s not their role, unsurprisingly, but, clearly, there’s an interaction with the tribunal in respect of that type of evidence and the written notice. Actually, as I think about it, the issue of the dependant—I’m fairly sure I had a constituency case around that. There aren’t a vast number of these cases, but, sadly, domestic violence is a fact of life in our communities—or family violence—and so I think it’s a sensible change which I hope will meet with the committee’s approval.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister the Hon Chris Bishop for his answers there. I want to draw the Minister’s attention, if I may, to clause 34 and clause 35, where we are—and the Minister talked very briefly there about life, constituent matters.
Those particular clauses talk about the provision of email and about when it’s deemed that an email has been received. I wonder if the Minister would consider, given the challenges that some have electronically, given the challenges that some of our constituents have with respect to email addresses—and I, for one, can give an example whereby I’d been sent an email which was actually of importance and, through no fault of my own, was put into a spam inbox. Something that wasn’t seen by me for a wee bit there caused quite bit of a—we were able to sort it out, but it wasn’t something that was done within the time frame that’s being offered here in these clauses.
Just the final point on this particular matter is, given the evolution of communications through our communities, to our constituents, to people in general, whether or not an email is really the only standard that we’re setting here. Communications with our people are complex, they’re varied. Emails change, emails come, emails go—I know a number of constituents in housing matters that I dealt with as a local MP would not give their work email address simply because of the nature of their work and the high volume of traffic that they get through their emails. They would give a different one, which was probably something a little bit more personal—perhaps a Gmail account—and, quite often, the communication was missed.
That’s the point I’m trying to make here: whether or not the Minister, in his considerations with this particular bill, look towards those real-life matters. I know it might sound trivial to some, but for many of our people who find themselves renting, who find themselves with these kinds of agreements, these are matters that can cause huge stress and can simply be fixed if the Minister is of a mind to consider a greater scope of communication.
Also, replacement section 136(8), inserted by clause 35, references the time of 5 p.m. on a day, and I wonder if we can probably, perhaps, be a bit more specific here and talk about whether or not it’s Monday to Friday. For some, that’s what they consider to be a working week; for others, actually, they work shifts, they work evenings, and this is the reality of our people who find themselves renting.
I’ll leave these for the consideration of the Minister in the hope that we can look towards making sure that the scope of this bill—and the fact is it’s going to continue through the House—actually reflects the lives of our people and not simply the bubble of Parliament.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni—the Minister’s just taking some advice here.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): OK, that’s fine. Hopefully, the Minister of Housing can have one ear listening to what I’m about to raise and questions that will come of that.
Just referring to clause 31, in Part 3—I know some questions have been raised about this clause already, but mine is different. Replacement section 77(7B), inserted by clause 31, says, “The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute so far as it raises a question as to whether, in respect of a tenant who gives notice accompanied by qualifying evidence under section 56B,—(a) the tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises; or (b) the tenant’s dependant has been a victim of family violence while residing at the premises with the tenant.” This is part of what we do support in this bill, this particular provision, and it’s really difficult given that there’s another part that we cannot support.
However, I wanted to ask the Minister whether there was consideration by him and by his officials for extending it beyond family violence. Of course we take family violence seriously, and we are very relieved that this provision is in the bill, actually, but people live in different circumstances, and there are a lot of people who aren’t necessarily family that are living in the same houses and could be vulnerable due to violence that is committed against them as well. I wonder whether the officials and the Minister gave consideration for just having a more blanket provision that allowed for tenants to exit their tenancy if there was violence occurring or if they were victims of violence or if their children were victims of violence in homes where the perpetrator wasn’t necessarily a family member. You can see that this would be an area that can occur. However, they’re excluded just because of the fact that they’re not blood relatives. I wanted the Minister just to respond to that and let us know whether or not that was considered.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I’ll deal with that one first, then come back to the point around clause 34. It wasn’t a focus of policy design as part of this amendment bill. The key changes to the bill have already been canvassed around pet bonds, and there’s also a range of other amendments, some of which have been canvassed—more tidying-up provisions to our tenancy law. The whole Act’s pretty out of date to be honest, as members, I think, are nodding and agree. It was passed in 1986, so, at some point, Parliament will have to do a rewrite, but there are some other things to do before then. We didn’t consider that. I’m happy to go away and have a look at it. As the member knows, these changes were made by the previous Government—I think, with broad support—as I indicated just a few moments ago, adding the dependants in there. The regulations have now come into effect relatively recently, from memory. I think we want to see how they bed in, but I’m not close-minded to further changes.
In relation to this email address point, I’m advised that section 91A of the Act, which clause 34 amends, prescribes how documents can be served on tenants following an application to the Tenancy Tribunal after the tenancy has terminated. The bill enables the use of an email address, where the tenancy was ended more than two months ago, if one has been appropriately provided by the tenant. The reason is, obviously, that email is likely to be a much more reliable method for service than a physical address for contacting a tenant who no longer lives at that rental property. The requirement that the email address was either provided as an address for service or used by the tenant, depending on how long ago the tenancy ended, ensures the email address used is likely to remain appropriate and current. To give you an example, if the landlord files the application more than two years after the tenancy ended, the email address must have been used to communicate with the landlord, or be otherwise supplied in writing, within the previous two years.
The bill doesn’t make any change to the existing time limit on applying to the tribunal for a tenancy that has ended. That is set in the Limitation Act at six years from the date of the act or omission. I think we’ve struck the right balance here in the bill. Members might disagree, but all of these things are a bit of a balancing act, and I think we’ve tried to strike the right balance.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to give the Hon Dr Duncan Webb a chance to ask something new. They’re good questions that we’re having this afternoon, but there was a little bit of repetition when we were in the committee before lunch.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): No, I’m sure my colleague will sit me down very quickly and jump up if I do that. It’s very shiny—it’s shiny in here.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Let’s see how the question goes, because the Minister has been very full in his answers.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you for that, and I really appreciate it. It’s actually quite an important point, because I can see the quite appropriate shift towards electronic means of communication. It’s a point of detail, but it’s something that cuts across a whole lot of Acts. It’s about the words used in respect of email. I’m looking at clause 35(2), which inserts replacement section 136(8), “If any document is transmitted to an electronic address”, right? It’s a very natural use of language, but the word “transmitted” is actually a really tricky one.
Hon Chris Bishop: Ha!
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, no, it is, because if you think of sending an email, you can push send and it cannot leave your own computer, or you could push send and it leaves your own computer but doesn’t leave Parliament’s, or you can push send and it gets into someone else’s wider computer system but not to the person to whom it is addressed, or you can push send and it gets all the way to the person it’s sent to.
Now, this is dealt with a little bit in the Electronic Transactions Act, which is now quite old—2002. When you say “transmitted”, I think, because this is service of notices, you need to be clear whether you mean it leaves the electronic system of the sender and its organisation, because emails actually get lost in this ether in the middle, or it actually enters. Does “transmitted” mean it enters the system of the person to whom it is addressed? The real point being that things can go wrong without it being either the sender’s or the recipient’s fault. The address is right, the systems are roughly working, but something’s gone wrong. I see the Minister’s going to answer that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Well, I mean, the member makes a good point, and I think, respectfully, it’s probably beyond the scope of this bill because the word “transmitted” probably appears in lots of statutes and over time Parliament has updated its language around things. He makes a good point about the Electronic Transactions Act 2002—goodness me, I remember when that passed. Again, it’s one of those sorts of basic architectural pieces of legislation we’ll have to turn our mind to in due course.
Ultimately, we’ve taken the—I mean, this is Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting. Is it possible that there is going to be a dispute at the tribunal about what “transmitted” means? Yes, I suppose, in theory. I frequently send emails, or I think I’ve sent emails—from my house—on the Parliament server and they never arrive, and I’m sure other members—
Tom Rutherford: That old chestnut.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, that old chestnut. Has it been transmitted if it’s not sent? I mean, yep, I can see the arguments before the tribunal now. Am I saying that’s not going to happen? No, it probably will; it might well happen.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Give them a hint—what do you want to happen? When should it be?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m happy to go away and have a look at that and see whether or not we need to make a change, but we are really now into the kind of niche definition, and we’ve based that on counsel advice. I’m comfortable with where it’s at the moment. I’m not saying the member doesn’t have a point, but I think it’s probably a bit beyond the scope of this particular bill.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): One last very burning and relevant question from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, and I do appreciate this because this is the one I signalled earlier that I hadn’t had a chance to get to, and I think it’s worth looking into, so thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I’m referring to new section 48, “Liability for pet damage”, inserted by Schedule 1. It says it “applies to any destruction or damage that the landlord becomes aware of on or after the commencement date,”—we’ve got no issue with “on or after the commencement date”—“unless the tenant proves that the damage or destruction occurred before the commencement date.” I’ve got an issue with this. The landlord only needs to demonstrate that they became aware of it. That’s a very easy thing to say: “I became aware of it on this day.” Then it’s on the tenant to prove otherwise. There could be existing damage, somewhere on the property, that isn’t obvious. On the very day the tenant moves in, the landlord could say, “Oh, I’ve just become aware of this.”, and it’s on the tenant to prove otherwise. I’m not sure that is fair. I think there’s too much of a requirement on the tenant to prove something that the landlord is saying they’re just becoming aware of.
I can absolutely see this being abused, Minister. Absolutely. Now, I’m sure it isn’t his fault. I’m sure it’s just the way that it’s been put together—I think, potentially, with the words that have been used. I don’t even have a solution, but I am concerned about the way that it is currently written. I wonder if the officials behind the Minister may have a potential quick solution to that. I think it’s worthy of a response.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a moment; the Minister’s just taking some advice.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy to—I mean, the general point is the point I made many hours ago, which is that this is new. It’s actually quite a change to our tenancy law in relation to pets. There are going to be issues as we work our way through, and I’m not pretending that we’ve got it 100 percent right. We’ve done, I think, a pretty reasonable job of quite a change, but, ultimately, some of it will depend on how it operates in practice and how the tribunal works. That’s just the way our tenancy rules work.
Again, as I said earlier in the debate, a lot of it is down to people actually being reasonable—landlords being reasonable, and there are lots of unreasonable landlords. Frankly, also tenants need to be reasonable about things, and there are plenty of examples of tenants who trash rooms, and all the rest of it. As long as we’re all reasonable, we’ll all get on. Now, clearly there is unreasonableness, and that’s why we have a tribunal, and there are finely balanced issues that need to be worked through.
I’m advised that there has to be a date that applies to the tenancies that are in train, and so I’m comfortable with where we’ve got to in relation to section 48. It applies to “any destruction or damage that the landlord becomes aware of on or after the commencement date, unless the tenant proves that the damage or destruction occurred before the commencement date.” I think what the member is saying is that you reverse the onus so that it’s about the landlord proving that, rather than the tenant proving that. That’s something we could potentially pick up as part of potential amendments in the future, if indeed it’s proven that it is a problem, but we don’t have any evidence of that, because it’s new law.
I understand the point he’s making. I’m not opposed to an amendment down the line, but let’s see how the situation beds in and see how the tribunal operates, and see if we need to make any changes.
NANCY LU (National): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 31 set out on Amendment Paper 234 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
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.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 33 set out on Amendment Paper 235 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
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.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Part 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1 New Part 8 inserted into Schedule 1AA
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now we come to the voting on Schedule 1. The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 236 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
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.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 Amendments to Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 3
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate: clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I would take the first call just to outline the Government’s approach to this, because we have Amendment Paper 213. The aim of this is to give greater certainty to the sector about when the changes come into effect, and I think members will appreciate it.
Currently, the bill provides for the key changes in relation to termination of tenancies—which I know has been an issue in the debate—to come into effect six weeks after the Royal assent. This would see this come into effect in mid to late January 2025, but there’d be no specificity because we don’t exactly know when the bill will pass, obviously, and when it will receive the Royal assent. That would work, but the Government’s view is that a fixed date would be easier for everybody, and so the Amendment Paper amends the bill so that the tenancy termination changes come into effect on 30 January 2025. It gives everyone certainty—from officials to landlords and tenants—and a clear date and expectation to work towards.
Similarly, the bill provides for a range of changes aimed at improving clarity and efficiency to come into effect three months after the Royal assent. The Amendment Paper amends the bill so that these changes come into effect on the fixed date of 20 March, which is in around about three months, and it just makes it really clear exactly what date.
The Amendment Paper does not make any changes to the commencement for the two amendments supporting the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) processes, which come into effect the day after the Royal assent, and amendments relating to pets—as we canvassed in the debate on Part 1—will remain. The commencement will be by Order in Council to allow flexibility and time for the pet bond functionality to be developed.
As I’ve previously advised the House, MBIE is working hard on the update to the Bond 2000 system, which is an old system of tenancy bonds, and the clue’s in the name. It was developed in the year 2000, so it’s a bit out of date, and the previous Government funded a programme of modernisation, which we support, and MBIE is under way on that. It’s going to take a few more months and a bit more time to get the pet bond functionality into the system and get it under way, so the commencement provision just gives us a bit of flex around when that happens, and members will be some of the first to know exactly when we will bring that part of the law into effect.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I acknowledge the contribution of the Minister of Housing there. It is quite extraordinary, though: we’re in urgency rushing through a bill that you are now proposing doesn’t come into effect for a while, and, in part, because something isn’t ready.
I’ll tell you what, I won’t dispute the amendment on the commencement date; I’m going to focus on the title because I believe that the title of the bill doesn’t accurately reflect the guts of this bill. In order to try and find something that did reflect the guts of the bill, I just went to Part 2, which is the substantive part, and took the title of that and put it into the proposed title of this bill so that it becomes the “Residential Tenancies (Termination of Tenancies) Amendment Bill” because, actually, that is an accurate reflection of what’s in this bill.
The Government has spent a lot of time talking about pet bonds—fair enough, that’s in the bill; it’s a new thing—but it’s not the main part. The main part is Part 2, and that talks about the changes to tenancies. If you look at the first page of the bill’s commentary, it talks about what the bill will do—one, two, three, four, five bullet points; and none of them talk about pets. They all talk about the changing of tenancies in relation to the termination of tenancies.
Why do we think that that should be reflected in the name? In part, it’s because that’s the reason why we cannot support this. If this was the “Residential Tenancies (Pet Bonds) Amendment Bill”, it would have our support. If it included the provisions around allowing landlords to be more prescriptive around the conditions under which tenants could or could not smoke in that premises, that makes sense. The stuff around family violence including a dependant—that makes sense. I think we’ve identified a couple of areas where the Minister could have done with a bit more time to tidy it up, but, on the whole, we would have supported that. Despite all of that, we cannot support this bill, because it makes it easier for landlords to dismiss tenants, and in the wider context of the housing situation in this country, we fear that this will lead to higher levels of homelessness, and—more importantly—the termination of tenancies outlined in Part 2 of this bill will not achieve the stated aims of the Government.
This will not lead to more people in tenancies. This will not lead to more people taking on rental accommodation and then taking in tenants. This will not meet the stated aim. If that is the substance of the bill, surely that should be reflected in the name.
Now, I’m well aware of the restrictions on proposed amendments to names. This fits what is required. It is not a criticism of the content and it is certainly not an unserious suggestion, because it is derived from the bill itself, but I think that focusing on the termination of tenancies would accurately reflect what this bill is actually about, and it would actually reflect the likely outcome of the vote.
I think it’s a shame, because if they had split this up rather than included it, we would have had two different outcomes. One would have had broad support from Parliament and the other would not, but because they’re included, they don’t. The reason for that is the provisions to allow for easier termination of tenancies, and that’s why I’m proposing it be in the title of the bill.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to talk about the commencement dates. Because of the staggered nature of sections of this bill, I thought it was very bizarre when I was looking at it. It’s good to get clarity now with regard to the exact dates, but I do want to make the point to the general public who are watching, and also to the Minister that, actually, the most popular part of this bill—the part that has been supported most and favoured by most of the submitters, which is the pet bond—is the actual section that we have no date for in terms of commencement yet.
I would like to get further clarification from the Minister of Housing on what time frame we can hope to have around the commencement of the pet bond. That is the big part of what that side of the House has been talking about in relation to this bill the whole way along, while ignoring the provisions that have actually not been supported by the general public and 97 percent of the submitters. Then I note, of course, that the first part in the staggered commencement of sections of this bill that is going to be implemented is actually that the tenancy terminations would come into force six weeks after Royal assent, which we now hear is 30 January. I want to know from the Minister why that is the priority. Why can that be moved forward so quickly ahead of all the other provisions?
The least popular part of this bill is the part that is being rushed here. Why couldn’t it wait so that sections of this bill could be done together to ensure that, actually, it looked a little bit more coherent, rather than take this staggered approach? Are there cost savings for the Government here by implementing this on 30 January, which stands to win by having that particular measure implemented by 30 January, and why was that a priority for the Government over implementing the other much more popular sections of this policy?
I also want the Minister to clarify for me—because I’m not entirely sure—when do the family violence provisions come into effect here? When will that commence so that our whānau know that that will apply to them at that point? That’s another area, along with the pet bonds, that the Government have been touting that we thought would have been prioritised in terms of commencement over the least popular part, which, again, is the tenancy termination section. I ask if we can get some clarity on why certain parts, including that one, were prioritised over the rest; when we can expect the pet bond work to be done and to have commencement; when will the family violence provision come into effect; and anything else with regard to the staggered nature of the commencement that the Minister thinks will be of interest.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you to the member for the reasonable questions. In relation to family violence, I am advised that it is 20 March. In relation to the pet bonds, the member makes a good point that that’s the most popular part of the bill. That’s probably true; in fact, it’s almost certainly true, and I would like them to start tomorrow, but we can’t, because we’ve got to upgrade the bond system, and without being too political about it, the bond system needs an upgrade and the work only got started a year or so ago.
We’ve been out of Government for six years now, so I know I’m not being political about it, but you need IT systems, and the tenancy bond system is creaking because thousands of New Zealanders rent who would otherwise have liked to be in a home, and there’s an entire system that has got to run on, basically, Microsoft Excel. The investment was made and it’s being rolled through, but these things don’t happen overnight. I’m advised that it will be late 2025, but, rest assured, I say to the member, I’m putting the heat on the good team at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to get on with the job and make sure we get it in as quickly as possible. It’s just the reality; we can’t do it straight away. If we could, I would, but we can’t, so we are where we are. The Order in Council allows for a bit of flex in terms of the commencement.
In relation to the residential tenancies changes around no-cause terminations, reasonable people can disagree around this. Clearly, the Opposition has a different view to the Government. I appreciate that point of view. We want to bring them in. It just reverts the law back to actually what was the law until 2021, from memory—it might have been 2020—so it’s not a radical change in that sense, and rather than just have the six weeks, as I’ve said before, we’ve gone for 30 January so that there’s maximum clarity for everybody.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Amendment Paper 213 set out on Amendment Paper 217 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 213 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Fast-track Approvals Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
SPEAKER: The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Bills
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I present a legislative statement on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: We’re reading it for a third time, I think.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, all right. I move that—
SPEAKER: Yes, it’s not quite stated here in my little instruction. You’re going to move this for a third time.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK. I present a legislative statement, which I assume will eventually be published under the authority of the House. I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The bill makes a number of changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), as we’ve been discussing at quite some considerable length during the committee stage. I do want to just thank Opposition members for the very useful and constructive questions and comments that were made through the committee of the whole House stage; I enjoyed participating. I’m just a bit sorry I couldn’t be there for all of the debate, but I was there for a decent chunk of it, and it was, I think, a good example of how the committee stage can help ventilate issues and, maybe, over time, improve the law. That was good to see.
We are a pro-tenant Government and a pro-landlord Government, and, at a basic level, there’s not a fundamental contradiction around that. Most importantly, we are a pro - cheaper housing Government, because rents in this country are too high, house prices are too high, and we have a severe housing affordability challenge, as the 2023 census data that was released last week, I think, made very clear. I won’t litigate that for the House, but everyone in the House is aware of the appalling state of housing in this country.
This is a suite of sensible pro-tenant and pro-landlord changes to encourage landlords to enter the market, give tenants more ability to secure a rental home, including for their furry family member or, indeed, non-furry as well.
It increases flexibility and support for landlords to end tenancies, aiming to remove barriers to increasing private rental housing supply, as well as other changes. We’ve well canvassed, in the House, the changes to the tenancy termination provisions in the RTA that will largely return the law to what it was pre-2020.
It also changes the rule around the rollover of fixed-term tenancies into periodic tenancies, which is a technical change but will, I think, make a difference on the margins and markets like Dunedin and Queenstown and, interestingly, I’m advised, also Waiheke Island, where a lot of people who would otherwise put their rental houses into the rental market on a fixed term but are, essentially, disincentivised to do so because of near-automatic rollover of the fixed term into a periodic tenancy. It doesn’t give them any flexibility or discretion, and, as a result, those houses just sit on an Airbnb when they could otherwise be in the private rental market. Strong feedback from Queenstown, for example, in 2022 and 2023, is that that is having a really deleterious effect on the Queenstown rental housing market. Now, clearly there are wider issues in the Queenstown housing market that we need to address—most notably the supply of land, and infrastructure funding and financing—and we’ve got work under way around those as well. But I do think it will make a difference at the margins.
We’ve dealt with the issues to do with pet bonds. This is a very paw-sitive move for tenants. It will have a positive effect on wellbeing, and with the way our rental market is, it is challenging—sometimes impossible—for tenants with pets to find pet-friendly rentals. So we are em-bark-ing on changes which, we think, will have—
Hon Members: Very good.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, thank you. I thought I’d get a smile out of the Hon Kieran McAnulty, but not a sausage—not a sausage.
Hon Mark Patterson: You’ll be able to get the greyhound in there, Kieran.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, exactly, exactly. That’s the point. We’ve talked about the greyhounds a lot this morning. Look, it’s a great day for the animals in New Zealand, particularly greyhounds. It’s a great week actually. Anyway—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You wouldn’t give them an exemption.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I wouldn’t give them an exemption. We went through that.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, so I’m not going to smile at you.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! OK. I’m not going to relitigate that one. The major change here is that the bill—
Jenny Marcroft: Good day for cat ladies.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?
Jenny Marcroft: Good day for cat ladies.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Good day for cat ladies—I’m not going to go there. You mentioned it; I’m not going to go there. I’m not going to go there.
Tamatha Paul: He’s a dog man.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I am a—well, I’ve got a cat as well. We’ve got a cat as well. That’s right. RIP, Buzz.
The major change is that we are, essentially, reversing what we have at the moment, which is making it easier for tenants to have a pet, and landlords can only withhold consent on reasonable grounds. We had a long debate, back and forth this morning, about what “reasonableness” means. There are non-exhaustive definitions in the bill, and, as I said to the House this morning, there’s 140 mentions of the word “reasonable” in the RTA.
The bill enables landlords to require a pet bond, if they’ve agreed their tenant can keep a pet, up to the equivalent of two weeks’ rent. Only one pet bond per tenancy can be required at any one time, even if there’s more than one pet. It includes pet consent rules clarifying the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords relating to pets and rental properties. A landlord has to provide a written response to a tenant’s pet request within 21 days, stating whether or not they agree. We had a debate about whether or not 21 was the right number or not. I’m happy to see how that goes, and we can always change it later.
Some submitters thought the term “reasonable grounds” was too subjective, but as I just said before, the word “reasonable” is consistent with other provisions in the Act. It’s important to note that pet conditions must be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the premises and the type of pet.
The bill makes tenants liable for the cost of damage caused as a result of keeping a pet that is not fair wear and tear, and this change addresses landlord concerns about excessive pet damage costs and incentivises tenants to take additional care in rental properties.
Disability assistance dogs were debated at length this morning, particularly by the Greens. The bill expressly excludes disability dogs as pets, and it’s in the interpretation section.
These pet provisions are a win-win. Landlords will have assurance they’re not out of pocket for possible damage to their rentals, and tenants will have more rental options. I think the changes are pretty awesome.
The bill also makes a whole range of other amendments: a common-sense approach to the issue of smoking, which has been a concern for the sector, clarifying that smoking inside premises can be prohibited. It clarifies and strengthens retaliatory termination provisions providing it is unlawful for a landlord to serve a termination notice in retaliation to a tenant enforcing their rights or in response to legally enforceable actions taken against the landlord by others—that’s a pro-tenant move—and supports efficiency in the tribunal, enabling adjudicators to make decisions on the papers by reference to documents submitted by parties where appropriate.
It’s a good step forward for a whole range of different reasons, most notably the pet bond provisions, but, most importantly, it will provide a bit of extra incentive for landlords to enter the rental market. They are an important part of our property market. They are an important part of our housing situation. Ultimately, as I always say to people in relation to housing, long-term answers to our housing solution are more houses. We need more rental properties, we need more social houses, we need more market houses, and we need more affordable properties. The ultimate answer to all of these issues is land supply, urban zoning, and infrastructure funding and finance, and we’ve got work under way around that, but this is a positive step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The Minister presented a legislative statement, and it is published under the authority of the House.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. When we did the second reading speech, it came after the Minister spending the entire speech talking about pet bonds. I thought today, given that this third reading speech happened straight after the committee of the whole House stage, where we have spent some time diving into—or attempting to—and understanding the Government’s rationale with the significant changes to tenancy rules under this bill, that perhaps they might try and change their approach and try, this time, not to fool people into thinking that this bill is all about pets. It’s not. It’s not even mentioned on the front page when it talks about the bill summary.
There are five bullet points, and every single one of them talks about the reduction of tenant rights proposed in this bill, the reduction of notice periods, and the reintroduction of no-cause terminations, but if you listened to that third reading speech, people would be forgiven that it was actually about something different altogether. Thank God for legislative statements, because if people came back to this day and listened to what the Minister had to say, they would be forgiven for thinking this had nothing to do with tenancy altogether, but it does; it is the guts of this bill, and it is the reason why we cannot support it.
The pet bonds stuff makes sense, and I wish that it was actually in a different bill, so that we could vote for it. The changes to give landlords clarity around rules restricting smoking inside absolutely makes sense. The inclusion of a dependant on the special provisions for those that find themselves, regrettably, in a family violence situation, we support that. But none of that outweighs the destructive changes that this bill does, and the gall of the Minister to stand up and say that this Government is a pro-tenant Government—rubbish. To stand up and to say that today is a good day for those that are looking to find a house amidst this housing crisis—again, rubbish. There is nothing in this bill that is going to help people into a home.
If this bill was about building houses, sure, but this bill is about making it easier for landlords and making it harder for tenants. The premise behind this, the Government argues—not that you’d know from the Minister’s third reading speech—is that if you make it easier for landlords, there will be more landlords and, therefore, more rentals. It is a flawed logic in the context of the current housing situation in this country. When the Government has, essentially, ended new builds for Kāinga Ora post-2026 and has significantly reduced funding for community providers and has tightened up the criteria for entering into emergency housing to the extent that during scrutiny week, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development said that this is playing a part in increasing levels of homelessness—and now we have this. All of those things are Government decisions, and then, to top it off, the Government’s solution to this is to make it easier for landlords to kick tenants out.
Now, even if their argument was right that these changes would incentivise more landlords into the market, if the Government isn’t incentivising house builds through Kāinga Ora or community housing or other means, what that means is that first-home buyers will be locked out of the market, because another decision that the Government made, that this bill needs to be seen in the context of, is their decision to reintroduce interest deductibility. Now, that still applied to new builds; it did not apply to existing homes, and what was seen was that investment shifted from existing homes into new builds. That’s been taken away now, and it’s an important piece to understand the full picture of the housing crisis.
Consents are down, home builds are down, the number of new homeowners entering the market is down, and 12,000 construction workers have lost their jobs since this Government took office. That’s important, because the Government stood there and said, “This bill will help the housing crisis.” The only way it will do that is to incentivise new landlords entering the market. They’re not entering the market by building homes, so they are competing with potential first-home buyers on existing homes, and that drives house prices up. We know it does. It’s done it in the past and we’re set to make the same mistakes, as a country, and I find that really sad, because when Minister Bishop stands up and says he wants to solve the housing crisis, I actually believe him. The problem is that the policies that he is introducing to this Parliament don’t back that up.
If we accept the Government’s rationale that these changes will mean more landlords in the market, that means that there’ll be fewer first-home buyers, prices will go up, landlords will pay more for houses, and they will need higher rents to reap their investment back. This is bad news. All for what?
Why—why is this the priority? Of all the things that the Government could do to address the lack of rentals in this country, they’ve chosen to make it easier for landlords to kick tenants out without showing any evidence at all that there was actually a problem. If the Government came to the House and demonstrated clear data to show that the changes that were made to tenancy laws by the previous Government were actually stopping people finding rentals, then they might have a case. We pleaded with them during the committee stage to show us that evidence and to point us towards a source—point us to any sort of data set. They couldn’t do it, because this won’t do what they said it would do.
It does some good things. I would have liked the bill to have done more. I think it is actually a shame that the Minister didn’t accept my amendment put forward at the committee stage to make those greyhounds that are coming out of the industry, as a result of the pending ban, exempt from the pet bond for four years, and the flip side of that was that a landlord would have been able to claim two weeks’ more rent than what they are currently allowed to if there are damages. It meant that the landlord wasn’t worse off, but it meant that there was no barrier to a tenant taking in a greyhound, and it would have helped a lot with the pending influx of extra greyhounds. I think that is a genuine shame, but I hope that the Minister is true to his word that he said that he will go look into it, and I encourage the Government to seriously consider that. We are going to need some provisions to help home these greyhounds, and this would have been a real, practical way to do it.
Nevertheless, that still actually wouldn’t have changed our position on this, even though it was my amendment and I would have loved the Government to have accepted it, because, at the end of the day, there is enough evidence already available to show, as a combination of things, that when you make it easier for landlords to kick tenants out, as this bill does, and the Government doesn’t encourage the building of houses and it pulls back on Kāinga Ora and it slows down the momentum of community housing providers and it stops people entering emergency housing—what does that all add up to? Unaffordable rents, unaffordable house prices, and increased homelessness. Does that remind anyone of anything?
Hon Member: John Key.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The nine years of the John Key Government?
Shanan Halbert: Been there, done that.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Been there, done that, and here we are again. Back to the future, not back on track. Back to the same old, tired policies that benefit landlords, but don’t benefit anybody else.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Ahiahi mārie, Mr Speaker. It’s with sadness that I address the House on this bill tonight, because I don’t own a home, and probably won’t for a while, even with all of the different tools and mechanisms and privilege that I do have access to as a member of Parliament. I know, from my experience pre being an MP that, as renters, we don’t ask for a lot. We’re only asking for a roof over our head. We’re only asking that when we pay our rent on time, we get the entitlements that are legally provided for. We only ask that we can live in a place where we don’t get sick from the black mould all over the roof. We only ask that the bathrooms that we use—that the hot water is running. We only ask that there aren’t mushrooms growing out of the shower. We only ask that the roof doesn’t leak on our head. Somehow, in Aotearoa, that’s become too much to ask for.
Actually, we don’t ask for what we deserve, because there’s more than a million of us. It’s interesting being based in Wellington Central and reading about the slumlords that used to exist in our urban centres, and how back in the day is so similar to how things are now for renters in New Zealand. Somehow, if you live in one of those slum houses and one of those slum flats that has become normalised in our country, you’re looked down upon, and this bill is an example of the way that you are looked down upon. But, if you own the slums, if you’re a slumlord and you own 20 of those things, somehow our society privileges that. Somehow our society and our systems applaud that kind of behaviour, because, at the end of the day, this bill is actually about the rich getting richer, because we live in a country where housing isn’t treated as a human right; it’s treated as an opportunity for people to make money.
That to me is morally bankrupt because, as I’ve said over and over and over again on this bill: how can anybody be expected to live a decent life if they don’t have a roof over their head? The answer to that is obvious and clear: you can’t. You can’t live a decent or meaningful life. You can’t go and get a job. You can’t look after yourself. You can’t raise your family if you don’t have a roof over your head.
Now, today, we’ve spent the entire day canvassing this bill and trying to understand—trying to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, actually, to actually try and see whether there is a basis for this decision. We asked over and over and over again—we asked the Minister of Housing and we asked the Associate Minister of Housing what is the evidential basis that underpins the rhetoric that this Government has provided around bringing back no-cause evictions, and they told us over and over again that it’s about helping landlords and property managers take a chance on riskier tenants.
Well, first of all, what is a risky tenant? Who are we talking about when we’re saying these so-called risky tenants? Are we talking about Māori? Are we talking about poor people? Are we talking about disabled people? Like, if you’re going to say that that’s your rationale, then be very clear and very specific about who it is that you’re talking about. Also, even if that was the case, then where is the evidence to show that this would even allow for property managers and landlords to take a chance? That doesn’t exist, and that’s because this bill is simply a product of the coalition agreement—the infamous coalition agreement that somehow happens to supersede every other agreement, every other treaty, every other international convention in this country.
They’ve decided that that’s what they’re going to do, and so they’ve worked backwards—they’ve worked backwards—to try and make the evidence work and to try and make a case for no-cause evictions. It hasn’t worked, because if you look at the regulatory impact statement, you look at the evidence, you look at the data, and you listen to the people that came and spoke to us about this bill, it becomes clear that there is no basis for this bill. It’s purely political, and even with the policy problem, there are so many ways that you could try and encourage landlords to take a chance on riskier tenants. There are lots of different ways that they can make this work. But, no, the outcome was already determined within the coalition agreement, and so that’s what they’ve pursued.
It’s really strange that they’ve pursued that, because there’s not even support within the property industry for no-cause evictions, because 53 percent of people who submitted on this bill who were representing property managers or landlords—or were, themselves, those two things—don’t even support this bill. Then, if you look at the public’s perspective, 97 percent of people don’t support this bill, so there’s actually not a lot of support for this bill. But I think the Government knows that and understands that, and, like my colleague Kieran McAnulty was saying, that’s why they’ve couched it in all the fluff. They’ve fluffed it up so that it detracts from the fact that there is no basis for no-cause evictions.
The reason there is no basis for no-cause evictions is because if you look at the way that that kind of law has been applied around the world, it has resulted in nothing but increased homelessness and chaos and destruction of people’s lives. The fact that it’s been couched in all this fluff with the pet bonds, which we could get into as well, because the pet bond provisions aren’t even as great as they’ve been touted to be—it’s been couched in all this fluff because I think that the Government is ashamed to be bringing back no-cause evictions.
As we watch the results and the destruction that will come from this decision that we are about to make, sadly we’re going to look back at this and we are all going to feel ashamed that we allowed this to happen. I’m not surprised, because we’ve got a pro-landlord Government. We’ve got a Government made up of politicians who all—not all, sorry. We have a Government made up, by and large, of politicians who own multiple properties, and that is the problem. There should be more people in this room who have never owned a property, because maybe then we’d get better decisions that actually treat housing as the human right that it needs to be treated as.
The thing is, as we live in a democracy and there are actually more of us than there are of you—there are more renters in this country than there are landlords. Thank you for doing this no-cause evictions mahi, because I think renters will actually recognise their power in numbers and utilise that, and this is going to be a one-term Government—not just because of all of this but because of everything else that the Government has decided to do.
Let’s use the last two minutes to talk about solutions, because that’s a big piece of criticism that we always get: we’re always quick to point out the harm, but we never point out the solutions. I’ll tell you what the solutions are. First of all, we need rent controls, because those members might never understand what it feels like to have an unexpected rent increase sprung on you at a time where you don’t have the financial means to actually pay that rent, and the anxiety and the despair that it causes people when those kinds of decisions are sprung on them. We need rent controls. We need a rental warrant of fitness system that actually looks at the dilapidated and poor and disgusting state of rental housing in New Zealand—speaking as someone living in Wellington, where we are notorious for the quality of our housing. Most importantly, we need a mass public housing build programme, because the core problem here is capitalism, and it’s the way—[Interruption]
Funny, that’s always the root of all problems. We always arrive back at that point, don’t we, guys? We always arrive back at that point. In this country, we treat housing like a game of Monopoly, like a business, like a thing to be profited from, and that is fundamentally and morally bankrupt because, again, people don’t get to choose whether or not they have a roof over their heads. People don’t get to make that option. You cannot live a meaningful or decent or productive life—economy, people—if you don’t have a roof over your head. That’s why we are in full, staunch opposition to this bill. We will continue to be so, and we look forward to putting our rental policies in place in 2026. Kia ora.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there is a bit of a dark cloud hanging over that side of the House, isn’t there? Let’s try to brighten things up a little bit.
This is a great day, not just for landlords but for tenants as well, because when you separate people against each other and you say tenants are getting this and landlords are getting that, all you’re doing is making a conflict where there doesn’t need to be one. To have a landlord, you must have a tenant. To have a tenant, you must have a landlord. To have that relationship, you have to have a property. What this Government has done, by following through on what the ACT Party campaigned for and this coalition Government has signed up to do, is restore confidence in a market which operates when participants come together with mutual respect and dignity, have a chance for both to express their ways and their rights and privileges. Those people need to be able to come together and supply one another with what they need.
A landlord needs someone to occupy their house who looks after it, who respects it, who pays the rent, who treats their neighbours with care, and who doesn’t diminish the property value. A tenant needs a landlord who looks after their property, maintains it, buys it in the first place—actually, let’s go back a few steps: works hard, saves, invests, and buys one, and then allows someone to occupy that property. What we end up with is a relationship, and that relationship is going to be going back to the way it was when we had people who respected each other rather than holding each other to ransom. I have to say that that was the feeling that the property-investing community—“the landlords”, as they have been tagged over there—have been feeling.
What the downstream effect of this feeling is, is that you end up with people who don’t want to take risks, not just on tenants but, actually, on even supplying a property to the market—even being a landlord. People don’t want to take that risk, because if you have got your hard work and capital invested in a property and then you have no ability to guide the way it is looked after, the way the person who is occupying it treats it, why would you take that risk? I think we need people taking a punt in New Zealand, saying, “I want to invest my capital in a way that supplies to the market”, who needs it—
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You’re not smarter, you’re not hard-working; we just don’t have a fair tax system.
CAMERON LUXTON: I know you say, “Oh, the people who care about the economy”, on this side of the House. The economy is a way to describe the way our society operates. It’s when people come together with mutual benefit, and that is what we are trying to bring back to this country.
There was an earlier conversation today in the House. I hesitate to use this term, but there has been described a “war” on landlords previously, and I think what we are seeing now is the end to that, so described by others in the past—a conflict—which was causing a vast amount of collateral damage to tenants. I think what we are seeing is an ending of hostilities in that particular sphere of New Zealand’s psyche. I have to say, after listening to the speeches on the other side, it’s more of just a détente on that side; it’s just a pausing in hostilities. You can hear them just waiting for that power so that they can come in and say to people, “I demand you do this with the property that you own. You’ve invested your life into this product or this property or this asset, and I demand you do what I say!” That is just something that we cannot go back to in this country.
We had a speech poorly delivered, not a lot of passion, by Mr Kieran McAnulty. I mean, he is the hardest-working MP in the Labour Party, so you can forgive him for being a bit exhausted at this point in the week. He asked what this Government is doing to get some more houses. Well, Mr McAnulty, the market needs to have more houses. I agree with you, and this Government is doing multiple things to it. I won’t digress too far, Madam Speaker, and feel free to pull me up, but we’ve got a cost of housing which makes it harder for people to actually build houses to deliver to each other. And that means that we need to do things like sorting out the products that go into houses that become rental properties.
That means going through the Building Act and making it easier to bring products in from overseas—something that we’ve campaigned for and this Government is delivering. We’re making interest deductibility come back, not as fast as I would perhaps like to see it, but faster than it would have without us. We’ve got things like Resource Management Act reform, which the Minister earlier this week has indicated will be coming before this House. That is something that has been sorely needed in this country, so we can actually build—so we can build places for each other to live, for each other to work, and so that we can produce an economy which will provide for others, because that is what we’re all about.
This bill simplifies a few things as well. Oh, actually, hang on, there was another part in there that I’d like to address. We heard Tamatha Paul say things like, “All a tenant asks for is a long list of: not a mouldy house, not a leaky roof—all I want is a roof over my head.” That is a very fair comment. You do just want to have a roof over your head. You do just want to have a safe, warm place to live. We don’t get those by punishing the people who are supplying it. That is the feeling from the people who are supplying it.
I come today to this House to report that the property industry, who invest and try to be good landlords, have felt under pressure. They have been exiting. They have been less “risk-take-y”—“risk-take-y”? That’s a bit of a funny word. They’ve taken less risk. You can say, “Well, you know, they’re going to take a punt on”—I can’t remember the language that was being used over there to try and denigrate tenants who were probably not top of the list when it comes to property inspections, but I think, if you allow people to take risks, you will get more people housed.
If you allow people to take risk, you will not just get more people who wouldn’t have been housed housed; you will get people who have been housed and they want to move up into a different part of the community—as in, they want to move into a part of the community with—[Interruption] No, I don’t think so, Mr Bayly; I’m perfectly enjoying the speech right now, because this is something that we have asked for, for a long time. New Zealand has asked for it for a long time. It is a place in New Zealand that needs to have a functioning property market. The ACT Party heard from the communities that were affected. We represented them into Parliament. We did things, like the pet bond.
The pet bond was not just a piece of fluff tagged on the end; this is an important part of what makes somebody feel at home. It’s when they have their companion animal or the ability to get a pet. I think we’ve heard from many people who have seen the benefit of this. You could tell by the first part of this bill’s committee stage, where the Opposition said, “Look, we have some quibbles with it”—and I think, fair enough, you could say it could be more, it could be less, it could be defined, we don’t want to leave it out, we want it to be more strict on what sort of pets, but I think we’ve landed in a good space.
I think it’s a credit to the ACT Party for bringing this idea to the House so that people can have the life that they would like to choose and just pay a small two weeks of bond for the privilege of having an animal in someone else’s property, which is their home. Madam Speaker, I’ll leave it there. Thank you very much.
JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. And I’ll begin my contribution by acknowledging the work that has gone on with the Social Services and Community Committee. I’ll mention also the Minister of Housing, who brought this bill to the House, and the contribution of a part of this in terms of the pet bond from the ACT Party, and I will speak to that in just a moment.
My home is my castle, and currently I’m between castles, so I’d like to talk a little bit about what that feels like. I’ve been a homeowner. I have been a landlord—a very good landlord, I think. I have been a tenant fairly recently. When I was a tenant fairly recently, I had fabulous landlords, because they allowed me to have my two cats, Romeo and Leonardo, with me. It was because of their consideration of me having my cats that I could stay in that wonderful place. I do understand how vitally important it is for women of a certain age who have cats to be able to have their cats in their homes, particularly in rentals. I think that is something that as we have an aging population in particular, the companionship of our cats, maybe a small dog, whatever it might be, is a consideration. I think that those landlords that are willing to do that—they’re usually because they’re pet owners themselves.
The particular changes in this legislation that will enable people to have their pets because of the pet bond will in fact broaden out the types of landlords that may say, “Actually, because there is a pet bond now, I will take the opportunity to have a tenant with a pet because I’ll be covered financially in case there’s any damage or whatever caused by the pet.”
There are a couple of other points I’d like to make about that. Incentivising with the pet bond is a fantastic amendment, noting also that there are around 1.7 million renters in New Zealand; 80 percent rent from the private market. This amendment bill will really support that private sector to continue to be good landlords and continue to put more into that rental market.
Now, I’m in the process of actually beginning the process of building my own home, and we have that desire—we grow up with that ideal, that vision, that dream of owning our own homes. If we can get to build a home, that’s such a wonderful process, except for when you get to council. In particular, Auckland Council is very difficult to get that building consent and resource consent processing through. For quite a period of time, you might need to rent somewhere while you’re going through that build process.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was good—you brought it back to the bill.
JENNY MARCROFT: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s really interesting for a person like myself, who has two cats, while I’m in the build process—which is going to take more than a year—to be able to know that I can go and rent with my pets rather than having to farm them out.
This is a very good bill. I note that the pet bond will be one bond per tenancy, regardless of whether you have maybe two cats, like myself. In terms of the commencement of that, it will come later once there is the upgrade to the bond system, which the Minister has spoken to the House about this afternoon.
In all, this is a very good piece of legislation, and on behalf of New Zealand First I’m very pleased to commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. “Stone the crows” is the closet comment I’ll get to discussing pets in this particular bill, because that’s what it feels like. It’s like “Jeez, stone the crows—is this really happening?” It was disappointing, despite, I guess, the humour that was put around the pets and all of that pet kōrero, that what was ignored most noticeably was the people part of it and the impact it will have on people.
Of course, pets are precious—ka pai tēnā [that is reasonable]. People mai i Te Tai Tokerau mai i Te Aupōuri ko te mea nui ko te tangata [from Te Tai Tokerau, from Te Aupōuri, understand that the most important thing is people]. I’m just putting out those for the committee to understand and, ideally, appreciate.
This bill puts whānau and families in harm’s way. How disappointing and dangerous to be placing in harm’s way renters with little or no evidence but a reliance on speculative assumptions to improve the housing supply. We’re yet to see, but we already know where that’s going to end up. It seems we are consigned to be a nation of renters because the housing market is so inaccessible and so unaffordable for the majority of this country. The dire state of housing in New Zealand is a point that I know the other side of the House knows about—whether they really understand it in the way that Māori do, I would doubt that.
No research endorses the notion that having 90-day no-cause evictions will alleviate pressures during a housing crisis; in fact, it will exacerbate the challenges that the sector already faces. I’m not quite sure why that is not understood let alone appreciated enough, but that’s what happens when you have a gap of knowledge and a misunderstanding of reality.
The risk is this: if we lessen the time frames and afford greater freedom and eviction processes to landlords, we will absolutely see drastic increases in homelessness and reliance on social housing, and already 25,000 people are on the social housing waiting list. These amendments will change the lives of many, and not for good, who are already marginalised.
Eviction is a leading precursor to homelessness. I will say that again: eviction is a leading precursor to homelessness, and Māori already make up over 50 percent of renters and 60 percent of homeless communities.
Research shows that the high proportion of renters in this country are Māori. In Te Tai Tokerau, our whānau, māua ko Peeni, mōhia me Willow anō hoki, we understand and contend with rent prices of up to $600, $700, $800 a week, and a third of whānau income goes to paying that. It’s a tough reality on a daily basis. In 2019, it was identified that over 40 percent of renters spend more than a third. I would hate to think where the figures sit now.
For nearly a third of renters, it can take up to four months to find an appropriate rental property, and, in all of the discussion, I can’t hear that that’s really and truly understood, and it’s definitely not appreciated in this bill, sadly. Mums and dads—there will be pets there but mostly mums and dads—will face the reality, particularly Māori, of their children, their mokopuna, being removed from their care because they cannot provide a safe and good and warm home. That’s on us and that’s on this bill.
When Minister Potaka, I think, was speaking, he used the word “mōkai” in his kōrero, in the pets conversation, and I thought then, “If only he understood how that’s deeply and truly understood in our tikanga.” With all of that said, and the deep disappointment that this party carries with this particular bill—and others might think otherwise, but they do not know otherwise; only we know—it behoves me to absolutely reject this bill. Kia ora tātou.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): This Government is really saying “Merry Christmas” to what the ACT Party calls the “property investment community” in giving coal to a third of the country who rents, who will now be far more vulnerable to be evicted and to face homelessness.
It’s so shameless that this Government is ramming through this piece of legislation under urgency, rather than by going through the usual motions, to literally gift to landlords across the country the ability to make more people homeless. This is what they have been advised this bill could cause and it is what it will cause. Those of us who have worked at the front lines with renters and people who have been homeless know the intergenerational hardship and poverty that evictions can create on low-income communities. If you’re living week to week and you face an eviction, your life gets turned upside down, but they wouldn’t know about this because many of these members live now incredibly comfortable lives, and those who may have faced hardship in the past are completely disconnected from it, have turned their eyes away from the streets, and live in an echo chamber disconnected from the communities that are going to be most disproportionately impacted.
This Government has told us that this bill is about pets. Well, it turns out they can now evict you and your pet as well! This Government can now evict you and your cat, you and your dog—so great, particularly when we consider that the provisions that they have added to allow for people to be with their pets continue adding more barriers for those low-income people. They have also created ways to ensure that landlords can recover your general bond, and now your new pet bond, as they see fit. This will just allow landlords to continue treating housing as a profit rather than an essential human right.
No amount of dribble from the members on the other side will make up for the fact that they are literally under-resourcing our public housing entities. They are going to be providing less public housing over the next few years and that will leave communities across the country far more vulnerable to landlords of expensive rentals who will actually put them into more financial hardship.
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is nothing but an affront to the communities who we should be prioritising and serving. The Minister in the chair earlier kept talking about how we should centre our debate on facts and not opinions, but if we look at the actual facts and the advice and the research that has been provided to grant this bill, it shows that there is absolutely no evidential basis to back that this bill will (a) put downward pressure on rents; and (b) will actually support tenants to have secure tenure. We know this because we have had no-cause evictions before, here. Overseas, we’ve seen how no-cause evictions have been one of the leading causes of homelessness. We know that when someone is homeless, it’s not a simple matter of just putting them back on track into a home. There’s literal long-term harm to your health that comes from being homeless. It traps you in debt, it traps you in poverty, but this Government does not care.
No-cause evictions will be a blight for many people, and it will be a shameful record from this Government because they’ll start seeing the harm later down the line, and then the very same people that they would have made homeless will be stigmatised. These people will be called “at-risk tenants”.
Rima Nakhle: 90 days—three months.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I hear them saying “90 days”, but again, they forget that, actually, this bill has provisions that allow for landlords to have people leave in less than 90 days. In fact, if a landlord says that they have a family member coming over, they can use 42 days.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Some families struggle to get a new rental in 90 days.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: That’s right. And then many people assume—and, again, it just reeks of privilege from the other side to assume that it is so easy for people in our communities to find a suitable rental close to where perhaps their kids go to school, close to where they work in that time. We know that rental properties are facing such massive, massive competition from people across the country that sometimes people go to these viewings, only to feel like they have no chance of getting into the rental property that they’re looking at.
Once again, I just look at this Government’s members and see how out of touch they are with renters across the country and how they’re there to serve—quote from the ACT Party—“the property investment community”. [Interruption] No amount of fake outrage and crocodile tears from the other side will make up for the very same facts that they are supposed to care about, because the facts speak in our favour. This bill is about creating harm, it’s about creating inequality, and the facts will back and validate our words today later on down the track.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, alongside the re-introduction of interest deductibility, are parts of the puzzle that is housing availability and housing affordability. Much has been said about this legislation being used by landlords to kick people out, their tenants out, without reason, when reasonableness dictates that the landlord-tenant relationship is one of accountability and respect, and that this, in general, would not really be happening. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, so I got to see this bill through the journey that we take when we’re scrutinising it at the select committee level. I will say that it was one of the bills that I went home and talked to my family about—not that I often do that—because of the high level of concern that I had for the implications for so many communities, with the provision in here that would mean no-cause termination periods. I really do think that some on the other side of the House are out of touch. I don’t want to make the assertion that all are, but I was watching on TV the speech given by ACT Party member Cameron Luxton earlier, who was saying that this is a day to celebrate and that both landlords and tenants should celebrate this. Well, I can tell you what: over a million people renting in this country will not, because you have just reduced their housing security. There is a lack of real understanding from that side of the House—not all, but from many—on the discrimination and the barriers that some communities and people face to being able to secure housing.
I can say for myself that I’ve only owned a home for, I think, the last 15 years, and before that I was renting. I had some classic examples, despite the fact that I was a professional woman, often flatting with other professional women, in getting rental properties. The reality is that being brown played a role in that, and sometimes being a solo mum played a role in that too. I’ll give you one example, one landlord. On paper, I looked good. She rang me up and she said, “Oh, you look great, yes. When would you want to move in?” And then she said, “Oh, by the way, is your surname—Sepuloni—Italian?” And I said, “No, actually, it’s Tongan.” Well, her tone changed completely, and all of a sudden that house was no longer available and that phone was hung up.
What that side needs to realise is that when landlords are given the ability to terminate a tenancy in this way, with no cause, that whānau or individual has to go on and find another rental, and we happen to have a shortage of rental properties in this country. Now, who are going to be the groups and individuals that struggle to secure their next rental property if the landlord makes the decision to kick them out with no cause? Well, we know who that’s going to be, and, actually, the submissions made really clear who that would be. They did say it would be Māori, Pacific, and people from ethnic communities; they did say LGBTIQ; and then they also talked about the risk for disabled people, because disabled people, when they get a rental, particularly if they have physical disabilities, find it very difficult to find accessible housing, and so, if booted out, 90 days is not necessarily going to be enough.
It’s not just us saying it. It’s not just the 97 percent of submitters that are saying it; even the Government’s own documentation that accompanies the bill tells them about these issues and concerns. You can see it in the departmental disclosure statement. You can see it in the regulatory impact statement. We went through this during the committee stage, but the Government has ignored the evidence—not the first time. Please, don’t come to the House and tell us that we should celebrate this, Cameron Luxton, and that tenants will be so happy about the fact that you’ve just made their housing security even less than what it was before, because, actually, over 1 million New Zealanders will not be celebrating this.
We do have to wonder what is the connection and why it is that this Government is so hell-bent on supporting landlords. Here we are. You’ve got this bill. This part of the bill is the first bit that will go through; everything else is staggered till later. You’re pushing this through on 30 January. We are very mindful of the fact that it’s not just this. You made the decision—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Government made the decision.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government made the decision. I’ll say it again: the Government made the decision to give $2.9 billion of tax breaks to landlords, as well as making it easier for them to kick tenants out.
Now, I’m going to put this on the record: the vast majority of landlords are good landlords, and that came up during the select committee. What also came up was that the vast majority of tenants are good tenants, and I think even the property investors group that came through acknowledged that. Why, then, do we shift the power to this particular group and away from the most vulnerable, into the hands of the landlords when there is no evidence to support that it will actually result in more supply in housing or that it will actually result in tenants being better off in any way? In fact, we’re presented with a whole lot of evidence around why this is not a good move by the Government.
I was slightly embarrassed by some of the speeches given by the Government, across the journey of this bill in this House. There was such a focus on the pet bond. Now, we get that—there were a lot of people that were really positive about that—but, actually, you have to wonder whether or not the Government was choosing to put their entire focus on that as a way of deflecting from the really, really negative, harmful aspect of this bill. We had so many Government Ministers coming to this House telling us about their pets. We know someone’s got a three-legged cat. We know someone’s got a cat and a dog, or two dogs. Here they were, telling us about how important pets were to them and their families and to their communities, and yet they were not able to put the same level of focus on the people impacted by this bill. I tell you what, it’s not positive for the people.
The one part of the pet bonds provision that still is disappointing for me, which came up during the committee stage, was that in the report it’s pointed out that the pet bond is not necessarily going to be of benefit to low-income households and those on benefits. Now, the Ministry of Social Development has a housing support product for those on low incomes and on benefits, which means they can get access to a recoverable grant, which they have to pay back, and they can support them to pay bond, but even with this coming into place, the Government is not moving to extend that recoverable grant so that it could cover the four weeks’ general bond plus the two weeks’ pet bond.
Those people on low incomes, those beneficiaries, they’re not going to be the ones that are allowed to actually take their pets with them, because they won’t be able to afford to pay the pet bond. Yet the Government had an instrument in place that they could have changed to ensure that there was fairness, that, actually, even those on low incomes and on benefits can enjoy the company of their pets and would have the same rights and have access to that like every other person. It seems like a no-brainer, but they just decided that, actually, they were not important, they were not even considered, and nothing would change for them. They will be the only ones that don’t get the opportunity to do this, because it’s just become more expensive for them if they want to take a pet and they need to move.
I was disappointed the whole way through the select committee that we couldn’t get any evidence from the officials about how long it takes to secure another rental property, as well. We heard the member Rima on the other side saying, “Well, they’ve got 90 days.” Well, we have met so many families who even within three months have not been able to secure another property. As an electorate MP, I have had whānau come to my office, saying they are so scared because their tenancy has ended, they are nearly about to move out, they cannot secure another tenancy, and they are on the verge of needing emergency housing. Now, how does that stack up with the Government’s target to reduce emergency accommodation? It again just shows how out of touch that side is.
I am going to end on the Government targets in relation to this, because the issue around housing insecurity, and that churn in terms of housing and having to move on, has other social impacts. The regulatory impact statement makes it clear. It can impact education, it can impact health, and it can impact employment. Here that Government is, saying that they are going to reach all of these amazing targets and improve the education, health, and employment outcomes for New Zealand and New Zealanders, and then they go and pass a bill that is going to put more New Zealanders into precarious housing situations. Now, all the evidence tells them it’s wrong; they still do it. We will not be supporting this bill. We do not understand the way that Government thinks.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I don’t blame members opposite for putting their headphones in for that last speech from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Goodness me, it must be tiring believing everything you say is right despite all evidence to the contrary. Let’s start where she left off with those targets: 70 percent of people moved out emergency accommodation in the last year, 1,600 kids out of emergency accommodation—making it easier to build more homes. I’m proud of what our Government is doing in housing, and I’m proud of this bill too. I commend it to the House.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s a term that’s come up in recent years—certainly in the time that I’ve been in Parliament—and that term is “Generation Rent”. Our ancestors wouldn’t believe that this country has now turned to call its present generation “Generation Rent”. Homeownership numbers have plummeted—
Dr Hamish Campbell: What are they?
Hon PEENI HENARE: —particularly amongst Māori—particularly amongst Māori. In fact, it’s just dipped below 30 percent—28 percent. There you go: Māori homeownership. I can tell that member, in the time of my parents, that homeownership rate was just above 80 percent—just above 80 percent. If that member doesn’t believe it, then he might want to have a look.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Take a call.
Hon PEENI HENARE: Take a call and let’s debate the numbers. But the fact remains, we are calling our tamariki, our young people, people of this generation, “Generation Rent”. This Government is proud of putting the pressures on this generation and not supporting them into homeownership. At the start of this term, this Government took away the support for first-home buyers.
Simon Court: Mate, I rented for a decade and then I bought a house—everyone did.
Hon PEENI HENARE: Prove to me, ACT Party, that you didn’t do that. Can the ACT Party prove to this House that the Government did not take away that support for first-home buyers? No, they can’t. Crickets. Silence.
I can tell that side of the House a story about a person by the name of Miria Henare. Miria Henare had been looking for a House—a qualified lawyer, a professional, who applied for no less than 12 houses to rent. The minute she changed her name to Millie Henry, she got a response from a landlord. Oh my gosh! It’s road to Damascus is all we hear from that side of the House. This is the reality for Generation Rent. This Government is not doing anything (1) to support those people; or (2) to actually solve the issues that have plagued this country. We heard stories about, “Oh, well, you’ve got to look after landlords too because if they leave the market then—”. That doesn’t mean the house disappears; it doesn’t. What we’re not hearing from this Government is how they are going to build more houses. How are they going to continue to support our whānau, our communities, into owning their first home? That used to be an aspiration for this country; now we’re satisfied with the term “Generation Rent”, and that’s simply not good enough.
I’m really disappointed that, at the drop of a hat, tenants can find themselves in a precarious position where they have to leave—at the drop of the hat, no cause, and they’re gone. Once upon a time, we could rely on a strong conversation, a dialogue about people’s situation, caring for those who find themselves in difficult times, both landlord and tenant, but now we’re saying, “No, it’s OK.”, just at the whim of a landlord or somebody who is in a position of power to simply make it difficult for those who find themselves renting. Now, it is true that we have lots of very good landlords in this country. We also have a lot of great tenants, and that’s to be acknowledged, but those who find themselves most vulnerable in this situation are Māori, are Pacific, are ethnic minorities, are the elderly—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Disabled.
Hon PEENI HENARE: —are the disabled, and are rural communities, simply because there’s not enough housing supply. This Government has not answered that question or stood up to that challenge. It’s extremely disappointing that we find ourselves here.
I take the words of the Minister during the committee of the whole House, where the Minister would say and admit that this particular legislation and anything that we look at towards tenancies actually needs a serious overhaul. Well, let’s do that and let’s do it in a bipartisan way where we can get support right across the House for such an important matter in our communities. But, no, we’re going to plod along. We’re going to do a bit of change here. We’ll see how it goes after six months or nine months; we’ll look towards the evidence. Well, all we’ve seen from this Government is ignoring evidence, ignoring the facts, and ignoring statistics.
It’s disappointing to be in here again. I’ve been here 11 years—not as long as others; I won’t name anyone—but in that time, we have debated this exact matter time after time after time after time. It’s time we got it right so that we can fix the term “Generation Rent” and call it “Generation Homeowner”.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of this bill. I think there’s been a number of provisions laid out—sensible, pro-tenant changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, which, along with the introduction of interest deductibility, will increase the supply of rental housing and make landlords more willing to enter into arrangements. This is going to be a good bill for tenants and for the rental supply in New Zealand, and I support this bill. Thank you.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I have particular personal investment in this bill because, during our last couple of years in Opposition, I worked hard as the housing spokesperson for Labour to develop a policy that would give renters in this country more rights and more security of tenure, and as housing Minister, I oversaw the development of the legislation and its passage through the House of the provisions in the law that this bill takes away.
For a long, long time in this country, politicians in this Parliament never gave a moment’s notice or thought to the life and the situation of renters in this country. Whenever housing was discussed, it was always in the context of either State housing or homeownership, but something’s changed over the last generation in this country, and, now, nearly 40 percent of our people in this country rent. Those people who rent are disproportionately the young, the poor, female, Māori, Pacific, and new migrant communities. There is a direct correlation between people who have power in this country and people who don’t have power, and homeownership and people who rent. If we care about fairness, if we care about social justice in this country, we have to take the rights and the security of renters seriously.
Now, there is abundant literature internationally and here in New Zealand that shows conclusively that security of tenure is one of the most important things that determines the wellbeing—the physical, social, and mental wellbeing—of our people. Without security of tenure, it is very, very hard to live a decent, dignified life, to raise children, to stay healthy, and to do the things that we all aspire to.
The rules in the Residential Tenancy Act make a really big difference. If you can be kicked out, even theoretically, for no reason at all, it changes the mind-set of the renter, and it changes the mind-set of the landlord. If you live with the kind of insecurity, daily, that you can be turfed out of your home, the place where your family lives, for no reason, you are much less likely to ever raise a problem with the landlord or get into any kind of dispute or argument, regardless of the rights or wrongs of it or what the law says.
When the market is hot—and it often is in our highly cyclical property market—properties change hands frequently as landlords and investors cash up and buy another property. The human cost of that is that, all over the suburbs and towns of this country, low-income families are being turfed out of their homes. In the early teens—early 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015—when the market was extremely hot in New Zealand, it was not uncommon for young families to be moving house every year or even more frequently. Now, the cost, the sheer cost to their health and wellbeing, let alone the wellbeing of the kids who are then being shunted across the city from one school to another.
Now, the law that we passed in 2018 gave renters a little bit more security. It pushed out the notice periods, and it said that the landlord could not get rid of a tenant for no reason at all. They could still terminate the tenancy if they were selling the house, if they were renovating it, if their family were moving back in, and if they wanted to sell it—the provisions still applied. If a tenant engages in antisocial behaviour, the landlord can go to the Tenancy Tribunal. It’s not like a European situation where, in Germany, people literally have tenancy for life. Not at all. Nothing like that. The law gave them a little bit more security.
It was part of a package of measures giving renters more rights and security, introducing standards for healthy homes. In rental properties, it became compulsory for landlords to have insulation and basic measures to stop cold, damp homes making renters sick. We got rid of letting fees. We embarked on a massive programme of State house building. We banned foreign buyers from buying existing properties, and we dismantled the tax breaks that, for so long, had incentivised a highly speculative real estate economy based on the entrenched expectation of tax-free capital gain. We did all that to make housing warm and dry and healthy, to make renters more secure, and to bring down the cost of rental housing.
Now, I’m sad that the right-wing parties basically have made a fetish, a political fetish, out of their support for property investors. They are willing to advance the economic and financial interests of one class of investors, residential rental property investors, at the expense of nearly 40 percent of the population. They are willing to sell renters, the young, female, low-income, ethnic-minority communities—they are willing to sell them down the river and compromise their quality of life and their life chances in order to strengthen the economic position and the financial interests of property investors. Frankly, for people who should be in this House because they want to do something that’s good for our people in this country and good for New Zealand, I find that absolutely appalling.
We always hear in this debate from the National Party benches that it’s unnecessary to put regulations and rules on—it’s often employers but, in this case, it’s landlords and property investors, because they’re good people and they want to do the right thing and, of course, they’re reasonable and they would only ever throw out a bad tenant. Oh my God! If I had to hear that one more time! It completely denies reason. It’s facile. It’s infantile. We have rules and we have regulations to protect people, to make sure that the market works properly and delivers fair outcomes for everybody.
The members on that side of the House would rather strip away the negotiating power and the protections of people who they want to pretend have equal power to landlords—that people who are shelling out two-thirds of their weekly income to put a roof over their heads are the equals of people who might own three, four, five, six, seven, or eight properties, and that somehow it’s an equal relationship. That is utter nonsense, and I’m amazed that the members on that side of the House are willing to stand up and make that argument, with a straight face.
Our country does face a serious problem, and if you look at a number of our youngest and best and brightest who are currently heading to Australia and further afield because they do not have hope that they can get ahead in New Zealand, the sheer number of people leaving is a problem. Why are they leaving? They cannot get ahead, because of low wages and high housing costs. It’s now been like that for more than a generation, and we have to tackle this problem. Governments these days spend all of their time and money fixing up the social mess caused by insecure work and insecure, expensive housing, but that side of the House seems completely unwilling to do anything about it. They don’t want to raise wages. They don’t want to reduce housing costs.
This bill will undermine the negotiating position of renters. It puts them in an even more precarious position. It gives the lie to everything that they’ve said on that side of the House about wanting to improve the position of renters. We need to do something about housing, and I’m pleased to say that this Government and the Minister Chris Bishop is at least willing to do something about planning reform, about zoning reform, but on every other aspect of housing policy—whether it’s the rights of renters, building State housing, every other aspect—that Government is taking this country backwards. It will only drive more and more young New Zealanders overseas, because they regard this country as being backwards. It’s going backwards at a greater and greater speed because of this Government. This bill, which takes away the rights of renters, makes them more insecure and more precarious, will make life worse for between 35 and 40 percent of this country’s population. Why? So that the National Party can continue to privilege the rights of property investors.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise in support of the Residential Tenancy Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, the other side of the House did so much for renters—$175 a week increase in rent under the previous Government. Is that doing things for tenants? No, it is not. This bill helps balance the approach between tenants and landlords, because it is a relationship.
Now, let’s just have a look at some of the data which they’re claiming isn’t on our side. Data from TradeMe shows an increase of 26 percent of new rental listing in the recent period. Realestateagent.co.nz—you have Google; you can check these numbers yourself—reported a 40 percent increase in rental stock in the last quarter. That is what good legislation does: it helps renters. That’s why this bill is going to add to that. Therefore, I support this bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 21 November.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this. While we are supporting in principle this legislation, knowing that it will tighten up rules around the sale of vapes and looking to protect our young people from smoking impact—particularly for the vapes—we know that there is still a gap in terms of the data for the stores, the shops, and the retailers who sell within our communities, whether they’re specialists or general. Further, in terms of the way in which we are going to change both the fines and the infringements, it’s good to see that we are going to lift the bar for the businesses that we do find are breaching the law. One of the issues that we have, though, is the resourcing for the machinery behind the legislation. Do we have enough kaimahi to do the work, because enforcement is important, and who are the safeguards in our communities? Have we fuelled our waka enough—that’s been a question that we’ve continued to ask as a select committee to get the real numbers of who are the staff on the ground in terms of enforcement, and the picture is not clear.
Now, we sat and we heard submissions from the sector, we heard submissions from those who are in industry, and we heard a lot from families and those who are impacted—for example, our Breakfree kids and the māmās who continue to follow us and ensure that we know the grassroots impact of vaping on our young people—and we cannot lose sight of the impact of this knowing that it’s like a ripple effect. Whether it’s an entry into vaping, then they move into smoking, and aha rānei aha rānei [etc., etc.], the impact continues on. It is trying to prevent before we even get to the point of having to block the sale to our youth. Acknowledging The Hashtags and the work that they did in presenting a petition that focused on the restriction of the sale of vaping products to under-18-year-olds, and then focusing on the proximity and the density, I think this legislation is absolutely addressing some of what The Hashtags brought to the House in their petition.
Of course, when we think about marae, we think about schools, we think about early childhood, and we think about communities, because if it’s about where young people congregate, they congregate in sports clubs, they congregate in playgrounds, and they walk the streets. How do we create the smoke-free environment that we all look for? Referring back to some of what we received as the Health Committee and the density of some of the stores in our communities, we saw that there is a large number in lower socio-economic communities, and that’s something that needs to be addressed. Councils came into the submission process and said, “Hey, we are seeking some tools to be able to regulate in local government so that we can control what is established within our community.”
If we think about alcohol, we think about fast food, we think about pokie machines, and we think about smoking, it’s almost like a happy four of impact—acknowledging that the Minister launched her smoke-free action plan the other week but also taking heed from the sector, who clearly said to us, “Where are the population-based approaches and the focus on those who are most impacted?” That is te iwi Māori. We can’t forget that some 14.7 to 14.9 percent of our young people are vaping, and we have 4,500-odd people a year in New Zealand who die from tobacco-related illnesses. In reviewing and reflecting on the announcement of the new smoke-free action plan 2025, where do Māori fit and where do Pasifika fit in terms of population-based approaches to access to that cessation but also in terms of the focus of the next steps moving forward—and young people are essential in this space.
I just want to raise that there are still stores selling disposables in our community right now. I don’t know how many enforcement officers are on the ground and who are actually watching what’s going on, because our workforce is stressed, and we are just hearing from a few kaimahi who share that it’s just one of a number of things that they monitor. When you’re a kaimahi with a broad range of compliance issues that you have to monitor, tobacco is just one of them, and when we think about our low socio-economic communities, there’s a number of stores which pepper-pot across these spaces. Our compliance officers are important, but it is also access to cessation support, it’s the ability to provide those smoke-free environments that are so essential, and then the ability to grow community action in that space. The compliance is one thing; it’s cessation support, and we don’t have enough in schools for young people. In fact, we don’t even have really anything for vapes right now. It’s all focused on cigarettes.
What are the next steps? We heard of the Health Advisory and Regulatory Platform programme, which is targeted in schools, but where else are we going to get the support that we need nationally for young people to quit? We’ve got compliance, where we’ve got issues. We’ve got cessation support, which is absolutely needed for vapes, because that is a gap right now. Cessation providers are saying that they are tobacco-focused, but it’s actually the vapes that are coming through really strongly, so how can we do that together? Then also we’re thinking about building that awareness, and then, of course, there is the action around smoke-free environments, and may I lament the smoke-free generation. That smoke-free generation born in 2009—my own daughter included, and many mokopuna across the country—will not benefit to be that smoke-free generation, because the law was changed.
I’d like to pay tribute to the claimants at the Waitangi Tribunal who went forward and said no. We need to go back. We need to go back—back to the future—to what we did in the past, which is our Smoke-free Environments Act. These claimants, Auntie Sue Taylor, Hone Harawira, Shane Bradbrook, and Dr Amohia Boulton have their Smokefree Aotearoa claim, and this claim is live right now because they recognise the work that was done before us to lay the foundations of a Te Tiriti - based smoke-free action plan, of which this is one small part.
This is one small part, but we need to do more. In sharing this with you, it’s the next steps, it’s broadening the focus, and it’s also focusing on those populations who need the support, because while we have seen, for instance, a drop in youth vaping and smoking, which we have had ASH - Action for Smokefree 2025 report on, it’s still Māori that are up there, and while there may be drops occurring, it is still Māori who are most impacted and it is still Māori who die the most.
In closing, and acknowledging the work of those before me and acknowledging the importance of our having a smoke-free Aotearoa and going back to 2021, with that action plan that went out, now we have the new plan. I can’t really see Māori and Pasifika in there. The sector has already told the Minister that. It’s been very public in the way that it’s come out and said that it’s a bit beige—it’s a bit beige; it’s not really showing us the road map for addressing smoking-related harm and vaping-related harm to Māori—but, hey, we’re moving forward. It’s different, but we are moving forward slightly.
For that, we are acknowledging the work of the Health Committee and all those who submitted on this legislation, despite it being a bit tight and, of course, truncated, as usual. Kia ora tātou.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to just firstly congratulate Minister Casey Costello on the action she’s taking and the bill she has brought to the House to curb the scourge of youth vaping, which we have heard so much about in the Health Committee. Hūhana Lyndon, the previous Greens spokesperson, told us of the smoke-free enforcement officers. That is also of concern: the under-action or under-resourcing, or whatever is going on there. We need to do more in the way of enforcement in that regard. I support this bill. I think it’s going to be a good bill. Thank you very much.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this is a positive bill to address the harm that youth vaping is causing. There are number of parts to that, including banning disposables, visibility limits, and increasing the fines. I do want to thank the members of the Health Committee for their work on this bill. There were several changes made when it came to us, and I would like to thank everyone for their assistance in getting it to where it is today. There is more work to do, and I know that the Minister has acknowledged that. She did that when she came to the committee. This is a big issue that we need to tackle, and I’d like to see that we have support from around the House on this. I support this bill.
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. Thank you. I stand to speak to this bill, and I will take my whole time. It’s actually really sad to see that others across the floor couldn’t be bothered. The reality is that there are changes, but we are seeing—
Sam Uffindell: It’s nice to have you here.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —when you’re ready—the attitude that we have towards an issue that is major for Māori. It’s an issue that is major for Māori, which is why it has had massive Māori leadership championing it. The whole whakapapa for Smokefree Aotearoa came from those leaders, who were really proud to come up with initiatives that were actually not about playing tactfully into the hands of the tobacco companies, but actually being able to end the tobacco industry, to end smoking, and to end, really, what is the greatest preventable cause of Māori deaths.
What we have is the greatest preventable cause of things that are impacting and harming Māori lives. When we go back to this and talk about what it is and how our Māori leaders who champion the vision of Smokefree Aotearoa, the vision of Tupeka kore Aotearoa—and we’re really proud to hear our niece in Te Pāti Kākāriki mention our long-term advocates. My daughter was one of the first from the kōhanga generation and first in the whare kura kaupapa generation, where we were proud to do everything as smoke-free—auahi kore. There was no “auahi half-pie, ka pai”. We had a full intention of making sure that the scourge of this preventable death was never ever going to be part of their future. At everything we did—our sports, “Auahi kore” flags were everywhere; our kapa haka, “Auahi kore” flags were everywhere. When you are to talk to my child’s generation, that was the vision. That was everything intended—not vaping, not all these “half-pie, ka pai” solutions.
It’s really sad to be here today, and I understand the challenges on this particular bill, but what we have is we’ve seen protests and petitions with over 50,000 signatures, open letters, pleas from over the country, and evidence that indicates that their own voters—yours included—did not want to see anything that compromised the targets, that compromised the messaging, or that compromised the intention of stopping smoking and the tobacco industry in Aotearoa. It is really hard to swallow, because National actually pledged this in 2011, and National actually used to fund and help our kura kaupapa and our kōhanga reo to get that messaging across. National has clearly reneged on that commitment and it feels like this is because they’re prioritising tax cuts over the wellbeing of our people, and it does feel like that on the ground.
We’ve got our Wai claim, and, again, in the era when National was in Government, the Wai 2575 claim identified deficiencies in primary healthcare. The issues that we have to prevent—the diseases and the illnesses that come from smoking—are a major part of what my generation fought for to make sure we didn’t have to be in this hand and in this space again. When we look at this bill and the impact that smoking has and the fact that, for Māori, it’s three times higher than for non-Māori, it is, I guess, a sad state for us, and I’ll say this again, to have to be departing from where those leaders who were looking for a smoke-free environment, who were the likes of Hone Harawira, who, in his time here—in fact, when Te Pāti Māori were in Government with National—was making sure that there was an urgent call to action.
On that note, we will stand and leave that with us. We wish that this Government would honour Te Tiriti and use its influence and its power to stop unnecessary deaths, and to actually go the full hog and leave us in a situation where we can show our mokopuna that we did all we could do to get rid of this sector and get rid of the tobacco industry, and that, instead of having amendments, we actually just stopped and agreed to having a smoke-free environment. Kia ora rā.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the previous speaker from Te Pāti Kākāriki, Hūhana Lyndon, said, we do support this bill because in some small way, it is a small step towards the right direction, but—there are no other ways to say this—overall, this bill, in terms of what it could achieve, is disappointing.
In many ways, this bill provides a smokescreen for some of the other more concerning things we are seeing towards our smoke-free targets—things around heated tobacco products, for example. When it comes to vaping in particular, one of the biggest problems that we’re trying to solve with this is the number of specialist retailers when it comes to vaping products. This bill makes some attempt in reducing this, but, to be honest, we simply do not have enough data in Aotearoa. We simply do not know the full extent in terms of how many shops that are not specialist vaping stores—dairies, supermarkets, or otherwise—that actually do sell vaping products, or what those impacts are going to be.
There are two specific areas I would like to address: one, we have heard from multiple people in this House that vaping is a particular issue for young people. In clause 12, there are certain provisions around the advertisement or publication on an internet site of a link when it comes to the promotion of vaping products, but one of the questions we asked the Minister during the committee stage was whether we know how many young people get sucked into an advertisement from a website by looking at a banner at the top or bottom of a website. Most of the people that are going to get sucked into vaping will be enticed by vaping through social media, so if we really want to have a bold approach to reducing vaping in Aotearoa among young people, why are we not addressing it from a social media perspective and from a media influencer perspective in order to cut down on the number of young people who are enticed by the promotion of vaping through social media?
There is another concern that I would like to address. When we were going through this bill, we thought, “Why is this bill so limited to simply disposable vaping products and not reusable and refillable vaping devices? Surely, if you want to do something, let’s just ban it full stop. Other countries have done that. We know that Singapore does it.”—until we saw the regulatory impact statement. In paragraph 69 of Banning disposable vaping products and increasing penalties for sales to minors, it specifically talks about Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice that anything harsher than simply banning disposable products is going to put us at odds with our international trading partners and, potentially, international companies such as Phillip Morris. This is a huge issue in terms of our trade obligations, as well. We are putting our young people at risk purely because we may have to provide arguments or we may be challenged by international trading partners, and yet we are beholden to international trading partners. That is a genuine concern about the scope of this bill.
While, again, the Green Party supports this bill, overall, this bill is uninspired. It is weak, and it does lack that bold vision that we would like to see as a step towards having a smoke-free Aotearoa. With that, we will support it, but we would really like to have seen more. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent—as I’ve sat here, I was just wondering whether some of the other side of the House have read this bill. We’ve heard about having a smoke-free generation and everything like this. This bill is about youth vaping—it’s very clearly about youth vaping. Vaping has actually proven to be an effective tool for those trying to stop smoking, and yet the rise in youth vaping is very alarming. That’s what this bill is here to address, and we’re addressing it head on, including banning disposable vapes, imposing stricter penalties for selling to minors, restricting the display of vaping products, and limiting the sales from vape stores. This is a very good bill, and I commend it to the House.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): It’s a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on this bill and to have worked with colleagues in the Health Committee diligently on this bill. All parties supported this bill through the select committee process, so it was good to have the opportunity to make what we all accept is a positive difference, and it’s important to acknowledge the work of so many colleagues in hearing the submissions on this and taking the matter seriously. Members will know that the Health Committee also has a briefing on vaping that it is reporting on, and on the Health Committee, we take care to incorporate a diverse range of views and respect each other’s differences. We always abide by the Standing Orders and, just generally, it’s all run like a pretty tight ship.
At the Health Committee—it may interest members of the House—we also had our annual review recently, and we’re grateful for the Ministers’ attendance at that. The Health Committee was visited by all of its relevant Ministers, and I think that’s a really positive thing for the scrutiny of our portfolios in this Parliament.
Minister Casey Costello made remarks that in her view, youth vaping rates should be zero in New Zealand, and that’s an ambitious and laudable aim, because we’ve heard extensively on the select committee in relation to this bill and others that youth vaping is harmful. It’s harmful in terms of it primarily being an addiction: an addiction that gets young people hooked on a commercial product, an addiction that disrupts their ability to sleep, sometimes, and their ability to participate in education, and an addiction that just means you don’t get to make all of your decisions because a substance is making them for you. We also heard about the other impacts, potentially, on mental health and on physical health as well, although that evidence, of course, continues to emerge.
While my colleague who spoke before me is correct that vaping is a useful tool for people to quit smoking, it is not at all something we want young people to take up in and of itself. The question we have to ask about this bill and the Minister’s aim to get vaping rates to zero percent for young people is: does it go far enough? Vaping rates in New Zealand are incredibly high. For young people, it is almost double what it is in comparable jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom. There are marked inequalities in young people’s vaping rates. It’s much higher—as high as 20 percent or more—for some Māori and Pacific communities. We need to see those numbers come down. Once again, the question for this bill is: will it get us to zero? There’s no therapeutic role for vaping in a generation that barely smokes.
What does this bill do? Well, it does, broadly, four things. It makes a ban on disposable vapes, which is useful because mostly young people smoke disposable vapes; there are proximity restrictions in this bill so that new vape stores cannot take up close to schools and marae and early childhood education centres; there’s a change to the visibility of vapes in the front of vape stores, meaning that you cannot look through the window and see the product; and there’s also an increase in fines. That last intervention, I think, is a useful one because the level of fines determines the likelihood of the Ministry of Health taking prosecutions on these matters, and it is our view that the ministry has been far too slow to take those prosecutions.
All in all, these are sensible measures that we support, but do they go far enough to get to zero? If you look at those four, I think, like many submitters, the answer you’ll reach is probably no. When you think about a young person—a teenager—does walking 300 metres present a sufficient barrier to them purchasing a vape? Now, sometimes there is a young person in my household who might not make the 5-metre walk from the couch to the fridge and might ask someone else to do that for them. However, I think the majority of young people will be able to overcome the 300-metre barrier.
Now, the matter of disposable vapes is also very helpful, but is it enough to get you to zero, or near that? No, because not all young people use only disposable vapes. The increase in fines—well, that might tip the calculus for what we know are some of the unethical vendors in New Zealand who do sell to young people. We see in countless controlled-purchase operations that there are people selling to under-age consumers, and yet that is likely to impact at the margins and there’s still social supply of vapes. The visibility of vapes at the shop fronts—once again, it’s a helpful measure—but let’s face it, the entire shop front is the ad for the vape store. Those big neon signs that seem to dominate many small towns on their main street are actually the ads for the product itself.
In my view, it’s reasonable that we agree with many of the submitters who said that this bill will not get us to zero and will not address the scale of the public health problem that we have. That’s why I support many of the measures that they mentioned—and they bear repeating—that could show where this bill could go further, and it was unfortunate that they were ruled out of scope for the submissions and were not reported on adequately.
There were concerns about the number of vape stores; not just where they go—as we’ll deal to with the proximity restrictions—but the number overall. There have been large increases. We have now as many vape stores as we had tobacco stores, and there are seven times more vape stores in the poorest neighbourhoods than in the richer neighbourhoods. That shows why it is that we have these inequalities—it is because of deliberate targeting by the sellers of these products at the poorest people. Submitters suggested the options for a sinking lid on the number of products, for plain packaging, for more education, for limits on the amount of nicotine, and also for the opportunity to futureproof the Act.
To summarise, these products were developed as a form of new product for a tobacco industry that knows it’s on the way out. New Zealand does not owe the tobacco industry a transition plan, and certainly not at the expense of its youth. I commend the measures in this bill to the House, but we can do so much more.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to suspend for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed. When we adjourned for the dinner break, we were discussing the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). We were up to call No. 9, which, I understand, is Carlos Cheung.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Madam Speaker, thank you. Vaping causes major health issues, especially youth vaping. After hearing so many heartbreaking stories, finally, today is a great day for all the parents, a great day for all the school principals and teachers, and a great day for Mount Roskill because, finally, we have a Government that is willing to crack down on youth vaping. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you, and I would’ve assumed that Carlos Cheung, the gentleman who just took his seat, would’ve had a little bit more to say if he was as requisitely proud of this Government’s actions as he just stated that he was. Nevertheless, on this side of the House, as has been said, we reluctantly support this bill in the spirit of it being better than nothing and in the spirit of it being a bit of a once-over-lightly sort of attack on youth vaping, but that shouldn’t discount the fact that we do have some genuine concerns.
Obviously, one of the main concerns we have is about the really, really obvious density of vape stores that’s concentrated in low-income communities. If this Government was actually serious about meaningfully addressing some of those issues, it would have been good to have seen that there was some type of sinking lid policy and that there was any type of initiative to really tackle what is a really inequitable impact on youth vaping in particular communities.
We know also that the lack of enforcement funding is a real issue with this particular bill. The bill raises penalties, for instance, for illegal sales to minors, but it fails to allocate adequate funding for enforcement. It really hasn’t got the requisite teeth to do what it says is written on the tin.
We also think there’s a missed opportunity for much more comprehensive regulation, and, as I’ve said, the concentration that is really exacerbated by easy accessibility in low socio-economic areas is not anecdotal. We know that the University of Canterbury found that there were seven times more vape stores in those neighbourhoods with lower incomes than others. It is predatory, and let’s not pretend that it isn’t. This is a predatory market, and I think that it would have been much better and we would’ve received this bill much better if we thought the Associate Minister of Health had paid requisite attention and had really put the heft of the Government behind trying to do something positive in that direction.
We also think that the bill lacks provisions to address what will be emerging vape technologies. We know this will be somewhat of an arms race—you know, this is something that’s going to move really quickly. There are the marketing tactics and all of the things that go along with a predatory market that’s cheap, that’s pop-up, and that’s designed to get people buying products on impulse and through addiction that deserved a little bit more regulation than what is occurring here.
Essentially, just to sum up, as my colleagues have said throughout this debate, we think it’s a missed opportunity, which is a shame. We think it’s actually quite baffling that despite those alarming youth rates, the Minister has delivered a bill that, essentially, just scratches the surface. We think, therefore, that the Minister has had a little bit of selective hearing in so far as which aspects of youth vaping the Minister has chosen to pay attention to and which seems to have sort of gone in one ear and completely slipped out the other. We think that an enforcement plan without enforcement, essentially, is exactly what it says: it’s an enforcement plan without enforcement. It may sound good and it may alleviate some conscience or give people the opportunity to pat themselves on the back, but if it doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to do and you don’t resource the enforcement aspect of this, then it doesn’t really work.
Importantly, we also think that a real opportunity was here, and there’s been plenty of time to have done the work and put the bill together to make sure that it was futureproofed before—you know, this bill, by the time it has passed, is, essentially, going to be left in the past. A failure to account for the fact that emerging products and the type of market that we’re dealing with will always be one step ahead is a missed opportunity.
We will support the bill. We do think that it is, essentially, kicking the can down the road. It is better than nothing—slightly—and I’m sure I will have another colleague offer some more evidence in that direction. For this session, we are happy to say that, with huge reserve—and we will be watching what happens in the implementation of this bill—we will support the bill at this stage.
GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Kua pānuitia te kōrero e pā ana ngā taipitopito o tēnei pire, nā reira he poto tōku tāpiri ki tēnei kōrero. Ka tautoko ana au tēnei pire ki te Whare. Tēnā koe.
[The details of this bill have been read out, and so I don’t have much to add. I support this bill to the House. Thank you.]
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to stand up and take a call on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). During an earlier speech by my colleague, just about two speeches back, a member from the other side of the House said, “What did you do in the last six years?”, and I thought that that was a really good question. The answer is—
Hon Members: What did you do?
REUBEN DAVIDSON: —I’ve got 10 minutes; I can wait—Labour led the world in the last six years. That’s what we did. [Interruption] Hold the applause.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, interjections are fine, but that’s a barrage, and now I can’t hear.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: We wouldn’t want to deprive you of this speech, Madam Speaker, because Labour led the world. Labour had a plan. That plan was the Auahi Kore Aotearoa Mahere Rautaki 2025, the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan. I’m not surprised that the other side doesn’t want to hear this, because this was about ensuring that young people never start smoking. It was about reducing the nicotine in carcinogenic tobacco products and it was about limiting the number of shops that can sell cigarettes. [Interruption] All that energy that was going to be burnt off at the ball is being burnt off in the House tonight.
Now, these changes weren’t going to come into effect immediately. We were going to give retailers time to transition to a new business model, but we knew that by establishing a smoke-free generation, we were making it clear to New Zealanders that we’d have a smoke-free future, and so many New Zealanders were proud of that. This coalition Government wasted no time in letting that go up in smoke against expert advice and against very, very strong public opinion, because New Zealanders overwhelmingly support keeping smoke-free legislation. Health Coalition Aotearoa and the University of Otago’s tobacco research group, ASPIRE, found that 67 percent of respondents either strongly supported or supported keeping the laws, and a petition was signed by than 46,000 people—46,000 people—who wanted to stop any changes. That petition was handed over to Parliament.
The really interesting bit that the other side might want to hear is that more than half of National voters supported retaining the legislation—think on that—and the reason that people supported the legislation was because it saved lives. Globally, it’s estimated to be 1.2 million lives that legislation like this could save if Governments around the world were as brave as we were to roll it out and not as—I’m not sure of the word—that this Government has been; as gutless as this Government has been in winding it back.
It would be remiss of me as our spokesperson on statistics not to also point out that our smoking rates have more than halved since the 2013 census, and that’s a statistic that we can be very, very proud of—halved since 2013.
Cameron Brewer: Well done, John Key; well done, Tariana Turia.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Whilst you might want to congratulate yourself on the other side of the House, Mr Brewer, I challenge you to check the numbers in three years’ time, because they will have gone back up. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shh! Too loud—not the speaker; just the crowd.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Now, I want to take a moment to look at the local situation in the mighty Christchurch East. At the Lynwood Avenue and Buckleys Road corner by Eastgate, we have got so many vape stores, and there is not a week that goes by that I don’t get people saying to me that there are too many vape stores in this part of the city. In the New Brighton Mall, we’ve got too many vape stores, and there is not a week that goes by that someone doesn’t call me and say that there are too many vape stores in this community.
In South New Brighton, only just 300 metres away from our local school; less than 100 metres away from our preschool; on the doorstep of our community facility, the Bridge Hub; and over the road from Common Ground, which is a community space often full of kids and families enjoying time together, we have got a vape store, right on that community’s doorstep—right on that community’s doorstep—and I know that these issues are not just restrained to the mighty Christchurch East. I know that they happen across Christchurch, I know that they happen in Woolston in my colleague’s electorate, and I know that they happen right across Aotearoa New Zealand. Too many vape stores.
Now, if you believe that New Zealand deserves a smoke-free future, and I do and I would find it hard to find anyone in their right mind who would disagree with that statement—although judging from some of the interjections tonight, there may be members on the other side of the House who quite like the idea, for whatever reason—this select committee and this bill had so many submissions and so many opportunities to address the very, very real concerns about the rates of vaping and youth vaping happening in our communities, and those opportunities were missed. We know that for young people in New Zealand, vaping rates are over 17 percent, and when you compare that globally to the less than 10 percent in the UK and the less than 7 percent in the US, that is something that we should be deeply concerned about and something that we should be doing everything we can to address. Those opportunities that came to the select committee and could have been integrated into this piece of legislation were not.
New Zealand youth vaping rates are far too high. Smoking had lost its allure—we’ve seen that; smoking rates have come down—but vaping rates have accelerated and escalated, and we know that that is often a gateway for young people to then move to smoking. I absolutely support the banning of disposable vapes. We know that that was an accessibility issue. We know that that made vapes far too available to young people, but we need to see a reduction in the number of stores. This legislation could have allowed for that to happen and could have put a focus on some of our more socio-economically deprived communities, where we know there’s a prevalence of those businesses and those stores selling vapes.
There could have been more done to address the proliferation of flavours. Nobody needs to smoke a vape that says “Blueberry crumble” and smells like a Smurf. There’s absolutely no need for that nonsense, and it should have been addressed by this bill. Plain packaging could have been addressed by this bill. Nicotine limits could have been addressed by this bill. Enforcement could have been addressed by this bill. Futureproofing could have been addressed by this bill. But none—none—of it was. None of these things were addressed by this bill. Instead, with the bill that I am speaking to—and that we will support because it does a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of work to address the challenges that our community faces around vaping—there was so much more we could have done, and, really, if this is getting back on track, then I’m disappointed.
You could have done so much better. I’m not surprised by some of the grades we saw issued in the New Zealand Herald this week, if this is the kind of law that we see from this Government. [Interruption]
Cameron Brewer: Oh, jeez! Wait till they get to the Labour Party.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: Now that you’ve finished—briefly—I’ll take the opportunity to remind you that under Labour, New Zealand led the world with our smoke-free legislation. While this coalition Government turns its back on that vision and that plan and that legislation, there are other countries that are picking it up and making it a reality, and it’s an embarrassment that this coalition Government will not do that. I know that in my local community there are deep concerns about the rates of youth vaping and the prevalence of vaping stores and I know that will be the same across your communities as well, and you have missed the opportunity to represent and serve your community by putting some teeth into this legislation.
Whilst I support it, we need to do more. You could have done more. You have chosen not to do more, and that is beyond disappointing. It’s an embarrassment that you’ve walked away from such strong legislation and destroyed the smoke-free future that New Zealanders deserve.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) aims to better protect our young people from the harm of vaping. While vaping was aimed at helping people to quit smoking, it has instead proliferated among our young people, and that is what this legislation is intended to remedy. I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Social Security Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Social Security Amendment Bill.
Hon Member: Where’s the Minister?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is disappointing.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think we’ll have that question, thank you. We’ll let this Minister carry on. Thank you.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t ask a question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, no, there was a specific question there, asking where somebody was.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I present a legislative statement on the Social Security Amendment Bill. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just have some quiet while the Minister gets started, please. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At an appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 22 April 2025.
Having over 200,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker support benefit means too many people are dependent on the State for their primary source of income. The number of people on jobseeker support increased by about 70,000 under the previous Government as the use of sanctions significantly decreased and almost two-thirds of the people receiving this benefit have been for over a year.
This coalition Government believes those who can work should work, because having a job is the best way for people to lift themselves and their families out of hardship. The Social Security Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations 2018 to ensure the settings of the welfare system are focused on supporting people off benefit and into employment. Our Government has greater aspirations for New Zealanders than a life spent on welfare, and these changes will contribute to our commitment to help more New Zealanders get ahead.
The bill I am introducing today has four key goals. It seeks to reduce the number of people receiving jobseeker support and increase exits into employment, reduce costs to taxpayers by reducing benefit numbers, enable welfare system settings that reinforce expectations to work where appropriate, and lift economic outcomes for people and their families through exit into work. The Minister has already begun work on these goals through launching phase 1 of the traffic light system on 12 August 2024, which saw Ministry of Social Development (MSD) clients being assigned a traffic light colour to give them a clear indication of their compliance with their obligations.
This bill introduces phase 2 of the traffic light system. Since June 2024, MSD has also been running work check-in seminars for people on jobseeker support who have full-time work obligations and are not in employment case management.
This bill introduces four key policy amendments to achieve the goals I mentioned earlier. I would like to take this opportunity to touch on each of the four proposed policy changes and their rationale. Firstly, under phase 2 of the traffic light system, I am introducing two non-financial sanctions, specifically money management and community work experience, to expand the toolkit available to MSD for responding to a first failure of a work-related or social obligation. These new sanctions will provide an alternative to financial penalties for first-time obligation failures by certain cohorts of beneficiaries to help them on to a more productive pathway towards employment. The money management sanction will see half a person’s benefit go on to a payment card that can only be used for a limited range of essential products and services, including for groceries, transport, health-related items, and education-related items.
The community work experience sanction will require beneficiaries to complete work experience with community organisations to build up their skills, confidence, and community connections to improve their chances of getting a job. These sanctions only apply at the red setting of the traffic light system and will not apply to those with youth activity obligations.
The second key policy amendment I am proposing through this bill is a mandatory requirement for applicants of certain benefit types and their partners to complete a jobseeker profile questionnaire before they come on to benefit. Applicants will have to record information related to their work experience, qualifications, driver’s licence attainment, and job preferences before their benefit application can be assessed and granted by MSD. Introducing this requirement as a mandatory pre-benefit activity will enable MSD to have work-related conversations with people very soon after a benefit is granted and connect them to any available jobs straight away. This will mean job seekers prepare for work sooner, resulting in better outcomes for them.
Thirdly, the bill proposes requiring jobseeker support recipients and any partner included in their benefit to reapply every six months, rather than annually, to continue receiving their benefit. This amendment will change the expiry date for jobseeker support benefit from 52 weeks to 26 weeks, with newly defined requirements for re-grant. It will enable MSD to check on jobseeker support recipients more often than the current 52 weeks and create more opportunities for proactive engagements with applicants. It will also enable MSD to provide a greater level of support to overcome someone’s barriers to work while ensuring they remain eligible for a benefit. This change will not apply to recipients of sole parent support.
The bill also proposes transitional arrangements to move jobseeker support recipients from a 52-week expiry and reapplication to the new 26-week expiry and reapplication process after these changes are implemented.
Finally, the bill proposes to extend the period over which a work-related or social obligation failure counts against a beneficiary from 12 months to 24 months. Counting past failures for twice as long will increase accountability and ensure tougher consequences for those who repeatedly fail to comply with their benefit obligations. It will mean those who regularly breach their obligations are more likely to move through to benefit cancellation if they remain on benefit longer than a year. Introducing a longer count period will strengthen the message to people on benefits about the responsibility they have to comply with their obligations. This change will not apply to people who fail a youth activity obligation.
This bill also proposes technical amendments to support the enactment of these policies. It proposes changes to support more efficient administration of the 26-week reapplication process and processes within the traffic light system, as well as changes that give effect to several other minor policy matters that reflect the intent of the overall policy changes of these proposals. These changes streamline the Act’s operations and update language where needed.
It is critical that we have a welfare system that actively supports job seekers into work rather than allowing them to get stuck in the system. It reflects the expectations of most hard-working New Zealanders, whose taxes go towards benefit payments. These legislative changes are critical components of the Government’s efforts to increase exits into employment and have 50,000 fewer people on jobseeker support by 2030, which is forecast to save the country $2.3 billion in welfare payments.
This comprehensive package of reforms will ensure our welfare system continues to be a safety net for those who need it, while also shifting those who can work off benefit and into employment. We will continue to support those who cannot work permanently or temporarily, but our expectation will be that those who can work should be taking reasonable steps to become work-ready and find a job in return for receiving financial support from taxpayers. Those who do not will face consequences. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): When does the rhetoric change? Every time a National Government gets elected, it is the same story. Regardless of how responsible they are for the economic conditions or the job losses en masse, they deflect attention to the poorest people, to the beneficiaries; they install more punitive measures; they make out that it is the blame of the beneficiaries that they are on welfare in the first place; and they act like they can fix the situation by putting the boot in. When does the situation change? I’m 47 years old, and I’ve seen this cycle over and over again, and it continues.
There is so much to cover. When you just go through the regulatory impact statement, there is so much in here that contradicts everything the Minister stood up in the House and just spoke about. It would have been nice to hear from the primary Minister of this particular bill, and it is disappointing that we don’t get to and that instead she has sent Penny Simmonds to do her work. However, we will go through the regulatory impact statement—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we’ll just dial it back. The first half of what you said was OK, but I don’t think there was any reason to attack the Minister that’s actually sitting here.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The purpose of this bill is to assist the Government with achieving their reduction of jobseeker support beneficiaries by 50,000. Let’s put the facts on the table. Since that Government got into office, just over a year ago, there are now 30,000 or more people on benefit under their watch. Is that because people decided it would be a fun thing or a nice thing to do to go on welfare? No. It is because of the economic conditions. We have lost jobs in the construction industry. We have lost jobs in the public sector. We have hiring freezes in the health sector. New Zealanders are out of work, and right now they need welfare support.
Then, instead of setting a target for job-exits off benefit, they decided that they would just find ways of getting people off benefit whichever way works. What they’ve decided is that they will use sanctions and a higher level of administrative burden to beneficiaries to push people off benefit to help them achieve their target. The report is really clear that the use of sanctions, particularly to the extent that that Government is attempting to do, has massive repercussions for those on benefit. It is health and physical wellbeing repercussions. It is the likelihood of increased drug and alcohol addiction. It is the likelihood of increased poverty. Yet they ignore it. They go ahead anyway.
They haven’t had an increase of staff at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). However, they’ve had a number of new compliance policies put on top of them—not just the ones that are announced here but the ones that have been announced over the course of the last year. The regulatory impact statement lays out very clearly that the risk now is that front-line MSD staff will not have the capability or capacity to focus on constructive employment support. Instead, all of their time is going to be taken up with compliance as a result of what that Government has decided that they want to do with this particular bill and with our welfare system.
The sanctions that they are looking to impose—I don’t know whether they’re farcical or whether or not they’re going to up the ante, but, as I said to the Minister already, they’re not even enforcing the social obligations. Yet she’s saying that as part of the traffic light system and what they’re going to do here, they’re going to up the ante and force more people or take them off benefit or sanction them if they don’t have their kids in school, if they don’t have them in early childhood education (ECE), or if they don’t have them in a primary health organisation. Now, some of those things are sometimes out of the hands of the parents, because, if you lived in the real world, you’d know that sometimes it’s not that easy to get your kids enrolled in ECE or even into a primary health organisation.
There are a number of things in here that concern me. The reapplication process, which was already flawed at 52 weeks—and I acknowledge that, having been the former Minister—they’re now going to make it every 26 weeks. Now, the report states that when you make people go through the reapplication process, it’s not because they’re no longer eligible that they go off benefit; it’s because of this thing called “procedural denials”. These people get biffed off benefit because they don’t have the correct paperwork or they don’t get it in on time, and then they end up coming back on benefit anyway. I’m not making that up; that is all in the report.
This Government’s approach to the welfare system is flawed, and you’re actually going to cause more harm for future generations of New Zealanders because you continue to ignore the evidence. When you talk about a social investment approach, I can’t listen to you, because this is an example of where you ignore that.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): In my first speech in Parliament, I gave a shout-out to and honoured everyone who’s lied to Work and Income to make ends meet, and it would be a disservice if I didn’t do the same thing today—a shout-out to Metiria Turei, a shout-out to literally countless people on the benefit who did the right thing for their families when the rules were set against them. This legislation will result in countless people having to do things they shouldn’t have to do, to provide for their families.
I am sick and tired of listening to members across the House talking about people on the benefit as if they work with them, as if they organise with them, as if they engage with them, as if they serve them, and as if they care a damn about the people who this bill will be affecting and pushing deeper into poverty. They don’t care about them. We’ve got a Prime Minister calling people on the benefit “bottom trawlers”. We’ve got a Minister in charge of this bill who doesn’t care what happens to people on the benefit once they don’t receive income support that allows them to provide for their basic essentials—she just wants to get them off a benefit. It doesn’t matter where they go. It doesn’t matter if they end up in the streets.
They keep talking, to justify this bill, about how they need to get people into work, but let me tell you what: unemployment is baked into our economic system. There is simply no way in which this current economic system will provide a job for every single person on the benefit. It never has and it never will, unless we change the system for the many and not the few. There will simply not be a situation under this Government where there will be as many jobs as there are unemployed people. Every person on the benefit deserves to live with dignity and out of poverty. No one should have to queue at a line to receive their bare essentials. What this bill will do is double down on beneficiary bashing. As much as the Minister who spoke earlier called it non-financial sanctions, if compulsory money management, if community work experience prevents you from accessing hardship grants, that is literally stripping away from people their means to survive.
Clearly, people on the other side don’t understand the lived realities of people on the benefit. How many people on the benefit rely on hardship grants to make ends meet on a weekly basis? Many of them have to call Work and Income and queue at Work and Income on a weekly basis to access hardship grants, to survive. If you strip the ability of people to access those things because they’re on the so-called non-financial sanctions, you’re stripping them of the means to pay rent. You’re stripping them of the means to access transport, to look after their kids, and that is a pipeline to abuse in State care. That is a pipeline to the many things we’ve been warned about by survivors, by people on the benefit.
Again, this Government does not listen nor care about the realities. They would rather pander to beneficiary bashing than do the right thing: to lift benefit levels, finally, above the poverty line; to listen to the evidence and, actually, to the countless people on the benefit who have been so generous across the years in speaking to the media about what it is like to be on income support. The members of this Government would rather conjure an imaginary beneficiary they decided to create in their heads that apparently is ripping off the system, when actually most people are simply trying to survive. They’re simply trying to do what’s best for their communities.
I worked at the front lines with people on the benefit for many years, and the people that I’ve met were people who have been failed by successive Governments, people who’ve lived in motels. I’ll tell you what: no amount of compulsory money management will lift them out of poverty if the benefit levels we set continue pushing them below the poverty line. When people are pushed below the poverty line, you make it harder for them to enter into employment. You make it harder for them to be the people who they want to become, to meet their aspirations. Let’s not forget that, alongside those people on the jobseeker benefit, there are countless disabled people who have been prevented from accessing the support that they need, disabled people who will continue being failed by this Government and not have their needs—including their health needs—met. What this will do is it will trap many disabled people into further poverty.
I don’t want to believe nor buy any of the narrative that this is about getting people into work. The Government simply does not care for all the advice and evidence that they’ve been presented. The fact is that they’re literally copy-pasting failed policies from Australia into this country, where in Australia there is a mountain of evidence about how policies like compulsory money management have failed—they have failed. They have pushed people into poverty, they have created more stigma. I actually think they do know the evidence, but they don’t care, because cruelty is the point. Beneficiary bashing is the point. None of their rhetoric is the point; cruelty has always been the point. The point has always been to entrench inequality, to scapegoat beneficiaries, to scapegoat the people who need our support so they can continue pushing a political narrative while they continue environmental destruction.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party is very proud to support the Social Security Amendment Bill. There were very interesting contributions from the Labour member and the Green member. I wish that they had understood the importance of people being in employment. What we have seen from them is that they actually encourage people to be on a benefit, and that is not the goal of this Government. That was the goal of the previous Government. They didn’t care about people getting into employment, but we on this side do care about people getting into employment because that is how people reach their potential.
The ACT Party really wants to see that we empower people so that they can do well for themselves, they can do well for their family, they can do well for the community and also contribute to the economy, because every individual, at whatever level they work, makes a contribution that makes our community a functioning community. We want to see all these people also becoming part of that functioning community.
I also want to say that, yes, for some people, sometimes in their lives, they will have to depend on a benefit, because maybe they’re going through that phase when they’re looking for employment and they’ll be on a jobseeker benefit or people have been trying for it for a while after they have finished their studies. That’s totally fine. That is the purpose of the welfare system—to support people when they really need it—and most of these people, those who go on the benefit, we know work really hard to get back into employment. Then there are some who go on a benefit, and then they just sit on the benefit, and they lose that motivation to get back into employment.
Also, it’s not just that one individual in the family, but there is evidence that it can go from one generation to the next generation, because when the younger generation sees the older generation just being on the benefit, they wonder what the reason is for them to go out and look for unemployment, so they follow the older people in their family, and that is what we want to stop. We want to see that these people are communicated with very clearly as to what their obligations are, and these obligations will be communicated very clearly, and if they fail these obligations, then there will be sanctions.
The ACT Party, before the election, campaigned on money management, and we have seen that this bill will implement money management of people—those who fail their obligations. Half of their benefit will go on a card which can be used for essential items. Also, this bill is going to introduce a community-work component for people, only a few hours every week for four weeks, which is going to be helpful for these people to gain some experience. They will be able to gain this community-work experience in not-for-profit organisations, but then that will add value to their CV, that will add value to their life in terms of having that experience to go out and explain to an employer that they do have experience of working for different organisations.
It’s also important that when people fail, there are some consequences. If there are no sanctions, then people just feel that they can stay on the benefit for as long as they want. On this side, we want to see that those people really feel that there are going to be consequences, because this is about mutual respect, respect between the State and people who receive the benefit. Yes, the Government’s role is to provide benefit to people who really need it, but for people who are on the benefit, it’s their responsibility as well to ensure that they are doing everything to get off the jobseeker benefit.
It is also important for us to note that Governments are accountable to taxpayers, and these individuals who get off the benefit and get into employment will be making a contribution, as well, as a taxpayer. That is not just a success story of that individual; that is a success story of that whole community and the whole country. What we want to see is more and more people who are on jobseeker benefit able to get into employment so that they can be contributing as well to make us a more functioning and a stronger and healthier country.
There are a number of changes that this bill brings, in line with what we want to achieve, which is to see more and more people getting into employment. With that, I support and commend this bill. Thank you.
TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you. I’ll take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First in favour of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Now, this bill, it has several objectives, but, really, in general, it is about ensuring that our welfare system is focused on enhancing and extending our welfare settings in order to support people into employment and out of dependency.
In New Zealand First, we believe in helping everyone. We also believe in empowering people and reducing benefit dependency. Now, I will be on the Social Services Committee, so I look forward to be going through the process and speaking more on this bill when it comes back into the House. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the bill.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Just listening to the impassioned kōrero—certainly from this side of the House—and then the responses from the other side, they carry a typical attitude, I think, which is often what I’d describe as “Let them eat cake.” This lot on my left say, “Let them eat cake.”, because that’s all they get—that’s how they perceive the world—and I had this very same feeling when we were talking about a couple of bills earlier.
It’s discussed from this left side of the House as if they truly, actually get the context for families, mums, dads, and their children on benefit who are struggling, trying to do their best, and can’t quite get there—can’t quite get there—and suddenly this next lot of legislation comes along and says, “Well, look, you might be doing good, but we know what’s best for you. We do know what’s better for you; in fact, so much so that we’re going to put a bill in place that tells you how to live”—how to live in poverty—“without any real understanding of what the reality is on a daily basis.” I heard a little bit earlier from the left of me, and I was thinking, “OK, that speech might get there. I might feel like this person understands the lived experience.”, and, right now, the picture that comes to mind is the whānau that Peeni Henare and Willow-Jean Prime and I know and love in Te Tai Tokerau.
It’s the intergenerational argument, I think—and that’s what I want to say—that was raised here. It is as if a whānau, their parents, or their grandparents—“That’s how they were and that’s what they’re used to and that’s just how Māoris are. They’re lazy.” All of that deep racist kōrero exists in the narrative. It exists in the narrative, and it’s bloody—oh, sorry. It’s shameful.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apology accepted.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Excuse me—sorry, Madam Speaker. There are other words I’d probably want to use, but I guess what I am saying is that with regard to the intergenerational argument, it’s similar to the point that I wanted to raise when our children and our young people are caught up in a system such as Oranga Tamariki, and there are the generations of our kids that are in State care, right? They have grandparents that have been in State care, and they have grandparents and great-grandparents that have been caught up in prisons, in incarceration, and in that poverty churn—in that poverty pathway—but not because they want to be there, not because they were born to be in that place, but because, systemically, that’s where it pathways for many, many of our families. The benefit system is no different.
The pretence in that speech that “Look, we do want you to get a job, and we really think that you can contribute.” It’s such a patronising, unbelievable, fake conversation—
Mark Cameron: How so?
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and to anybody that dares to ask me—
Carl Bates: How?
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —particularly Pākehā that try and ask me that question, I’d say just don’t bother. You couldn’t possibly know.
There are the numbers of young people that suffer mental health issues, and particularly our young people that suffer from deep mental health issues that lead down to very serious, serious, devastating results. I worked in the suicide prevention space. I get what these results can be, and the most serious and terrible points and ends. If you think that all of this isn’t connected to one another, you are completely mistaken. You live a false reality, and you just simply couldn’t understand.
What can I say? Moumou te wā [Waste of time], Madam Speaker. Engari pai ki te kōrero ki a koe. Moumou ki te kōrero ki ngā hunga e mea kūare ana ki tēnei taha, tōku taha. Engari ka mihi ki a koe. [But it is good to speak to you. It is a waste of time to speak to this lot on my side, who are ignorant. But I acknowledge you.] This simply cannot be supported. Please knock it off. Kia ora.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The object of the Social Security Amendment Bill is to support people—help people, enable people off the benefit by getting them, helping them, into employment. We need to reduce the dependence on welfare by helping New Zealanders, more New Zealanders, become more aspirational and to develop the mana that hard work and achievement brings. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Another difficult bill to sit here and listen to: the speech from the Minister and the speeches from the Government members on what they say this will do, and then the speeches from this side, which are about what it will actually do, what it will mean, what the impact of this will be.
I want to start by saying that under this Government, we have already seen the numbers on main benefits rise by 29,000, and 22,000 for jobseeker support.
Carl Bates: Thanks, Labour!
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Here we go again, blaming Labour. One year in, taking no responsibility—no responsibility—for their actions that have led—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Too loud.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —to increases in the numbers requiring benefits. No responsibility. They just blame, and then they put in place more punitive measures, saying that it is going to help these people.
I go to the regulatory impact statement (RIS). Once again, thank you to the officials who prepare these documents. I just want to point out, on page 6, once again, the “Limitations and Constraints on Analysis”. That includes “Narrow scope: The proposals developed in this package were largely informed by, and limited to, a series of commitments made by the Government in its pre-election materials and two coalition agreements.” It’s not evidence; just their own political promises.
“Lack of broader public consultation”: the time frames for the development of this policy once again “did not allow for public consultation”. They don’t care what anybody has to say. They are simply here to deliver on their election promises, their manifesto commitments—not interested. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Too loud.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: They are not interested in a regulatory impact statement, any advice from any officials, any evidence, because they know best. They also have not thought about the funding and operational capacity of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). The RIS says, if anybody’s bothered to read it, which it doesn’t appear that they have, that they have received strong indications from MSD “that options will need to be funded within existing baselines and therefore existing”—wait for it—“frontline resources.” No—no concern from the other side of the House. Why am I not surprised?
I want to talk—and this will rark them up, I’m sure—about the impacts that this will have on Māori. Oh, a little bit of silence. Paragraph 57, on page 23—[Interruption]—oh, here we go; didn’t take you long—“Māori are disproportionately represented in the welfare system and are more likely to be affected by the proposals recommended in this suite of changes.” Anybody over that side care about that? No, no, I didn’t hear a single care. “Proposals, such as the reapplication process … non-financial sanctions, may disproportionately negatively impact Māori”. You will fail to align with the active protection and equity promises of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. “Māori are more likely to have their benefit cancelled through the reapplication process”—you have the statistics here in the regulatory impact statement: 3.5 percent compared to 2.7 percent. “Māori are … sanctioned at greater rates than non-Māori”, and they are also likely to be “overrepresented in the cohort [who are] available for non-financial sanctions and will be disproportionately impacted by the negative consequences associated with [these] interventions”.
I only have five minutes in this first contribution. I wasn’t able to get to the impact on Pacific people, on women, on people with disabilities, on children and young people, or on older people, but those members on that side of the House might like to read page 25 so they can see what the officials are saying will be the actual impact of these proposals on some of our most vulnerable people.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise to take a call on this bill. I have been to the Ministry of Social Development to see how this works, and I have spoken to them. I know full well the demographic in my electorate of people who are on the jobseeker benefit, and I also know the help and support that is available to them if they’re prepared to give it a go.
This Government has said so many times already that people sometimes need to go on a benefit—we understand that—but if they can work, they should try to work, and while the taxpayers of this country are paying, people need to take steps to find a job if they can. All we ask is that some effort is made. This bill is directly pointed at making that effort. I don’t know, but money doesn’t grow on trees. We need to actually make a difference in this country, and by helping people to get a job, to get some training, to get some support, then if that’s what it takes, I commend the bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It’s Christmas, Madam Speaker. It’s Christmas-time—
Hon Members: Oh no. Oh, gee.
GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, and I think the grinch—I think Ebenezer Scrooge is in the House this evening and trying to wrangle every cent and every penny they can. It grieves me to hear the mockery and the barrage of—it almost seems like it’s fun to talk about beneficiaries—
Mark Cameron: We’re just thinking of the interest you accumulated on the debt, Glen. Keep going.
GLEN BENNETT: We are a welfare State and we pride ourselves—so we talk about the debt, yes, but it’s how we administer that, Mr Cameron; it’s how we administer that. For me standing in this position, I’m sure many people in this House have walked alongside beneficiaries. I’m sure many people in this House have been into the Work and Income office and experienced the treatment that they’ve received. If you have not, it is not easy.
Mark Cameron: If you hadn’t wasted it, we could give more of it away, mate—I’m sorry. You just burnt all the cash.
GLEN BENNETT: You might think—and as Mr Cameron there is saying, money doesn’t grow on trees. It’s like the beneficiaries are just trying to pluck it out from here, there, and everywhere. That is not true. If you want to think it’s funny, if you want to think that beneficiary-bashing is fun, then enjoy—enjoy your Christmas with your family, enjoy your Christmas with your Christmas turkey, enjoy your Christmas with your beautiful champagne—but know the fact is that there are people out there in my own home who are struggling, and there are reasons for that struggle.
Yes, we agree on this side of the House—of course we do—that there are people who take things for granted. We agree, of course, that there are people who play the game and play the rules. But you know what? There’s people in business, people who play the tax system, who make mega dollars, and you don’t comment when that happens, but when it comes to a few beneficiaries—
Hon Member: They pay the taxes.
GLEN BENNETT: Not the ones who play the game, if you are listening. Please don’t make fun of this, because this is serious, and this makes me angry. You might giggle and laugh and think that I’m just overreacting, but when it’s people in your own family, when it’s people who have suffered excessive trauma before their teenage years, then of course we want to get them into work. Of course we want them to have a life where they actually stand up for themselves. Of course we do.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: They don’t get there.
GLEN BENNETT: They don’t get there because the system is stacked against them. This system should be about empowerment, this system should be about lifting people up, but this legislation is about disempowerment; it’s about control. If you are a social worker, if you have studied anything in the humanities—for those who have been able to—you’ll know that it’s about empowerment and lifting people up. It’s not about putting these heavy-handed approaches on people and saying to them, “We know best. We know it’s right for you because we’re OK.”
Mark Cameron: A rising tide lifts all boats, Glen Bennett. The whole country, not just some.
GLEN BENNETT: I can’t even—I can’t even respond to that, and I won’t. I’ve heard words from the Government side this afternoon on this bill, saying this is about supporting people, this is about helping people, this is about enabling people. This is about disenabling people, this piece of legislation. You know what we should be considering tonight? Have you ever thought about maybe looking at amendments to this bill around—what about mentoring? What about coaching? What about looking for solutions within your own community? Oh, no, it’s OK for you. Oh, you’ve probably got a coach. You probably pay for that yourself or get the party to pay for it. But no, for you—sorry, Madam Chair—for the Government—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s OK. It’s an emotional topic, and I’ve let a few people get away with it tonight—I don’t take it personally.
GLEN BENNETT: For Government MPs, it beggars belief to me that—I believe there’s a lack of understanding of what it’s like to negotiate the welfare system. I don’t understand what it’s like to actually come from a life where you weren’t born into the right family, you weren’t born into the right community. Yes, you’ll say, “Oh, it’s just Glen’s making excuses. Glen’s just saying, ‘Oh, yeah, we can all lift ourselves up from our bootstrings!’ ” But you know what? There are many of us that struggle and we want to look at how we can empower our communities. We want to look at our welfare State as—yeah, it is, it’s a backstop. It should be a backstop, but it should be something that is enabling, and lifts people as opposed to something that puts the thumb down on them, something that controls them, something that walks over them. This is tough to hear at Christmas. We cannot support this legislation.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Speaker, can you believe what we’re hearing today—can you believe what we’re hearing? Can you remember those sky-rocketing jobseeker numbers during the COVID days when we had acute labour shortages and cafes could not open on certain days, yet the jobseeker numbers just keep going up and no one could find labour. That was under that previous administration.
We heard that they say this Government is only interested in delivering on its election promises. Oh, holy smoke! Wow! Delivering for the public—delivering for the public. And guess what? This is a Government that’s about action plans. This is a Government that’s about delivery, accountability. Guess what—guess what! Go on to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website and find Government target No. 5, out of nine Government targets. Guess what that is? Fifty-thousand fewer people on jobseeker support benefit. That is a Government target. That is what we committed to. This legislation will help us get there. I commend the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member from the Greens voted 14, not 15.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: There may be a valid reason for that. Is that correct?
DANA KIRKPATRICK: Yes, Madam Speaker, but that wouldn’t make it 55.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very good counting. Just a moment. We’ll get the number checked. Good spotting. The Ayes are 68, the Noes are 54.
Bill read a first time.
Social Security Amendment Bill be considered by the
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That theSocial Services and Community Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Instruction to Social Services and Community Committee
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 April 2025.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m just seeking your clarity, and I may have this wrong, so apologies. When a select committee process is asked to be reported back in less than the standard six-month process, is it—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it’s over 4 months and one day, which to my understanding it is, there is no debate.
GLEN BENNETT: Thank you. I was trying to remember.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Bills
Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.
Every New Zealander deserves to feel safe in their community. When a person is stalked, the experience permeates every aspect of their life. The behaviour can escalate to serious physical harm. We know the public is concerned about stalking. We’ve heard from advocates who tell us stalking needs to be recognised as its own offence. Today, I’m very proud to present the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill to the House.
This bill delivers on our commitment under the Quarter Four Action Plan to introduce legislation to address stalking by the end of the year. The bill creates a new offence of stalking and harassment. It repeals the existing offence of criminal harassment in the Harassment Act. We heard from advocates that the placement of the offence within the law is important as it sends a clear message about its seriousness. The new offence will therefore be inserted into the Crimes Act 1961. The seriousness of the new offence will also be reflected by its penalty—a conviction of the new offence will be punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
The offence has two key elements that will need to be satisfied to secure a conviction. First, the perpetrator will need to have engaged in a pattern of behaviour against the victim. The bill defines a pattern of behaviour as three specified acts within a 12-month period. Secondly, the perpetrator needs to have engaged in that pattern of behaviour knowing it was likely to cause fear or distress to the victim. The bill provides a list of the types of behaviours that may be a specified act. These include things like watching or loitering near the victim, tracking or communicating with the victim, and damaging or interfering with their property. It also includes less tangible harm like damaging or undermining the victim’s reputation or relationships.
We’ve heard that stalkers often use other people, organisations, and institutions to stalk their victims. Examples of these behaviours and the harm it can cause have also been documented in the media recently. To address this, this bill provides that specified acts may be done directly or indirectly to the victim. This makes it clear acts may be done through or to a third party with the knowledge that it will cause the victim fear or distress.
The bill also makes it clear that a specified act can be done by or through any means whatsoever. Examples of different means are given, such as the use of tracking devices, spyware, and artificial intelligence. These clarifications seek to futureproof the law by ensuring that new forms of stalking can still be captured by the law.
To protect legitimate conduct from being criminalised, a defence to the offence is included in the bill. Specifically, it provides that the defendant will not be liable for behaviour done for a lawful purpose, with a reasonable excuse, or in the public interest. This ensures that, for example, law enforcement can perform its function without the risk of prosecution.
As part of the offence, the bill establishes a police notification system. This allows the police to notify stalkers that their behaviour is causing the victim fear or distress, and that if the behaviour continues they’re liable to be charged with the offence. A police notification is not required to prosecute the offence. Receiving a notice will not be a prerequisite for filing a charge, but a notice should not be given instead of prosecution where it is clear an offence has been committed.
However, where a notice is given, a notification system will support prosecution. If a person has previously received a notification and they continue to engage in the pattern of behaviour, the bill creates a presumption that they knew their pattern of behaviour was likely to cause the victim fear or distress. This assists improving the mental element of the offence. The notification system makes it clear that there are real consequences for stalkers. It also aims to reduce the steps victims need to go through to have their harm responded to.
In addition to the new offence, the bill makes supporting amendments to four other Acts to address stalking. Amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 aim to better recognise the unique characteristics of stalking and provide better protection for victims. The bill will add two new sentencing aggravating factors. First, it will be an aggravating factor if the offending took place where the victim had a restraining order against the offender. Secondly, it will be an aggravating factor if the offender’s behaviour towards the victim outside of the offence involved persistent or repetitive behaviour over a prolonged period. That behaviour must have caused, or be likely to have caused, fear or distress in the victim.
The bill also allows the court to make new orders when sentencing a person convicted of the new offence. Specifically, the court will be able to make restraining orders under the Harassment Act 1997 and orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. This change provides additional protection for victims of stalking, meaning that they won’t also have to seek civil remedies alongside a criminal trial.
The bill amends the Family Violence Act 2018 to make it clear that stalking can be a form of family violence. Psychological abuse already captures intimidation and harassment, so this change provides consistency and completeness.
Evidence indicates that stalkers with access to firearms are more likely to escalate to violence. To address this risk, the bill amends the Arms Act 1983. That amendment provides that a person convicted of a new offence within the last 10 years will be disqualified from holding a firearms licence.
Finally, the bill makes changes to the Evidence Act 2006 to prevent a defendant charged with the new offence from personally cross-examining the alleged victim. This amendment aims to reduce the risk of witness intimidation, reflecting the particular nature of stalking cases.
I’m proud to bring this bill to the House today, which brings real consequences for stalkers and better responses for victims of stalking. I want to thank the tireless work of the advocates in this space for their continued efforts. I want to acknowledge the more than 18,800 people who signed the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children’s petition to make stalking illegal. We hear you. We’re now sending off for a full select committee process where we’re happy to discuss the finer details. I’m sure people will have many things to say about that and we’re very keen to hear those comments.
We’re delivering on our commitment to ensure that there are 20,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime by 2029, and this bill brings us one step closer to this commitment. I hope that we will enjoy widespread support across the House for this important legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill. At the beginning of this year, the honourable Minister responsible for this bill stated quite clearly on the public record that stalking legislation was in fact not a priority for this Government. He explained quite clearly that there was a busy work programme ahead of the justice portfolio, and stalking legislation quite simply was not a high priority on that busy workload.
Something changed his mind, something made him change to make this legislation a priority. Maybe it was the nearly 20,000 signatures delivered to him on the steps of Parliament by all of those women and advocates who worked so hard to bring those signatures together. Maybe it was a member’s bill that proposed to do what this bill does but a bit more, which had the potential for being drawn from the ballot. Or maybe he just had a change of heart. Let’s hope it was the third one.
Labour supports this bill because we think it does good work in this space, but we do have some reservations, and I’ll go into detail about what those reservations are. I will ask people who are strong advocates in the sector to submit and put their voices forward to the select committee so that all those views can be taken into consideration when we receive submissions on this bill.
Before I go into that detail, I’d like to acknowledge three people. There are lots of others I could acknowledge, but I would like to firstly acknowledge Leonie Morris, who is the chair of the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children. It is Leonie I met and I worked closely with in the drafting of my member’s bill. She is a strong advocate for women’s safety and has worked tirelessly in the sector and continues to do so, and she has a wealth of knowledge in how to better support victims in New Zealand.
I’d like to also acknowledge Awatea Mita from the Aotearoa Free from Stalking campaign. They drove a strong campaign that has largely driven and put pressure upon this Government to bring this bill to the House before the end of the year, and I acknowledge the hard work that has gone in to do that.
I’d also like to acknowledge the work of Layba Zubair and the Anti-Violence Action community organisation, who have worked as a group. One of the benefits, I would say, of being in Opposition is the ability to engage with the front-facing people who do this hard work in our community and understand the nature of issues by engaging with them and understanding the specific circumstances of repeat stalking which happens in New Zealand.
Stalking is a shocking and far more prevalent practice than most people understand it to be. It can take many shapes and forms. It can be online, it can be in person, it can be following, it can be repeated unwanted gifts, it can be physical violence. It can be cameras unknown in your home or in your car, it can be tracking through GPS. You can think of many, many, many ways you can try to make someone’s life a misery by stalking them. It varies. It can be someone who’s had a relationship already, or it can be someone who’s never met them but only seen them online. Either way, it is a power play to dominate and intimidate someone and to make their life a misery.
One of the points I’d like to highlight in this short speech is that this bill has been called tone-deaf by the sector. It has been called a watered-down protection, and the key reason is that this very bill repeals the harassment law and introduces a new stalking law, and that is what has caused real dismay from the very women who campaigned so strongly and brought together those petitions. The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill would make it illegal to carry out three stalking actions in a year, but, very importantly, it would also allow the repeal of the related offence of criminal harassment, which is defined as two acts of serious harassment in a year.
Making it legal for stalkers to harass their victims twice a year in certain ways is absolutely counterproductive and uncalled for, possibly even unprecedented internationally, and the sector has called upon the Minister and stated that they are angry at this “bait-and-switch move.” Stalking actions are harmful, and the harassment law is wound into this as well.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Greens confirm that we will be supporting this bill to select committee. I want to mihi to the mahi of countless survivors, advocates, and whānau members for their tireless work over successive Governments to ensure stalking and harassment is taken seriously. Their collaboration, dedication, and determination is the reason we are here today.
To members across both sides of the House: we are putting our differences aside to focus on our shared vision to prevent all forms of violence, particularly harassment and stalking, which are not inevitable. Our mokopuna deserve our commitment to creating a world where everyone can live free from violence. We are committed to honouring the experiences and the dignity of survivors, and will use all the tools available to us so that the bill we pass is fit for purpose, reflects their experiences, and will make the world safer.
New Zealand’s justice system does not sufficiently address stalking. This bill aims to close that gap and better protect victims of stalking. My colleagues have covered the amendments proposed in the bill.
The Greens recognise that this bill takes a punitive approach. An essential action to protect victims of stalking and harassment is to focus on prevention and rehabilitation to address the root causes for the harmful behaviour. We have an across-Government strategy Te Aorerekura, which is a bold action plan to eliminate family and sexual violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. I mihi to the Hon Marama Davidson and Jan Logie for shepherding this action plan into fruition. Prevention and rehabilitation includes robust mental health support, ensuring accessible services to address harmful behaviours early, education on healthy relationships and consent in schools, and adequately funding our front-line community one-stop support services.
We know the work of the experts and survivors like Aotearoa Free from Stalking and the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children has been vital to bringing this bill to the House. On the Parliament steps earlier this year, Aotearoa Free from Stalking handed a petition with over 21,000 signatures, which shows how much support this move has.
To achieve our goals to protect victims of stalking and harassment, we have to listen to people with lived experience. There are three main concerns that have been brought to our attention by survivors and experts. Firstly, there are concerns about the requirement of the 12-month time frame and three specific actions to meet the threshold for stalking. Leonie Morris from the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children said, “Making it legal for stalkers to harass their victims twice [in] a year in [a] certain way is counter-productive and uncalled for, and possibly unprecedented internationally,”. Secondly, many victims who have struggled to have their stalking taken seriously have raised concerns about police training. We need police to be properly equipped to recognise and respond to stalking. Thirdly, the third main concern is the lack of mandatory consideration of stalker rehabilitation, like non-violence programmes.
These concerns, among others, show why it is so important that we have a select committee process: we need to hear directly from survivors and sector experts. Let’s uplift their voices and make sure this bill addresses their needs and honours the mana of their experiences. Stalking is terrifying and horrific, and it can happen to anyone. We can create a future where everyone in Aotearoa can live free from violence with dignity and peace. To the survivors and allies: we’ve got you.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Madam Speaker, thank you. It’s an absolute privilege to stand here today, not only on behalf of ACT but as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, and I feel humbled to be able to speak to this today. You’ll have to excuse me; this is kind of personal for me.
Stalking doesn’t just affect the main victim. It affects their family, it affects their children, living in fear on a daily basis, not knowing what is going to meet them at the gate in the morning. When you see the light disappear from somebody’s eyes, their whole life just destroyed by a person who thinks that it’s OK to do that to them, when you sit in a hospital and you watch a woman who cannot even say their name because they’ve lost the ability to speak, I know we’re doing the right thing by bringing this bill to the House.
I’m sorry for the tears, but they’re not tears of weakness. They’re tears of years of women screaming for help, of children not knowing how to help their parent, taking on that responsibility of trying to step in between the perpetrator and the victim and becoming a victim themselves, all because police do not have the tools to be able to stop this from happening.
I look forward to the day when we don’t hear on the other end of the phone “They’re not breaking any rules.”, when a person can stand at the top of a driveway and stare daggers down at a person who is absolutely petrified but there is nothing the police can do, because they haven’t stepped on to your property, but they can stand at the top of your driveway and put the living fear of God into you.
I look forward to the day when we can actually say we’re not going to tolerate this any more. I look forward to the day when children are not seeing the fear in their parents’ eyes. I look forward to the day when we are backing the victims, and that is what we are doing today. Today, we are going to say that it is not OK to torment or to put fear and distress upon somebody to the point where they can no longer live a life without fear and without violence.
I would like to thank the Hon Paul Goldsmith for bringing in this bill today. I know it has been quite a full-on year, with a lot of legislation that has to be passed, and I am grateful that this has been given priority. This will make an absolute difference to so many people in this country and will go a long way towards breaking that cycle of harm, which is what Te Aorerekura is all about. I will shout out to Marama Davidson for starting the conversation that needed to be started, and I am honoured to carry that conversation on now, because it is too important for this not to continue. We need to focus on the women and children who have for far too long been put in the background, in the “too hard basket”.
The effects that stalking has are massive. I cannot state enough how big this is. It will create an absolute opportunity for women, children, and some men to get freedom—freedom from being under the thumb of a possessive person who thinks that it is OK to be in that person’s space without permission and that it is OK to create that form of fear.
It is not OK, and we, as a House, are standing here united today to say that we are all on the same page and it will not be tolerated any more. We will not allow this to happen any more, and we will give the police the tools that they need to stop this from happening.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I stand equally privileged and humbled to be able to speak on the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill. I would firstly like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member the Hon Karen Chhour for not only her strength and conviction; her honesty and her ability to bring the humanity on important issues. I am grateful that she shared her experiences and her passion on this topic.
This is an important piece of legislation because we talk a lot about the need to rectify violence and to reduce the level of violent crime but in doing this we have to empower our victims. We have to allow our victims to know that there is something that can be done. We have to allow our victims to understand that what is being done is wrong and that they can be in a place of strength, they can be supported, they can be encouraged, and they can be protected.
I have been in the position where I have dealt with victims who offenders have encroached just to the line and not over and the helplessness as a police officer to stand there and go “There isn’t anything we can do. We can move you and we can hide you, but we can’t actually empower you.”, and exactly what this bill does is create that level of empowerment. More so—commending Minister Goldsmith—it is a piece of legislation that clearly creates the tools and the equipment and the opportunities to deal with this proactively, so that we can intervene early, we can intervene strongly, and we can let the offenders know that this is the line they have crossed and actually make sure that when they cross it again, something really tangible happens.
New Zealand First strongly supports the principle of protecting New Zealanders from harm. We have committed to the advocacy of law and order. We are advocating strongly for legislation that listens to the public concerns. Most importantly, we want to see less victims. We want to see the opportunity that people are held accountable and cannot create more victims in their journey through their drunkenness of empowerment over the fact that they can hurt people and create that level of control over them. It is with great pleasure that New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Firstly, I just want to acknowledge the speakers prior to me, and truth when it lands—particularly when there’s that real palpable emotion and story—is important, among all the other emotions that rage in the House, particularly here tonight. This particular take [matter], I think, is a serious and good one, and, then, in saying that, our party supports the intention and looks forward to what we end up coming up with in the select committee process. I just want to open up with that statement, thank you.
I just want to mihi, obviously, and recognise the inspiration behind the bill. And the whānau of the young woman will be recognising the second anniversary of their daughter’s passing. I won’t say their name, but I want to acknowledge that, and that is so significant to what it is that we’re considering. I won’t speak to that for too long, except to recognise that in my kōrero. Yet to the whānau, I acknowledge the loss and recognise that this is something that will likely remain unhealed.
Part of my discussion tonight is I worked for many years teaching self-defence to women across the motu. That was one of my—well, it’s not a passion, because that makes it kind of—it was a duty to do so. Many a story are there of trauma and violence but also, can I say, victory too. Now, I’m telling their stories—this isn’t my story—but I just to acknowledge that that’s what comes back to mind in this particular speech this evening.
What does alarm me is the rates and the frequency in which young women fall victim to the predatory behaviour and stalking practices over their lifetime. Many of the young women in this House and our young daughters—we think about them when we are talking about this particular issue, and we should think about them. We should think about what it takes to protect them. This bill lends itself to that idea, but I’m always a fan of “teach your girls to defend themselves”. Teach your girls. Show them. Show them. Demonstrate to them, at every moment that you can, that you are entitled to and that you have a right to defend and protect yourself.
In these instances, though, it is a near impossible situation. While this bill will make it illegal to carry out three stalking actions in a year, it would also repeal the related offence. The speakers, I think, from Labour made that exact same comment, and that is still a concern. I think we need to think about that more carefully. In a sense, it makes it legal for stalkers to harass their victims twice a year. It won’t be just twice a year; it’ll be countless times, because they’re not going to ring up and go, “OK, it’s happening.”
Many, many of these reports and concerns go unreported. They go untold, and much of that is simply because you get tired of telling the same story and nobody believes you, or not enough people, and nobody moves to do something about it for you. That’s just another point for us in this discussion. [Bell rung] Damn that goes so quickly!
The New Zealand Women’s Refuge has recorded the prevalence of stalking amongst their clients, many of our whānau—nearly 75 percent were stalked by their partners—and a study conducted in 2004, which is only 20 years ago, found that stalking was a precursor to physical violence.
With a little time left, I just want to say we support the bill, we look forward to going to select committee, and I look forward to having much, much more to say about it. Kia ora tātou.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker—and welcome, Mr Speaker. Look, I won’t spend a lot of time. Colleagues across the House have covered off the substantive parts of the bill and have, essentially, outlined what’s great about this House, and that is that the tone of the place can be one which is of unanimous support for a very important issue. You only had to listen to Minister Karen Chhour’s speech to recognise how deeply many people feel about this issue.
I also acknowledge that the tone of the House, in about 20 minutes, may well change. I’d just like to reflect on that and hope that, as this particular bill goes through the House and comes to the Justice Committee, we will have a very thorough and robust discussion about it, that we can all think about how we’ve come together on a particular issue where we’re all trying to make an issue better for many people in this country.
With that, I will commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to its passage through the Justice Committee in due course.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This is a tough topic, and it’s great that it appears that across the House we have some consensus that this is a matter which we need to progress and look at. I just do want to recognise the work that Ginny Andersen did in this space. The Minister of Justice said that this was not a priority until Ginny Andersen said, “Well, it’s my priority.” The Minister of Justice has responded to that by putting this bill in, and it just goes to show that, you know, Opposition might be tough, but we can have a really positive effect. That’s great.
I do want to also recognise a difficult fact, and that is that this bill is here in part because of some really tragic circumstances that the media has portrayed. I want to recognise Farzana Yaqubi, the young woman who was murdered in Auckland after a series of stalking incidents, which, it’s recognised, the police didn’t respond too well to and weren’t appropriately recognised, and that this bill will address, will give powers and recognise the behaviours that led to that tragedy. There’ll be powers there to address that and make sure it doesn’t happen again, as it should.
As this goes to select committee, the job of select committee is to draw a line. The criminal law does draw lines, and this is actually quite challenging, because the lines are in some sense arbitrary in something like this, between behaviours which are nasty but not illegal and not criminal, and behaviours which cross that line and become criminal. I hope that people will submit on this, because that is a really tough question which requires input from our communities as to what behaviours we consider are so reprehensible that they can lead to a criminal offence which could result in five years in prison. On the other hand, we’re not always kind to each other. We should strive to be, but we’re not, and sometimes we’ve got to let that go. That’s a really important question.
The other question that’s going to crop up here, and it’s one that I think the select committee should turn its mind to, is essentially one of intentionality. As drafted, as I read it, the question is what the offender—the stalker, if you like—intends, that the behaviours must be intended to have kind of an intimidatory effect. Now, I’m not sure if that’s actually the right test. I don’t know, but I want to investigate whether we should flip that around and say, well, shouldn’t we be asking the question “Is the person who is the subject of that behaviour actually intimidated, and is the behaviour one which would be reasonably expected to be intimidating, invasive, and concerning?” That may be the better test.
Now, for criminal law, that’s quite hard, right? In most circumstances, you require—the concept of mens rea in criminal law is you intend to cause the harm. There may be behaviours which for whatever reason the perpetrator might think are permissible and shouldn’t cause that kind of degree of anxiety, harm, and trauma, but they do, and that’s quite challenging for the law to address.
This won’t be an easy bill for the select committee, and we need to listen carefully and strike that balance between good process and clear rules and really recognising the real harm that it causes to victims. It’s a challenge, and I won’t say I’m looking forward to it, but I’m prepared for it. Kia ora.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I want to join others across the House in supporting this first reading of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, and just reflect on Farzana Yaqubi, a beautiful Auckland University of Technology law student aged 21 who was brutally murdered on Royal Road, Massey, right in the heart of the Upper Harbour electorate, on 19 December 2022. Every time I drive down the North-Western Motorway, I see her parents’ house and I think of them every time. They will be having a very sad time again, marking her second anniversary next Thursday.
As has been canvassed, her ex-boyfriend brutally murdered her in daylight and was jailed for 17 years. The Independent Police Conduct Authority report that was released this year was damning, and it was damning of the fact that the police had inadequate risk assessment and didn’t have the right tools to deal with the repeated stalking complaints that Farzana had made right up until about two weeks before her premature death. I’m looking forward to working through this bill, hearing submissions, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I start, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge colleagues who have provided some commentary of personal experience, who have taken the opportunity to thank people who have done huge amounts of work in this area, or have taken the opportunity to commemorate and remember and share memories of people who have suffered through this insidious act of violence, which we are terming as “stalking and harassment”, and all of the pervasive ways in which it affects people in our society. I acknowledge the fact we find ourselves here tonight at this hour of night, looking toward a process which can do something positive and set a new path and a new direction for people that experience these things.
Stalking, as we’ve heard, can end in really tragic circumstances, but before that, as tragic as that is, it can do things that simply erode people’s freedoms and limit their social, educational, and professional opportunities. For a lot of people involved in those situations, and many of us will know of people or have been in those situations, the gaslighting, the uncertainty, and the stripping of one’s individual ability to be able to tell the difference between whether what’s happening is real or not or is serious or not is one of the most cruel things I think you can do to someone. That significant psychological harm shouldn’t be overlooked as well.
We know that evidence shows that 75 percent of Women’s Refuge clients experience stalking pre-separation, and 65 percent of those Women’s Refuge clients also experience stalking post-separation. I think that that’s a statistic or a piece of information that really homes in on the fact that even people who take steps to do something to improve their situation can find themselves in no less of a perilous situation. Therefore, it’s only right that this House provides them with some tools and with some legislative framework and some legislative means to protect themselves.
The Labour Party welcomes the introduction of this bill, and we do regard it as a long-awaited step towards addressing something that’s incredibly, incredibly important. Unlike New Zealand, most comparable jurisdictions, including the UK, including Australia and the US, do have specific stalking offences, which obviously enables them to enact effective prosecutions and protections, and that is something that we should do also.
I do want to acknowledge, though—and I think it is fair to acknowledge it—that it is only now, after sustained public pressure and clear evidence from those victim advocates that my colleagues have highlighted earlier on in this debate, that the Government has chosen to advance this bill. Whilst we are pleased that they have, and whilst we support the bill and we welcome this step, we do want to acknowledge that it would have been good if it had been prioritised. It is a choice to prioritise, and it would have been good if it had been prioritised and not simply discarded as something that would have been a “nice-to-have” if it weren’t for such a busy programme earlier on in the year.
There have been several people who have commented since it was known that this bill was going to be introduced. As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has said, it won’t be a straightforward process; it’ll be a really technical process. Because it will involve some subjective interpretations, it will involve some discussion and some decision making around drawing lines, and around making decisions and what constitutes behaviours that will be caught up in this process.
I do, along with my colleagues, really encourage people to make those submissions—those people with lived experience, those people with expertise—because that can only enhance the process and make for a good bill in the end. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I too rise in support of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill at its first reading, and I would like to start by acknowledging the Hon Ginny Andersen for the effort that she made in placing this subject in the members’ ballot. Unbeknownst to many people, I too was working on a bill around the same time, and I’m glad of the fact that our justice Minister has made it a priority before the end of the year, in reverence for the memory of Farzana Yaqubi and for all those thousands of people that signed that petition. Thank you—thank you to you all.
I’d like to say, if I may, in the language of the Middle East: Farzana Yaqubi, Allah yerhamik, Allah yerhim nafsik al bari’, which means: may God rest your soul, your innocent, pure soul. We failed you by not having a law in respect of stalking in place, but may your memory live on, and we will do this for you and for many others. Ya Farzana, Allah yerhamik.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Bills
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill gives effect to the Government’s coalition and manifesto commitments to bring back the three-strikes sentencing law as a key priority in our work to restore law and order. Reinstating the three-strikes law sends a clear message to offenders that there will be significant consequences for serious repeat offending and that we denounce their actions. It recognises the harm to victims and communities that result from violent crime and makes it clear that this will not be tolerated. I also note that keeping these repeat offenders off the streets will contribute to this Government’s commitment to 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029.
In broad terms, the bill will reinstate a three-stage sentencing regime with the offender facing increasingly tougher penalties at each stage. It will have the same overall structure and essential features as the previous regime. In general, offenders will be warned of the consequences of reoffending at their first strike and will not be eligible for parole at their second strike. For a third strike, offenders will have to serve their maximum penalty for the offence without parole.
The bill has now been reported back to the House from the Justice Committee, and I would like to thank the Justice Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, and the submitters who shared their views with the committee. In response to public feedback during the select committee process, Cabinet agreed to propose two changes to the bill for the Justice Committee’s consideration. I welcome the committee recommending that these significant changes be made to the bill. I note that although these changes involve substantial drafting, they deal with clear situations.
The first significant change lowers the qualifying sentencing threshold to above 12 months’ imprisonment at stage-1. Lowering the qualifying sentence threshold at stage-1 addresses public feedback to make sure the regime properly targets serious offending so serious violent and sexual offenders face appropriate consequences. While this lower threshold means more offenders will receive first warnings, there will continue to be the higher threshold of above 24 months’ imprisonment at stage-2 and stage-3 that must be met to trigger the regime’s mandatory sentencing consequences. The Government considers this approach addresses public feedback and strikes an appropriate balance by ensuring the regime continues to be workable in practice and does not capture low-level offending.
The bill also contains additional technical and procedural changes relating to these amendments. These other changes mainly address when an offender has a conviction overturned or receives a new sentence above or below the qualifying sentence threshold after an appeal. For example, depending on their exact situation, an offender could either be given or lose a warning. These changes also address when an offender with a first warning reoffends and meets the threshold of above 12 months’ imprisonment for a first warning but not the higher threshold of above 24 months’ imprisonment that triggers mandatory sentencing consequences. In this situation, an offender will be given an additional first warning to reinforce the mandatory consequences they could face if they reoffend.
The second significant change to the bill involves reactivating warnings issued under the previous regime. This change addresses public feedback about making sure previously warned offenders face further consequences if they reoffend. The Government considers this change is appropriate to make sure offenders’ warnings still count and are included where appropriate in the new regime’s consequences. However, the bill provides that previous warnings will be reactivated only when they meet the qualifying sentence threshold.
I consider that this supports a consistent approach in how the new regime treats serious offending, even where that offending occurred during the previous regime. The Justice Committee also recommended further amendments to the bill to give effect to this change. These amendments set out how previous warnings will generally be treated under the new regime. For example, an offender’s previous first warning will be a first warning under the new regime if their sentence is above 12 months’ imprisonment. The bill also provides for exceptions to this general approach. For example, an offender’s previous final warning could instead become a first warning under the new regime. This could occur when an offender’s previous first warning does not meet the qualifying sentence threshold.
Additionally, the bill confirms that reactivated warnings are valid and not affected by how an offender was originally warned. The bill’s existing appeal provisions also apply to any appeal against a reactivated warning. For clarity, I note the bill’s mandatory penalties will continue only to apply to sentencing for offences committed after the new regime comes into force. Any offences committed between the previous regime ending and the new regime beginning will not be captured by the new regime.
In addition to the significant changes I’ve outlined, the bill has also been amended to reflect other recommendations by the Justice Committee, and I wish to briefly highlight three such amendments. Firstly, the guidance for the judiciary about applying the manifest injustice test has been clarified. In particular, the bill now expressly states that a court remains able to consider the mitigating factors in the Sentencing Act when assessing whether manifest injustice applies. Secondly, a person loses a warning when, in accordance with the bill’s stipulations, they are granted a pardon for an offence they got warned for. Removing a person’s warning is appropriate where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Lastly, the bill also clarifies how the new regime interacts with post-conviction orders granted under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. A court cannot issue any order that would replace an offender’s sentence of imprisonment when the offender is facing the regime’s mandatory consequences at either stage-2 or stage-3. In regard to commencement, there is a six-month implementation period before the regime commences to make necessary operational changes.
ACT campaigned to reinstate the three-strikes regime, and this forms part of our coalition agreement, supporting this Government’s commitment to restore law and order and to keep our communities safe. The bill, as reported back, ensures there are tougher consequences for serious repeat violent and sexual offending. I believe this supports the public having confidence in the new regime and enables law-abiding New Zealanders to feel safer. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When this bill was introduced, we considered it to be probably one of the most poor, unfounded pieces of legislation imaginable, and then Minister Nicole McKee managed to outdo herself by putting in an Amendment Paper requiring the Justice Committee to incorporate amendments that made it even worse.
I could not believe it when I heard her on Radio New Zealand saying that she had had a flood of emails into her office asking her to change it to make it so that it included previous strikes, so I asked her. I used the Official Information Act and said, “Show me those emails—that flood of emails you referred to on Radio New Zealand. Where are they?” She sent me some emails to her office which were obviously prompted by an email to her supporter base, and do you know how many emails were actually addressed to her? Three.
Hon Member: Three?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There were three. There were a few to Paul Goldsmith, a few to other ACT Party members, but to her the flood of emails that she relied on in putting in an Amendment Paper that makes this bill retrospective was three. She had the gall—the audacity—to go on Radio New Zealand and say, “I’m listening to a flood of public opinion in my office.” I don’t know what you’d call that, but I know what I’d call it.
Here’s the other thing. Actually, the close of her speech said a lot, because the real thing she referred to, the real reason for this bill, is the coalition agreement. She went on the hustings and she said, “We’re going to bring back three strikes.”, just like they do, and that’s what she’s doing.
I’ll tell you the other reason why she’s doing it—yeah, exactly. There is no other reason because there is no evidence that this is better for victims, there is no evidence that this is better for offenders, there is no evidence that this is better for the justice system, and there is no evidence that this is better for society.
What we have is a doctrinaire and dogmatic party which has got the National Party, which doesn’t really believe in this, to do its bidding, and—
Hon Matt Doocey: You can’t say that.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Hon Matt Doocey: You can’t say that, because—
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I can say that.
Hon Matt Doocey: You can’t say that.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you take a point of order, Matt Doocey. If you don’t like it, you take a point of order, because under that coalition agreement your party is doing the bidding of the ACT Party across the board.
Hon Member: Shameful!
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yep, that’s right. For the baubles of office—the baubles of your office—this is the price that New Zealand paid.
We sat through select committee and we listened to a lot of thoughtful submissions—submissions from the Children’s Commissioner, submissions from the New Zealand Law Society and the Law Association, submissions from across civil society—and none of them thought that this was a good idea. And do you know what? The most offensive thing about this is that we repealed the three-strikes regime that was in before and we wiped that slate clean, and so all of those people who did have a strike are currently, as it stands today, on zero strikes, and under this regime they will retrospectively have those strikes reinstated.
Now, retrospectivity in some situations is pretty rugged, pretty problematic, and you look at it carefully, but in the criminal law, when people’s liberty is at stake, to go backwards in time and say that things which happened in the past—and it’s in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act says that when you come to sentencing, if there are different sentences in time, between when you committed the offence and previously, you’re entitled to the lower of those sentences, and that is for good reason.
Here’s the other thing: all of those people out there who think that they’re clean-slated, that they have zero strikes, what are we going to do to tell them that things have changed? This bill, flawed as it is, is about deterrence. This bill is about people knowing they’re on strike number one or number two and altering their behaviour, so we’d better tell them that their strikes have been reinvigorated—that they’ve been returned. What does the bill say about that? Nothing. The so-called deterrence effect is zero, because they won’t even know. I don’t think they’re watching, right? That is really, really offensive because, all of a sudden, you’re worsening people’s position substantially, and it’s not my theory; it’s your theory—the theory that offenders take into account the consequences, the increased penalties, that they might face. Now, if you believed in that theory, you would actually tell them that the consequences just got worse, but they won’t—they won’t do that—and it makes the whole bill incoherent.
The other thing is this: this bill is a significant change to our sentencing structure, and the process—the bill itself, when it was introduced, was sent to the select committee in haste. We had a truncated process, and then here we are now, in urgency, before Christmas, late at night. We’ve got the committee of the whole House stage next, and I see the Minister has put an Amendment Paper, possibly more—I don’t know—on the Table because she hasn’t yet got it right, and do you know what? Maybe doing it right and following good procedure would be a good idea, but this Government isn’t interested in good procedure. It’s not interested in getting things right. It’s not interested in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; it’s just interested in getting into office and actually making sure that it has the baubles of office.
Of course, the other thing is this. If you look at the advice—I mean, the Government is not actually interested, and I put this to the Secretary for Justice the other day. This Government has passed numerous Acts to date which make the position of Māori worse off, and here we go again. The regulatory impact statement again made it clear that this was not consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, that it would have a disproportionate impact on Māori, and that it was not recommended. I mean, the Ministry of Justice thought this was a bad idea, but this Government is not interested in that. It’s not interested in evidence; it’s just interested in dogma.
I guess the only redeeming factor is that this bill isn’t quite as bad as its predecessor, but the fact is that having a two-year sentence as the triggering factor will be distortionary in and of itself. There’s this fatuous section in the bill which says that a judge should not have recourse to and should not take into account the fact that there will be a strike imposed—as if a judge can take something out of their mind.
The bill is flawed, it has no evidence, it’s retrospective, it breaches constitutional principle, and it’s an ACT Party bill with a National Party covering. It’s a shocker.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are so many issues that are wrong with this particular bill on multiple fronts, but I think I will start with the very foundation of our political system and in terms of the Westminster system and Western democracy and the concept of the separation of power.
We have that for a reason. We have checks and balances between the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive for a reason. We have the principle of comity that the Hon Shane Jones likes to talk about a lot in this House for a reason, but this bill fundamentally goes against all of that. This bill is an overstep of the executive power into the judiciary. And a number of experts have identified that in their submissions: the New Zealand Bar Association, The New Zealand Law Society, and, let’s see, the South Auckland Bar Association. These are people who are experts in the field of legality and judiciary, and all of their submissions unanimously said, “We oppose this bill.” Why? From the judiciary’s perspective, who have to put up with the consequences of this bill, it was awful for them. It was terrible for them to have to manage it the first time around.
In one of the submissions, in terms of what the judiciary said, they said that when it comes to providing deterrent in the case or talking about the three-strike law in the case of R v Campbell, the court commented, “It may seem very surprising that this consequence could be required by lawful and defence of this kind. But that is the law and I have no option but to enforce it.” That is an overreach; that is not conforming and not respecting the principle of comity.
That’s not the only issue we have with this particular bill. We have seen it in case law over and over again in terms of the violation that this legislation, the first time around, had on our fundamental New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) in Aotearoa. In the first time around, we saw numerous instances of the violation of section 9 of BORA, which is the right not to be subjected to torture and cruel treatment, and that was particularly evident in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2021 case of Fitzgerald v R.
That was not all. We have said that when we received the departmental report, when this bill first came to select committee, the departmental report said that, “Well, you know what? At least it’s not retrospective.” Well, guess what? The select committee, despite the advice from the officials, despite the advice from the public, despite the advice from some members on that select committee, decided to introduce retrospectivity, which, again, is fundamentally against section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
This is no small matter. We have seen this Government violating the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—our fundamental bill, one of the fundamental documents in Aotearoa New Zealand—over and over again. Some may say, “Look, this bill is different. This bill has changed. We’ve introduced some safety valves that potentially will manage it.”—but not in some of the cases I have just listed. In the case of Fitzgerald v R, if you’re looking at Schedule 2 of this bill, clause 135 on indecent assault, in terms of whether it’s severe or not, it’s still one of the 42 qualifying offences, which is what got the Fitzgerald v R case the way that it is in the first place.
That is from the perspective of legality, and that is from the perspective of theory. Maybe some people are like, “Well, what’s the big deal? What are we going to see in our communities?” Not a lot—not a lot as a result of this bill. This is not going to be helpful. You know, in many of the submissions we have seen from lawyers, from experts, from community leaders, they said this bill will not help in terms of driving down crime. Even the statistical modelling that we have seen from the previous sessions suggests that this provides no significant deterrent for reoffending crime. What we will see is that we will see an increased number of prisoners in our prisons.
Hon Matt Doocey: That’s right, and then they can’t commit crime.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Well, you know what, to the honourable Minister, it’s not so much about increasing—well they can’t commit crime, you’re right, but you are kicking the can down the road. You know what else is the problem here? We have seen the previous time that introduced it—[Interruption] Take a call and use your full 10 minutes, Government members. The last time this was introduced, at stage-1, 63 percent of offenders were Māori; at stage-2, 82 percent of offenders were Māori; and at stage-3 level, 81 percent of offenders were Māori, and this Government wonders why we say prison is the only housing policy they have for Māori.
This is not the only issue, though. Increasing the number of prisoners is only one part. We are also going to see a backlog in the courts if you’re going through the bill. As we go on to the committee stage, we have a number of amendments on this bill because the back and forth that the court will have to do to determine various levels of warning and various levels of appeal is convoluted to say the least.
What is the support to our already struggling court system? Yes, there is a bill currently going through the House on increasing our District Court judges by one, but that is not going to add any help to the staff and to the people who are currently working in the court system. It’s not going to add any help to the already struggling legal aid system that we have in Aotearoa. In fact, we are actually going to see more people potentially on remand as a result as well.
Another point that we’re seeing is in terms of community, and I will talk about other submitters as well, but I want to first speak from the perspective of the offender. The Green Party of Aotearoa believe that the best form of rehabilitation is if we have a restorative justice system, where those who do offend—our prison whānau—feel like the society still wants them to be a part of it. This bill does nothing to address that. What is going to happen to an offender, Minister for Mental Health, when we are seeing that they have a sense of neglect, when they feel let down by society, when they feel like, “You know what, the society is against me anyway; screw it, I’ll just do whatever, I don’t really mind.”? That’s not how we reintegrate people into our communities.
Finally, we also heard submissions from those who have been victims of this, and crime is never OK, and we are always going to be speaking for our victims. However, when we asked them how they know, by evidence, that this bill is going to help drive down the crime, and what evidence they have of that—other than maybe make them feel like crime is going down—there was no response, because this is not the way to do it.
Finally, the Green Party will not be supporting this bill. This bill fundamentally undermines the constitutional arrangement of Aotearoa New Zealand. It also does not provide any form of safety for both the victims and offenders, and we will be gladly debating a lot of these points in the committee stage to come.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It didn’t take long for the tone to change, but here we are. I want to start my contribution by indicating that the National Party, obviously, supports this bill and will support it through its passage tonight or maybe tomorrow morning—let’s say tonight, all going well. Because we are going into the committee stage after this, and once we vote in favour of the second reading, I think it would be an opportunity for all in the House to have a good look at the bill and to make a contribution and to try and explain to the public what we’re trying to do here.
While members opposite do make some good points around the purpose of the justice system—part of that is rehabilitation, and part of that is deterrence—part of our criminal justice system is detention. Part of it is taking bad people, dangerous people, harmful people, off the streets and keeping members of the public safe, albeit for a limited time and albeit for limited purposes, but part of the reason we have a criminal justice system in this country is to detain people and to keep people safe, and that is what this bill tries to address.
There are other pieces of legislation and there are other policies out there that, over the course of the next three, six, nine, 12, 15 years—who knows?—will address other issues in the criminal justice system: bills like the Corrections Amendment Bill, now the Corrections Act, which introduced rehabilitation for prisoners on remand; bills like the sentencing reforms, which will limit discounts on sentences; other bills around social investment and the Social Investment Agency, which will create a world-leading environment where we invest early, we invest often, and we prevent these harms from happening in the first place. But those bills are for another day.
Today is where we are talking about the three strikes legislation, a great piece of legislation from this coalition Government, led by the able Minister Nicole McKee. I’m looking forward to the committee stage where we can address these issues, where we can put the case to the public, where we can vote on the bill, where we can move forward to the third reading, and we can vote it into law so that we can keep New Zealanders safe.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I had carefully put together notes to provide a logical and supportive argument for this bill, and then I listened to some of the contributions across the House. After we’ve just finished talking about this need to pass legislation to protect victims, how it’s so important that we intervene and we provide greater protections, and we’re so keen to pass laws to make more protections available—but sometimes, when bad people do bad things, they need to be punished. Sometimes, when bad people do bad things, they do them again and again, and while you stand up there across the other side of the House speaking about the rights of offenders, yet again we hear crickets around the rights of the victims. If you want to hear about protection for Māori, then protect them from Māori who are offending. That is the point of this bill.
New Zealand First believes that we should go stronger; that sometimes—sometimes—you have to ensure that people—that society—are protected. When you have been to the situation where you have seen the victims who have been victimised by those who have just got out of prison, who are continuing to offend, who have no empathy or warmth for the vulnerable in our society, who have the sense of entitlement that the punishment means nothing, then sometimes you have to make tough decisions and not just continue to pass more legislation that tinkers at the edges. We have to commend the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee for having the integrity to stand up and say enough is enough.
Now, we don’t say this is the solution to end all crime. There is a range of initiatives that need to be dealt with. It is the improvement of education. It is getting the scourge of methamphetamine out of our societies. There is a whole range of things around housing that this Government will deliver and is delivering, but right now we have more and more victims. After six years of increasing violent crime, after six years of victims being created left, right, and centre in this country, finally we’re standing up and going, “We will stand up for Māori. We will make sure that victims are not being made by those who care not an iota.”
That is why the three-strikes legislation is important—because sometimes the grown-ups have to stand up in the room and go, “Bad people do bad things, and sometimes the victims have to be put first.” New Zealand First completely commends this bill to the House, and we look forward to the committee of the whole House stage.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei. E tuku mihi, e tuku aroha, e whakaaro nui ana tō mātou pāti ki ngā whānau, ngā tāngata kua pēhia e ngā tūkinotanga o te wā.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements of Te Pāti Māori this evening. Our party sends our acknowledgments, our compassion, and our thoughts to the families, the people that are oppressed by recent abuses.]
I want to extend our absolute aroha to any victim and whānau of victims—period. Even more so, I want to mihi to the police and to the many police officers whom we’ve been in constant communication with—local police commanders, officers—even in a bipartisan, bi-party approach, too, in those different hui, in finding a way and a solution to make sure that they and our whānau are safe in our communities, and what this looks like, moving forward, with this legislation.
I thought it would be ideal to take my two cents’ worth on being a rangatahi Māori being profiled and what those experiences are, and I reflect hugely on question time today. In this House, I asked Ministers on the huge impacts of how the police enforce their gang legislation, as we have seen recently in Wellington and Auckland, where rangatahi Māori have been profiled and arrested at gunpoint on the suspicion—suspicion—of gang affiliations that were never proven, and this relates purely to this bill because there is no denying that our criminal justice system is institutionally racist and unfit for Māori in Aotearoa.
Māori suffer unequal outcomes at every level, and we are more likely to be stopped, searched, and arrested and convicted than anyone else. I want to speak to my own experiences as to why I asked that question today in question time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, as it relates to the bill.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: As it relates to the bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And with frequent references to the bill.
David MacLeod: First strike!
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Really? See, this is what I’m talking about—this is actually what I’m talking about. I can say “hakuna matata” and this House will get—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That reflects—if you can just say that reflects on the member that made that comment and leave him to reflect on that himself, but you reflect on the bill, please.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I will carry on. Can my time be stopped? Despite being 20 percent of the population, Māori are 37 percent of the proceeded-against by police, 45 percent of people convicted, and 52 percent of the people in prison. In 1988, Moana Jackson’s groundbreaking report He Whaipaanga Hou exposed the deep root of racism at the foundations of our criminal justice system.
That is precisely how the Ministry of Justice summarised the strikes in its regulatory impact statement: “Reinstating a three strikes regime would exacerbate the overrepresentation of populations which are already disproportionately represented in the justice system.”
I get so emotional sometimes around how it feels being a rangatahi Māori and having firsthand experience of racial profiling, and today I was so flabbergasted at the fact that it was being gaslighted as if it doesn’t exist. Then I reflected and realised that, no, they wouldn’t even know what it feels like.
They don’t know what it feels like to be a 12-year-old rangatahi going to the movies and actually being called up by the police for doing absolutely nothing. They wouldn’t know what it feels like to be stopped every so many weeks because you are in a community in Huntly and not in Wellington. You don’t know what it feels like at a non - gang-affiliated tangi to have five cops turn up for absolutely no reason—and even to the point where I’m questioned before entering this House whether or not I’m even an MP. Many people actually have told me, “But you might not be ready for Parliament.” Well, guess what: Parliament wasn’t ready for me.
This is what I’m talking about—the racial profiling that we experience. We’re not criminals, but we are overrepresented by the justice system. So I think it’s finished, but I’ll be carrying on.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Otirā tēnā rā koutou katoa. I stand to oppose the three-strikes legislation. I, like my teina Hana-Rawhiti, struggle in this area because we have lived experience in racial profiling, having experienced it myself, too, as a young person. You’d be just casually hanging out in town, then you’d get taken home by the police, and yet you were doing nothing.
You see, three strikes is an imported system from the US, a country that incarcerates more people than anywhere else in the world. That’s what we’re hanging our hat on, as New Zealand. We’re importing someone else’s system, instead of looking at the fact that there are other ways to rehabilitate and restore a sense of connection by looking at the back story of those who are incarcerated, considering that they may suffer from mental health addictions, or they may have been victims of abuse, family violence, disability, literacy and numeracy issues—the list goes on. And they’re Māori in prison—we can’t ignore the facts. The three-strikes legislation is putting more Māori in prison. That’s our MMP—more Māori in prison—because this is a noose. This is an āhere.
To hear that this is going to be retrospectively implemented and to know that for 12 years—through the 12 years that this was in place, it’s going to come back, and it’s going to bite our whānau in the tero, because they should not have to bear the burden of that period now, in 2024. It’s outrageous to think that now we have legislation that the Crown officials have already recommended that we don’t implement because there’s no evidence base to show that this is actually going to work and because it’s so punitive that it’s tūkino. It’s going to hurt both the offenders and the whānau. The ripples are large, and yet we have the select committee saying, “Hey, not only go forward, but also make it retrospective.”
Our mauhere are people. Our mauhere—those are our prisoners—have a back story, and we are building mega-prisons. We are going bigger; we are going better. That’s what we’re doing, because that is the new industry for housing Māori. It’s building the mega-prisons. MMP—more Māori in prisons—kia ora tātou.
We have to go back and look at what the Crown officials said. They said that “on every measure, the reintroduction of three strikes will exacerbate existing issues including the over representation of Māori, Pasifika, and young offenders in the justice system.” How is that right? How is that OK? Actually, you’re getting advice from your own officials, who have the evidence base, who have the understanding, and who have the policy background, saying “Kia tūpato.”, engari kāhore e whakarongo ana [“Be cautious.”, but you’re not listening]. You’re not listening, because the officials are telling us, clearly, “Kia tūpato.” [“Be cautious.”]
If we were to look at a system where we had more opportunity for the judiciary to exercise their own discretion in terms of the way that they exercise their powers, that could actually be quite good, rather than saying, “Chop—strike one. Chop—strike two. Chop—strike three; you’re out.” If we look at the history of it, 81 percent of those who were impacted by three strikes during the 12 years of legacy of what it was for 12 years were Māori, and Māori were nine times more likely to receive the first strike. I’m a Māori; there are a few Māoris around here. We’re likely to get the first strike too, above anyone else, and we’re 18 times more likely to receive the second strike, because that’s on our shoulders—you don’t know the story.
You don’t know what it’s like to be in town, just hanging out with your mates, and then, next minute, you’re the one getting asked questions like “What are you doing in town?” “Well, I’m in town with my mates.”, but, next minute, you’re being driven back in the police car, and you’re getting in trouble with your parents because, somehow, you must have done something wrong.
The police have been profiling our people for ages. Even this year, the police missed their own deadline. They were meant to delete the thousands of photos they took of our youths, but they didn’t—they missed the deadline. It’s sitting on their cellphones. They’ve been sitting there, taking photos of our people for years, and yet we have a Government that has said, “Na, we’re going to do this to you, and it’s going to be ’three strikes and you’re out’, because we’re putting more Māori in prison.” He ture mōrikarika tēnei. [This is a horrible law.] “Mōrikarika” means horrible. It’s ruthless, it’s vile, and it’s tūkino, and what we stand for, as Te Rōpū Kākāriki, is fairness and justice.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is another example of this coalition daring to deliver on its election promises. This has been well signalled. This three-strikes reinstatement has been well signalled.
On 27 October 2022, Paul Goldsmith, National’s justice spokesperson, said that he would reinstate the three-strikes law, and then in June last year, Stuff reported that National had announced it as policy, with Mark Mitchell saying that the return of the three-strikes rule would stop offenders from reoffending.
He had reason to say that because the New Zealand Herald reported that after the Labour Government had repealed the Act—at that time—13,400 people had been convicted of the first strike, 744 people were on strike two, and 26 criminals had three strikes to their name. It was 13,000, 700, down to 26—does that sound like a deterrence policy working? I commend the bill.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): That was a riveting speech from Cameron Brewer—thank you so much! It’s a privilege to be able to take a call on the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill.
I think it’s important that we talk about the process of this bill, because it has been a fascinating process. I was quite struck when we started getting submissions at the Justice Committee and we had one particular group who gave a lot of submissions, and that was the Sensible Sentencing Trust. They gave submission after submission after submission. There were so many; they sort of had a template, and we got flooded. We had to decide how we were going to deal with so many at one time. When I started taking a look at the submissions that we’d received from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, they were all opposed to the bill because they didn’t think it was strong enough. In fact, they thought it was a weak bill that had been watered down. In particular, for people who had already received a strike under the previous regime, they wanted those strikes to be reinstated. They also wanted a widening of, I guess, the catch of who would be captured by a strike.
I can remember thinking, well, that’s pretty embarrassing for the ACT Party, and probably National as well, that their sort of flagship “be tough on crime” policy has an advocacy group such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust sending in form submissions telling the Government and the Associate Minister of Justice that it’s just not strong enough; it’s a watered-down, weak piece of legislation.
It’s very interesting when we go and look at the Cabinet papers that are now online, the different ones, and the different Cabinet papers being brought and the changes that the Minister then brought the Cabinet after the select committee process had concluded. It’s after the select committee process concludes that changes are then made to make this legislation retrospective and to, effectively, reinstate strikes that were received under the previous offence.
None of the other submitters had the opportunity of submitting on that change, and it seems to be quite a common theme, particularly with that Minister, that small groups who get the ear of the Minister are able to dictate specific Government policy and bypass a democratic process. That is what is most concerning about this bill, that the Minister was so persuaded by one lobby group and was embarrassed by the fact that the Sensible Sentencing Trust thought it was a weak bill, that she went to Cabinet and she changed the recommendations by making this bill retrospective. Therefore, a whole lot of people who don’t even know that they were going to have their strikes reinstated will have that done.
One of the most, I guess—I dare to call it a comedy moment, but it was actually pretty sad when we had officials explaining to us how those people who had a strike but now don’t will get informed that they’ll get it back again. They won’t find out, I understand, until they’re actually back in front of the court. When they’re in court and they’ve done a strikable offence, the judge is kind of going to be like, “Surprise! You’ve got three now—ha!” That, in terms of rights, in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—there’s a bunch of people out there right now who, probably, ACT and National could do a great comms strategy on. You could find them and do some flashy tiles on social media and say, “Hey, guess what? If you got stung under the last one, it’s back again. You need to know this if you’re going out there.” If you’re wanting the deterrent factor of this legislation to be effective, I’d be really interested to know whether you’re going to undertake a comms strategy of informing those people that they’re up for a second or third strike already.
There are three main reasons why this bill didn’t work the first time, and those reasons haven’t changed when it comes back a second time. The first is that it’s based on the principle that a deterrent factor works when all research shows it does not work. In fact, when this bill was brought in the first time, by the ACT Party again, back in the early 2000s—oh, no, it was a while ago—the Ministry of Justice, in 2018, in an evidence brief recorded the crime rates for the three highest-volume three-strike offences, which were serious assault, sexual assault, and robbery offences. They did that from 1996 to 2014, and, based on the trends in the recorded crime rates at that time, it was concluded that there were few changes that could be attributed to the three-strikes law.
The last time this bill was enacted and working in New Zealand, it had not reduced serious offending at all in any way that could be demonstrated by the analysis undertaken by the Ministry of Justice. Quite simply, the idea that there is a threat of a bigger punishment coming does not register for criminals. If this Government, who wants to talk about really strengthening victims’ rights—if this was a Government that was serious about having fewer victims in our system, if this Government was actually serious about reducing reoffending, they would look at the evidence that demonstrates reducing reoffending and evidence that demonstrates people being revictimised. None of that evidence points towards a deterrent factor. It’s only the fact they get to look tough in the media and on TV, and that’s what they like. It appeals to the voter base that they look like they’re doing something and ticking a box when in reality there’s absolutely no evidence it actually reduces victims in our system.
Secondly, the main reason is it stops the judiciary from doing their job, something this Government quite likes to do—it happens quite often. Under three strikes, judges have got a curtailed ability to be able to do the job that they’re there for, and that is a real concern. Courts already have the ability to impose sentences equivalent to those under a three-strikes regime. Preventative detention would be one, for serious repeat offenders. Public protection and extended supervision orders would be another. Minimum periods of imprisonment, another one; maximum penalties, up to life imprisonment. Those already exist.
The third reason why this is a stupid idea is that it disproportionately represents Māori, as we’ve already heard tonight. Māori are already significantly overrepresented in our prison system. Under the last regime, of the 23 offenders who did receive a third strike and got that maximum penalty, 81 percent were Māori—81 percent of those 23 third-strikers were Māori. What this does is it further entrenches inequities in our society, it further causes repeat offending, it causes more victims in our community, and it actually does nothing to address the root causes of crime in our community. In a country where methamphetamine consumption has doubled in the past year—
Tim van de Molen: Point of order—point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I just wanted to take a moment to find the correct Speaker’s ruling before I raise this. I’m taking a point of order. The member in her contribution just a couple of moments ago talked about the Government having been dictated to with its policy by an outside body. Speakers’ ruling 55/5 makes it quite clear that it is not in order to suggest that the Government is dictated to by an outside body. That is a clear breach of the Standing Orders, and I’m sure the Speaker would wish to uphold that by having her withdraw that comment.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A long bow, Mr van de Molen—a long bow. Carry on.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Getting back to the point—
Tim van de Molen: Point of order.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I’ve made a ruling.
Tim van de Molen: This is a new point of order. Yes, I’m seeking your clarity on whether you are directly ruling out the current Standing Order that specifically uses the language that the member used that I have just referred to you. Are you making a new Speaker’s ruling overruling the current Speakers’ ruling?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): What I’m doing is putting things in perspective. What I do in the Chair is listen to what the speakers are saying, and when they do get near the edge of what is permitted, that is how I rule in this way. Therefore, if I were to go to the letter of the law on all of these, we would be stopping all the time. I admire the member for his ability to follow these things in detail, but I’m ruling that in the context of it, I’m happy for it to continue. But thank you for your observation.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The clock was stopped for that.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, let’s talk about things that we know that do work, because that’s quite interesting. The alcohol and drug treatment court: that would be one example that has worked under both Governments, that’s got demonstrated results, that actually works and turns around people’s lives, stops victims from becoming revictimised, and stops offenders from offending again and again, because it gets to the root causes of crime.
Te Pae Oranga justice panels: 24 funded under the past Labour Government, that goes to what is the early on offending, particularly offending for Māori communities, and how can we address that offending early on to stop those people coming back to the justice system again and again and again. How do we stop that wasteful spending in terms of taxpayers’ money on imprisoning people, and how do we stop those people going on to commit more crimes and revictimise people?
The bill we are doing today does the opposite to all of that good work. It does the opposite to that. It is hung up on looking tough and making it look like there’s actual work being done when the reality is it sweeps it under the carpet. It revictimises people. It is detrimental to Māori communities, and it actually causes more victims in New Zealand.
That is what gets me the most: the fact that we have a Government that stands up and says they are for victims’ rights, they want to do this in the name of strengthening those protections, but they introduce legislation which all evidence demonstrates they are doing the complete opposite to what they are preaching. The reason why they stand up and take points of order is they don’t like to hear the truth.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I’m elated to stand up and speak in support of this bill, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. The reason why I use the word “elated” is because I’m reflecting on one of the submissions that was made when we were listening to submissions from the public on this bill.
There was an associate professor from one of our universities. She submitted, and—since the Labour Party are pontificating about how many submissions were against this bill—this associate professor, Dr Donna Cormack, in her oral submission added that she is of the view that all prisons should be abolished, and I found that quite curious. She adds this in every submission she makes, so I asked her, in all seriousness, “Dr Donna,”—and I’m paraphrasing—“if all prisons were closed tomorrow, would you be OK with this?” Her answer was “I would not be OK; I would be elated if all prisons were abolished tomorrow.” This is the calibre of some of the submissions that the Opposition are really proud about—that all prisons should be abolished.
I think about Gurdeep Singh in Papatoetoe, who was attacked by someone. That was their 15th offence when their hammer struck his body all over and he was trying to protect his family. I think of Gurdeep Singh when I think of the fact that we need laws like this. I commend this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, and with a little bit of retrospectivity to Ms Andersen and that last comment. Given that you had been the beneficiary of what I’ll admit was a marginal call, possibly it was not in the best taste.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, look, we’ve been here before, haven’t we? This is almost as if we’re back on retread, because this is a piece of legislation that was introduced previously, it had been struck down, and here we are with it back on the agenda again. Yet another example of a Government on a backtrack and in the wrong direction.
What will this bill actually do? Let’s remind everyone. Someone who receives a second strike will, effectively, be required to serve the full sentence that the judge imposes upon sentencing. Someone who gets a third strike will serve the maximum penalty under the law, regardless of the circumstances or the context that is given.
This is a policy that, yes, actually has been proven—it has been proven that it does not work. Throughout the select committee process, the information that was received is that this is a policy that does not work. Yet this is a Government that seems intent on progressing it none the less.
Why are they doing it? Why are they progressing this policy? Well, because they want to put in place these harmful, retrograde policies on the basis of their coalition arrangement with one of their minor parties, rather than on the basis of actual evidence in terms of lawmaking. This is an unworkable policy, and this is something that was received through the select committee process.
Now, I’m not a member of the Justice Committee, but I have read the committee’s report. I note that there were a large number of submissions, but I also note that it was a truncated select committee process as well, which is unfair. However, we have hope that when we do get on to the committee stage this evening and tomorrow, the chair of the select committee has said that he expects all members to be up taking a call to “put the case to the public”.
Glen Bennett: Hear, hear!
TANGI UTIKERE: Well, “Hear, hear!” indeed, because we are going to finally hear from members opposite, as part of the committee stage process, every single aspect that they believe needs to be said, rather than sitting like a bunch of kookaburras like they have been for the last few hours. What we look forward to is actually making sure that they are ensuring that they are contributing in that. We all look forward to the contributions that they will have.
I want to reflect on the many submissions that we received, but some of the individuals that—the previous speaker, Rima Nakhle, kind of just ruled them out as if they had nothing sensible to say. The position of the Government is that they’re wanting to basically indicate that the views of the Children’s Commissioner are not important, the views of the New Zealand Law Society are not important, the views of the Pacific Lawyers Association are not important—and they say that this will create perverse outcomes from Pasifika and Māori communities. I look forward to hearing, when we get to committee stage, the contributions from members of the Government’s Pasifika caucus in terms of how this will have an impact.
Hon Member: Who’s that?
TANGI UTIKERE: Who’s that? Oh, I forgot they don’t have anyone over there from the Pacific caucus. Well, they need to reflect on—
Hon Member: Not one.
TANGI UTIKERE: Not a single person—not a single person—not one. And that’s not even rounding up.
What they need to do is consider the submissions that have been received from all of these organisations: from the Human Rights Commission; from Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society; the Law Society. They are all singing a very similar tune, and it’s that this is a bad policy, this is a bad idea. And so I invite members opposite to consider that.
To add some, I guess, salt to the wound as part of this process, I was absolutely astounded to hear from Dr Webb in his contribution that the Minister’s late additions by way of these Amendment Papers, these fantastical changes that she seems to be spouting about, came as a result of direct intervention with her office. Tahi, rua, toru—we don’t go much further than that; three is the number of emails that the Minister received that suddenly changed her mind around this as to why you needed to, half-way through a select committee process, basically turn it on its head and change it all up. That is an absolute disgrace in terms of that consideration. This is a select committee process that should be open to everyone. To have the Minister respond to three emails and use that as a justification for her change—a significant change in terms of looking back, a retrospective approach for it—is just astounding.
We look forward, on this side of the House, to hearing the multiple contributions that members opposite will make, but at this stage, this is not a bill that we will continue to support.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill restores the three-strikes regime. What that does is it allows for the justice system to issue a strike when a sentence is given, after a conviction has been arrived at over a person who has been charged. The committing of the crime results in the charge and conviction and the sentence, and at the sentence the strike is given. The strike is given to people who are repeat, serious, and violent offenders each time that they commit an offence, so it’s not the law that puts the person in jail without reason—a crime is committed, a person goes through the process and is convicted and sentenced, and the strike is issued. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If there was ever a bill that was the epitome of taking New Zealand backwards, it most certainly is this one, in so many different ways: it reintroduces a policy that we already know doesn’t work, it’s shallow, it’s vacuous, and it creates this dichotomy, or this contrast, that you can’t somehow be out there protecting the rights of victims and yet still want to do something to get to the root of why crime exists in the first place. For me, listening to a Minister of the Crown not being able to get the difference between those two positions makes me feel very fearful about what’s going on on that side of the House.
It is rhetoric, and you can forgive people who don’t work in this building, people whose job isn’t to make legislation, people whose job isn’t to think about the big picture, for going, “I feel some dissonance. I feel uneasy about the concept of crime and criminals. I don’t know what to do about that.” Then someone comes along and says, “Why don’t we just lock them up? Three strikes is fantastic.”, and they go, “Phew! Thank you—problem solved.” Now, it doesn’t do anything; it doesn’t solve the problem. I can forgive people for thinking that that is a genuine thing to happen. What I can’t forgive is that there are actually members who sit in this Chamber—there are members and Ministers of the Crown—who also believe that that is true. It is, again, vacuous, it’s lazy, it’s rhetoric, and I feel that people should feel quite embarrassed about themselves.
This is an example of a Government implementing, as we’ve heard, a policy on the basis—only on the basis—that it suffices a coalition agreement, and what a shaky ground on which to put something into legislation, something that we know didn’t work last time, that we know won’t work this time. We understand the Minister has made some changes, but it’s still lipstick on a pig. We know it won’t work, and yet that is why we’re doing it. We repealed three-strikes last time we were in Government, and rightly so, because the evidence was incredibly clear that it simply didn’t work as a deterrent, nor did it make the public feel any better. You’ve got two ends of the continuum: does it work as a deterrent; does it make the public feel any safer? Those are both genuine things that need to happen, but when this doesn’t do either of those things, it is a complete waste of time.
Hon Scott Simpson: Labour is soft on crime.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: It’s not about being soft on crime at all, because that is a vacuous comment, and you know it—you shallow, shallow person.
The select committee heard a large number of submissions against the bill, and we’ve heard about that from previous contributions: the Children’s Commissioner, the New Zealand Bar Association, the Pacific Lawyers Association, the Human Rights Commission, the New Zealand Law Society, the Māori Law Society, the Law Association, and many, many more. There is nothing—how would one say it? There’s just something special about the overconfidence of people who think they’re more expert than the people who are actually experts, sitting there grinning from ear to ear as if they’ve suddenly come up with this fantastic idea and they know more than the expertise of the experts.
The Law Society submissions stated, again, that there was “inadequate evidence to suggest that a three strikes sentencing regime provides [either a] general deterrence”—and we know that—“or increases public confidence”. That is a second submitter who said that. Official advice from the actual Ministry of Justice also opposed the bill. So on what basis was this going forward? It was just determination, wasn’t it? Absolute determination to talk to a certain voter base to say they’re tough on crime. Well, my goodness, do better.
The regulatory impact statement says, “the Ministry of Justice prefers the status quo rather than a new three strikes regime due to … lack of evidence that the proposal would be effective at addressing repeated serious violent offending or sustainably improving public confidence in the justice system”. What’s left? What are you achieving? It just seems silly.
Simon Court: Bad people locked up.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: And they get out and then they commit some more crime, and it doesn’t actually make any difference, because you treat them that way—because you treat them that way. Of the submitters—
Simon Court: That’s why we want to stop them—she gets it!
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No—because you treat them that way. We know it doesn’t work as a deterrent. As we heard earlier on, if people are retrospectively going to have a strike or two strikes and they don’t even know it, how can the deterrence factor be in play? It just doesn’t make sense.
The bill will heavily restrict judicial discretion, and I think that that is a slippery slope as well. It enables judges to consider individual circumstances of each case, and as we’ve heard, it will result in about 89 new prisoners per year. Some people may be surprised that that seems like a large number or a small number. They may be expecting that it was made fewer; they may be expecting that it’s way, way more—way larger. The point is that this is not an investment in addressing the root causes of crime.
The bill is not consistent with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti. It will disproportionately impact Māori, and the regulatory impact statement again says that “the disproportionate impact on Māori would result in divergent effective rights”. That’s not something we should take lightly. It’s not something to scoff at on a Thursday night, to pat yourselves on the back and think you’ve done something wonderful for justice. You haven’t. The bill provides discretion in the case of manifest injustice; however, the whole purpose of the bill is to impose intentionally disproportionate sentences. And I just think it’s incredibly difficult to see how that wouldn’t be manifestly unjust in any case where the sentence is substantially higher.
As we’ve heard from previous contributions, the Minister herself, the Hon Nicole McKee, gets halfway through this process—literally halfway through the process—and, on the most flimsy of conditions, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, going out to the media and trying to sell it as if she had been listening to people, trying to sell it by literally saying that via the select committee process she had decided to make amendments because that was somehow the will of the people. It turns out to be just rubbish: three emails—three unique emails—to that Minister from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, who the Minister clearly wanted to please, and on the basis of their being not in favour of this, on the basis of their thinking it didn’t go far enough, the Minister decides to impose an element of retrospectivity which was clearly not in the original intention.
Submitters didn’t get to comment on that. The process was already truncated and quick and cheap and dirty, just like this piece of legislation, and halfway through, a really, really significant change was made on the basis that the Minister received three emails. Do a little bit of thinking about the weight of that pressure. Do a little bit of thinking about the disproportionate nature of the weight of that advice or the weight of that feedback compared to all of the other feedback through the proper select committee process. It doesn’t make sense. This reflects an unprincipled approach to policymaking, and there’s simply no two ways about that, where the Minister introduced the bill and said we are ensuring the new three-strikes regime is not retrospective, that strikes from the previous regime will not be carried into the new regime, and then, on the most flimsy of bases, just makes that amendment based on three emails. The Minister should feel ashamed.
Once this bill is passed, there will be many people with one or two strikes, as we’ve said, who simply won’t know the conditions they now face. We’ve heard other bills go through this House this week where the issue of notification has been brought up, and in this piece of legislation, where the ramifications and the penalties and the circumstances that people may find themselves in are so grave, there has been no thought—not even a passing thought—for the fact that it may be the responsibility of the State to contact people to let them know that.
As I said at the very beginning, this is the epitome of a bill that is legitimately conceived of as taking us backwards. It’s vacuous, it’s silly, it’s single-mindedly determined to follow a coalition agreement rather than doing what is best for our justice system and to reduce crime.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to be the last—and maybe everybody in the House here is pleased that I’m the last—speaker in this second reading of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill.
As second reading debates are, it’s about the select committee process, and I do want to start by acknowledging the Justice Committee, a very hard-working committee. I understand that they’ve already reported 14 bills back to the House, with another 14 that are in process, including another member’s bill: so a very hard-working committee from across the House there. Also to Hon Nicole McKee for sponsoring this bill and bringing it forward—and I do note the amendments that have been made through the select committee process, as well as the amendments that have been agreed at a Cabinet level that have been brought before us.
Everybody’s keen to get through to the committee of the whole House debate, and I can see there’s plenty of questions gearing up around the House here itself. All I want to say is the criminal justice system—it’s about deterring offending. It’s about deterring reoffending. It’s about, also, providing reform, which I have heard on a number of occasions. I think that is actually a really important part of the justice system. Most importantly, it’s also about keeping our community safe. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, members. The House is in committee on the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 12, “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002”; and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of Part 1, we’re going to go clause by clause. I want to start with, and ask the Minister, I guess, about the most fundamental bit. Let’s start with clause 3. Now, I have a number of amendments for this bill overall because of the complex interaction between the Sentencing Act 2002 and this particular bill.
My first question, only looking at clause 3—there are a number of issues in here, and I think a number of inconsistencies with various parts, and we’ll go through those. Overall, as we’re going through this bill and as we have completed the select committee stage—with additional insertions and additional amendments being made by select committee—I want some, possibly, reassurance from the Minister that consistency between the Sentencing Act 2002 and also with this particular bill has been met.
Now, the other reason I mention that is because within the Sentencing Act and also this particular bill, there are numerous instances of requirements for minimum term of sentencing. Particularly, in some areas—and I don’t know the section of the Sentencing Act off the top of my head—it specifies that when you’re looking at the maximum term of sentence, it can’t be less than 10 years, but there are a number of issues in here which don’t quite add up. That’s just to give a very, very brief example. Again, I’m happy to find the exact section number and come back to the Minister for specific points. Overall: has there been a consistency check between the two, and particularly with regards to the new section?
The other thing I want to go on to—other than clause 3—is starting with clause 4, and I want to particularly address clause 4(2), in terms of the definition of “permanent court record”. I had a look at the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the definition and the use of “permanent court record” in that particular Act. What is different over there is the fact that in the Criminal Procedure Act, I would have read “permanent court record”, in those contexts as specified in that Act, as indeed permanent but in the context of this bill, we can see in certain cases a warning being retracted. That kind of defeats the purpose of “permanent”.
I have an Amendment Paper on this particular part—if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering it—which deletes the word “permanent”, purely on the basis that there are instances where such a record would not be permanent. Also it’s to acknowledge that—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Xu-Nan, it would be helpful if you could reference the number of your Amendment Paper as you speak to it.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry—it’s a tabled amendment, so I don’t know if there is a particular number.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’ve just found it—I understand it doesn’t.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah—it’s the first one: to delete clause 4(2) and amend clause 7, new section 86K(2)(b).
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. The first one. Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: In this case, it also acknowledges and reflects that the warning system and standard criminal proceedings are also fundamentally different. Those are the two questions I have for the Minister to start. Thank you.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. Thank you to the member for your questions. In regard to your tabled amendment to delete clause 4(2) and amend clause 7, new section 86K(2)(b), we’ll not be supporting that, and the reason why is because the term “permanent” is consistent with other statutory language used about the court record. Warnings are given into the official court record.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get into the detail of this legislation, I want to give the Minister an opportunity to, on the record, address her motivations for directing the Justice Committee to alter its approach and make it retrospective and change the first-strike threshold.
I am really concerned that she went on Radio New Zealand and said that there was a flood of emails—they weren’t her exact words, but that was certainly the inference. If the Minister’s going to go on and say that there’s a flood of emails, I’m going to ask for them. She provided a number of emails, only three of which were actually addressed to her. Many were forwarded to her, some were to her colleagues in the ACT Party, some were to her colleagues in the National Party.
Here’s one—the quality of them was this: “Item 1 Offenders who commit murder at second or third strike will receive an appropriately lengthy non-parole period. Not good enough. What does appropriate mean? One year, up to 20 years? Why not state a minimum sentence of, say, 10 years?”
I mean, if that is the kind of evidence that this Minister takes into account when instructing a select committee—which she shouldn’t do because she’s the executive and we’re Parliament—then I’m really concerned. If she is going to change tack, as she seemed to in her public statements, and say, “No, it was the burden of evidence before select committee”, does she not think it’s the select committee’s job, of which the Government has a majority, to sift through the evidence to determine what the appropriate changes are?
Now, I am really concerned that the Minister, when she said she had a flood of emails, either she did not provide all the emails she referred to when she responded to my Official Information Act request, or when she was speaking to Radio New Zealand was not being fulsome. Really, what she was referring to was the fact that, at select committee, the Sensible Sentencing Trust had hundreds of form submissions—and, in fact, that’s what she was responding to.
I think the Minister has an obligation to respond; to say, “In fact, this is why—”. Now, if it was her own policy work, a bit like Casey Costello; perhaps she had a document she found on her desk.
Tom Rutherford: Relevance?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Get to the bill, please.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, no, this is about the major change of direction—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh no, I accept all the questions you were asking to that point.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The point is this: halfway through the consideration of this bill, we made a significant shift of direction, and I want to know what the basis of that shift of direction was—whether it was the three emails actually addressed to her, or whether it was the form submissions from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, or whether it was something else.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for asking me this question, because it allows me to correct the misinformation that has been pushed across this Chamber with reference to a radio interview that I did.
I did not at any stage refer to a “flood of emails”, as the member continues to say in the Chamber. I referred to the fact that I had received emails and that I had also received other correspondence. The fact that this member actually wants to stand up and litigate over and over and over again the fact that the emails numbered three, using—[Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the members on this side could just let the Minister speak, please.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: —words that were not actually used by me, then I think that will speak to the quality of the debate ahead.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I’d try and bring the debate back to the actual bill and the clauses in Part 1 that we are supposed to be debating.
I did want to address Dr Webb’s point. I recall he was there at the Justice Committee throughout, but the committee made a decision after considering the evidence and also receiving the Associate Minister of Justice’s views on whether or not the committee should support some changes. The committee thoroughly considered those thoughts, and we reviewed the evidence and we reviewed the submissions, and the committee voted to make some amendments to the bill, at which point the bill came back to the House and the House also endorsed those amendments. I think that should clarify that for Dr Webb, in case he couldn’t remember what the process was.
I wanted to just very quickly get us through into the actual bill. Part 1, of course, starts at clause 3 and goes through to clause 13, I think, and the first couple of clauses—I just want to check that the Minister agrees that they, essentially, summarise what parts of the principal Act are amended and a very short interpretation section, and then we can, hopefully, move on to some of the substantive content in the bill.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from the previous speaker, James Meager, I think one of the key things we also need to address here is that, regardless of what people will say, on the majority of the select committees, the Government does have a majority, which is what we are seeing in the introduction of this particular bill, where it says “a majority”.
However, also, as part of my second reading speech, I would like to fundamentally remind this committee that, as a legislature, our role is to scrutinise and provide checks and balances for the executive. It will be imperative for governing members on that select committee to also thoroughly consider the bill itself rather than being led by the Minister.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, that’s a bit of a bold statement, and it doesn’t line up with what Mr Meager just said, so we won’t go down that track.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Well, it is the majority and the majority did agree to it, but I do agree with you, Madam Chair. It’s undeniable that the majority of the Justice Committee are Government members and how they interact with their Minister is not for me to comment.
I will, however, ask a follow-up question to Associate Minister of Justice McKee, and this is to do with clause 5 of the bill. I also would like to see if the Minister—and I will double check the clause as well—has any comment on my first question around checking for consistency between the Sentencing Act and this particular bill in light of the additional amendments post select committee and if the Minister can offer any reassurance to this committee as well.
In terms of clause 5, one of the things we see throughout the bill, with regard to the term “manifestly unjust exception”—I’m curious to know from the Minister, when we are looking at the definition and particularly when we’re looking at the exception, using what is considered manifestly unjust, what is the Minister’s intent when the Minister states “nevertheless regard the offence as worthy of a stern sentencing response.”? What does “stern” imply is the expectation of the court in this particular case?
I think that overall—and I would like to speak to my tabled amendment to delete clause 5—when we are looking at if a stern sentencing response is required, as suggested in section 8(2), in clause 5, then it actually defeats the purpose, in a way, of what is considered the manifestly unjust exception in the first place.
I would ask the Minister to remove this particular provision and particularly when we’re looking at section 8(2), in clause 5 of this particular bill, because I think the manifestly unjust exception is clear enough without having the need for subsection (2) to confuse the whole clause 5 with the “stern sentencing response”.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the chair of the Justice Committee for his question, which was looking at Part 1 and the first few clauses within it.
What’s very apparent is that the old three-strikes regime did not work in a way that benefited those that were caught up within the system. We need to make sure, as a country, that we have significant consequences for those that commit serious crimes. The changes that we have made are mostly seen within Part 1 so that we can still make sure, or ensure, that there is consequence and that it is serious enough and that we keep repetitive criminals out of our society when they continue to create harm and fear within it.
Now, as an example of this, under the old regime, there were over 20 people—I thought there were 24; someone else had mentioned earlier tonight there were 27—serving a third strike. What I do know is that of those people, they averaged between them over 70 convictions each—70; seven zero. We are talking about the worst of the worst here. What we need to make sure that we are doing, and we’ve done this within Part 1, is ensure that those that have committed those serious offences are taken out of society so that our communities can be safe, feel safe, and go about their daily lives. The changes that we have made in clauses 5, 6 , and 7 actually speak to that.
What became apparent in the old regime is that people were caught up with lower-level offending, even though they committed crimes within the 40 serious crimes for which they were eligible to be sentenced, and so making the changes that we have made in Part 1 was to ensure that that lower-level offending was not going to be captured and that we really did make sure that we only caught those people that were recidivist violent criminals that were not learning their lessons.
To the member from the Greens, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, in respect to your tabled amendment to delete clause 5, and your question about the manifest injustice, I will not be supporting your amendment. The three-strikes regime will actually override the Sentencing Act. This ensures that the offender will still face serious consequences for offending that meets the three-strikes threshold. In regard to your question about consistency, I have absolute support for the officials who would have ensured that the consistency was there when bringing this paper.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in Associate Minister of Justice McKee’s opinion on Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 82A(1), replacing “must” with “may”.
When I refer to the bill, in clause 6, inserting new section 82A, it proposes, “Additional consequences for certain repeated offending must not be taken into account in determining length of sentence”. I’m interested in the Minister’s opinion: does the proposal by the member to change “must” to “may” provide the necessary deterrent to people who consistently commit offences—as the Minister said, 70 or more, Mr Xu-Nan—
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Doctor.
SIMON COURT: Dr Mr Xu-Nan. Does the Minister agree that Dr Xu-Nan’s proposed amendment to change the legislation from “must” to “may” provides the necessary deterrent when “the length of a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed on an offender for a stage-3 offence [of] murder, a stage-2 offence, or a stage-1 offence, the court must not”—Dr Xu-Nan—“take into account the consequences … the offender [might] face”? That is because, Minister, I might presume, the offender should face the full force of the law, Minister.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you for that question about the tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 82A(1), replacing “must” with “may”, that has been lodged by the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan from the Greens. We will not be supporting that tabled amendment. The reason for that is because “must” is “must”. We are talking about New Zealand’s most serious violent and sexual community, and they are out there creating harm in our communities, and it’s going to stop. It must stop. It not “may” stop; it “must” stop. When we are talking about these people, these people have committed crimes that fit within a regime of what will be 42 offences, serious violent offences. We want this requirement, and we’ll ensure that this requirement is there in all cases.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to get some further information from Minister McKee in relation to Part 1.
There’s new sections in there that specifically provide for first warnings and the qualifying sentence imposed for a stage-1 offence. It also spells out that the first warning is to be given if a sentence of imprisonment between 12 and 24 months is imposed for a stage-2 offence. I think it’s really important, because we were a bit confused at the Justice Committee when we asked these questions of officials, so we’d be really grateful if she could shine some light on it. What actually happens, operationally, in a courtroom when there is somebody who’s been charged with an offence that qualifies as a stage-1, as specified under Part 1, clause 7—it’s the new section 86K(2)(a). Someone who is up now for that, they qualify for that, but what if they had a previous first strike, or what if they had previously had two strikes?
I would like to understand, first of all, whether the administrative records that are kept are able to accurately show that they’d previously received one or two strikes, and whether there is sufficient information in a courtroom, whether it be the police prosecutor or the courtroom administration staff, to have access to that information to know that that person had actually previously had a first or a second strike. The reason I ask that question is that when this regime was introduced the first time, there was a real problem with implementation, and some of the questions we were asking in select committee seemed to indicate that this same problem could rear its head with this set up the way it is here.
The problem we had when this was first implemented was that, when a person appeared before the court and was being charged with a strikable offence, unless the Crown prosecutor was notified that that in fact was a strikable offence and that, when making the case to the judge, they had to say, “Your Honour, this person’s up for a strikable offence”—if the Crown prosecutor failed to do that—that person walked off without receiving a strike on their record. That was problematic. There were sometimes strikes being missed because there was not an adequate integration between the Ministry of Justice, the courts, and the New Zealand Police in order to accurately capture that. There was a running tally we would have to keep of how many strikers had got away, and then we had to draw straws about who told the Minister.
I would like to know, given the added complication that this situation now provides, which is this retrospective legislation reactivating all of those prior strikes, how can we be reassured, and how can the public be reassured, that there is an adequate integrated data set that captures that information in a way that a person who is going to be held accountable under this legislation is informed of that and is aware of that when they’re seeking legal advice, when they’re presenting their case before the judge? I’d like to know who informs the accused that they’re up for whatever strike they are—how that information is conveyed. Secondly, how do we know that there’s an accurate capture of that information?
It’s incredibly important because I would like to know from the Minister if there is a comprehensive list of all of those people who previously received a first, a second, or a third strike; and if they have contact details for all of those people; and if her ministry intends to reach out to all of those people and to give them the information, in order to deter them from committing any more crime and creating some more victims.
Finally, I’d like to know, what if they had a third strike? Do they go back to one again? Is it start again, go back to go, don’t collect $200—is that the case? If they’ve had three strikes, do they go back to one, or are they just getting another strike? Is it continual strikes? Are they always eligible for that maximum part?
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve read through the tabled amendments that have been lodged by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—25 related to Part 1; almost all of them related to clause 7. I’m keen to understand Associate Minister of Justice McKee’s position on whether she will be supporting those amendments from Dr Xu-Nan or not, and, if not, then we can return to the substantive parts of the legislation that we’ll be continuing to progress through. I’m keen to understand from the Minister whether she’ll be supporting the 25 amendments put forward by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I’ll go through the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments that have just been referred to by the member Tom Rutherford, especially the ones that relate to clause 7. There is the tabled amendment to clause 7, replacing “18” with “25” in new section 86J. I will not be supporting this, because it already matches existing law with regard to sentencing. It’s the same as the previous regime.
I’ll now look at the tabled amendment to clause 7, replacing “12” with “24” and “24” with “36” in new section 86J, and I will not be supporting this one. This is in relation to new sections 86J(a)(i) and 86J(b)(i), inserted by clause 7—I will not be supporting this. We think that the existing thresholds already strike the right balance.
In regard to the tabled amendment to clause 7, deleting text from the definitions of “record of first warning” and “record of subsequent warnings” in new section 86J—it’s quite a big one, so I won’t go through all of it, but it’s about Schedule 1 and clause 7. We will not be supporting this one. We think that the existing thresholds, again, strike the right balance.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting “physical” into the definitions of “record of first warning” and “record of subsequent warnings” in new section 86J, we will not be supporting this tabled amendment. We believe that the member actually misunderstands this is about the legal court record. New section 86N, inserted by clause 7, requires the offender to receive a written notice of the warning.
In regard to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86K and 86M to specify that warnings must be given in person, we will not be supporting this, because the offender must already be before the court to get the warning.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86K and 86L to add the word “determinate”, we will not be supporting this one. We just believe it’s unnecessary.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, deleting new section 86KA, 86U(2A), and 86U(2B), we will not be voting for this one either. The additional first warning is necessary if a first warning falls away on appeal and to reinforce consequences for the offender.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86L to remove reference to stage-3 offences, we will not be voting for this. New section 86L, inserted by clause 7, refers to “stage-3” to ensure offenders get an additional subsequent warning if they commit another third-strike offence. We need to keep reinforcing these consequences.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86M(1) to replace “that” with “the”, we are voting this one down.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Any reason, Minister?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Well, the reason why is because—it says, “In clause 7, new section 86M(1), delete ‘that’. … new section 86M(1), after ‘before the court at’ insert ‘the’.”—I don’t think it’s necessary. There’s no comment for that.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86M(3AA) to replace “12” with “24” and “24” with “36”, we will be voting this down. The current thresholds, we believe, strike the right balance.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86M(5) to require a judge to check that offenders understand the nature and consequences of warnings, we will also be voting down. The courts will be doing this anyway.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86N(3) to delete paragraph (b), we will be voting this down. The oral warning is the primary warning that the offender receives. The written notice is a written reminder and it also reinforces to the individual that they have received that warning.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86O to replace “24” with “36”, we will vote this down. We think the existing thresholds in the bill, again, strike the right balance.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, deleting new section 86O(2) and 86R(3), we will not be voting for this. Offenders should face serious consequences for repeat offending. There is a “manifest injustice” exception.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, replacing new section 86P(2), we will not be voting for this. The bill provides that offenders who commit murder face appropriately lengthy sentences.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86R(6)(a) to replace “2” with “3”, we will not be voting for this. It’s a misunderstanding, we believe, of the provision. Preventative detention remains available in the usual way, the same as the previous regime.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86S(2) to replace “18” with “12” and “20” with “17”, we will not be voting for this. The bill provides appropriately lengthy sentences for murder at stage-3.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86T(2)(c) and inserting new paragraph (d), we will not be voting for this. We believe it’s unnecessary because the court can already do this.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86V, we will be voting this down. It’s not duplicative; these are about something different.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, amending new section 86X to delete subsection (2), we won’t be voting for this. It’s the same as the previous regime and provides certainty.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting a new section 86Y, we will not be voting for this. It’s unnecessary and can be covered by the “manifestly unjust exception”.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 14, replacing paragraph (b) and inserting a new paragraph (c) of subclause (4), we will also be voting this one down, because we believe it is unnecessary. This is adding items to the list that are already covered.
In relation to the tabled amendment to subclause (6) of clause 16, we will be voting this down. The court already has discretion in deciding about the qualifying sentences.
Finally, in relation to the tabled amendment to Schedule 2, we’ll be voting that down. These are both serious violent offences with high maximum penalties. Section 234 of the Crimes Act, for robbery, for example, gives you 10 years. All of the qualifying offences have at least a seven-year minimum sentence.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take a call from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, given that the Minister’s just given responses to the amendments.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just thought, given that very last comment, Madam Chair, it’s pretty important that we clarify. I did find it surprising that the Minister pre-empted all of the decisions on those, and I just want to make sure that you’re not suggesting that it’s not open to a member whose amendment has been dismissed in a sentence by the Minister to debate the amendment that they have taken the time to put on the Table.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not ruling out any debate, Dr Webb. The member now knows the Minister’s reason for saying that she’s not going to support this amendment. I’m not ruling out any debate.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you for that clarification.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Phew! What a breath of relief to know that Associate Minister of Justice McKee has done her one hour of reading, as well as other members in this Chamber! I am most impressed—particularly when it comes to Simon Count—I mean, Simon Court—who has so clearly articulated—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You two need to learn each other’s names.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —my amendment to clause 6, new section 82A(1) around “must” and “may”.
Now, first of all, I would like to respond to the Minister who responded to my amendment around “must and “may”. The reason I put this together is merely for the fact that in other justice-based bills that we have been debating in this House, and in this particular case—when we are looking at a particular verb being used in the positive—the verb “must” has been used in the positive. But in the negative—at least in the bills that I was looking at—consistently “may not” is used to imply “must not”. I do rarely see the term “must not” being used in a particular bill.
To the other members in this House, this is more of a case of consistency of semantics, where “must” and “may not” are essentially equating to the same level of strength, but one in the positive and one in the negation. I would like to clarify that first. After all, my background, and particularly my doctorate, is in arts and humanities—and particularly cognitive linguistics.
I would like to address something else that the Minister has mentioned. The Minister has clearly stated where her position is. However, the Minister has not mentioned the reason and the rationale behind some of these—particularly when we are reading it in conjunction with the regulatory impact statement—and also what was originally proposed as part of the bill, or even what was presented by her very own officials.
One of the reasons I mentioned the removal of what is considered “a stern sentencing response”—and we were looking at the “manifestly unjust exception”—is particularly to do with some of the court cases I have mentioned before. Let’s say, in the context of R v Campbell and in the context of Fitzgerald v R [2021], ruled by the Supreme Court, how is the Minister intending on reconciling some of the issues of illegality, particularly against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, when it comes to someone who is not able to serve the full sentence? That was a key ruling of that particular case in Fitzgerald v R.
If the Minister isn’t going to be allowing a certain part—when we’re looking at clause 5 and also in terms of my tabled amendment to delete clause 5—I would like to hear from the Minister how she’s able to work around the violation of section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could I please ask Dr Xu-Nan to just explain those cases that he mentioned, for the benefit of some of us that actually are not aware of the specific questions around those, please. Just briefly, if you would. Thank you.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sure. I’m happy to talk about that. In the particular case of Fitzgerald v R—
Hon Member: Google it.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I mean, I am googling it, in fact. Do you know why? Surely, for the Minister—who’s a Minister of the Crown—she would undoubtedly have all of these cases in her head. I shouldn’t have to explain it—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): She may have, but I can’t judge if she’s answered the question if I don’t know.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —but I am happy to enlighten it. In this particular case, the summary is that the majority of the Supreme Court in Fitzgerald v R found that the three-strike regime—the previous version—is subject to section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In this particular context, what has happened is that the fundamental right cannot be limited.
For the case of Fitzgerald, it was found, particularly due to the mental capacity of Mr Fitzgerald, that after the third strike it was deemed to be unworkable in terms of the fact that he was not in charge of his full mental function to be able to realise the kind of law that he’s breaking but was still being charged to the full amount. In those kinds of cases—[Time expired]
Hon Members: Madam Chair—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lawrence Xu-Nan—I’m just letting him finish his explanation.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. In those kinds of cases, the court is able to have the leeway of using “manifestly unjust”—unless the Minister thinks that that is also the incorrect use of it, in which case I would like the Minister’s enlightenment on what is the correct use for someone who is mentally unaware or is unable to understand what they’re committing and whether the fact that they received the third strike of maximum sentence is in line with that particular element. Of course, in those cases, the court found that they could have gone to a lower court and—particularly when you’re looking in the Crimes Act—use section 135 as an alternative.
The court will be using alternative ways to address this, like they have done previously. I would like to know then, from the Minister—in the context of some of the existing rulings—how is she going to reconcile that with the stringency in this bill, this particular legislation that, despite the fact that she says it’s different from the previous, is the same as previous.
Now, my other question—Madam Chair, if I may—is around new section 86J(1)(a) and (b), in clause 7. The original intention of the bill has a starting point of 24 months, but it was dropped to 12 months post select committee. One of the biggest concerns raised by submitters on this particular area is the fact that 12 months, or even 24 months, is going to be too short and too low a threshold. I would like to know from the Minister what the rationale was for dropping it down from 24 months to 12 months, and thus creating a much harsher punishment and creating more ways for people to enter into that first strike. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going to address some of the questions that the member the Hon Ginny Andersen from Labour asked me earlier regarding new section 86KA, in clause 7, reactivating prior strikes. She was asking me how it was going to work. I will point out that the member incorrectly said that all strikes will be reactivated; that is incorrect. They will not automatically be reactivated. Only those previous strikes that meet the new threshold will be reactivated.
The member was asking what happens, because there are sometimes two first strikes that are given. For those at home who are watching who do not know the complexities of this bill, in order to get a first strike, a person needs to commit an offence from one of those 42 serious violent offences which are imprisonable by over seven years’ imprisonment. When the person commits an offence and is sentenced to over 12 months’ imprisonment, they are eligible for a first strike.
In order to be eligible for a second or a third strike, they must still commit an offence in one of those 42 offences but their term of imprisonment must be for 24 months or over. Now, if they get a term of imprisonment that is between 12 and 24 months, instead of getting a second strike, because it does not meet the threshold, they will actually receive another first strike. It’s another warning to that individual, which is better than what we did in the last regime. It means that the person is still committing a serious violent or sexual offence whereby the judge has decided it is not serious enough to be over two years’ jail but it’s still serious enough to fit within this regime. The individual will be given an oral indication that they have received another first strike.
The member asked, “Well, what if a person has three strikes? What happens to them then?” Now, if the person who has three strikes under the old regime then goes on and commits a serious offence and is imprisoned for what would be more than 24 months, or two years, their previous strikes, if they fit within this regime, will be reactivated. If a person has received strikes where they have done three terms of imprisonment over 24 months, there is no passing go; it’s straight to jail, and it’s at the maximum penalty, third strike, no parole. We make no apologies for that.
Speaking to the member from the Greens and his question about section 9 in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Crown Law Office had advised the Attorney-General that the bill as introduced did not appear to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General approved this advice. Two key reasons why the bill did not appear to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are that an exception will apply to all mandatory sentencing elements of the regime to avoid manifestly unjust outcomes, and a qualifying sentence threshold will ensure that less serious offending is not subject to the regime. The bill does not vary penalties or retroactively punish anyone who offended before the regime came into effect. While warnings will be carried over, the regime is triggered by new offending, and only warnings which meet the qualifying sentence will be reactivated.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, just in response to Associate Minister of Justice McKee’s comments, that the Attorney-General’s report was made before the Minister changed and made the bill’s provision retrospective, so it’s a little unhelpful, to put it kindly, to put an outdated report in front of the committee.
The Minister criticised me before in respect of her statements on Radio New Zealand when I said it was a flood of emails. They weren’t her exact words, but that was the inference. That’s what I said. Here are her exact words: “We’ve heard from many people, especially through emails to my office, which have stated that the new regime has not gone far enough.” She said “many emails”; three’s not many.
What I actually want to talk about is the “manifestly unjust” provision. You’re not allowed to say “less shit” provisions of this bill, but that’s basically what it is, I imagine. The “manifestly unjust” provision is one of the ameliorations of this bill, which makes it not quite as bad as the last one.
Now, in terms of what “manifestly unjust” is, I think it needs clarification, because, I mean, it’s a strange thing in the law when you can have something that’s a little bit unjust, that’s permitted, or even quite a bit unjust, but it’s permitted, but it has to be manifestly unjust and then the judge can intervene. I was concerned to see the Minister of Justice talk about this bill, and I think it was in the House when he said that she—referring to the Minister—has talked about the, I think, distorting effect of the Act, and it leads to disproportionate sentences. Well, hold the phone, people. That’s the exact point of this legislation.
When we talk about the sentencing impact, we’ve got one Minister saying disproportionate sentences are exactly what we’re after. Disproportionate sentences are sentences which don’t match the crime. Now, if the Government is saying sentences, as they stand, don’t match the crime and we want to adjust them, that’s one thing. If they’re saying sentences do match the crime and we want them to not match the crime, that’s something quite different. The Minister of Justice saying that it leads to disproportionate sentences—hold the phone, people—that’s the exact point. It suggests that the Government is intent on imposing disproportionate sentences.
If we’re looking at what “manifestly unjust” is, I would like the Minister to look at this. We’re going to go through all of these amendments, so the Minister might want to preface the debate, but we are going to go through them. One of mine there was lodged at 12.15 today, the tabled amendment to clause 4(2). It suggests that we actually clarify that “manifestly unjust” means unjust or disproportionate to a significant degree, taking into account all of the factors of the offending—and I think this is important—including the impact on and the views of the victim.
I don’t think that’s usefully expressed in the Sentencing Act at the moment; it’s not strong enough—but, also, the age of the offender, the behaviour of the offender, after the charges had been laid, including the conduct of the defence. I think that’s an important factor as well. We talk about early guilty pleas, but the conduct of the defence is much more than just an early guilty plea—so, taking pre-trial applications which are vexatious or looking for further evidence on grounds which are, essentially, oppressive and re-victimising the victim.
They’re all things that can happen within a criminal trial, and that’s just a tiny sample. I’m not a criminal lawyer; I don’t know the full details of it, but understanding how the defendant behaves actually is reflective of whether they recognise the gravity of their offending, and also tacked on there, on that amendment, and other recognised matters of aggravation and mitigation. What it does is it says you’ve got this concept which goes throughout the whole of this bill, “manifestly unjust”, and it really fleshes it out. I think that’d be really useful just to make the bill a little more thoughtful and, basically, workable. I’d be interested in the Minister’s views on that.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve already spoken to the member Duncan Webb about his tabled amendment to clause 4(2) and explained that we were not going to be supporting that.
In regard to the “manifestly unjust”, on this side of the House, we believe that it’s right that these offenders face serious consequences for their offending, even if it feels like or seems to be disproportionate, because what we have done within this legislation is create the “manifestly unjust” for the courts to be able to determine. Hence, this is why we have put in a threshold in the first place, because there was not one there earlier.
It’ll be up to the courts to decide how they are going to apply that exception of “manifestly unjust” in individual cases, but we’re providing principles to them to help guide the courts in applying the exception. Part of that guidance reflects section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which protects against disproportionately severe treatment or punishment. Courts have found that “disproportionately severe” covers treatment that is grossly disproportionate to the circumstances, but it does not cover treatment that is simply disproportionate, and the wording in the bill aligns with that position. I think that clearly explains that position.
When talking earlier about carrying over previous strikes, making the bill retrospective, I need to make it quite clear for those members on the Justice Committee who didn’t understand as they were going through the bill, the new regime will still only apply to offending committed after the bill comes into force. The bill does not create retrospective offences or retrospective penalties, as the member had been saying. Existing sentencing legislation already requires the court to consider an offender’s previous convictions, and this is similar to that.
The changes also don’t apply to offences committed in between the repeal of the previous regime and the new regime coming into force. So it’s very, very clear, and I would have hoped the member would have realised that as he went through the process.
BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Tūru. E tika ana te kōrero i ō tātou tūpuna Māori “Whakarongo ki te kupu pono, ki te kupu tika. Poipoia te kākano kia pūāwai”.
[Thank you, Mr Chair. The words of our Māori ancestors is true, “Take heed of the true word, the right word. Nurture the seed so that it flourishes”.]
“Nurture the seed and it shall flourish”. This is a whakataukī that I think of when I’m reading new section 86J, inserted by clause 7 of this bill, which speaks to stage-1 offences and the qualifying age of offenders.
Our Governments, successively, have released numerous reports and briefings which outline that a “young person” is aged between 18 and 25 years. If we are to regard this as correct, as is done so in the Ministry of Health briefing “Overview of youth health”, from August 2024, which defines young people and youth as between the ages of 12 and 24, then we must, too, recognise that this proposed bill also includes young people as offenders of stage-1 offences. I would like to seek clarity on what regard has been given to medically peer-reviewed articles and psychological scientific evidence which tells us that young people’s cognitive development continues through until a person’s mid-20s.
A person who is aged 18 years of age, I would like to know, may not have been considered when drafting this bill, as I cannot understand how we would disproportionately allow young people to be treated in the same way as a fully cognitively developed and maturated adult. I wonder, and would like to seek clarity from the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee, about any alternative pathways that seem perhaps more balanced in regard to young people and youth who have not fully developed their prefrontal cortex in such a way that they would be also sentenced as a stage-1 offender as an adult.
My question is: how has the neurological stage of development of people under the age of 25 been considered, and is there value in pursuing evidence-based community supported rehabilitation interventions for young people under 25 as an alternative to the heavy-handed criminalising under this proposed bill? Thank you.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you to the member Benjamin Doyle. This is the first question I’ve received from him in the House, although what I will—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry to the Minister, but I do want to take a point of order. A photograph was just taken in the Chamber. A photograph was taken in the Chamber by a member. I’m aware that that’s inappropriate, and I wonder if you, as Chair, might direct that person to delete that photograph.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Did a member just take a photo of the member when they were speaking?
Cameron Brewer: I took the photo. I will delete the photo, because I’m conscious that members on the other side of the House do not take photos. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You’ll also withdraw and apologise for doing so.
Cameron Brewer: I was merely taking a photo of my colleagues, sir, and I will withdraw and apologise if my colleagues are offended by that.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, then, you weren’t taking photos across the Chamber?
Cameron Brewer: I was taking a photo of Mr Bates.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right—OK. Well just—
Shanan Halbert: The photo was of Ben.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’re at a heightened state of sensitivity here all around, so can we just all be aware of that during this debate. Thank you. The Minister may carry on.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: I’ll start again, and I thank the member for the first question that I have received from him.
We are looking at the rule of law here. Those that are aged 18 and over are responsible to the laws of this land and therefore are eligible to the consequences should they break the laws of this land. Those that are aged under the age of 18 are not eligible for the three-strikes regime. What I think is probably most important is that when we look at how three strikes actually works, the first strike is a warning that they are now on the pathway of the three-strikes regime. The second strike will mean that they have committed an offence which is eligible for imprisonment of over seven years, and when they do get that second strike, they will not be eligible for parole at that stage. When they commit the third strike, it’s a maximum penalty with no parole.
One would expect that at the age of 18, if a person commits an offence where they are then convicted under the three-strikes regime, they will possibly not be under the age of 25 by the time that they get to their third strike, because they would have had to have served their sentence with no parole. Of course, there are always opportunities for rehabilitation while they are incarcerated.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to thank the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee for her answers before. There was one answer that I’d just like a bit more information on. The way I understood it in terms of how the regime will work—she stated that only those strikes that meet the new threshold are the ones that are going to be revisited or up for another one. When they’re revitalising the ones that are gone, there will have to be a process somehow of ascertaining those first strikes that meet the new threshold under this legislation that then qualify for being reconsidered for a second or a third strike.
My question to the Minister is: who holds that information, what database holds that information, who is doing the exercise to establish which offences fall into that area that meet the new threshold, and is there any ability or possibility that there could be a mistake made, as there have been in the past in the implementation of this legislation? Is there any ability for someone who had an offence that was strikable under the previous regime, and potentially in or out of this one—who is doing that work to analyse? Is that a computer? Is that a human? Is that a database? Who checks it? How does that information find its way to the courtroom?
I really appreciate the fact that we’ve been given information about how the first strike and then the second first strike and then the oral notification of the second first strike, how that works—might need a good comms campaign to get that one out of the gate, but I get it. I think the thing that we want to understand is: where is the central point where that data is held, and is that held by Police? Is that held by Justice? Is that held in courts? Is that paper-based; is that computer-based? Who holds that information in order to make sure when an offender is before the courts, there is correct information in order for that strike to be made in a way that is correct in terms of what their previous history was?
There is a real history here in New Zealand of there being multiple different databases, multiple different systems, Crown prosecutors operating in a different way from what the courtroom might be aware of, and room for confusion. I think, if we’re introducing a new system, it is paramount, at this point of the bill, that we all have a crystal-clear understanding of where that dataset sits and who’s responsible for checking that it’s right, and who is held accountable if there are mistakes.
I would also like to know from the Minister—the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that accompanies this and goes to some of the key parts of Part 1 makes some really good sort of points in relation to research underpinning it. I just wondered if the Minister had read the regulatory impact statement and whether she’d like to comment on some of the research that has shown that perceived early certainty of apprehension was most consistent when deterring white-collar offences such as fraud with tax violations—other than violence, not violent offending. The research, which was “The Empirical Status of Deterrence Theory”—it’s in the RIS—shows that it doesn’t really work for violent offending, but it’s real good for white-collar offences such as fraud and tax violations. I just wonder whether she was wanting to catch more tax evaders with this legislation, or was she after violent criminals, because it seems to work for the first lot.
Also, it’s interesting to note that when the analysis is done against the criteria, the Ministry of Justice actually quite strongly recommends the status quo, rather than the new three-strikes regime. Primarily, the number one reason is that there’s a lack of evidence that the proposal will be effective at addressing repeated serious violent offending or sustainably improving public confidence in the justice system. This is the Ministry of Justice advising the Minister that there is a lack of evidence that her proposal would effectively address repeated serious violent offending. I’m interested to know from the Minister where she’s getting her reckons from, if her own officials and research demonstrate that this doesn’t work.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. In answer to the question about who is holding the information, the courts hold the judiciary’s information on the courts system. The Ministry of Justice will be working with the operational staff on how they go about implementing that.
The member will know that this is an operational matter, but part of that is extending the implementation date from three months to six months in order to allow for that to occur. I think that really does answer the question about where it is. In regard to mistakes, there were mistakes in the old regime, but they got fixed pretty quickly—found and fixed fairly quickly. The Ministry of Justice are confident: not only are there no mistakes in the system; they don’t expect there to be any mistakes in the system going forward—not with the six-month implementation that they have.
In regard to bringing in other forms of three strikes, actually this is sending a very clear message to our communities that we back them, that we support them, that we don’t like them being intimidated and being attacked by sexual and violent offenders time and time again. I’ll reiterate the point that I had made earlier: those serving a third strike had, on average between them, over 70 offences per person. Now, getting them out of our community, and getting them into a system where they can get rehabilitation and education under the corrections system, actually allows our communities to get on with their life in the law-abiding way in which they should be able to live. It’s as simple as that.
We will take note of the fact that New Zealand has said, when they went to the polls, that they wanted a system that was going to respect them; that they wanted law and order from crime and from criminals; and that they wanted to feel safe in their beds at night, without Opposition parties giving millions of dollars to gangs so that they can continue to conduct their illegitimate business.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the call. We’ve all been trying to engage in the debate quite constructively, and I want to thank the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee for answering the questions in quite a significant amount of detail and without a lot of politics, actually. It’s been quite good, I think, tonight.
I just want to speak to one small point that Dr Webb raised. He claimed that the Minister made changes to the bill at the Justice Committee. Of course, the select committee made the changes to the bill that came through the House. The Minister didn’t vote on the changes. Actually, the only person who voted on the changes at select committee was Dr Webb and the Labour Party and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori and ACT, New Zealand First, and National—because the proposed amendments were passed unanimously. I would assume that suggests that Dr Webb was happy with the content of the bill coming back to the House, and possibly didn’t want to have any further amendments.
I just wanted to touch on those amendments before. It was very helpful that the Minister addressed Dr Xu-Nan’s amendments. I’d like to reiterate that we won’t be supporting those amendments either. I’ve talked to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and we won’t be supporting the member’s amendments, too, sadly.
That brings me to—Dr Webb mentioned a couple of his amendments, and I wanted to draw the committee’s attention to the stapled compendium of amendments in Dr Webb’s name. There are 21 out of 24 that relate to Part 1 of the bill. I just wanted the Minister’s view, likewise with Dr Xu-Nan’s, as to whether or not she intends to support any of those amendments. I think it’s been helpful to outline that the Minister wasn’t going to support Dr Xu-Nan’s amendments, because it means we can move on and we can actually debate the substantive parts of the bill that were unanimously supported by the committee. Similarly, with Dr Webb’s tabled amendments—the first one is to clause 4(2) and they end at the amendment to clause 7, to insert new section 86Z.
I just wanted the Minister’s view on whether or not she intends to support any of those amendments, so hopefully we can get to the meat of the bill, which is in the later clauses.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that question. I think it might be easier for me to go through those amendments tabled by the Hon Duncan Webb one by one, as I had done previously for the Green member. I have already mentioned that I do not support his first amendment, the tabled amendment to clause 4(2). My response to that is that the existing bill strikes a balance and it provides guidance but does not overly prescribe what “manifestly unjust” means. Courts will already consider these factors, but they may want to consider others.
In relation to his tabled amendment to new subsection (2) of clause 5, I will not be supporting this either. The proposed amendment would detract from the intention, which is to denounce serious offending even where the “manifestly unjust exception” applies, and that is based on case law.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting new subsection (3) into new section 82A, I will not be supporting this. Judges need to know about an offender’s criminal history in order to sentence them appropriately. It could lead to unnecessary court delays.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86J, I will not be supporting this either. We think the lower threshold of more than 12 months’ imprisonment strikes the right balance.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, to replace new section 86KA, I will not be supporting this amendment. Additional first warnings are necessary to reinforce to an offender the consequences of repeat offending and avoid a gap arising where they lose their first warning.
In relation to his tabled amendment to remove the words “if the offender is before the court at that time” in clause 7, new section 86M, I will not be supporting this paper. This is about warnings, not sentences. The bill requires that an offender can only be given a warning when they are before the court.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (c) into new section 86M(2), I shall not be supporting that paper. Offenders should not avoid getting a warning just because of an omission by the court.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (d) into new section 86M(2), I will not be supporting that paper. This is not unique to three strikes. I believe it’s out of scope and unnecessary.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (c) into new section 86M(3B), I will not be supporting this. It’s not unique to three strikes, and I, again, think that this is out of scope and unnecessary.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (3C) into new section 86M, I will not be supporting that paper. This section is about when a court imposes a “qualifying sentence” on appeal, so the offender will need to get a warning. It’s not about the oversight by the court.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6) into new section 86M, I will not be supporting that paper. The bill allows the court to use a form of words it considers appropriate. This allows the court to adapt the language as needed and it reduces appeals.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6A) into new section 86M, I shall not be supporting that paper. The warning is required to set out the possible consequences already.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace subsection (3) in new section 86N, I shall not be supporting that paper. The oral warning is the primary warning. The written notice is a written reminder of the consequences for the offender.
In relation to his remaining tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86N, I shall not be supporting that paper. The bill is consistent with case law on the previous regime. Written notice is already mandatory under new section 86N. The bill sufficiently provides for when the written notice must be given.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, to insert subsection (5) into new section 86O, I will not be supporting this paper. Loss of parole at stage-2 is a key feature of the bill. “Manifestly unjust exception” provides the ability to impose a lesser penalty when the test is met.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86R, I will not be supporting this paper. The purpose of the regime is to provide consistent and certain consequences.
In relation to tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86T, I will not be supporting that paper. It’s unnecessary, in my view—the court can already consider these matters when applying the “manifestly unjust exception”.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, to insert paragraph (d) into new section 86T(2), I will not be supporting that paper. The court can consider these matters already when applying the exception.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, to insert new section 86UA, I will not be supporting that paper. It’s unnecessary, in my view, as the court can take into account the time elapsed when considering “manifestly unjust exception”.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, to insert new section 86Y, I will not be supporting that paper. The offender has to be present at sentencing already and has to be before the court to receive a warning.
In relation to his tabled amendment to clause 7, to insert new section 86Z, I will not be supporting this. I believe it’s unnecessary. The Ministry of Justice is already doing a post-implementation assessment within four years of enactment.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you also to the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee for setting a challenge, as she seemed to suggest that, at first blush, she doesn’t support any of my amendments. I’m sure that, on reflection and after we go through them in detail, she will, but there is one thing I’d say first. My friend the Hon Ginny Andersen mentioned the fact that, in fact, deterrence of this nature does work with “thinkers’ offences” like fraud, and that’s one thing—that’s a really good argument.
The other thing is the fact that there are serious offences that the Minister didn’t include, and I did consider putting an amendment in to kind of recognise that. For example, sex trafficking is not in, slavery is not in, treason, piracy—the list goes on and on of those offences that aren’t in. You’ve got these offences which are a hell of a lot more serious than indecent assault, which is in and of itself serious, that aren’t in there. I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
I think it’s a bad bill—full stop—so I didn’t put that amendment in, but I did want to talk to one of my tabled amendments, which relates to clause 5. There’s a strange clause in there, and it’s kind of back-of-an-envelope drafting. I’m always a bit cautious about criticising parliamentary counsel, but when the “manifestly unjust” exception is used, there’s a direction to the sentencing judge to still sentence it in an appropriate manner, and the words used are kind of weird: they should “nevertheless regard the offence as worthy of a stern sentencing response.”
It’s kind of old-fashioned language, right? What does it mean? Whilst “manifestly unjust”, which is used elsewhere—you know, you could do better, but it is a principle for overturning sentence on appeal, whether it’s manifestly unjust or not. What we’ve got here is a totally new concept being introduced into sentencing law. A sentence that is “worthy of a stern”—it kind of is reminiscent of being told off sternly by an uncle or something, and it actually doesn’t really have any meaning.
If what she means is that the judge should take into account that this is a strikable offence but, for whatever reason, it would be manifestly unjust to impose the strike sentence, but a sentence of a gravity which is appropriate to reflect the strike-full nature, even though it isn’t at the strike tariff, should be imposed—well, let’s use words something like that, rather than this kind of very loose wording. I’m really surprised—I’m assuming this was the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s—parliamentary counsel used the words “worthy of a stern sentencing response.” It’s actually just kind of pejorative but nothing else.
That’s my amendment proposal for clause 5. The words that I propose are actually relatively simple, which is that rather than saying, “worthy of a stern sentencing response.”, just say, “apply the principles set out in this Act in respect of sentencing to ensure that a sentence of appropriate gravity is imposed.” I think that that’s what the Minister was intending when she put that in the bill. I’m aware of the principles of this debate, and so I won’t use my full time, but I’ll just let the Minister respond to that, and then I will move on to my next tabled amendment.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I’ll just repeat for the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, because I’ve already said it once and I’m sure the member understands what case law is—and, of course, it is based on case law.
Camilla Belich: Yeah, he’s a professor of law, so I’m sure that he does.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Well, I have mentioned it. I had said it before, but I’m still being asked the question from your colleague, so I think I need to repeat the answer to what I had previously, just recently said. The proposed amendment would detract from the intention, which is to denounce serious offending, even where the “manifestly unjust” exception applies.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll move to my next tabled amendment. I know that the Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee has said, “Oh, I told you once that I don’t like it, and I’ll tell you again.”—and there is a certain, you know, strikable echo there—and I won’t take long on this one, because it’s not a hard one.
The provisions of the bill say that, if a judge is sentencing someone, they’ve got to disregard the strike status of that person, because you’ve got this threshold problem, right? So, you’re on first strike, the judge is thinking about sentencing for a serious offence, and they’re wavering. They’re saying, “Should it be 18 months or should it be two years or should it be 25 months?” The bill says you’ve got to disregard the strike status of the offender. Now, if you’ve got the court records in front of you and you can see they’re on the first strike and you know that, by the intention of this bill, to give them a second strike would impose a mandatory non-parole period, which is pretty much by definition disproportionate, it’s impossible to take that out of your mind.
If you’re going to do that, you really need to make sure that judges don’t know the strike status of the offender, which is why I’ve suggested a new subsection (3) be inserted in new section 82A, in clause 6—which is the same section—which provides that “The Judge considering sentencing must not be informed of the ‘strike’ status of an offender, and if they are aware of the ‘strike’ status of an offender they must recuse themselves.” It’s an absolute fiction to suggest that a judge—they do a great job, but they are not superhumans. They can’t go in and say, “I am not going to know.”—and even if they say, “I’m not going to take account of it.”, it’s a little fictitious.
If the Minister actually wants a workable piece of legislation where judges genuinely don’t take into account strike history, if you like, then the only way to do that is to have, essentially, a closed file when you’re sentencing someone and to only open that when you come to determine whether there is a strike or not, which would be after the sentence is imposed—because it’s simply not possible. That’s a simple question, and can I just comment that I’m grateful for the Minister responding to each of my questions—it’s a really useful thing to do—and although she has once said she didn’t change her mind, I will never give up hope that she will change her mind.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Tom Rutherford—oh sorry, Minister; I didn’t notice. It’s getting late.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll repeat to the member Duncan Webb what I said about his tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting new subsection (3) into new section 82A, that judges need to know about an offender’s criminal history in order to sentence them appropriately. There are some similar requirements in legislation that require judges not to take into account certain factors when making a decision—for example, section 82 of the Sentencing Act 2002 requires that pre-sentence detention must not be taken into account in determining the length of sentence. We think this is important to make sure that sentences that the courts impose reflect Parliament’s intention and are not influenced by the consequences of the regime. If a judge were to take into account the consequences of the regime in determining the sentencing length, the Crown could appeal the sentence where it is appropriate. I think that we are fine where we have landed.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call Laura McClure.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate you—
Hon Member: “You may remember me.”
LAURA McCLURE: —getting my name correct. Yes, you may remember me as Laura Trask.
I’ve got a question for Associate Minister of Justice McKee in relation to some of the tabled amendments from the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—in particular, the one to clause 6, inserting new section 82A(1A) requiring courts to give consideration to tikanga Māori-based restorative justice. I’m just going to read it out to you. It says, “In clause 6, after new section 82A(1), insert (1A) “In determining the sentence for an offender under this regime, the court must give consideration to tikanga Māori-based restorative justice processes where applicable and agreeable by the offender.”
My question would be: what about the victims? Should any restorative justice be victim-centred? I’m asking the Minister what her thoughts are on this, and what her thoughts are on all the other amendments in Mariameno’s name.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Laura McClure for her question. The victims of crime—serious violent and sexual crime—are at the forefront of our minds, of this Government, as we reintroduce law and order back into New Zealand and give our communities a safe space to be in.
In regard to the tabled amendments by the member from the Māori Party, I’ll go through them one by one, as they are in my hand. The first one mentioned by the member was the tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting new section 82A(1A) requiring courts to give consideration to tikanga Māori-based restorative justice, and, again, I will go through them by their timing. We will not be supporting this amendment. We believe it’s out of scope and it’s not specific to the three-strikes regime.
In relation to her tabled amendment inserting new clause 4A, we will not be supporting this paper. It is out of scope and not specific to the three-strikes regime.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 6, inserting new section 82A(1A) requiring courts to consider the potential for disproportionate impacts on Māori offenders, I will not be supporting this amendment. There is no intention to treat offenders differently solely on the basis of their ethnicity.
In relation to her tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new section 86XY relating to Treaty Impact Statements, we will not be voting for this paper. It is out of scope. This bill deals with sentencing, not alternatives to sentencing.
In relation to the tabled amendment to replace clause 2, we will not be supporting this amendment. There’s no need to delay the commencement for consideration of options that are not specific to three strikes.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to address what the Minister was mentioning before, and I think it’s one of the key things about the committee stage that, you know, we would love to talk about victims and victim protection, but it is outside the scope of this bill since it’s not part of this bill. I feel like if we were debating the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, we would be talking more about victims.
I would like to actually apologise and correct myself for what I said before about “manifestly unjust”, because I actually agree with the Hon Dr Duncan Webb saying that I have shaped or taken a definition of that. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb is absolutely correct in that there is actually no definition, and I made an assumption on that definition. I think that clarification would be very much appreciated.
I would like to ask the Minister about something that the Minister said before in terms of Crown Law’s advice—and this is still with regard to new sections 86J(a) and (b)—because I understand that Crown Law’s advice in paragraph 18 is indeed saying that there were safety valves, but that was also before the threshold was increased. I want to check with the Minister whether the Minister has received additional advice from Crown Law or the Attorney-General since the new amendment has taken place post - select committee, because, as we know, any major amendment should have a subsequent New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) report being conducted, regardless of its consistency with NZBORA or a section 7 report.
The other thing I would like to address—that the Minister mentioned when the Minister was talking about Crown Law’s advice—is that Crown Law’s advice in paragraph 47 was also very clear: basically, that there is no retrospectivity in this law. Again, it’s a piece of advice that was given before changes were made during the select committee process. I’m a little bit confused—and I would like clarification from the Minister—around retrospectivity, because the Minister said that “there is no retrospectivity”. I would like to point to the new addition in “record of first warning” and “record of subsequent warning”, which has a new section that states, “(including, without limitation, a relevant reactivated warning under clause 19 of Schedule 1AA).”
If we go to new clause 19 of Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 23, it does have a specific point around the fact that—for example, in Schedule 1AA, under clause 16, under the definition of “current”, it says in paragraph (b) “would not have ceased, or have been cancelled, under that section if it were in force—(i) on and after”, which for me implies that those old warnings were in fact reactivated. Wouldn’t that then constitute a form of retrospectivity? Clarification would be very much appreciated from the Minister on what she meant by “there is no retrospectivity”.
However, I would like to move on to a new part, and this is new section 86K(2)(a), inserted by clause 7, and this is to do with “The court must—(a) warn the offender of the possible consequences if the offender receives a further qualifying sentence”. Now, my assumption for this clause—and please correct me if I’m wrong, Minister—is that this happens during the time of sentencing. However, if, for example, a person in some way is serving a stage-2 sentence—anything that is longer than, let’s say, 12 months or 24 months—is there any provision or consideration that’s been put in place on whether the offender upon completing their term of imprisonment will be re-warned of what warning they are on and the consequences, because it’s all very well to warn someone at the beginning, but what happens years down the track? Are they going to be re-warned?
Those are my questions, which are around Crown Law advice—whether there’s any new advice on retrospectivity—and new section 86K(2)(a).
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member: I missed the beginning of your question, so I hope that this answer helps. In regard to lowering the threshold and reactivating previous strikes, it looks like you asked about advice that we had received.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It’s whether you got any advice from Crown Law or the Attorney-General post amendments.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you. Any advice that may have been obtained from Crown Law would be privileged, and if we did receive advice, the fact that we did would also be privileged. In relation to the retrospectivity and the warnings, it’s not a punishment that we are retrospectively bringing back into the regime. They are warnings. The punishment is the sentence delivered by the court. This regime is the warnings, and if they fit the new criteria of the new regime, they will be transferred over. It’s not a punishment, and also there is no retrospectivity between the end of the last regime and the beginning of this new regime.
If anyone has committed crimes between the end of the three-strikes regime, regardless of whether or not they had received a strike or had actually had a strike placed upon them in the new regime, then they are very lucky because there is no retrospectivity in that respect.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. We’ve had a good discussion already, and the Minister has been clear that people need to feel safe in their beds and that that’s important—and we agree with that completely—but, on the point of rehabilitation to stop people from reoffending and to stop them from creating more victims in New Zealand, I would be interested to know the Minister’s views on how this new reinstated three-strikes regime impacts upon rehabilitation.
The reason I ask that is that there has been some work done and some concerns were raised with the previous three-strikes regime that it was potentially negatively affecting offender rehabilitation or access to it, and in fact, during the Justice Committee process, we had some quite good submissions that raised concerns about the lack of parole eligibility, especially for those who are on a third strike. It would be good to know whether she perceives that there is a disincentivising of offender rehabilitation, as rehabilitation programme access is generally prioritised only for those offenders who are eligible for parole. Would it mean that there is not access to that rehabilitation for some of those hardcore offenders who might benefit from that?
Evidence does indicate, in the regulatory impact statement quoted here by the department, that individuals in prison are more motivated to engage in rehabilitation programmes as their completion is often a prerequisite for parole. You’ll get people to do it if they know they’re getting parole. In the previous regime, we saw that there was no incentive for rehabilitation to be taken, and it’s also noted, and I think it’s worth pointing out, that research shows that New Zealand’s managed release system results in lower rates of reoffending than limited supervision at the end of a sentence, and this is, in fact, supported by international evidence, which shows that offenders released without supervision are more likely to reoffend than those released under parole supervision. If there is some good evidence there, I’m wanting to know whether the Minister has turned her mind to it.
The second point I would like to ask the Minister about—the first one being on the impacts on the rehabilitation of offenders—would be the impact on justice outcomes for Māori. We’ve already had a bit of a discussion around this, but there is some great work done by the Law Commission specifically on three strikes. I just wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to data from the previous three-strikes regime that provides quite a reliable indication of the likely impact of the planned reinstatement of this on Māori. As of, I believe, March 2022—and the Minister might have more recent figures—just prior to the repeal, approximately half of first-strike offenders were Māori. The 21 offenders who received a third strike—in fact, 81 percent of those—were Māori. Over 2018-19, and then 2019-20 combined, Māori were nine times more likely to receive a first strike than those of European or other ethnicity, and in fact 18 times more likely to receive a second strike.
These figures do illustrate that Māori offenders and their whānau were strongly impacted by the previous regime, and there is a strong view that what this legislation does is, in fact, compound existing inequalities within our justice system and entrench those further. I would be interested to hear from the Minister, given the research that Māori are 18 times more likely to receive a second strike, whether that potentially would impact upon any obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi if there is not access to rehabilitation, access to be able to provide connections and opportunities to turn your life around, particularly given the fact that Māori are disproportionately represented by quite a significant amount.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member the Hon Ginny Andersen, who was looking at the rehabilitation side and the question on the loss of rehabilitation opportunities, the member will be pleased to hear that offenders will be able to access certain rehabilitation programmes when they are nearing their release date, even if they’re not eligible for parole. They will also have ongoing access to other activities such as education programmes.
In regard to consistency with the Treaty of Waitangi, I do recognise that some Māori will be subject to longer sentences because of this bill. However, the bill does not discriminate based on race. The bill is there for those that commit the crimes, and it’s important to note that Māori are also more likely than non-Māori to be that victim of crime. On that basis, a policy that takes a tougher approach to sentencing, I would say, is of benefit to Māori. Māori are, of course, equally entitled to be free from crimes, yet Māori are more likely than non-Māori to be the victims of crime, and I recognise those victims and denounce those who offend against them. I intend for this bill to help protect Māori victims by incapacitating and deterring offenders.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It has been fantastic for the Minister to be engaged as we talked through the 21 amendments from Dr Duncan Webb, the 25 amendments from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, and the four amendments from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and for her to outline her position that she wouldn’t be supporting those amendments and to provide the context as to why that would be the case.
I’m keen to come to the substantive part of the legislation that we’re actually here to debate, and particularly clause 7, inserting new sections 86J to 86X and cross-heading, because this is the really substantive part of the bill. I believe the Minister would like to speak to parts involved with that part, and then once we’ve done that, I’m ready to move to Part 2 and the other part involved with the legislation.
I’m keen to understand from the Minister around the interpretation aspect at new section 86J, inserted by clause 7, and then new section 86K, “Warnings: first warnings to be given if qualifying sentence imposed for stage-1 offence”. A short sharp call so the Minister can respond to that, and then I’m ready to move to Part 2.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. Have a good night, everyone.
Sitting suspended from 11.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)
TUESDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2024
(continued on Friday, 13 December 2024)
Bills
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed.
Part 1
Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is currently considering the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill, and the question we are debating on is Part 1: clauses 3 to 12, “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002”; and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Last night when we finished up for the evening, I was asked a question by the member Tom Rutherford around the changes to new sections 86J to 86X, which is clause 7 in the amendment bill, and I’d just like to take some time to answer his question around some of these changes.
In section 86J, the qualifying sentence threshold at stage-1 has been amended to 12 months, from 24 months. We also have put in there that if an offender has earned a first strike but wins an appeal and gets, say, home detention, then the record of that first strike will be removed because it’s no longer imprisonment.
At section 86M, we have said that if, on appeal, the court issues what becomes a qualifying sentence, then a strike warning can be issued if indeed it does qualify at appeal. We also, at section 86M, are noting that if an offender is not before the appeal court when the decision is made that would give them a strikable offence, then the offender must be referred back to the original court in order for that court to provide the offender a warning.
At sections 86P, 86R, and 86S, we are removing the words “in writing”. The reason why we are removing those words, “in writing”, is because we believe that the oral indication to the offender that they are receiving a warning is the official warning that they receive, and that to have it in writing will be to confirm that the offender has received that oral, verbal warning by a judge directly, and gives them a record of it.
At section 86T, we are removing section 102 from matters that apply to section 86T, aligning with the wording used in the Sentencing Act 2002. It clarifies that section 86T does not prevent consideration of any mitigating factors. At section 86U, we are allowing the court to revoke a warning when a pardon is granted.
While I’m on my feet, I think it’s an opportune time to speak to my own Amendment Paper and the reasonings for why I am bringing it to the committee. The Amendment Paper that I have submitted amends Schedule 1 of the bill, which reactivates previous warnings that meet the relevant thresholds under the new regime. The paper ensures that when a previous warning is not reactivated, a previous final warning could be reactivated as a first warning under the new regime. This will happen when the previous final warning meets the threshold of above 12 months’ imprisonment, including sentences of above 24 months’ imprisonment. As it was returned from the Justice Committee, the bill as currently drafted did not reactivate a previous warning in certain scenarios for a sentence of more than 24 months’ imprisonment, so I believe that this Amendment Paper is necessary.
To give an illustration: an offender may have been sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for a previous warning, and, say, 27 months’ imprisonment for a previous final warning. In this scenario, the offender’s previous first warning will not be reactivated, because it didn’t meet the threshold, because it’s 10 months, not over 12. Only a final warning for a sentence of more than 12 months’ imprisonment, but then up to 24 months, will be reactivated, but not for sentences above the 24 months, so that offender’s final warning would not be reactivated. I hope that that explains my Amendment Paper that I’ve put forward.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for that explanation, Associate Minister of Justice McKee, albeit I am surprised, after what the Minister said yesterday about consistency, that we’re seeing an Amendment Paper today.
I want to kind of pick up on what the Minister was just saying before—two things the Minister was saying before. I want to go back—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to clarify, this showed up last night.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Chair. I want to pick up on what the Minister mentioned before, and I’m still also waiting for a response from the Minister regarding my earlier question: when a court issues a warning, warning the offender of the possible consequences, whether that particular warning of the consequences of getting a warning will be given to the offender later on—after, for example, the offender has served their sentence—because of the fact that, after you’ve gone through the whole process, people might forget and potentially may need a reminder. That is a clarification, if the Minister wouldn’t mind giving it.
When it comes to what the Minister said before, and this is specifically in relation to new section 86M(2), inserted by clause 7—I’m at the “administration” element of this new section. Now, although it says, “if the court is the court that first sentenced the offender”, and “if the court is not the court”, they have to go back to a previous court, and this is what the Minister said before. I wanted to check with the Minister whether there’s been any consideration of the potential court backlog around this, which is one of the concerns of some of the submitters, the additional administrative burden. If the Minister wouldn’t mind just clarifying whether she foresees that there will be an administrative burden or, potentially, that she has a rough estimate of how many cases this would entail, it would be quite nice to have that reassurance.
Now, the other thing that the Minister was talking about—and the other question I have—is around new section 86N, which is around the notice of possible consequences, etc. One of the things we brought up in the select committee, and we couldn’t have a definite response from the officials, is around the fact that we do see a high level of dyslexia or neurodivergence within the whānau population, particularly with those who offend—on whether that has been a consideration given when a warning is issued, to check in terms of the comprehension. The Minister before mentioned quite a lot in terms of, “Well, if you’re this, then this doesn’t count; if you’re this, then this doesn’t count.” That is complex even by the standard of a legal expert, let alone someone who is offending or with dyslexia or neurodivergence. My final question is: whether the Minister has considered how to ensure that offenders fully comprehend and understand what they are doing and the warning and what that’s going to entail.
Those are three questions: whether the consequences of the warning will be given to the offender later on; clarification around the number of instances that it will have to go back to a previous court under new section 86M(2)(a) and (b); and also whether dyslexia and neurodivergence have been factored in when a warning is issued.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you for your questions there, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, the member from the Greens. In answer to those: we’re not really worried about the backlogs; we are working on backlogs within the justice system. Part of the reason of having a six-month implementation is to make sure that the system will be efficient when it goes through.
In answer to your question about how the warnings are given, as I just mentioned when I was last on my feet, the warnings are given originally as an oral warning, face to face, followed up with a written warning. There are two avenues there for a person to receive and understand not only the warning that is given to them, because it will be face to face, but also the written follow-up as well. There will be no excuse for continuing to offend by saying that they did not understand that they had a warning in place, when it will be delivered in two ways.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, and it’s so good to be here and to give this the scrutiny that it deserves. I would just comment that last night Associate Minister of Justice McKee did stand up and say, “We will be voting”, and went through a number of tabled amendments. I just thought it was a little disrespectful of the process of this House. She has one vote; she is a member of the executive. She doesn’t speak for the House of Representatives in which we sit today.
Anyway, the other point I’d make, in respect of my tabled amendment I’m going to talk to now, is really reflective of the speech that the Minister just gave this morning—the first speech she gave—when she went through all the complexities of this piece of legislation. What she has managed to develop, through the original bill and her Amendment Paper 237, on the Table, and through the amendments she requested/demanded that the select committee take on board, is one of the most complex and unworkable pieces of legislation I’ve seen, with differing strikes, having to go back and revive previous strikes but not all of them, and, even then, sometimes, in a different order.
Then we’ve got new section 86KA, in clause 7, which deals with the situation where someone has been given a first-strike warning and then commits another offence and is sentenced to a period of imprisonment which meets the first-strike test but not the second-strike test. Now, we have a most bizarre—Kafka would be proud—situation where you get a second first warning. I mean, that’s a nonsense statement that you’re on your first strike, you’re sentenced, and you get another warning, but it’s not a second warning; it’s a first warning. I get what’s trying to be addressed here. What’s trying to be addressed is the risk that, in respect of the first offence, there is an appeal against conviction or sentence which reduces the first offence to below the strikable standard. You’ve got a kind of belt and braces two first warnings so that, if one first warning falls away, you’ve still got a second warning.
It’s absolutely a nonsense to give someone a second first warning. That’s why I proposed the amendment, essentially, replacing the section and calling it what it should be: “New first strike warning where original warning cancelled.” You don’t give two first-strike warnings, because that’s an impossibility, and it’s just tortuous language; what you do is you wait and see. If there is actually a change in the status of that first warning and it falls away, then there is no warning. You can give another warning which can properly be called a first-strike warning. One of the problems here is that to give two warnings is actually really confusing.
It troubles me that sometimes our policy makers and drafters pride themselves on these really complicated so-called solutions, but we don’t put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are affected by it. Now, I know the Minister doesn’t really have a great deal of time for offenders and isn’t concerned, but I’m actually concerned that we make it clear to them what’s going on. If they have two warnings, they’re going to think they’re on their second strike, when they’re not. Let’s wait until the first warning is cancelled before we give them another first warning, and that’s what my proposed section 86KA, “New first strike warning where original warning cancelled”—there’s some simple language for you, Minister—would do. I would like her to revisit her statement that she is voting this amendment down.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder whether or not the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is speaking to his amendment that was tabled this morning.
Hon Member: Last night.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Last night’s one. Sorry, just checking.
Hon Member: I will get there.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: OK. That’s all right, because I’ve already actually spoken to that, so I’m not prepared to speak to it again.
What I will say in relation to what the speaker had asked—there is one point that I would really like to make, and that’s in regard to the comments that were made about the policy makers and the drafters, of whom I have the utmost respect for the work that they do and the hours and time that they put in to make sure that we have right legislation that is fit for purpose and that looks after and addresses the community’s concerns on public safety. In that respect, I think that our policy makers and our drafters actually deserve a round of applause and a thanks for the work that they do.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Just in closing last night, I did recall the Minister standing and speaking to—or reading, which is not quite the same as speaking and thinking one’s thoughts through oneself. Just reading off a paper and landing with the same old “I won’t be dealing with this” or “I won’t be voting for it” is, I think, more than a disrespect; it is a neglect on the Minister’s part.
To that end, the Minister talked about rehabilitation. The assumption about rehabilitation is that there has been “habilitation” in the first place, which, if you know what you’re talking about on the subject, you will know that that is just not the case. It is a myth to suggest that rehabilitation can even occur when one doesn’t truly understand and know the issues that exist in this context. That was just to help you out, given my own training in this space, on which it seems most have a gap of knowledge in this regard.
The other thing that I do want to draw to the Minister’s attention in my amendments, on which, of course, clearly, she regurgitated her boss’s kōrero—which is, you know, “Māoris and Te Tiriti and all of that stuff has no place.” I want to ask the Minister to explain whether she understands the concept of hohou te rongo. That’s referred to when I talk about—just to help her understand in English—restorative justice.
The concept of that is a very old and important concept in action that might be missing; there might be a gap of knowledge. I can assure you that what is now called restorative justice—which you should know—originates from family group conferencing, which originates from whānau hui, which originates from the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. All of that work, that Māori intelligence and work, was provided—to nail the point—in what the mainstream calls restorative justice, but the essence of it comes from hohou te rongo.
I’m curious that the Minister might know what that is, and I’d be interested to see if she can explain that in the context of her rejecting outright amendments which—I know that her party think that way because, sadly, it shows up in their majority of racist rhetoric. Thank you.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think we can fairly take—well, I personally think that’s a fair place to take—offence, when you hear someone say that final comment from the member.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Speaking to the point of order, Dr Duncan Webb, and I am just getting some advice on that.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. This House has explored allegations of racism and the extent to which they can be made at some length in this House, and it’s very clear that in terms of—
Hon Matt Doocey: The member said he takes offence. Sit down.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There’s a convention that points of order are taken in silence. The—
Hon Matt Doocey: Yeah, the Standing Orders—when he says “take offence”, you accept it, not debate it.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Let’s hear this point of order in silence.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The fact is that it’s well established that criticisms of policies and positions and legislation may be called racist, whereas allegations of that nature directed against a person are out of order, and that’s a well-established convention.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’m going to just take some advice on this. My understanding is that Dr Duncan Webb’s assessment is correct, but I am just getting some advice on that and I would like to continue, and then we will come back to this. I will ask members to focus their contributions on specific clauses. I’ve been going through the notes from last night and there was a rich debate, from what I can see, and a number of points have been raised and a lot of analysis has been had. I do want you to be specific to clauses in terms of your responses to the Minister. I’ll take the next call.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member from the Māori Party, when I’m reading, especially when it comes to Amendment Papers or tabled amendments which have no reference and are totally out of scope of this bill, I will ensure that I do read, because from this position it is important that we are accurate and have our wording correct. There is a need, when there are a number of Amendment Papers, to make sure that we address the paper itself and what it is that needs to be read out. The member understands that they are well out of scope and should probably look to the bill and how the bill is read in itself.
In regard to rehabilitation, as I had mentioned last night in one of my speeches, the rehabilitation is still available to prisoners, including education, so I’m not quite sure what the member is on there.
In regard to the debate that that member keeps bringing up, saying that the party or the Government is racist, I think what the member needs to do is have a look at the bill and realise that the bill is not based on race; the bill is based on bad behaviour. The bill is based on those that create the most serious violent and sexual crimes, not on race. [Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Order! Order! Taihoa—taihoa. I don’t want people talking to each other across the Chamber. I do want that to stop.
Just to the point of order and the counter - points of order in terms of what can or cannot be said in terms of referring to something racist, you are able to infer things to the Government or to policies but not to an individual person. We were talking about rhetoric that can be something that could relate to the Government or to an individual, so it’s incredibly contextual. If I could ask members to refrain from using that term in terms of the way that it might relate to the individual, that will help in the order of the committee. Also, I do want to hear specific interventions on clauses.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking also some clarification from you, Mr Chair. It might just be that I’m still quite new, but I didn’t think that the Associate Minister of Justice was able to consider, herself, whether Amendment Papers were in or out of scope. I would just like some clarification.
Also, one of the things—and the reason why we’re coming back to rehabilitation and coming back to talking about this again—is that we still haven’t heard from the Minister yesterday. I think multiple members asked this and we didn’t hear a response: how is the Minister going to address the fact that, under the old system, 81 percent of people who received a third strike were Māori, which is disproportionate to their population? What are we going to do about that? And, going to the specific point that the Hon Duncan Webb mentioned before, in terms of having two first warnings, we’re still waiting to hear a response from the Minister regarding that.
I want to point to a specific clause that that may affect, which is clause 7, which inserts new section 86U(2). Now, in this particular section, it says, “an offender ceases to have a record of first warning in relation to a stage-1 offence or a record of subsequent warning in relation to a stage-2 offence or a stage-3 offence”, but, as we see from the new section 86KA, you can have a first warning in a stage-2 offence. If you can have a second first-warning during the stage-2 offence stage but this section only addresses subsequent warnings in stage-2 provisions but doesn’t address first warnings in a stage-2 provision, what happens when a person has a first warning at a stage-2 level? Does that then mean new section 86U(2) no longer applies to them? And what happens to these people if it is no longer applicable?
One other thing I want to touch on, in terms of what the Minister said before—and I do appreciate the Minister responding to my earlier questions, particularly around ensuring that offenders do get an oral and a written warning—is that that also makes an assumption about the comprehension of the oral and also the written warning. My question was very specific—and I have been listening to the Minister very carefully: will they check to see whether the offender comprehended and understood fully what that warning means, rather than just delivering an oral warning and a written warning?
Again, just for clarity, my questions were around how the Minister is going to ensure that, this time round, we’re not going to be seeing an overwhelming number of Māori who are going through the strikes system, like we were seeing earlier, which was disproportionate to the population; and around what happens in new section 86U(2) when a person has a second first-warning but it is applicable in the stage-2 stage but is not referenced in this particular provision as an example. My last question is checking on the comprehension of the warning and whether the warning will be understood. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just in terms of the clarification that was sought, I will be determining what is or isn’t in scope, but also noting that the Minister has, in her interventions and her contributions, addressed certain issues. I am listening carefully to see whether issues have been addressed or not.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to address the points made around the Associate Minister of Justice not supporting particular amendments, which we have covered off in a lot of detail.
I remind Dr Webb that, last night, we indicated that we also didn’t support the amendments, and I’ve checked with my colleagues in the ACT Party and New Zealand First, and they won’t be supporting the amendments either—just to give Dr Webb some assurance that this side of the Chamber won’t be supporting the amendments the Minister has already well and truly covered off. Also, I’ll give the Minister a chance to address Dr Webb’s tabled amendment from this morning—whether or not the Minister can indicate if she thinks that that amendment should be supported. I have reviewed it and I didn’t think it was one that we would support, and I want to get the Minister’s view on that as well.
It’s good that Dr Webb spent some time doing some homework last night. I also did some homework. I spent a good couple of hours after the session last night just reviewing what we’d gone through, because I was wanting to come to the Chamber this morning and make some substantive contributions on the clauses in the bill that haven’t actually been covered off. We had Dr Xu-Nan yesterday covering off clause 3 around inconsistencies and his questions around permanent records, and Dr Webb also touched on the manifestly unjust provisions in clauses 5 and 6. Both Dr Webb and Dr Xu-Nan and members and also Ginny Andersen then spoke at length on clause 7, which is the operative clause around how the three-strikes system works.
Then, of course, the Minister this morning gave a very fulsome answer to that. I wanted to thank the Minister for providing, I think, some quite detailed answers to questions. Some of the calls are quite long, and I found it hard to discern the questions from them. Over five minutes, it’s hard to find where the questions have come from, so, hopefully, the shorter and sharper the calls, the more detail we can extract. Obviously, the Chair does a great job of picking out where the questions are, and that’s why he’s in the Chair and we sit over here on the benches.
The new material I wanted to raise, given that we have covered off all the trajectory, all the material in clause 7, is just heading now towards clauses 11 and 12. I just want to get the Minister’s confirmation that my understanding is correct in that clause 11 amends Schedule 1AA, and that is to do with the reactivation of previous strikes, which Dr Webb covered off last night in quite an amount of detail, and clause 12, which inserts new Schedule 1AB, set out in Schedule 2. That, of course, lists the qualifying offences that will be provided in this scheme, which Dr Webb also covered off in quite an amount of detail last night.
If I can just get the Minister’s confirmation that that’s my understanding of how those two clauses operate and that the Minister is comfortable that she addressed the questions to those Schedules posed by Dr Webb last night. Then I’m very much looking forward to continuing on into Part 2 very shortly.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s a bit there for me to unpack, so please bear with me. I’m going to start with the Green member’s contribution and see if I can clarify, again, in a way that is more helpful to the member. In regard to new section 86U(2), the questions that the member asked me are actually covered by new section 86U(2A). It covers the additional first warnings under new section 86KA.
In regard to re-warning people after they have left prison, the intention is not to do that, but I can assure the member that should a person be in prison and they commit another crime, they’re likely to receive another warning and they’ll be told about it again at that stage. In regard to the court impacts as well, which the member had mentioned, new section 86M(2) is the reference that I will give you. It will be infrequent that a person will have to go back to court, but there will be a few cases expected. It could be where the court omits to give the warning, and judicial education and the six-month preparation for the implementation of this law will help with that because that’s where the training of court staff and the judiciary will be undertaken.
There, of course, will be the other exception where, say, a person appeals a decision to the Court of Appeal, it is usual—not the only way that it occurs but often a judgment is reserved and delivered later. Therefore, the offender is not always in court at that time. This means that the offender will have to go back to the original court in order to receive the sentence or the warning or, as the case may be, have the warning removed. It will need to be done face to face and the person will need to be recalled, if the appeal is successful or not.
The warnings will be communicated to the offender, and the court can use whatever words they wish to use to be able to help that individual understand what’s happening. It’s not like they’ll be reading from a script. They’ll actually be able to understand the scenario that that individual will be in.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, fellow members—thank you, members from across the Chamber, for taking the opportunity to summarise and school us on what we should and should not be asking, or what we should or should not have comprehended from what the Minister has chosen to answer to date. Whilst the members from across the Chamber may think that the questions have been well traversed or well answered, they’re as clear as mud in some cases, so they will continue to be asked.
The Minister has said that the whole purpose of this bill is to provide a consistent and certain consequence, which I think is a little bit ironic, given the state of affairs in this committee of the whole House stage, where we have pre-emptive explanation and explaining going on, where we have a Minister refusing, essentially, to engage in some debate and arbitrarily just ruling it out of scope if it doesn’t suit her purposes.
I’ve still got some genuine questions because I don’t understand the logistics of how some of this is going to work. When the Minister says, for instance, “the strikees will have received and therefore understood a warning”, there’s a huge assumption—and the word “understood” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It’s not OK for a Minister to sit in the chair and just say that the court staff, after a brief period of six months of preparation—in which time, all of the IT, all of the training; there’s an awful lot going on in a six-month period, to have logistical preparation for an efficient and effective system to be carried out. And during that period of time, they’re able to use some words and, therefore, people will understand?
My colleague from the Green Party asked some legitimate questions about individuals’ capacity to have sufficient understanding to understand what is an incredibly complex warning system. Having sat through the select committee process and having the opportunity to ask experts, officials, direct robust questions about stepping us through the complexity of this, sometimes the answers provided made it less clear, rather than more clear. You can only imagine standing in a courtroom being told that you’re getting a second first warning about something.
What I really want to know is, whilst an awful lot of work has gone in to amending and rewriting, and all of the focus has been from the impetus of the court or the Minister or the party in the legislation, what work has gone into ensuring that there actually is some understanding, or testing understanding? Do people leave the dock, leave the courtroom, and have to sign something to say that they understood? What happens when an oral warning is given, and then it’s assumedly backed up by a written confirmation: if one or the other doesn’t happen, how does that impact on the one that does?
I agree with my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb that there’s torturous language throughout this, and high anxiety in the context in which all of this is supposed to actually operate on the ground. I think there are still questions that need to be asked, and still questions that need to be answered—without flippancy, as if the questions are an inconvenience or as if they are on purpose being silly to slow proceedings, because they’re not. This whole process has been fraught with misunderstanding, and this is the only chance we get now—whilst the rest of it happens during urgency—to actually ask those questions. We didn’t choose to introduce this horrible bill, but some of us would prefer that it at least went out in as good a shape as possible on our watch. I don’t begrudge the fact that we are able to ask questions.
One of the things that, again, remains completely unanswered is going back to new section 82A, in clause 6, in so far as the “Additional consequences for certain repeated offending must not be taken into account in determining length of sentence”. As was mentioned last night, but not sufficiently answered, that sentence in and of itself does a lot of heavy lifting. It’s absolutely assuming that because it’s written down somewhere, therefore that will occur. You can’t unknow what you don’t unknow. It’s like asking someone not to think of polar bears and then of course that’s all they can think of. There are means by which, in other fields—[Time expired]
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I’m just going to carry on with my answers to the questions that James Meager had asked me in regard to clauses 11 and 12, which relate to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Act. Schedule 1, in clause 11, is relating to the old regime and it’s providing definitions to clarify that offending under the old regime does not use the definitions of the stage-2 and stage-3 offences in the new regime.
In Schedule 2, in clause 12, there is a list of the qualifying offences which have been increased by two, so it has moved from 40 to 42, and it is outlining those qualifying offences which are deemed to be some of the most serious violent and sexual offences that a person could commit. Of course, every single one of those is punishable by imprisonment of over seven years, and that’s why they are included. It also assists with the lower-level offending that was caught up in the last regime that we do not want carried over into this new regime.
In regard to the member’s question about the tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new section 86LA, that was tabled this morning at 8.46 a.m. by Duncan Webb, I will not be supporting that amendment. I will take note that there is a six-month commencement period in order for the courts and judiciary to prepare for implementation. As I mentioned last night, the Ministry of Justice operational staff are working on ways to ensure that the offenders are aware of how they are affected by carrying over those previous strikes. Of course, this will have some logistical and privacy issues for those individuals, which is why it’s important that we do have that six-month implementation.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Dr Duncan Webb.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, my Green colleague did have a turn just before, and I’ve got a number of tabled amendments that I haven’t got to, including the one the Associate Minister of Justice just alluded to. Unlike Mr Meager, I didn’t stay up late last night; I got a jolly good night’s sleep, and so I’m here ready to go.
In respect of my proposed new section 86KA, this goes to the deterrence effect, because the Associate Minister of Justice is retrospectively reviving former strikes and yet, I mean, the offenders who had those strikes, and will again have those strikes, won’t know about them. If the purpose of this bill is premised on the assertion, flawed though it is, that if people know the consequences for further offending are greater, they are less likely to commit that offending—that’s the fundamental theory underpinning this. If that’s the theory, then you’ve got to tell the people who are affected that the consequences of further offending are greater than the norm, they are disproportionate, to use the words of Paul Goldsmith.
My proposal is that the people who are having their strikes revived, if you like—reinstated—are told that that is the case. They are informed in writing, because that’s the only way the whole theory can actually work. There’s a kind of natural justice issue in here as well, isn’t there? They’re subject to something, a change, which they have no knowledge of, and if they don’t have any knowledge of it, it clearly can’t affect their behaviour. That’s that tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new section 86LA, that was tabled today, although I prepared it yesterday afternoon, just for James Meager’s goody two-shoes benefit.
Then, the other tabled amendment that I’ve got there is to remove the words “if the offender is before the court at that time” in clause 7, new section 86M—I’d be interested in the Minister talking about this, because it’s actually quite an interesting point. Throughout the bill, it talks about recalling an offender to the court if the sentence was imposed at a time they were not in court. Now, I find that very unusual, because, by definition, it’s a sentence of imprisonment that is being imposed. I’m perplexed as to the circumstances in which a person is sentenced to imprisonment and isn’t before the court. I would’ve certainly thought that in those cases, you shouldn’t be sentencing someone to prison unless they’re there in front of you.
I know the Minister’s keen—and, in fact, she’s had the cooperation, to a large degree, of this side of the House—on audiovisual link (AVL) to assist some of the court backlogs. It may be that that’s an allusion to the fact that there’s, conceivably, situations where there’s sentencing by AVL and you actually want it to be genuinely face to face, not across AVL. My tabled amendment that was filed at 12.48 p.m. yesterday—to remove the words “if the offender is before the court at that time” in clause 7, new section 86M—actually addresses that. I do think that if you’re going to sentence someone to prison for a strikable offence, then they should be in front of you, and it shouldn’t be a case that you sentence them in their absence, which seems bizarre to me, and then you get them back.
That’s the other thing in terms of getting them back, to summons. You’ve just sentenced someone to imprisonment and then you’re issuing a summons or, stage-2, a warrant for their arrest, but you’ve just sentenced them to imprisonment. This is the kind of gobbledygook that is throughout this piece of legislation, which makes it very hard to follow. I’m really concerned, as my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen said: in practical terms, is it workable?
I’m very interested in those two things. You’ll see I’ve done two of my tabled amendments in one hit, the one being the notification of strikes and the other one on the offender being before the court at the time of the sentencing and warning.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank the Associate Minister of Justice for answering my previous question, and I want to point to a new section that I haven’t spoken to in the committee stage yet, which is new section 86V, in clause 7, around “How cessation of record affects later sentences”. My question to the Minister is a point of clarification.
Now, in new sections 86V(2), (2A) and (2B), it makes references to what an appropriate court is despite the fact that we see the mention of “appropriate court” in new section 86U(5). I was curious to know particularly around why new section 86V(2A) came about, because I wasn’t actually part of the select committee stage when this was being discussed.
New section 86V(2) mentions “High Court”, section 86V(2A) mentions “If [it] … is not the High Court, … by a higher court”, and then section 86V(2B) is “District Court”. I guess the question is: why separate out the High Court from “not the High Court” and from “District Court”? The rest of A and B is exactly the same. Presumably if you have section 86V(2) just say “High Court and above”, it would cover off both subsections (2) and (2A) quite nicely?
My understanding is that you get the High Court, you get the Court of Appeal, you get the Supreme Court, and below the High Court, you have the District Court. What I wanted to check is: does subsection (2A), in fact, factor in another court that would have this power that is beyond the current higher courts of District, High, Court of Appeal, and Supreme? If it doesn’t, wouldn’t it be better and less confusing or convoluted to have sections 86V(2) and 86V(2A) together?
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think we’re almost a quarter of the way through my tabled amendments.
The next tabled amendment I’d like to talk about is the amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (d) into new section 86M(2), filed at 12.46 p.m. This is the summons to an offender to attend to get their warning. I must say, if you put yourself, if you can, in that situation: you’ve just been sentenced to 12 months in prison, you’ve been on remand for 14 months, so you walk out the door with time served. Then they forgot to give you your warning whilst you were before the court, and then you get a summons. Now, you’re not going to be over the moon about that, right?
There is a challenge there, because a lot of these people may be distant. They may have been convicted in a court which is in a different city, because there’s this rule that you’ve got to go do your sentence in court in a different city from where you’re actually living. Whilst, if you are arrested, the constabulary will no doubt assist you with your transport needs, that’s not the ideal solution. My tabled amendment notes, or suggests, that where there is a summons—not a warrant; a summons—then the offender should be given all necessary assistance, including travel by the most convenient means, and that’s not a paddy wagon; that would be an aircraft if it’s a long distance, because they’ve got to get there, right? Certainly, if a witness is summonsed to the court, the person summonsing them has the obligation to pay the travel costs. I think that’s actually a really important thing, because these are people for whom travel is often not easy. It’s not going to be easy—even if it’s just to get into court in Wellington from Upper Hutt, it’s still a challenge. That’s that tabled amendment.
The next tabled amendment I’d like to talk about is the amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (c) into new section 86M(2), filed at 12.45 p.m. This, again, relates to warnings not being given at the time. As it currently stands, new section 86M provides that the court can, essentially, go back and give that warning indefinitely. They forget—and this is the point Ginny Andersen made about the court systems not being good; we know they’re struggling in there—they don’t give the warning, two years pass, and then they’re like, “Oops, let’s recall this person so we can give this warning.” Well, that kind of oversight isn’t acceptable, and there has to be a time which is no longer reasonable.
My proposed amendment inserts paragraph (3)(c), and it simply says that “In no circumstances is a warning to be administered more than six months after the offender has been sentenced.” It gives a grace period which I think’s quite reasonable, but if the court hasn’t got its stuff together within that six months, you don’t have this hanging over your head indefinitely. There is a situation where you could get two warnings late, right? All of a sudden the court realises they’ve missed a warning and then they go back and look and see that they’ve missed two warning—so you go from zero warnings to being on your third strike. That would be outrageous and would entirely undermine the purpose of this bill, which is actually to let people know the consequences of further serious offending.
That’s that amendment, and I’m trying to get through them because I know that kids on the other side are getting a little bit grumpy.
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because I’m still on warnings—I’m on still warnings.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s a bit early.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, ha! The next tabled amendment, the amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6) into new section 86M, filed at 12.49 p.m. yesterday—the Minister said something that I was quite concerned about in relation to warnings. That was that the judge can use any words they like because it is really important that the warning is clearly expressed. In that situation, what we need—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired..
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just would like to address the questions from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, the member from the Greens, about new section 86V(2A), inserted by clause 7. Section 86V(2A) allows the Court of Appeal to take the necessary actions if they feel that that is appropriate, and subsection (2B) is also reflecting that, in some cases, the District Court may have taken the actions relating to the earlier warning ceasing, while the later qualifying sentence may relate to an offence that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with. For example, if the latter sentence was for murder or a stage-3 offence that required the High Court or above to deal with it—so a category 3 or category 4 offence must be heard in the higher courts; whereas categories 1 and 2 are heard in the District Courts.
When it comes to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendments, I feel that I have addressed all of those yesterday evening, and I stick by what I said at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next contribution, many of the tabled amendments that were filed were discussed last night. My understanding, just going through some of the notes, is that many of those have been addressed. The way forward for me and for the committee would be that, if you’re referencing those, you preface your remarks with a question—a question, in particular, that the Minister has not addressed. Of course, there are other amendments on the Table.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Thank you for your guidance on that. I do think it’s really important that this is a committee for debate, and whilst I accept that there’s a question and answer aspect to what goes on under the more recent convention, what the Minister has done is stand up and say, in pretty cursory terms in many cases, “I don’t like that.”, “I won’t be supporting that.”, and so on. There is an entitlement to speak to Amendment Papers, including of other members, to make the case that the Minister should adopt them, and the Minister can’t peremptorily say, “That’s not the case because I’m not supporting it anyway.” I just want to make sure that you didn’t suggest—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That is my understanding, but I’m sure you’ll be able to preface your comments with questions which would help to illuminate the committee.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and also thank you to Associate Minister of Justice McKee for the response about new section 86V, inserted by clause 7—that was very helpful and actually was very clear.
I would like to discuss a new clause, and this is clause 10, amending section 104, which I believe has not been particularly discussed. I know that some of the other members, and particularly some of the Government members, have discussed clauses 11 and 12, but I want to specifically focus on clause 10 in terms of the list of circumstances under section 104(1A), and understandably those circumstances, I believe, are some of the most concerning that we do see in our communities, particularly from the perspective of premeditation. I’m wanting to specifically ask the Minister some questions around subsection (1A)(j) with regards to: “any other exceptional circumstances that exist.” I want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider hate crime as one of the criteria within this particular list.
Now, for my community, for the ethnic communities and for migrants of colour, for Pasifika, for groups with certain religious affiliation—it could be any religious affiliation—the idea of hate crime or violence or even murder as a result of hate crime is a significant factor, and it may not meet the threshold of what you see in subsection (1A)(f) in terms of being “committed as part of a terrorist act”, which we know very well. I wanted to check if, specifically in the context of hate crime, it would be something that the Minister would be open to as part of the exceptional circumstances that exist beyond what is listed here in section 104 (1A), in clause 10.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you for that question. There is no law on hate crime as such right now, but what we do have are 42 qualifying offences. One would think that in exceptional circumstances where one would think it is hate crime, it would actually—if it’s a serious violent crime—come under the auspices of one of the 42 serious offences that are already there. We do not have a reference to hate crime as such in our legislation. Therefore, we will be sticking to the 42 offences listed in Schedule 2.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I haven’t had the opportunity to take a call on this bill, so I thought I would do that, seeing as I was listening to the debate last night and also this morning, and I didn’t have the opportunity to take part in the select committee that considered this bill. It’s not one that I think anyone in the committee is unfamiliar with, because of the history of three strikes and the politicisation of this particular piece of criminal law in terms of the way that it’s being implemented. I do have some questions for Associate Minister of Justice McKee, specifically in relation to the clauses in Part 1.
Just for context, I wanted to prepare for my contribution as I hadn’t been in the select committee, to make sure that my comments were relevant to the debate and also relevant to the discussions that had gone on by a number of other people. I was struck, really, by the report from the select committee, especially in relation to the number of parties who disagreed with the Minister’s approach. That is a question that I want to ask the Minister. The reason it’s relevant to Part 1 is because Part 1 is the operative part of this bill, which, essentially, sets in place the new change in relation to the three strikes.
Just to briefly put into context for the Minister before I go to my questions, the Ministry of Justice in fact didn’t think that there was a lot of evidence for introducing this bill and said they preferred the status quo. The Children’s Commissioner opposed the bill. The New Zealand Bar Association opposed the bill. The Law Society opposed the bill. The Pacific Lawyers Association opposed the bill. The Human Rights Commission opposed the bill. Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa opposed the bill. The Law Association opposed the bill. There is a significant amount of opposition to this bill, and it is based on the evidence, Minister, from my assessment of this proposed legislation, that it actually doesn’t work in furthering the passionate objectives that she has put forward in this committee stage, in the sense of making sure that violent offenders are not on the streets. I’m sure everyone in the committee agrees that people who are a danger to society should not be out on the streets, but it appears that the experts in this field that participated in the select committee process do not agree with her assessment.
We have traversed the reason for an even worse change in my view, the retrospectivity change that takes into account previous warnings, and I think she’s received—I think we’ve had it agreed, but she may want to comment on this—at least three emails on that point. If there is this weight of opinion against this bill, which is operative in Part 1, what and who is she relying on to make sure her ambitions and her noble objectives of keeping New Zealanders safe will actually be furthered by this bill? Did she consider, in fact, looking and talking to some of those organisations who did participate in the select committee process, to ask them what they believe would actually keep New Zealanders safe, as opposed to bringing back a piece of legislation that doesn’t work, based on evidence, based on independent assessment, and based on the fact that there is very little evidence worldwide that more serious sanctions result in fewer pieces of offending? That is something that is a principle that has been looked at worldwide and with many different, more harsh penalties than this. That is an overall question that I have for the Minister in relation to Part 1, and I wondered if she could address that.
I also wanted to ask her, when there is a warning put in place and when she has put in a complicated regime where the “manifestly unjust” provision can be taken into account by the judge, what, in her mind, is evidence that suggests that judges are not able to make that assessment currently when imposing a sentence? As she has outlined in Part 1 in the proposed new section 86T, inserted by clause 7, in this bill, there is a provision here for it to be manifestly unjust. Now, I think we have an excellent impartial judiciary in New Zealand. I think they get out of bed every day and they do a hard job and they do the best job that they can, and my view, from what I’ve seen of the criminal law, and I’m not as experienced as some members in this House—but from what I’ve seen, they do a fantastic job at weighing all the evidence—[Time expired]
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the last member Camilla Belich’s comments, there were 749 submissions, of which 188 submitters were opposed to the bill, and the member listed off quite a number of them. However, there were 515 submitters who either supported the bill or they didn’t support the bill because they wanted the bill to be harsher and, therefore, wanted it gone so that they could have an even stronger bill, including reinstating three strikes as it was in its old regime. In regards to new section 86T, inserted by clause 7, I did speak to that extensively this morning.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Brand new points still in their wrapping paper.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. What I propose to do is to go through these tabled amendments pretty quickly. I could do them one at a time in a couple of minutes, but I propose to just see how many I can get through, and then the Associate Minister of Justice can respond to them.
The one I want to start with is about the centrepiece of this legislation, which is the warning itself. I was about to say, before I was sat down before, that I’m concerned that judges aren’t given guidance as to what the warning should be because the understanding on the part of the offender is the critical point of this piece of legislation. My tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6) into new section 86M says this: “The Attorney General”—and the Minister might think someone else would be better, but I thought the Attorney-General was not bad—“may provide wording for warnings administered under this act. Where [the] words are used in making a warning [this] warning is irrebuttably presumed to be accurate and clear for the purposes of the preceding section.”
It’s, basically, a safe harbour. Use these words, and they’re considered irrebuttably. Now, you can use other words if you want, but if you do that, if you get it wrong, if you stumble over your words, or even if it’s just not clear, then you run that risk. That ties in with the next tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6A) into new section 86M, which says: “In the event that the warning is not accurate or did not accurately communicate the possible consequences if the offender received a further qualifying sentence, then the warning is of no effect.” That is actually really important.
I guess my question to the Minister is this—and I think the Minister can actually add meaningfully to the operation of this bill in answering this—if a warning is administered in a way which is in some way not accurate or is communicated in a confusing or complex manner, even though it’s technically accurate, does she agree that that warning would be of no effect? In this House, we inform the way judges apply the law, so that question and answer is actually an important one. If there is an error—it’s got two parts—in the warning, is the warning of no effect; if the warning is not comprehensible to the offender, is the warning of no effect? I see that your officials are assisting you, and it would be good to get an answer to that.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4(2) and amend clause 7, new section 86K(2)(b), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4A is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to new subsection (2) of clause 5 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 82A(1), be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 82A(1A) requiring courts to consider the potential for disproportionate impacts on Māori offenders be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new section 82A(1A) requiring courts to give consideration to tikanga Māori-based restorative justice be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting new subsection (3) into new section 82A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendments to clause 7, new section 86J, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing “18” with “25” in new section 86J be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing “12” with “24” and “24” with “36” in new section 86J be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 deleting text from the definitions of “record of first warning” and “record of subsequent warnings” in new section 86J be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting “physical” into the definitions of “record of first warning” and “record of subsequent warnings” in new section 86J be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86K and 86M to specify that warnings must be given in person be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86K and 86L to add the word “determinate” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 deleting new section 86KA, 86U(2A), and 86U(2B) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace new section 86KA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86L to remove reference to stage-3 offences be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new section 86LA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86M(1) to replace “that” with “the” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to remove the words “if the offender is before the court at that time” in clause 7, new section 86M, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (c) into new section 86M(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (d) into new section 86M(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86M(3AA) to replace “12” with “24” and “24” with “36” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (c) into new section 86M(3B) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (3C) into new section 86M be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86M(5) to require a judge to check that offenders understand the nature and consequences of warnings be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6) into new section 86M be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (6A) into new section 86M be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace subsection (3) in new section 86N be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86N, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86N(3) to delete paragraph (b) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86O to replace “24” with “36” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 7 deleting new sections 86O(2) and 86R(3) are out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert subsection (5) into new section 86O be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 replacing new section 86P(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86R, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86R(6)(a) to replace “2” with “3” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86S(2) to replace “18” with “12” and “20” with “17” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 86T, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86T(2)(c) and inserting paragraph (d) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert paragraph (d) into new section 86T(2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 86UA be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86V be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 86X to delete subsection (2) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting new section 86XY relating to Treaty Impact Statements be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just would like to remind members across the Chamber that we vote in silence. We need to hear what’s being said. We know some of these amendments are tensionable, but let’s just move on in silence with the voting. Thank you.
The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 86Y be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting a new section 86Y be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 86Z be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 1 agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to other acts
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 13 to 23, “Amendments to other acts”, and Schedules 2A and 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll just take a quick call here, looking at the amendments proposed by my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in Part 2: one’s relating to clause 14; one’s relating to clause 16. I’m keen to understand from the Associate Minister of Justice whether or not she’ll be supporting those amendments and the rationale as to whether she will be or not, and then I’m keen to move to the more substantive parts of the legislation that we’ll be progressing.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you to the member Tom Rutherford for his question. I did pre-empt this a bit last night and actually went through these when we were on Part 1. I’ll repeat what I said yesterday evening. In relation to the Green Party member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clauses 20 to 22, I do not agree with that member’s position. I believe that offenders should face serious consequences for repeat offending. Just a reminder that there is a “manifestly unjust” exception within the bill to assist.
In relation to the tabled amendment to clause 14, replacing paragraph (b) and inserting a new subclause (4)(c), again, I do not feel that this is necessary. This is adding items to the list that have already been covered. Therefore, I will not be supporting that either.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that explanation before, as well. Again, I think I want to start methodologically for Part 2, and I want to start with clause 14. I’ll come to clause 16 a little bit later.
Now, in terms of clause 14, I want to get some clarification from the Associate Minister of Justice in terms of the definition of “sentence”. This is the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act. I know that we talked about the Criminal Procedure Act before in the context of what is considered a permanent court record, but I think, in this case, what we’re seeing is that “sentence” here in clause 14, inserting replacement section 180(4)(a), makes sense—that’s fine—but I’m looking at replacement section 180(4)(b), and this is the part that I want clarification on. It says a sentence includes “a record of first warning and a record of subsequent warning”—“and” not “or”.
I wanted to check, in this case, does the Minister consider that a sentence will only be considered or is only defined when you have both a first warning and subsequent warning? This is one of my tabled amendments. I don’t know what timestamp it has, but it is the one that amends this particular clause, which is just separating out these two particular clauses to specify that these two—first warning and record of subsequent warning—are in fact mutually exclusive.
Another point I want to check with the Minister is, again, that when we are looking at the use of “and”, and “or” in this case, if we’re looking at clause 18—this is the amendment to the Evidence Act 2006—it says, “Before section 139(1)(c), insert: (ba)”. Then, in this case, it indeed used “a record of first warning or a record of subsequent warning”—“or” instead of “and”. I guess the clarification I need from the Minister is whether replacement section 180(4)(b) requires both or are they mutually exclusive? If indeed they are mutually exclusive, will the Minister consider my amendment?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you to that member. I did just speak to the member’s tabled amendment to clause 14, replacing paragraph (b) and inserting a new subclause (4)(c), which I thought was unnecessary. This is a technical portion of the bill—Subpart 2—and, really, clause 14 is looking at the definition of “sentence” in replacement section 180(4). It’s amended to include records of first warning and subsequent warnings, including the giving and the recording of those warnings, as well as orders which could be issued under the new three-strikes regime.
While I’m on my feet, I realise I missed out the tabled amendment to clause 16(6) and the insertion that the member wishes to make after section 34(5) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. I will not be supporting that tabled amendment. The court already has the discretion in being able to decide about what is a qualifying sentence, and we’re happy with that provision.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): A lot of this part is in some ways administrative, but I do have two things I want to ask and, to be fair, it’s simply around the complexity of this legislation and how it interacts, and that’s in respect of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act and also a bit later on, if I get to it, the Parole Act.
Clause 16, which amends section 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act, inserts into section 34 an additional provision. Section 34 provides the power of the court to commit an offender to hospital or a facility. Obviously, this is for mental health reasons, and I think, in this House, we don’t all agree on this bill but we all accept that where offenders and prisoners have mental health and other issues that part of the corrections system is to address that. I may have this wrong, but I’m just a little concerned that the proposed insertion provides that “No order may be made under subsection (1)(b) in respect of an offender who is convicted of a stage-2 offence, or a stage-3 offence, [for] which the court would, in the absence of that paragraph, have imposed a qualifying sentence.”
Now, to be honest, it’s not clear to me, but I’m concerned whether that provision, in fact, limits the ability of a court to make an order under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act that that person be sent to a medical facility so that their mental health issues can receive treatment, because I don’t understand that to be part of our kind of punishment regime—to deprive people of health treatments; in fact, the opposite, that people in corrections should be getting health treatments and, in particular, mental health treatments. I might have that wrong, but I’ll give the Associate Minister of Justice an opportunity and I’ll come back to my parole question.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I thank the member for his question. The changes that are being made to the availability of orders, under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003—I can see why the member has asked some questions on this. The bill, as introduced, actually restricted the availability of post-conviction orders for treatment instead of a sentence, when the court would have otherwise imposed a qualifying sentence at all three stages. This is intended to ensure that serious offending receives serious sentences, and to reflect that orders imposed instead of a sentence are typically reserved just for the minor offending.
The majority of the Justice Committee actually recommended that the availability of the post-conviction orders, under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, only be limited at stage-2 and stage-3 of the three-strikes regime. There is no limit on orders at stage-1. It’s not required, because there are no mandatory penalties at stage-1, but because there are mandatory penalties at stage-2 and stage-3, we are happy with where we’ve landed with this.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I must say, just in response to that, that it is extremely disappointing that people who are mentally ill and in the corrections system by dint of this legislation—that orders can’t be made to put them in a facility where they receive the treatment that they actually need. I’m quite sure that that’s in breach of our international obligations under the United Nations convention known as the Mandela Rules. That’s actually quite disturbing.
I’ll go to my second point, which is parole. It’s clause 22 of the bill, and these are amendments to the Parole Act, and it’s about non-parole periods. Now, we don’t agree with it, but I understand that if you’re sentenced to your second strike, you don’t get parole for that sentence. The Associate Minister of Justice has alluded to the fact that it is conceivable that people could be serving a sentence and be in prison and commit a strikable offence, and so they will have two sentences. It’s even possible that the sentence that they’re serving is a very serious one—they could be in prison for murder and be serving a very long sentence.
In clause 22, it’s new subsection (3A)(b) I’m concerned about, because the provision provides that “An offender who is subject to an order made under section 103(2A) of the Sentencing Act”—three strikes—“is not eligible for parole in respect of the following sentences: (a) the sentence to which the order relates:”—that goes without saying—“(b) any other sentence to which the offender is subject when the order is made”. Now, if that offender is imprisoned for murder, that is then sentencing them to life without parole—life without parole—because that’s the sentence that that person is already serving. Elsewhere in the Act, there are quite different provisions around murder which don’t say “life without parole” but they do state minimum non-parole periods for people on strikes. Again, I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
It’s not just murder; it could be anyone being in prison for a sentence which is longer than the strikable offence that they’ve committed in prison. In fact, by committing that strikable offence, you are actually subject to double jeopardy—you’re punished twice. You’ve been sentenced once, and because you’ve committed a strikable offence and you’re still serving your sentence, you’re punished again by having your ability to apply for parole for that sentence removed.
The worst position is in respect of murder, which, if I’ve got it right—and I can see there’s some work going on behind the Minister—that’s life without parole, and there’s only one person in New Zealand who’s got that. I’m pretty sure that’s not the legislative intent, and it may well be that we need to come out of committee and go back into it to fix that up, because it’s not an easy piece of drafting, but that’s what happens with complex legislation of this nature.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your response to my question on clause 14. The Associate Minister of Justice was saying that it is not required, but that didn’t answer my question, which was whether they are mutually exclusive. But I’m going to take that answer from the Minister as saying that they are mutually exclusive and they don’t need to be considered together.
Now, I do want to pick up on—and apologies if I didn’t hear it correctly—when the Minister was going through my amendments, the Minister mentioned that my amendment to clause 16 doesn’t need to be considered and that my amendments for clauses 20 to 22 don’t need to be considered as well because we already have provisions in place for the test for what is “manifestly unjust”. I may have misheard the Minister, but that wasn’t what my amendments were on. What I want to also remind the committee as well is that we still haven’t got a clarification based on what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned earlier about what “manifestly unjust” really means.
In terms of clause 16, I am concerned that for someone who, based on the definition of mentally impaired in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2023, would not be considered, because under new section 34(6), which is to be inserted by clause 16, no order may be made, and there is no wriggle room for that. If the Minister implies that “manifestly unjust” is already embedded as part of subsection (6)—again, a one-sentence clarification is all that I need. If it’s absolutely not considered, which is what is stated here in subsection (6), that then is deeply concerning, particularly from the perspective of disability activists and the number of neurodivergent and also dyslexic people, and also people with severe mental trauma who might be put away for much longer than they are required to be.
Clarification on whether “manifestly unjust” applies to new section 34(6) is absolutely crucial in this case. If it’s not and there is no leeway if someone is at a stage-2 or a stage-3 offence, then I would like to ask the Minister what advice has been sought since this bill has been, in some ways, redrafted since the Justice Committee has received the report from the Attorney-General on the test in section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going to go back to clause 14, just to clarify again that this is a technical tidy-up. The current wording ensures that both are covered, and the current wording, as far as I’m concerned, is fine because it’s the same as the previous regime.
In regard to clause 16, the current drafting ensures that orders under section 34(1)(b) are only available for the lower-level offences—that is, those less serious offences that are in line with current case law. Orders under section 34(1)(b) apply instead of a sentence. Orders under subsection (1)(a) are still available in all cases, and these will apply alongside the sentence.
Speaking to clause 22, which amends section 84 of the Parole Act 2002, this is a remedial amendment correcting an error that was made when the three-strikes regime was initially repealed in the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Act 2022. It actually does not have anything to do with the three-strikes regime itself, but because some of the provisions of the Parole Act in 2002 were repealed in error, we want to ensure that there is consistency between the Parole Act and section 103(2A) of the Sentencing Act 2002. It’s important that we make it clear that there is no parole eligibility for offenders currently serving this sentence, of which there is just one, and it’s merely just putting back into legislation at the earliest opportunity the error that was made when the previous Government repealed that provision.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s the first time I have had the chance to contribute to this debate. I just wanted to, essentially, start by just acknowledging members opposite for their contributions and for continuing to contribute and be here with us. I guess, I think, we’ve all noticed the numbers in the votes at the moment. I just wanted to acknowledge the commitment that we all have, because it can be tough doing this on a Friday when there are electorates and families and things that people could be doing. I appreciate the commitment to the democratic purpose from all members opposite.
Look, I agree with Dr Webb. Dr Webb mentioned that this is, essentially, an administrative part. It makes a number of consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation. My first question to the Minister in the chair is, essentially: does she agree with that assessment, that it is an administrative part and it makes the amendments to other pieces of legislation that will operationalise the three-strikes regime?
The second point was just to Dr Xu-Nan’s point and to try and wrap this up, around the “manifestly unjust” provisions. They are very well understood in case law. There’s a reason why they are not defined in statute, because they are well understood in case law, including in Fitzgerald v Muldoon, which the member is very well accommodated with. It’s my feeling that we have covered that off in Part 1 and we shouldn’t be relitigating the meanings of “manifestly unjust”, because we’ve already made a determination on that question.
To the Associate Minister of Justice: is my understanding correct that this is, essentially, a gathering of about—how’s my maths?—nine or 10 clauses which relate to, essentially, administrative functions of operationalising the regime in other statues?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Yes, that member is correct. This is just about technical tidy-ups and ensuring that the legislation fits within different areas of law and that they will all speak with each other. It is very much just the technical side, and, as I mentioned in the previous call, one of them is a tidy-up from an error made under the previous Government when they accidentally repealed something that they should not have repealed, and, as I mentioned, we’re taking the first opportunity in the three-strikes regime to fix that and to reinstate it. When we’re looking at the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act and the Sentencing Act, we need to make sure that they all align with each other to enforce this legislation once it goes through.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): On the basis of the conversation that we’ve just had—and I’ve been listening to this debate in terms of Part 1 since 10 p.m. last night; so, effectively, four hours—I’m finding that there is a bit of repetition creeping in, and so I want it to be very precise and very administrative on the calls that we’re going to have from here on in.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call on Part 2, and I’m going to just continue with the line of questioning that’s already been asked about the amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act, because I’m still not 100 percent clear on that. I’m quite happy to do short, sharp questions as long as I can get some clarification. It’s a genuine question to clarify where we are at in the differentiation between what is a first strike, a second strike, and a third strike, and who is still able to have orders even though they may be alongside sentencing—the difference between people who have forensic needs and mental health issues.
The amendment to section 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003—the Associate Minister of Justice has just said, in her first response to this question, that therefore no orders will be available. On the second response to the question, she said orders will still be available alongside sentencing, but it clearly says that “No order may be made under subsection (1)(b) in respect of an offender who is convicted of a stage-2 offence, or a stage-3 offence,”. I have taken that to say, and I may be wrong, that if someone on their first strike is eligible, for lack of a better word, for an order to be sent somewhere different—essentially, to a forensic facility because of an impairment, almost certainly an Axis I disorder—if they’re on their second strike or their third strike, that same pathway isn’t available to them.
So, (a) is that correct, and (b), if it is, what is the rationale behind that? Is it because, on a first strike, someone has presumably served over 13 months; therefore, any mental health condition severe enough to require a section 34 would already have been uncovered? I’m just unclear as to why stage-2 and stage-3 are not included. If the Minister could answer that—I have some other questions—that would be good.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 14 replacing paragraph (b) and inserting a new paragraph (c) of subclause (4) be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to subclause (6) of clause 16 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clauses 20 to 22 is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): To the votes on Schedule 1, the question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 237 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 of Schedule 1 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining tabled amendments to Schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2A
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2A be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 2A agreed to.
Schedule 3
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.
The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “with retrospective effect” be agreed to.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminate event and not providing sufficient certainty.
The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to replace clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Clause 2 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to insert clause 2A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. I move, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
I’m very pleased that this bill has reached its final stage in this House, and I would like to particularly acknowledge the work done by the Justice Committee. This bill gives effect to the Government’s commitment to bring back the three-strikes sentencing law. The three-strikes regime is a key component of the work this Government is delivering to restore law and order. Keeping repeat serious offenders off the streets also supports the Government’s commitment to 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029. We are proud to be sending a clear message to offenders that there will be significant consequences for repeat offending. For too long, not enough priority has been given to reducing the harm to victims and communities that results from violent offending. This bill is one of the steps the Government is taking towards changing that.
To quickly recap, the bill reinstates a three-stage sentencing regime so that offenders face increasingly tougher penalties when they continue to commit serious crimes. In general, offenders will be warned of the consequences of reoffending at their first strike, and will not be eligible for parole at their second strike. For a third strike, offenders will have to serve the maximum penalty for the offence, without parole.
Offenders will be subject to the regime if they commit a qualifying offence and receive a qualifying sentence. The threshold is above 12 months’ imprisonment for their first strike, and above 24 months’ imprisonment for their second and third strikes. We have also added the new strangulation and suffocation offence to the list of serious violent and sexual qualifying offences covered by the previous regime, increasing that list to 42 offences.
We have actively listened to New Zealanders impacted by serious crime, and responded to their calls for a tougher response. This is why we have lowered the first-strike threshold and reactivated warnings from the previous regime that meet the strike thresholds. More broadly, the bill makes modifications compared to the previous regime to support the new regime’s workability. These include imposing appropriately lengthy non-parole periods for people who commit murder of 17 years at second strike and 20 years at third strike.
We’ll be providing some judicial discretion to avoid manifestly unjust outcomes, and address outlier cases; setting out principles and guidance to help the court’s application of the new law; and allowing a limited benefit for guilty pleas to avoid retraumatising victims and to reduce court delays. We’ll be providing for when pardons are granted, and addressing the use of mental health orders under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.
The Government is pleased to be reinstating a three-strikes regime that is workable and will endure. Serious repeat offenders will soon be facing the necessary consequences for their actions. I believe this new regime will enhance public confidence that law and order is being restored. ACT campaigned to see three strikes reinstated, and this formed part of the coalition agreement. The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill will help make our communities and victims feel safe again, as they are entitled to and as ACT promised.
Lastly, we have provided for a six-month implementation period before the regime commences. This will allow sufficient time to make necessary operational changes. The Government is committed to the regime working as intended from day one. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): This bill is an example of the determination of this Government to pander to a small section of the community, which it seeks to nourish its hateful approaches to law and order. The evidence is clear that this bill—and the Ministry of Justice’s regulatory impact statement gave very clear advice that the better—
Tom Rutherford: Cheer up.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, someone says, “Cheer up.” It’s a sad day for justice when we’ve got a bill which cuts across constitutional principle, intentionally imposes disproportionate sentences, doesn’t have the effect of reducing the number of victims, and, in fact, if anything, it will have the likely effect of increasing crime in our communities in the long term, and, as I was saying, the regulatory impact statement says it won’t have any good effect but it will detrimentally affect many families, including families of Māori.
Then, we had many submissions—and we did have many form submissions organised by the Sensible Sentencing Trust and by email campaign by the ACT Party, which, essentially, said, “Go harder.”, which is what the Associate Minister of Justice has done against all advice. But the submissions that you would expect to look to, like the Children’s Commissioner, the New Zealand Bar Association, the Law Society, the Pacific Lawyers Association, the Human Rights Commission, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa—the Māori Law Society—and the Law Association all opposed the bill. How many civil society groups like that and Crown entities supported the bill? None—none. But we’re pressing on anyway.
Of course, I was astounded when I heard Paul Goldsmith talk about this bill as “intentionally disproportionate”. What that makes it is an intentional breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which actually provides that everyone has the right not to be subject to disproportionately severe treatment or punishment. Yet that Government over there has actually said—the words came out of the Minister’s mouth—that it is intentionally disproportionate.
For the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Nicole McKee, to suggest it is not retrospective is some kind of gymnastics. There are people today who are on no strikes and, once this bill is assented to, will be on two strikes. They will be sentenced, if they commit an offence, to a more serious regime than was previously the case, because of things that happened in the past. You don’t get more retrospective than that. It is, in fact, the current intention of the Government to breach a fundamental principle of our criminal law, which is that when you change it, you change it for future conduct, not in respect of past conduct.
Hon Member: Change it for the good.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I can hear the banal comments from the other side of the House, but I actually think the rule of law is important. I agree that we need a criminal justice system and I know that we will have prisons and that the community requires punishment, but we’re not in some police State where there’s no rational relationship between the offending and the punishment, but that’s what this bill does.
Of course, those people who, tomorrow, will be on two strikes or one strike, when they wake up, they won’t know the change, and even though the whole idea of this bill is to deter people because people ought to know that they’ll be in for more serious punishment if they’re on strike one or two—well, that’s simply not the case, because nobody’s told them and nobody intends to tell them. Do you know why no one intends to tell them? It’s because it’s too complicated, because this is an entirely different regime.
Someone has to sit there and take this confusing template and run it over every previous strike to see whether it complies. I think I heard the Minister say there was something like 700 first-strikers out there—that’s 700 criminal records that someone—this is an actual person that has to go through manually to check whether the sentencing meets the new strike regime.
We’ve had the Ministry of Justice in, and they accept their systems are outdated and creaking. They’ve got a project in place, which is five years away from completion, to upgrade their computer systems to be effective. The likelihood of this actually working is very low, indeed. Then, we’ve got the ridiculous situation where a person on a first strike will get a second first-strike notice when they commit another offence imprisonable by between 12 and 24 months. It’s the confusing situation where you’re on two strikes but it’s only one strike.
I was disappointed that the Associate Minister of Justice batted away all of the suggestions in a quite derisory manner. Those last exchanges which were in Part 2 were some of the greatest concern, and the Minister, although she stood up and said no to Amendment Papers, there were two really significant points that were raised—and I want to put on the record that it appears that there’s at least one situation when a person convicted of murder, who commits an offence, will retrospectively have their ability to have parole removed, and they will be in prison without parole, for life, because they committed another strikable offence. That was put directly to the Minister, the Minister was given advice by her officials on it, and she didn’t answer it. Now, that’s a real problem.
Then we had the disturbing proposition that people with critical mental health issues, severe mental health issues, if they are in prison on a second or third strike, cannot be referred to the appropriate treatment under the compulsory mental health treatment Act. That’s actually a community safety issue, because these people, in almost all cases, will get out eventually, and they’ll get out without having had one of the critical drivers of their offending treated.
If this bill was simply window dressing and it was signalling that they’re tough on crime but it didn’t have these very serious community harm effects, I could let it go, right? It would be like a silly piece of legislation, but I’d let it go and think, “Well, that’s what the National Party does when its ACT Party coalition partner tells it to.” But it’s not; it’s actually a vile piece of legislation.
I know the other side doesn’t really care about human rights, but it does cut across human rights, and it’s worse than that again. If it had the effect that they said, that might, in some sense, go some way to explaining why you’re doing it, but all of the evidence has piled up. A mountain of evidence tells us that this bill will have worse criminal justice outcomes. I’m not just talking about offenders; I’m talking about victims, I’m talking about future victims, for people who are incarcerated for periods of time unnecessarily and put in prison without the ability to get parole—to have no incentive whatsoever to engage in a corrective process, to undertake rehabilitative programmes. They will give the middle finger to the system. There is absolutely no reason for them, because they’re in for eight years and whatever they do it’s going to be eight years, and at year eight, they’ll walk out the door.
We heard from Corrections that the prisoner most likely to reoffend is actually the prisoner who has served an entire sentence without parole, because there is no softening of the transition into the community—no arrangements, no work done to prepare them for that. The bill is vile. It takes us backwards. It’s an abhorrent contravention of our human rights.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start off by summarising some of the conversations that we had during the committee stage. I think the first thing that we’ve noticed with this bill is that there has been no conclusive evidence that the previous three-strikes regime worked. This is not an evidence-based piece of law. This is part of a contract. It is a key performance indicator that is being ticked off at the expense of everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand.
When we were looking at this bill between the select committee stage and the second reading, there were substantial changes to this bill. The Associate Minister of Justice, the Hon Nicole McKee, said that it was because she was listening to the people of New Zealand, but who are these people she is referring to, when we see those who are most affected, when we see the legal experts, saying something otherwise?
Rima Nakhle: The victims.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I will come back to the victims—thank you. Crown Law’s advice on this in some ways said that it would be an improvement, based on the original bill, but as we see, post - select committee, a number of areas have been introduced, including lowering the threshold for a first offence from 24 months to 12 months so more people can get their first warning and their first strike. That was not Crown Law’s advice, nor was it Crown Law’s advice to have a retrospective element.
When we asked the Minister what advice she had received since the amendments to this bill, she said it was privileged. Now, a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report is not privileged, but we have not seen a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on the updated element, including the retrospectivity of this bill, according to the Ministry of Justice’s own website. This is deeply concerning, because we have seen, under the previous law, that it violates section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and with the introduction of retrospectivity, it violates section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Yes, we do need to have consequences—I agree. Yes, we do need to ensure that we put victims at the focus, but is the Government willing to do that by violating one of the fundamental documents of this country, which is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Apparently, they don’t care.
If we’re looking at some other elements of the committee stage, it was also the most peculiar thing that we have seen in this committee stage all together, where the Minister attempted to shut down some of the discussion by reading out every single person’s tabled amendment and saying that she would not support it, as a way of not engaging with the genuine debate, as is intended in the committee stage. There are some genuine concerns in here, as we have addressed during the committee stage. We have not addressed the fact, and no one was able to answer the fact, of whether the increase that we are seeing in crimes today is a direct result and has direct correlation with the three-strikes regime from last time. That topic was not explored during this debate, and that, I think, deserves further attention and further research.
We have seen the fact that there will be no parole for people who are on a second or third warning, and that is something introduced in here. What is that going to do for the rehabilitation effort? Now, the Minister talked a lot about rehabilitation during the committee stage. Let’s look at it from a behavioural psychology perspective. If you know that you have no chance of leaving, why would you bother? Why would anyone bother if you’re not going to be able to get out anyway? There’s no opportunity for parole. What’s the point—what is the point? These laws then fundamentally challenge and perpetuate the harmful practice that we’re seeing in our justice system right now.
Now, we know—we know—that there are going to be more people, more Māori, more Pasifika who are going to be harmed by this particular piece of legislation. We are going to be seeing—
Laura McClure: They’ve also the most victims.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I will be coming to the victim point, thank you. Now, when we are looking at this piece of legislation, it says nothing about restorative justice. It says nothing about rehabilitation. It is a kneejerk reaction, and we have heard that from some of the submitters as well.
Yes, we do need to put victims at the centre of this, but this is not what this bill does. This bill has one job, which is to further entrench the discrimination that we’re seeing in Aotearoa and to further take a punitive approach to our justice system. Punitive justice is only one form of justice. There are other ways of justice—restorative justice, for example. Will the victims actually get any support from people being further in jail? We’re putting in more and more money. We’re costing more and more money, having more and more prison beds in order to address the increase that is going to be caused as a result of this bill. We’re going to see an increase in the prison population. That does not help the victims. It does not help the victims of Aotearoa. It does not help the victims of crime that is committed in this country.
When we are looking at this particular bill, what is a victim-centred approach? Restorative justice is a centred approach. Prevention is a centred approach. I like the fact that the Government members continuously talk about victims, but why do we need to have victims in the first place? We asked that of the submitters. In order for this bill to be triggered, there needs to be crime committed in the first place. There needs to be victims in the first place. Why are we doing that? Why are we taking the ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff approach? Why can’t we envisage an Aotearoa where we don’t actually have victims? This is the thing: I like the fact that the Government parties talk about victims—they are important—but it is even more important if we mitigate crime in the first place. It is important for us to ensure that people are supported in terms of mental health. It is important that we are lifting people out of poverty.
It is to ensure that we do take a Te Tiriti approach when we are looking at this, particularly when it comes to the disproportionate number of Māori who are affected both as offenders and as victims. That can only be achieved if we take a Te Tiriti - centric approach, because what is good for Māori is good for everyone. I’m saying that as a tangata Tiriti. It is important that we have sufficient housing. It is important that we allow children to be lifted out of poverty—that we have a world-class education system where our tamariki and our rangatahi can dream in the first place. You talk to any child and no one will say, “Do you know what, what I really want to do is have three strikes. That’s what my life goal is.” No child will say that. They are a circumstance of the system and the society that we have put them in, and we can change that. We can change that, but not through this bill.
This bill will achieve nothing but spending more money on an approach that is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It will put more money and more resources away from things that truly matter, from a preventative perspective into a punitive approach. And, fundamentally, I would say that everyone in this House agrees that we need to take that preventative approach first. This bill does not do that. What this bill does is it kicks the problem down the road. It is kicking the bucket down the road for future generations to deal with because we can’t be bothered dealing with some of the harder issues right now. So, with that, the Green Party will not support this bill.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we support the bill on this side of the House. I want to acknowledge the passionate contribution from Dr Xu-Nan. I think he’ll be spending a bit more time with the Justice Committee, and I’m glad for that, because he is a passionate, intelligent, and, I think, well-intended member of Parliament, but he’s got this one wrong.
There are a couple of problems with his contribution. First of all, Dr Xu-Nan says this will lead to more prison beds. Well, if it’s a choice between more prison beds and fewer deathbeds, then we’ll take fewer deathbeds any day of the week. Dr Xu-Nan raised points around the fact that this does little around restorative justice and rehabilitation and prevention. Of course—because this bill is intensely focused on deterrence and detention. That is the part, the legitimate part, of our criminal justice system, the fundamental part of the criminal justice system, which the public supports, that this bill addresses.
If the members wanted to support restorative justice programmes, they would have voted for the Budget, which funds those programmes. If they wanted to support rehabilitation, they would have voted for the Budget and the Corrections Act, which introduced rehabilitation for prisoners on remand. If they wanted to support preventative action, they would have voted for the Budget, which established the Social Investment Agency, and endorsed their Government’s social wellbeing approach. They are the things that are going to meet the drivers of crime and prevent these crimes from happening well into the future.
We support this bill in the House. We supported it through second reading, all through the very good committee stage, we’ll continue to support it, and I look forward to seeing its passage in due course.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I would like to pause for a few moments, just to reflect on the history of the journey of the conversation about victims. I think, in the early 2000s, there was a quietly spoken, very passionate gentleman—Garth McVicar—who for the first time in my recollection started to talk about victims.
He formed the Sensible Sentencing Trust and he fought and he advocated in a quiet and methodical way to highlight how skewed our justice system had got because we had lost sight of the victim. We saw, time and time again, lives ended and lives destroyed by offenders that had committed heinous and horrible crimes and came out to do it again, and in his quiet and methodical way, he worked and he advocated, and eventually we saw the original three-strikes legislation come into law. People in this House talk about its effect and its impact and how the repealing made such a significant change to the rights of offenders, and yet we saw in the last six years the increase in violent crime, and they stand in this House and say that reinstating it is not the path we should take.
The member Cameron Brewer brought some logic into this debate when he recognised that we look at the numbers. We get told so much about not looking at the facts and “Where’s your evidence?” He reported the account of the time when it was repealed—that we had 13,400 convicted on first strike, 744 on second strike, and 26 on third strike. Then, again they argue, no, it wasn’t working. The point is it took the previous member from the Green Party, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, nearly five minutes to actually start mentioning victims.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Because it’s not part of the bill. We speak on the bill.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: And we’re speaking on the bill because the purpose of the punitive justice system is to actually prevent them making more victims. That is the purpose of legislation that looks at this specific aspect of how we deal with serious recidivous offenders who continue to make more carnage and more victims.
The upside is the fact that, in this Government, we know that this isn’t the solution to reducing crime on its own. We know that there is investment in education that is essential and prioritised. We know that we have to break the cycle of people being trapped on welfare dependency and give them the dignity and honour of a career and a job and allowing them to achieve their potential. This is one component that says, “If you do not want to go to jail for a long time, then stop committing crime.”
Tākuta Ferris: Really? How about you achieve the Ministry of Justice’s outcomes of lowering Māori overincarceration? How about you focus on that one?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, and we can talk about Māori, because I love that narrative. I love the amount of victims that are being created over and over again—60 percent of them are Māori, and we need to stand up and say that we will stop them being made victims. We will empower and we will respect them because—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Order! Order! I am going to ask members to not have a conversation across the Chamber. You can have it out in the hallway.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will return to the point of this legislation. We know that it has worked. We question whether there should be minimum thresholds at all—that will be told through the passage of time. The point is that this is about making sure that those who commit these heinous crimes—and we have to remember the level of seriousness of the offences they are committing; the harm that is caused. When you have looked in the eyes of the rape victim, when you have cleaned up the homicide scene, when you have seen the harm that is caused, and you tell them that this is a person that has already committed this several times before, that’s why you know that sometimes punitive is exactly what we need to prevent the creation of further victims.
That is why New Zealand First will support this bill. We are glad that it is being made back into law, and we look forward to the impact on reducing the number of victims that we have to look in the eye in New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koutou. Kei te Pīka, e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe.
Ka tīmata aku kōrero ki te whakamihi i ngā rangatahi o Te Aho Matua. Tēnā koutou i roto i Te Wiki Hā. Nau mai ki te kūaretanga o tēnei Whare. Ko rātou kei te whai mai i te ia o Te Pāti Māori, me tēnei Whare.
[Greetings to you all. Mr Speaker, greetings.
I will begin my speech with an acknowledgment of the youth of Te Aho Matua. Greetings to you during Te Wiki Hā. Welcome to the ignorance of this House. Those who are following the trend of the Māori Party, and this House.]
I’ve got a speech here, but I think I’m just going to—sorry, Himi, I’m not going to follow it. Let me start with victims—“Oh, but Māori are over-represented as victims.” This bit of legislation, as described by every single legal association in the country, is utter rubbish, but those members don’t like evidence, they don’t like legal opinion, and they haven’t got any ideas of their own. All they know how to do is rally up old white people’s votes. Good on you, Cameron Brewer; good on you fullas all in the Justice Committee. I know you were there listening to all of this the whole year, but you come back into the House and tell us how it’s such a great idea: “Māori are over-represented as victims.”
Do you know what Māori are victims of? Māori are victims of a deeply long-lasting racist justice system dispensed by the police, dispensed by the Department of Corrections. Māori are worth billions of dollars in jail, and you’re happy to line up the ducks so that Māori can continue to be delivered to jail at a rate that is astoundingly high and astoundingly consistent. Now, that’s a champion blow for colonisation but it is an indictment on the quality, the values, and the deep, deep belief of this House in its own justice. That’s what it is—it’s an indictment on the lot.
In 1986, Moana Jackson began the first of three deep investigations into the New Zealand justice system. His first one was called He Whaipaanga Hou. In 1986, he discovered that there were an alarming amount of indicators that showed that racism exists not only in the system but in the structure and in the attitudes of the people who run that place—all of it: Justice, Police, Corrections. Unsurprisingly, it delivers the indigenous population from point of interaction with the justice system to being locked up at a rate of about five to seven times faster than anyone else for the same set of circumstances, and you’re going to sit here and tell me that Māori are over-victimised?
Māori are the victims of the justice system, and it has been that way, clear as a bell, evidenced for over 140 years.
Carl Bates: Personal responsibility.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: “Personal responsibility”, he says. The fulla who knows nothing about the history of it—nothing. Take your personal responsibility and apply it to your job as an MP producing societal settings that provide a future for the 30 percent of this country’s workforce that are young Māori. You wouldn’t know that, āe “Wanganui”? You wouldn’t know that—it’s above your pay grade. Shocker!
Ka pai, kia kaha koe, kia kaha koe. Hoki atu ki roto o Whanganui, whāngai ai i ēnei kōrero ki a Aotea, ka tere te kupu whakahē i a koe.
Engari hoki mai ki tēnei Whare.
[OK, keep it up, give it heaps. Go back to Whanganui and feed these comments to Aotea, words of opposition to you will come quickly.
But let’s come back to this House.]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Hoki mai. Kaua e kōrero ki a ia. Kaua e kōrero ki a rātou.]
[Don’t talk to him. Don’t talk to them.]
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Here we are, dealing with an age-old problem that has a list of evidence and data, numbers and statistics that would blow your mind, and we’re still doing things like keeping up with laws that have been proven in the last, like, only three, four, five years to be utter failures.
Cameron Brewer: Ooh!
TĀKUTA FERRIS: “Ooh—ooh, ooh!”, they say.
Cameron Brewer: Someone’s angry—someone’s angry.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, yeah—yeah, yeah, because I can count and read, and that side of the House, obviously, can’t.
Well, here you go: te Wiki Hā—that’s where I’ve been this week. It was a hui of about 1,800 young rangatahi. They’ve all been through Te Aho Matua. They all know exactly who they are and how to move forward, and they will be the voices that will arrive to this House in the future, with all of their mates, Māori and Pākehā, who actually don’t believe in any of the rubbish you’re peddling. Do you know why? Because they can read and count, too.
Obviously, you fullas can’t, so here’s a little bit of advice for you: He Whaipaanga Hou—someone write that down so that he can go and read it later. You could go and see Puao-te-Ata-tu before that, or any of the other two reports that Moana Jackson produced over 36 years, and that’ll give you a helping hand. We do not support the bill.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s one thing to stand up and say that we all want everybody to be safe, and the other one is to weaponise the experiences of victims to reintroduce policies that are not based on evidence, that actually do a disservice to the very same victims of crime, and that will entrench inequities in Aotearoa that many have warned us about. This Government, once again, doesn’t care for the evidence, the facts, or the experiences of people. We saw it yesterday when they introduced benefit sanctions that are completely just vibes-based, not grounded in evidence, and with the reintroduction of three strikes today—it’s, frankly, shameful.
I know this as somebody who’s been a victim of crime. I recount how in 2018, in Christmas season, I had people come into my house—literally while I was sitting in my room—and take away my belongings, while they were armed. Like, I don’t want to hear people weaponise the experience of people who have been victims of crime to push through a bill that will do literally nothing. I recall when I talked to my whānau in Mexico about my experience that happened on that week and whether incarcerating those people would have made me safer. I think about the fact that, actually, the interventions that need to happen are far more complex and take far more political bravery than a bunch of empty discourse that is not based on evidence, from people across the House, in relationship to crime.
The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill will literally simply entrench inequities, criminalise the poor, and will not do the things that researchers, the victims, and, actually, people who been through the carceral system have told us actually helped with rehabilitation. If this Government was so serious about supporting some of the communities that are most at risk from violence, they would not be defunding our public housing sector. If this Government was serious about supporting the communities who have been most at risk from violent crime, they would be committed to actually ending homelessness. If they were actually serious about supporting the victims of assaults, for example, and addressing the criminalisation of ill mental health, they would be resourcing our health system to ensure that everybody stays well. That is absolutely not happening.
I heard people talk about deterrence, but let me tell you what, we’ve seen how in countries where they have some of the most punitive measures, in relationship to crime, you actually have some of the worst crime statistics, because they haven’t done the hard work to invest in the things that actually prevent crime in the first place. This is why, if you go down the slippery slope of putting these policies in place, you actually don’t end up addressing the drivers of crime and you end up just paying lip-service to the people who have experienced violence throughout their lifetime.
I think it’s honestly disingenuous from members across the House to talk about victims when the evidence that supports this bill tells us, time and time again, that this is not what this bill will do; that, if anything, this bill will result in a larger prison population, in a prison system that has not been shown to rehabilitate people, that has been shown to actually entrench cycles of violence and cycles of poverty. This Government is turning their back on the evidence and turning their back on the lived experience of those who have gone through the carceral system, simply to pay lip-service.
Again, look, let’s talk to the people in the community. They themselves have spoken in recent polls about whether they feel any safer with the Government’s recent policies—or even rhetoric—and, actually, most people have said they don’t feel any change. If I think about the people who many of us on this side of the House actually organised with—formerly incarcerated people, people on low incomes—we know from their own experiences that, actually, we need to do the hard mahi to actually have housing for all, a good health system that stops criminalising disabled people who are often in distress, who actually need a range of really complex interventions that require funding. What they do not need is empty lip-service from members of Parliament who clearly do not know what they are doing.
I think it’s actually quite a scary thing to have the chair of the Justice Committee completely ignore the evidence, completely ignore the research of this bill. Like, how shameful is it to have somebody chairing the select committee in charge of this bill who actually doesn’t give a crap about the evidence, who actually just decides to throw it away and not care because it’s easier to pay lip-service to a bill that will not actually make people safer. Just because they will feel it, doesn’t mean it will happen on the ground. I think what we need is a change of Government, one that is willing to ensure that there’s the resources to do the complex interventions to keep people safe.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired. Before I take the next call, can I remind members that interjections should be rare and infrequent. Also, if you want to have a conversation, there are plenty of places around the Parliament for you all to have a conversation—and acknowledging the high emotion in the room and the importance for all of you to be able to have your say.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): What another great day for law and order in this country, and what another great day for democracy, something that this Government campaigned hard on since 2022: the reinstatement of three strikes. Won’t the public be happy today, because that’s why they backed us. They backed us to get on top of law and order. They backed us to get on top of the economy, and they’re seeing some great results. They’re seeing ram raids down 60 percent. They’re seeing foot patrols up 30 percent. They’re seeing serious assaults down 3 percent and aggravated robberies down 11 percent too.
The package is coming—the package is coming. It’s being delivered. What we saw under the last Government was crime just tracking up, tracking up, tracking up. They repealed this legislation and we just saw serious assaults and the likes of sexual offences continue to increase. This is a great day for law and order. This is a great day for the victims of New Zealand. I commend this bill.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of this bill. If this Government was actually serious about reducing the number of victims in New Zealand, they wouldn’t pass this legislation, but they’re letting things like evidence get in the way of their arguments. It’s important that we do point out the evidence and we do understand where the ball has been dropped on this one.
This Government has made it incredibly clear throughout this debate that they’re not interested in evidence. They’re not interested in the regulatory impact statement developed by the Ministry of Justice, they’re not interested in international research, and they’re not interested in the mistakes made in New Zealand’s history. They want to blindly power on with their slogans and bumper stickers that make them feel good so they can go out and tell everybody they feel safe in their beds, but the reality is it does the actual opposite of what they’re proclaiming it will do.
This bill first passed back in 2010. It was an ACT coalition deal back then, and I was working in New Zealand Police getting ready for the changes to the system when this new three-strikes legislation was going to be put into place. I was involved in identifying which of those offences would be classified as a strikable offence and getting into practice how we would implement this in courtrooms and how it would be rolled out for police throughout New Zealand. There were some significant problems in the roll-out. The first time this legislation was implemented in New Zealand, it resulted in people not receiving a strike who should have been receiving a strike. It resulted in confusion in courtrooms, and there were multiple instances of data that was not being used between police, corrections, courts, and the justice system.
The questions we have continually asked of the Minister throughout this process still have not allayed those concerns that those considerations have been taken into place as we put this bill back into action, and we will watch and wait to see how many instances there are when there is confusion as a result of the changes put through from this bill.
We’ve heard from the Minister in the committee stage that, because the threshold in this reinstatement has been, I think, lowered from the previous one, there’s going to have to be an exercise where somebody goes and figures out whether they’re up for a first or a second strike compared to the previous regime. I have no idea, as an official who worked to implement that, how the person is going to identify who those people are, where they live, how they’re notified, and how the records within the courtroom can record that accurately in order to show that we have justice.
The point is that those people on the other side of the House, they don’t even care. They don’t care how it’s implemented or whether it’s fair; they just like to talk about the fact that it’s tough. That’s the only point here, and that is concerning.
I spoke on this bill when it was repealed in 2022, and the points made then are the same points now. Deterrence doesn’t work. It disproportionately impacts upon Māori and further entrenches inequalities within our justice system and our society. It creates more victims by increasing offending and continuing that cycle of reoffending. It’s not interested in addressing the underlying drivers of crime; it is simply a bumper sticker that makes them look tough but achieves nothing.
I look forward to the third stage of this, which will be repealing this bill in 2026, and I look forward to being able to do that and introduce a justice system that works for victims, that actually delivers outcomes for New Zealand’s justice system, and that’s not just a bunch of cowboys looking tough. What it demonstrates is that this is a Government with no new ideas—no new ideas. They’ve dialled the microwave up to reheat and chucked it back in there and put it on full. The only answer they have in the law and order space is to take old ideas, reheat them, and try and make it look like something new when, quite frankly, it doesn’t.
The regulatory impact statement gives really good information, so full credit to those officials who took the time to actually read and understand what the legislation does. The main point in terms of what deterrence does or the threat of having a greater sentence—all the research shows that it does not work for serious violent offending. Where it does work is white-collar offences such as fraud and tax violations. I’m sure there are a few members who might know in that space that maybe it’ll be more effective for deterring those for white-collar crime, for tax evasions. Those are the areas where deterrence as a theory works, because the threat of punishment alone does not have an impact on someone committing a crime. It does not. The reality is it is done on impulse and it is often done sometimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Let me be clear: no way should our society tolerate serious criminal acts. Serious violent criminal acts do need to be punished, but we have a system that does not want to make more offenders and to further entrench offending and to increase victimisations, and that’s exactly what reinstating this three-strikes system does.
In the Ministry of Justice’s 2018 evidence brief, it recorded crime rates for the three most serious offences—sexual assault, serious assault, and also robbery—from 1996 to 2014. What that research showed, based on the trends in recorded crime rates, it was concluded that there was quite simply no impact of the previous three-strikes regime on reducing serious offending, even though the Government claims it did and it did again, the research from New Zealand is that the last time this regime was put into New Zealand, there is simply no research to demonstrate that it had an impact on serious violent offending. We’ll watch those numbers again as it comes in.
The second main point is that it stops the judiciary from doing their job. Under three strikes, judges must sentence offenders to the maximum sentence on those final strikes. It is an anomaly in New Zealand law because it severely limits judicial discretion at sentencing by requiring judges to do that. It ignores the reality of what our justice system currently provides judges being able to do, which is preventative detention for repeat serious offenders, public protection and extended supervision orders, minimum periods of imprisonment, and maximum penalties, up to life imprisonment. All those opportunities for sentencing currently lie with justice, and what this bill does is it says, “The executive knows better than judges and we’re going to implement that.” It is simply taking away from the courts what they know how to do.
The final point I’ll make—and it is a point that’s been made very well across all parties in the Opposition—is that Māori have been disproportionately represented in the past in the three-strikes regime and that will continue again. I think the hardest figure for me personally was those who received a third strike under the previous regime, 81 percent of those were Māori who received a third strike. Māori are significantly overrepresented in the group in this area, and this Government knows that and does not care. If we are serious about getting on top of repeat victimisations and repeat offending, we would not be reintroducing a system that has such negative outcomes for Māori.
It is important to note what does work. We know that Te Pae Oranga Māori justice panels reduce reoffending, intervening early on and addressing the root causes of crime, and having justice that takes place on the marae setting gets people early, understands why they’re offending, and takes them out of the justice system. The 24 Te Pae Oranga panels funded under the previous Government are working. That is how you get on top of victimisation. That is how you get on top of reoffending. It is not kneejerk reactions like trying to be tough with a three-strikes bill.
I’d like to conclude by saying that usually we see National and ACT actually making a reasoned argument, looking at data, looking at outcomes, but when it comes to this space, they stray and they go to the push button of fear, of scaring the public and trying to look tough because they like to garner votes in that area. The people that lose at the end of the day are those people who are stuck in our justice system, who don’t have access to mental health support, who don’t have access to alcohol and drug treatment facilities, and who don’t have opportunities to turn their lives around. Instead, they are further entrenched in a system that is disregarding of their rights, disregarding of their culture, and, quite frankly, a system that keeps New Zealand in the dark ages. I do not commend this bill to the House.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I too rise to add my thoughts here on the third reading of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill, a bill that I wholeheartedly support. We’ve heard a lot of conversations from the other side of the House about an apparent lack of evidence. The evidence that I’m interested in—
Tākuta Ferris: There’s plenty of evidence, Rima.
RIMA NAKHLE: —is not the evidence of elitist academics in their little—oh, it’s wonderful to see Mr Tākuta back from holiday.
We haven’t seen him on the Justice Committee for quite some months, after he got upset that I challenged a submitter. It’s wonderful to—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I would like you to focus on the bill.
RIMA NAKHLE: Welcome back from your holiday. The evidence I’m interested in is the evidence of the store owner in Takanini that has had to build a cage inside his store for him and his family to serve customers from because of repeat serious offenders. The evidence I’m interested in is Uday in Wattle Downs, who was bashed all over his body when he was trying to open his store in the morning, by repeat serious offenders. That’s the evidence I’m interested in, not elitist academics.
Guess what! The qualifying sentences that we’re adding in, they’re not jaywalking, they’re not graffiti; it’s things like aggravated burglary, robbery, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob. That’s what we’re doing. That’s the evidence that we’re basing our laws on, and we commend this bill to that.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to take a short call on this bill. This three-strikes bill that was introduced under a previous Government, then repealed, is pretty unique in New Zealand. It prevents judges from considering the unique circumstances and evidence around the offending. That is something which does not exist in any other sort of offending. These are laws which we see have been introduced at different times and repealed at different times in the jurisdictions around the world that we like to compare ourselves to. I’ll come back to that, about the evidence basis, because not only do we have New Zealand evidence but we also have international evidence about how these laws work to incentivise and disincentivise different behaviour, which ultimately impacts on the rights of victims to be able to work these things through the court systems in a way which is fair.
I’d just like to begin my comments by saying that this law is not needed. This is not something that impacts on any of the people we are trying, in this debate, to help. The courts already have the equivalent sentencing provisions and options for serious offending. The limits on parole right through to the more serious life imprisonment without any parole conditions is something that judges can already impact on offenders. When we think about those victims who the member who has resumed her seat speaks about, we also have to consider that those are the offenders which are being considered right now by judges with exactly the kind of discretion that she is advocating for, that they will receive serious sentences, and that serious offending is treated seriously by those judges.
The three-strikes provisions that we’re seeing being introduced now have actually also been shown to have a disproportionate effect on sentences. There’s little to show that the law as it existed previously had any deterrence or preventative impact on serious offending. As my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen has said, where deterrence is most effective is in white-collar crime, but in this kind of offending, it was shown over and over again by New Zealand researchers—not the elite, but the people who care about the system and have studied it because they want to show the evidence and how it impacts on real, ordinary people. They have found over and over again that it isn’t changing serious offenders’ behaviour or patterns of offending in New Zealand.
What it does show, though, is that that disproportionate impact is excessive on those rights that are protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is important, because it lets everyone in New Zealand understand exactly what their minimum level of human rights is, and it should be protected and it should not be impinged upon by Parliament’s process of lawmaking. Ordinary people are being told here that in these situations where there is a political call for harsher punishments, their rights that they understand are protected will not be protected by this Government, and that’s a shame.
We have to do everything we can in this Parliament to recognise the rights of victims. It’s really important, and considering the impacts on exactly those people that Rima Nakhle has spoken about is our job. We have to create laws which actually work for them and actually deter offending against them. What’s important to acknowledge here is that three strikes never did that. It does not achieve safety for victims in the way that Government MPs are talking about it, and the international evidence shows that, so let me talk about that. The research clearly shows that laws with a deterrence effect can discourage offenders, but what they discourage offenders from is pleading guilty. You see over and over again in jurisdictions who have tried this that offenders who know they will be on a strike or a second strike or a third strike will do everything and anything they can to avoid pleading guilty, to avoid admissions, to avoid presenting evidence which casts them in a light.
Grant McCallum: Maybe they should avoid the crime.
ARENA WILLIAMS: Well, that means, Mr McCallum, that victims are dragged into a court system which does not serve them. They are dragged over and over again into a situation where they are presenting more and more evidence where, if this law that is being passed today did not exist, they would not be back into the system over and over again. This actively impacts on many victims who will be in a system where they do not belong and they could have avoided.
I want to thank everyone who made a submission on this bill, but I also want to acknowledge that the way that the Minister treated the submissions from the Sensible Sentencing Trust meant that there was a second bite at Cabinet for the retrospectivity provisions, which meant that most submitters were not able to submit on that very important part of the law and were locked out of that process. The evidence is clear. This bill doesn’t help. It’s bad law.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Restoring three strikes forms part of the National Party’s and this Government’s suite of actions that confirm our commitment to restore law and order in New Zealand. All reasonable minds in New Zealand would agree that law and order has deteriorated greatly over the past six years, especially the past three. This situation is turning, but more needs to be done—this legislation being one. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of this hideous bill. We’ve heard from several contributors today who have quite rightly focused on victims, and that is always at the heart of any discussion, let alone any lawmaking, in so far as that is always what should be top of mind. I don’t think that anybody on this side of the House would ever deny that the whole purpose of reducing crime is to reduce the impacts on people who suffer from crime. Of course, that is exactly what we should be talking about.
The difference that we have before us, though, is: how is the best way to go about doing that? We can choose a way that sounds good on the surface, that makes us feel better about having done something, that makes us feel as if we’ve resolved an issue or solved a problem, and then we can move on with the rest of our life, because, let’s face it, the people sitting in this House aren’t typically those that are the victims of crime. We can avail ourselves and remove that dissonance and that dread that we might feel of our responsibilities by just doing something, or we can actually buckle down and inform ourselves and look at evidence and look at overseas examples, look at previous New Zealand examples, look at the New Zealand context, look at the huge amount of information that we have available to us at our fingertips, should we want to actually be better lawmakers and we should do that part.
On this side of the House, clearly we favour the latter. To hear members on the other side—and one in particular—describe it as elitism and academic in the same sentence, I found quite appalling and a move towards a popularism that we see overseas that we know only ends in one direction. That is a watering down of confidence, a watering down of the faith and the hope that people in this country should have in our institutions and should most definitely have in this place.
As I said, if we were serious about doing something, then we wouldn’t be doing this. That is not the same as saying that serious offenders should not be treated seriously. People who are recidivist, serious offenders do need to be dealt with so that society can feel safe, so that we can reduce crime, so that we can have fewer victims, and so that people can have faith in the criminal law and order space that we’re in charge of, but it’s incumbent on this Government, as I said, to do the things that actually work. As we’ve heard, this one doesn’t. There are very few people that agree that three-strikes regimes anywhere in the world have been even remotely effective.
How do we actually measure effectiveness? We’ve heard several people conflate and confuse and try and turn things into correlations and causations that simply don’t make sense today and, actually, over the whole process of this bill. If it was as simple as simply introducing a three-strikes bill, then it would have been resolved already. We know it doesn’t work. We know evidence from California in the US, for instance, has shown that, but the means by which we choose to measure it is by deterrence or by public confidence.
The regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice—the people that were actually charged with doing the work behind the scenes of advising the Minister, of advising the Government—said that they weren’t a fan of this; they would have preferred the status quo. They said explicitly throughout that regulatory impact statement that it wouldn’t work. Why this Government has therefore been hell-bent on continuing to introduce a lame duck when they know that they don’t have any evidence—when we know that one of the Ministers literally said that we know that it worked, and then repeated and went on to just talk about anecdotes and a mishmash of information, concept, and some facts, but nothing that actually related or was provable in so far as working—I find that really, really quite disconcerting.
Throughout the process, we then had a couple of things that just seemed a bit bizarre. We had this whole confusion around the warnings, and that tended to occur in two parts. First, we had the record-keeping side of things, where the Minister said that there’s, essentially, six months’ time to prepare for readiness. We know that there have been big holes in the systems that we’re expecting to do a lot of the heavy lifting here. We know that the courts system doesn’t have the capacity to date, and they’ve only got six months to get that capacity to make sure that all of the record-keeping—which is kind of complicated in terms of who’s got a strike, who hasn’t got a strike, under what regime, under what changes between the two, under what part of the continuum does that information need to be recorded so that it’s ready to be online when someone appears in court and can then be given that verbal warning. That doesn’t fill me with a lot of hope that that is going to work properly.
Part of the impetus for this bill is about public confidence, so if we know that it doesn’t improve public confidence in the law and order space—three strikes in general—and then we implement it and it kind of falls over at the first hurdle because we don’t have the operational capacity to actually make it work, then the public surely will continue to lose confidence in it as well. That is on top of a courts system and a justice system that has had to face cuts—6.5 percent cuts—and where those cuts were made tended to be in the back-office roles, tended to be in the IT spaces. There’s been specific projects in the justice sector that have been canned because they needed to make up those cost savings. That is exactly the same space that we’re now expecting to do all the heavy lifting here and make this operational.
We also heard today through the committee of the whole House stage—which was wholly unsatisfactory, where the Associate Minister of Justice, the Hon Nicole McKee, I felt, was belligerent, didn’t choose to answer actual questions, clearly did not take seriously the amendments, some of which I think would have been welcome additions to the bill, and then didn’t answer some questions, to the point where we’re now at this stage at the third reading, straight after the committee of the whole House, because this is under urgency, and we haven’t had the chance to sit back and evaluate the veracity of some of the answers that we received in the prior stage, particularly related to amended section 34 and the power of the court to commit offenders to a hospital or facility on conviction. What we heard, essentially, is that it limits the courts’ discretion to apply treatment-focused orders for people on their second or third strike. That doesn’t really sit right on this side of the House, and I think that we deserved a little bit more time and a little bit of a stronger and more robust process to see that through.
The Labour Party certainly does not support this bill. We think it’s a terrible bill. Fundamentally, we know that there is no evidential foundation for the three-strikes regime in any way, shape, or form. It is literally taking us backwards—figuratively and literally. As I said yesterday, it’s the epitome of a bill that would do that. The regulatory impact statement backs that up. There’s no information to suggest otherwise. The only people that seem to be supporting this bill are the Government members. They don’t seem to be backed up by anybody other than the few people on the Sensible Sentencing Trust who emailed the Minister and, therefore, seemed to cause the Minister to have a last-minute change of heart. You could very clearly see that she was more concerned about being perceived as not going far enough than doing the right thing—that she, at the last stages, interfered with the select committee process and made those changes that we’ve heard about over the last couple of days. It was particularly offensive, I think, that the Minister did that or saw fit to do that, but also announced it publicly before the select committee had the opportunity to discuss those changes.
All in all, I think it’s a dog’s breakfast, I think the process has been rubbish, it won’t work, and we will keep a close eye on it. We do not commend this bill to the House.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am the last speaker for this third reading of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill, and I’m pleased to stand on behalf of the Government, which clearly is supporting this bill. It is a bill we campaigned on as a party; it is also part of a coalition agreement with the ACT Party.
The purpose of this bill is clearly to keep people safe primarily, as far as I’m concerned, and there are certain elements of the previous speaker’s—
Steve Abel: So-called centre-right. Just lurching to the far right.
DAVID MacLEOD: [Member pauses]
Tākuta Ferris: Nice pause.
DAVID MacLEOD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are elements of Dr Tracey McLellan’s speech that I did actually agree with, and that was primarily around the fact that this here is about serious crime that has been committed on a repeated basis, and keeping people safe. As it clearly states in the bill, there are 42 qualifying offences and these are the serious violent and serious sexual offences under the Crimes Act. This is not menial offences; this is the most serious stuff, particularly stuff that is against humans and against members of society.
I want to acknowledge the work on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice, the Hon Nicole McKee. I want to acknowledge the work by the select committee from around the House—the Justice Committee, a very busy committee; it had 28 different bills it has worked on and a lot of work being done in that space there. Ladies and gentlemen, three strikes are back. I’m happy to commend the bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. I was waiting for the end of the vote for that. There’s a longstanding convention that voting is heard in silence. The reason for that is so that the Clerk can count the votes correctly. In this circumstance, we’re in urgency on a Friday when we only have one Clerk. It is very important that votes continue to be heard in silence, Mr Chair, and I hope you enforce that next time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I take that point. It was quieter than usual for me, so if there was noise, I noticed it less, but thank you for that observation.
Bills
Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill
Second Reading
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.
Today, the Government is delivering on its commitment to New Zealanders to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). Repealing the TPA is about more than delivering on an election commitment, however; repealing the TPA means that the Government can continue its important work to prioritise timely access to quality health services. Repealing the TPA will also allow for better legislation to foster innovation within our healthcare system.
The TPA was intended to modernise the current outdated regulatory framework for medicines, medical devices, and natural health products. However, industry practitioners and consumers told Parliament at the time, and then told us, that it didn’t get the balance right. The TPA fell short of delivering simpler, more flexible regulation. The Government believes that health policy must ensure access to the right treatments at the right time, without imposing undue burdens on consumers or stifling innovation.
The TPA would have introduced unnecessary cost and regulatory hurdles, particularly for low-risk products, and it failed to enhance healthcare equity or improve public access to critical medicines, devices, or natural health products.
I’d like to thank the members of the Health Committee for their diligence in reviewing the Therapeutic Product Act Repeal Bill. I’d like to extend my gratitude to the many submitters who wrote in to the committee during public hearings on the repeal bill. Industry leaders and health practitioners told us that the TPA risked obstructing the very innovations our health system needs. For instance, requiring New Zealand market authorisation for exported medical devices and natural health products, despite their compliance with international standards, would have discouraged exports. Fees and charges on natural health products would have made products less accessible here.
Repealing the TPA addresses these concerns, ensuring that New Zealand’s health policy is both practical and forward-thinking without sacrificing the quality or safety of care. Our approach to the health system emphasises the importance of reducing regulatory barriers, to encourage local innovation and to provide access to appropriate medicines and products.
The repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act will not leave medicines unregulated. The Medicines Act 1981 will continue to apply, and the existing regulator, Medsafe, plays a vital role in ensuring medicines meet our standards for safety and effectiveness. However, the Medicines Act 1981 is out of date and does need to be replaced. While the TPA was not the solution, new legislation is required to allow New Zealanders to benefit from advancements in medical technologies without unnecessary bureaucratic delays.
I’m pleased to announce the Government will repeal and replace the Medicines Act with a new Medical Products Bill. The bill will not only ensure timely access to medicines but also support our innovators, health practitioners, and patients. It will include provisions ensuring New Zealand’s health system is resilient and able to respond to future health emergencies.
A message that came through loud and clear in submissions on the repeal bill was that natural health products should not be regulated as medicines. I agree, and, on hearing public and industry concerns, in September this year, Cabinet also agreed that natural health products will be regulated under a stand-alone bill. This bill will be developed following engagement with the natural health products sector and the public. Work on a new natural health products bill will not commence until after engaging with stakeholders, and no decisions have been taken on the scope or approach to be adopted in the bill.
On that note, one of the things the dietary supplements industry has been saying for a long time is that it needs export exemptions to be able to compete internationally. We want to address this long-term issue for New Zealand companies and make improvements to support our exporters.
The Government plans a further change to the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill in the committee stage, which will move Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 from the long-repealed Food Act 1981 to the current Food Act 2014. This is a first step that will allow for exported products to apply for exemptions from New Zealand labelling and composition requirements so that they can better compete in international markets.
As a Government, we have an ambitious goal of doubling exports in the next 10 years. Repealing the TPA now will allow better legislation to be developed that supports exporters and recognises New Zealand as a trading nation. The Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill delivers on our promise to New Zealanders to get rid of a law that would have created unnecessary barriers to access and innovation. Repealing the TPA also sets the stage for us to put in place a better law that gets the balance right. I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Well, it was interesting to hear the remarks the Associate Minister of Health just read. They bear a lot of resemblance to the remarks I read when I introduced the Therapeutic Products Bill—as it was in the last Parliament—to the House. In many ways, it’s apparent that the goals of the Government are the same as the goals of the last Government in pursuing medicines reform, so why are we repealing the Therapeutic Products Act?
Many of the arguments the Minister just outlined are good arguments for amendment of the Therapeutic Products Act. Many of the objectives she stated are already incorporated within the Act. For example, I notice in some discussion on the Health Committee about novel precision medicine technologies like Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cells all able to be regulated within the Therapeutic Products Act.
The ability to deal with public health emergencies is a feature of the Therapeutic Products Act that is being repealed. The ability to properly regulate medical devices is also contained within that Act, and an approach to natural health products that need not mean that they are treated as equivalent to medicines—of course they are not. The Therapeutic Products Act was always about risk-proportionate regulation, which the Minister also mentioned.
It seems to me that this repeal is for political reasons, the management of stakeholders’ expectations around how they interact with the legislation. Fine—that happens in politics—but the problem is that now we’re back to 1981 and, if this repeal goes through, back to 1981 in terms of our medicines regulation, and that is wholly inadequate. What happens if there’s a situation in the intervening period? Well, I know because, in the last Parliament, we had to deal with COVID-19 and we had a public health emergency.
A key element of dealing with COVID-19 was a vaccination programme and we had no way of expediting the approval of the COVID-19 vaccine under the Medicines Act. My first ever piece of legislation I saw through Parliament as a Minister was the retrospective amendment of the Medicines Act under urgency for one vaccine. It illustrates how absolutely useless the Medicines Act is for dealing with public health emergencies.
Now, you might think COVID isn’t happening again, but, actually, we had another problem with the public health emergency in the Medicines Act later in the last term of Parliament, and that related to monkeypox. The monkeypox vaccine was not even able to be discussed publicly, really, under the Medicines Act, because of restrictions on advertising when, I think, section 25 of the Medicines Act is being used. The Medicines Act is a wholly unsuitable piece of legislation for the rapid approval of medicines like vaccines that are needed in public health emergencies. Yet the Government is taking us back to the future.
The other problem with the Medicines Act is that it contains no framework for the regulation of medical devices. The challenge with medical devices is there are some that can cause an awful lot of harm, and that has been happening, sadly, in New Zealand within the context of our inadequate regulation. The most distressing situation we’ve seen emerge publicly is the poor regulation of surgical mesh in New Zealand and the lack of framework that we had for preventing and dealing with that, and the response that has been ad hoc as a result.
The Therapeutic Products Act was intended to be able to make sure that those sorts of things don’t happen again—and it is not. There are chances of it happening again with medical devices. I am aware of certain implantable contraceptives that have had safety concerns raised about them as well, so we need a legislative framework to make sure that these devices are able to be safe. During this repeal, it is just another way in which the New Zealand public has to wait longer for this framework to be in place.
The Government may well have a different view on components of medicines regulation, and there might be some areas where the Government and the Opposition disagree, but there is an awful lot of good that is being undone through this repeal, and it risks harm continuing. I’ve outlined some of those harms as they relate to medical devices and vaccines. I just think that those are actually real risks, and I’ve outlined three risks that emerged just in the last term of Parliament. It seems to me that this repeal leaves us without a framework, parts of a framework that we would agree on in many areas, and I think that is ultimately to the detriment of New Zealanders—it imposes significant, significant risks to people.
The next area I want to touch on is some of the innovation that the Minister referenced that is already possible through the Therapeutic Products Act. That includes the changes to prescribing rights that enable wider classes of prescribers to be able to prescribe—but, of course, within well-defined scopes. This enables us to make medicines more accessible—still safely—and make sure that when we are challenged in many ways by health workforce shortages, New Zealanders are able to go to a more diverse range of prescribers in order to access their medicines. This is already in the Act, and yet we’re going backwards to get rid of that and then waiting for a period for the Government to come back with new proposals on all of it.
I do want to reject the idea that by including natural health products, medical devices, new technologies, and medicines in the same Act, they were all regulated in the same way—of course not. Of course the Act had separate criteria for all of them; of course they had separate processes. It may very well be that the Government disagrees on how those processes should be—fine—but why get rid of the Act altogether? It seems to me that it sends us backwards, and it means that there is just nothing in place except the old dunger of the Medicines Act 1981.
This is not responsible lawmaking. We could have been spending this time debating the things the Government wants to change about the Act. I am aware the ACT Party has proposals about an expedited pathway for approvals of medicines. That seems like something Parliament should discuss because it alters how our regulator makes decisions, and that’s an interesting proposal. Instead, we’re going back to the beginning.
Not only is it that the Medicines Act is from 1981 but, when I was Minister of Health, I worked with a team at the Ministry of Health who had been working on this issue—I think some for 20 years. We have known we’ve needed to replace the Medicines Act for 20 years, and we’re just undoing all of the work that’s been done—back to the drawing board, new sets of instructions, separating everything out, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
It is so unfortunate that this is the position that we are in. Not only is it an example of making a show of ripping up legislation so that you can go back to stakeholders and say, “That bill you had concerns about? It’s all gone. We’ll start afresh.”, but those stakeholders, in many cases, have been consulted with for over a decade. This is a public policy failure that all parties have touched in some way, actually. It is just, I think, such a loss to New Zealanders, this piece of legislation that would have made significant advances and that large components of it everyone actually agrees on. My message to the Government is: you touched it last; you’ve broken it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good afternoon, everyone. We’re on the second reading of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): E te Māngai, thank you. The Green Party is not supportive of this bill, which we have mentioned before and other speakers have mentioned before. The main issue that we take with this repeal is that it leaves a massive void. I think it’s concerning to hear the Associate Minister of Health fall back on a 40-plus-year-old piece of legislation to justify the repeal. It’s been really clear from patient safety advocates and, actually, even people who engage in the very same products, like natural remedies, that actually had a nuanced view on this bill, to see that we’re just going to go back to the previous status quo that wasn’t really serving people.
We have had patient safety advocates raise concerns around, for example, unregulated medical devices and the harm that those were causing in our community, some of those medical devices that Ayesha Verrall mentioned, like surgical mesh, having actually created a lot of issues for many people in our communities, and having other jurisdictions that have paused the use of surgical mesh to review its use should actually raise alarm bells here that we’re kind of just leaving a void, repealing a piece of legislation and not actually addressing what I think were genuine concerns that we could’ve worked through constructively.
I don’t want to pretend, as submitters noted, that this legislation was perfect. I mean, when we had the Therapeutic Products Bill at the time—it had not become the Act—being debated in the Chamber last term, we had concerns about the fact that a lot of the issues around things like rongoā, etc., were being left to regulations and that, actually, a lot of the success in relationship to regulatory bodies relied on those regulatory bodies being adequately resourced to ensure that, actually, they were set up to succeed. Actually, when I mean “to succeed”, I also mean to work collaboratively with communities directly impacted, with the entities that actually, for example, may sell some of those products that would’ve been regulated under the Therapeutic Products Act, and to give those different bodies and groups the guarantee that their feedback was going to be taken on board.
As others have noted, the Act that we’re repealing with this bill covered, actually, quite a range of products, and each of them requires their own processes, their own regulations, their own mechanisms to keep people safe. Again, like the Medicines Act of 1981, it’s just no longer fit for purpose.
I think, for me, what’s going to be really critical to give, particularly when I think of patients, the guarantee that their concerns will be listened to will be what else will come after this repeal. I just want to make sure we don’t leave a void. I think of many people who’ve been calling for, as a response to this bill, for example, a commissioner that deals with issues around patient safety. Many who’ve been calling for that argued that we probably needed that no matter what we were doing in this space, but now that the Therapeutic Products Act is being repealed, it’s needed more than ever. I think that should also be something that the Government should look at as we progress through the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act.
I think the other area that I wanted to take note of is that the conversation around rongoā is something that should not end, because I think one of the challenges that we had last term when we started having questions about rongoā, around how we could make sure that the Therapeutic Products Act met our Tiriti obligations, is that, actually, the Crown—and, therefore, the Government—takes active steps to make sure that we create a way in which we enable it and not restrict it, but, at the same time, that we also don’t allow the potential harmful co-option of it by non-Māori in a space that actually could allow for that.
I think that’s a really difficult nuance to walk, and without active steps taken by the Government to protect rongoā, we could end up having almost the worst of both worlds, which is, like, we don’t have the kind of middle ground that we ended up in, which I think many of us were satisfied with, and I know that for at least Te Pāti Māori and the Greens at the time, that was one of the things that we needed to have resolved, I think, between the first and second reading, if I recall correctly. We do acknowledge the previous Minister, who worked really constructively on the ground to actually have changes made to the bill in time to have that addressed, but now if we’re just going to a full repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act, we now do leave a complete void in that space.
When I also think of the select committee process—and I was actually quite taken aback by the quite short nature of the report of the Health Committee, because while the bill in front of us may be really, really short, the impact and the nature of what we are doing is actually on a much larger scale. If I reflect on the select committee report—and submitters’ voices have been really critical—I do want to acknowledge that this is one of those bills where the range of contributions varied, and even if we put aside the fact that the majority of submitters did support a repeal, many of them actually acknowledge that the previous status quo would have not been good enough. I think that’s something that the Government should take on board, because, once again, the Medicines Act 1981 is not going to be the answer. We need a much more comprehensive regulatory system to ensure that, actually, we have a good regime for medicines, for medical devices, for natural health products as well.
I think I echo the comments from Ayesha Verrall that a much better answer would’ve been to take on board the pieces that could have been changed, to put amendments to this Act rather than do a full repeal. For a Government that talks a lot about wasteful spending, I think this is one of those areas, as others have noted. We have had public servants do a lot of work and spend a lot of hours, actually—over, in fact, decades, in some cases—to think of alternatives to the Medicines Act 1981. I think that’s work that cannot just go to waste now. If we have had, actually, public servants think of “What are the alternatives to the Medicines Act 1981 that we could have?” and then we just throw this in the bin, it’s in some ways not honouring the mahi that has been done and the resources that have been put to create alternatives to the Medicines Act 1981.
This is a field that does evolve quite rapidly and, therefore, I do think requires constant legislative attention. Therefore, I think, in a place where we are seeing, actually, a strangling of access to public resources for the purposes of research, for example—I worry that we’re going to end up with the worst of both worlds.
The other area that I’m really concerned with, particularly around the status quo, is that we’re going to be moving into a space where we’re going to have a lot of unregulated medical devices at a time where our healthcare workforce is particularly constrained. I think that also creates, particularly, a really dangerous situation for patients. We have a health workforce that is really, really—
Scott Willis: It’s stretched.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —stretched—thank you, Scott—and a regulatory regime that is not sufficient. We could end up with more issues around patient safety on the ground happening that will be detrimental to our communities.
Look, I think this is quite a serious issue. Independent of where people want to put the blame on the state of our healthcare workforce, it is a reality that we do have people on the ground saying there is not enough protection for patient safety. The Therapeutic Products Act was a mechanism for that. It wasn’t perfect, but we can’t ignore the fact that right now we’re heading towards a place where several medical devices will continue being unregulated, a healthcare workforce that is not being supported to do their best, and patients being left out in a really, really dangerous position.
I don’t think members of the Government should treat those concerns lightly, because they have been raised by patients themselves. In fact, patient safety advocacy groups have—
Stuart Smith: Add some value.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Look, I think it’s rich for the members who take 30-second calls to talk about adding value when, actually, often they do very little other than just say, “I commend this bill to the House.” In this case, I won’t be commending this bill to the House.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short—but I will take a call on this bill because it is important, the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. I want to thank the very diligent Health Committee, chaired by Mr Sam Uffindell, for their work on this and from other members across the House, including my good colleague Cameron Luxton.
The report is short, but I think it’s very succinct in what it says—224 submissions—but the key bit is that the majority supported the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA) and acknowledged that something needed to be updated, but they didn’t consider that the Therapeutic Products Act was the right Act to repeal it. They also noted that excessive compliance costs, regulatory burdens, and the costs that would, in turn, be passed—these costs will be passed on to consumers and the health system at large. I can also tell you there will be significant delays in getting new technologies to New Zealanders if we had gone ahead with the Therapeutic Products Act.
I just want to clear up a couple of things. With the repeal of the TPA, we won’t be unregulated. Medical devices and medicines will still continue to be regulated; it will just be under the old regime. It’s also worth noting that the Therapeutic Products Act wasn’t going to come into effect until 1 September 2026—2026. This wasn’t in effect. There was plenty of time before it was going to be in effect, and it’s also plenty of time for us to modernise New Zealand’s regulatory settings. That will take the form—and I think some speakers already talked about that—of things like at 30-day approval for medicines, which is part of our coalition agreement. I look forward to that.
I also just want to reflect that taking 20 years to update the regulations and the laws in this area is part of the problem. It shouldn’t take that long. This is a very fast-moving area, and we actually need to do things much, much faster while still ensuring safety. I think that we can do that on this side of the House with what we’re going to put in place.
Then, finally, I just want to reflect on the Amendment Paper that the Minister has put on the table. This will be welcomed news to the natural product exporter sector. I’ve engaged with them extensively. Again, on this side of the House, we want to double exports out of New Zealand, and, at the moment, we have these absurd regulations where New Zealand - made, say, vitamins and other natural health products have to meet New Zealand standards, not the standards of the country they’re being exported to. Again, we look forward to, hopefully, being able to deliver some relief in that area. I commend this bill to the House.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): The Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill is a simple bill. It’s a repeal bill. The Therapeutic Products Act hasn’t even commenced yet. The vast majority of the submissions were in favour of the repeal bill, and the Government is working to build an enduring piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Five-minute call—Francisco Hernandez.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on this bill. I don’t have a health-related portfolio as one of my portfolios for the Green Party, so my speech will be more low-energy than, perhaps, members on the opposite benches are used to—more low-energy.
I think it is correct that some members opposite have stated that this bill repeals an Act that hasn’t even come into effect yet, but I think it’s still important to discuss what the bill would have potentially done, and also the gap that it leaves behind. I think the Therapeutics Products Act took 15 years of development across three different Governments. I take the points of my comrades in ACT on my left here: it shouldn’t take decades to create these regulations, but it does create a framework to modernise medical regulation in New Zealand.
I think it’s particularly important to actually acknowledge that now there is a huge number of medical treatments, advances, and devices that are available on the market. The Therapeutic Products Bill had the potential to create a regulatory framework around that, because we do need—and I think this is one of the, I guess, great philosophical differences that separate the parties on the left and the parties on the right; I think it’s the role of regulation in society. I think it would be fair to say—and I think my colleagues opposite won’t object to my characterising it this way—in general, parties of the right believe in less regulation, and I think it would be fair to say that parties on the left—
Dan Bidois: Liberty and freedom!
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Yes—our libertarian friends and comrades across the House, yes. For the left, we generally do see the need for regulation. That’s one of the big philosophical differences. [Interruption] Well, I mean, I think it’s an exaggeration to call the repeal of the Therapeutics Products Act “Big Brother”, but anyway.
Look, the main concern that we have is that the repeal of this legislation—I acknowledge that the Minister and Government speakers have said that there will be a plan, but they haven’t presented it as part of this proposal; this merely replaces it. We would like to see what actually does replace it. Also, the question is: who is going to be doing the work of coming up with the alternative proposals? It just seems like there’s a huge amount of effort and energy that went into doing this.
I shared the reflections that were made by my colleagues in Labour and by my colleague Riccardo Menéndez March that it was imperfect legislation, and I think the submissions that were received during the select committee stage—you know, we acknowledge that it was imperfect legislation. Surely it would be easier to do a review, or get rid of the key parts of it, rather than scrapping it and starting it again from scratch, because it just seems like we’re creating a huge amount of effort to do this.
Look, who’s going to be doing this work? I think this morning there was a report on RNZ that said there were further cuts to Health New Zealand. Are we going to be pulling front-line health workers to be doing the work to replace this bill? Is the Ministry for Regulation going to be doing the work on this? I mean, who is going to be leading the actual work to replace this bill? If it does end up being the Ministry for Regulation that ends up creating the alternative legislation that replaces this—I mean, we’ve already shown that the Ministry for Regulation has the highest average and mean salaries out of the wider Public Service. Is it actually going to be replaced by people with the relevant health expertise from the Ministry of Health to the people at the Ministry for Regulation—is it going to end up costing more money?
I think I’ve laid out the concerns that we’ve got with this repeal, in that we’re kind of just repealing things without a plan for replacing it, and we absolutely do need to make sure that we’re protecting New Zealanders. Thank you.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to support the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. It does exactly what the title says. Therefore, I commend it to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to spend a good 10 minutes, I should assume, talking about the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). I must express some consternation and some surprise that members opposite are not so enthusiastic about this. It’s almost like they’ve got no plan or they don’t have anything in particular to say, because they don’t know what the plan is to talk about. It’s all very well to repeal things. It’s all very well to say that you’re going to scrap things and stop things and not do things, but it’s a whole other kettle of fish when you’ve actually got to say what you’re going to do instead. Perhaps that’s the reason for the brevity from the other side.
Repealing this Act has been cited by the Minister as a means by which the Government can do something else. Of course, we don’t know what that other thing will be. We’re led to believe—we’re absolutely led to believe—that the Government is going to be developing some better law that is going to get the balance right. They’re all catchphrases we’ve heard before, across a variety of bills and a variety of rhetoric, but the devil will be in the detail, won’t it? If ever there was detail, it certainly is in the Therapeutic Products Act. It is in the Medicines Act. It is in all of the legislation that currently governs what is a really important part of our life. I can’t wait to see what the Government is going to come up with.
We’ve heard several submitters mention the fact that this is a piece of work that really has been worked on over a number of years. I remember being on the Health Committee last term. It occupied a large amount of our time; it was a big piece of work under consideration. There was a huge amount of to and fro. There were many amendments. There were some things that, even in first draft, we thought, “Oh, that’s not going to work the way it was intended”, and changes were made and loads of contributions were taken into account. It’s not a simple thing to do, but it will be interesting to see where this Government lands, particularly because I don’t think it would be unfair to say that the impetus for repealing this bill seems to be that New Zealand First, in particular, formed a bit of a pact with some people, a small minority of people, who were quite exercised and quite wrong in a lot of expression of some of their concerns.
We know that, during that process leading up to the election, these were issues that were ripe for weaponisation. These were issues that were seen as good organising structures by which to stir up a little bit of controversy and to stir up a little bit of much-needed support. It will be interesting to see, again, what this Government is able to come up with. I’ve got a prediction: I think that they will, obviously, repeal the Therapeutic Products Act, they will work on an alternative, the alternative, as we know, will be split across a couple of different bills, and where we’ll end up landing will be pretty much where we would have been all along. Again, 15 years of considered work by experts is unlikely to completely, radically change where we need to go, particularly because, when we think about what the rationale is behind those regulations and what the rationale is behind the legislation itself, it is to protect people.
We’ve heard from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall that the Medicines Act is particularly useless for dealing with the inevitabilities of public health emergencies—the sorts of things that will happen and that will require rapid approval processes. We know that, without the TPA, there is no real framework that we should feel assured about and confident about when we are talking about medical devices. Things have moved on dramatically since 1981. There are medical devices that we talk about today in this context, that we talk about as incredibly normal—not popular; that’s the wrong word, but incredibly normal—and incredibly commonplace that weren’t even thought about in 1981. The impetus for needing and requiring a good piece of legislation is really, really important, and it’s not something to take lightly.
Medicines and natural products are, I think, something that’s also worth delineating—those two concepts—because, again, they were in the TPA, and I understand that the Government therefore has a preference, which is their prerogative, to parcel out medicines from natural health products. I can understand why they would want to do that. We went through that first process, where, sometimes, people perceive them to be synonymous, and, therefore, they overlook the fact that the risk-proportionate elements within the TPA were there in stark, stark reference to the way that both of those products should be treated. Again, it’ll be interesting to see how the Government acts with that in mind, remembering, of course, that the natural health product industry isn’t a single body. It’s not a homogeneous set of people who all think the same way about regulation and all have a very clear idea of what needs to happen.
There are, in fact, at least two quite different concerns at play. We have our exporters who produce top quality, world-leading products, and they want to be able to make therapeutic claims where therapeutic claims exist. Without the TPA, they weren’t allowed to do that, which restricted their ability on the export market. Then we have the other side of the natural health product industry, where they shouldn’t make therapeutic claims where therapeutic claims don’t exist.
Actually, consumers and people purchasing products deserve safety. There needs to be some prevention—for instance, I think one of the examples in the original process was caffeine enemas for curing cancer. We know that’s not real. There is plenty of evidence to show that that’s not real. Sometimes, consumers can be beguiled by therapeutic claims, and if, as a Parliament, we don’t have provision for those protections, it’s not only not preventing people from being sucked in and parting with their money for products that don’t have sufficient efficacy but there can be real health harms and real harms to people, not only by taking something that’s not what they should be taking, because it may interfere with existing medication regimes, but by then preventing them from seeking traditional and efficacious proper medical solutions.
It is a complicated area that we are embarking on, and I do sincerely wish the Government all the best of luck. As has been said earlier, they are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I hope common sense prevails behind the scenes and behind the need to have that external bravado to those fringe groups that deals have been made with, and that behind the scenes the Government and the officials are able to impress upon their Government the need to actually look at the body of evidence that exists and not start all over again, because—
Sam Uffindell: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we had a comment there from the member saying something to the effect that this legislation was done as part of making deals with side groups. That’s, effectively, an allegation that part of the arrangement for this bill is that there has been some deal-making process in the background between one of the members of this Government and those groups that the member was referring to. I think that such a comment there was out of order, and I’d ask for you to consider that.
Tangi Utikere: Speaking to the point of order, I listened very carefully to Dr McLellan’s comments and the inference was around deals, not an implication that the Government had—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): In silence.
Tangi Utikere: —an implication that there was some wrongdoing. It’s certainly in order for a member to indicate that deals may be done in any form. Where it sort of heads down the wrong path is when there’s an implication that there is a deal for something in return. That is not what Dr McLellan has alluded to in her contribution.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. Those in the House last night will have heard a point of order on one word in particular, around “pressure”. As I said last night, it’s in the context of what happened. Also, if you go to 55/5 of the Speakers’ Rulings, it also talks about differentiating between what happens in the House and what happens outside, and particularly before the election. If the implication is that something was decided as a policy before the election, then that is actually permitted. It’s when it’s an influence that takes place within the House once the party is here. My understanding is that it was part of a policy coming into the election, so that would be the implication there. The member can carry on.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and certainly that was my intention: to highlight the fact that the Government parties did campaign on repealing the Therapeutic Products Act, and they campaigned on repealing the Therapeutic Products Act because they, as they’re entitled to, are able to listen to certain parts of their constituencies who have particular policies in mind that they wish their representatives to champion. That is exactly what this Government is now doing. As I said, in the context of my comments, I now wish them luck.
I now wish them all the very best, and I mean that sincerely, for actually taking a wider view, not just the very narrow view that they may have been exposed to before the election, when they devised their policy, but now they’ve got the opportunity to actually look under the hood, take advantage of all of the resource and all of the official resource that they’re now entitled to as members of the Government, and are able to furnish us with a new piece of legislation, in the not too distant future, that can allay our concerns about the void that is now going to be left by virtue of the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act. We do not commend this bill to the House.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): When almost every single health professional tells us that the Therapeutic Products Act is not fit for purpose, repealing the Act is the right thing to do. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Gee, I don’t know where to start with my five-minute contribution. There is so much to cover. It’ll be the full five minutes, for your pleasure.
I might just start by pointing out that this is one of the thinnest departmental disclosure statements I have picked up. It is one of the briefest. If I just point out: “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this [repeal] bill?” No. “Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect [to] by this bill, or on a draft of this bill?” No. Right then, so this is all just what everybody campaigned on and brought to the House and agreed in their coalition agreements, and what we have is the Government, once again, just simply cutting and repealing.
That seems to be all that they really know how to do, because I have not heard, from the eight-second contributions on the other side, what the actual plan is. I mean, it’s just so easy to talk to yourselves, agree amongst yourselves, not get any advice, not do any consultation, and then all agree it’s a wonderful idea to repeal this because it is politically popular, but did anybody take a minute to consider that the political decision you are making is putting at risk patient safety?
Todd Stephenson: No—
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, that’s right—no, you didn’t. That’s right.
Hon Member: That’s not what—
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Right. Sorry, that’s not what—what says? Oh, you didn’t make a contribution? I couldn’t possibly understand what your reasoning is, because everybody only speaks for eight to 10 seconds on the other side.
This bill is taking us backwards—so far back, about 40 years back. The other side of the House doesn’t believe that there is any need or reason to modernise the law. You are repealing something that takes us back to the Medicines Act 1981. Where is your plan? No plan.
Andy Foster: Come on, stop mischaracterising it.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, well, please tell us what it is if I’m wrong, because nobody has made a contribution to elaborate on that. By repealing this Act, the Government has not brought forward an alternative.
I want to just highlight one issue that this repeal impacts, and I encourage you all to not just simply say “Yes”. Why did you not want to have advice on this? Why did you not want to do wider consultation on this? If you had done that, you would have learnt that, for example, “Patient safety advocate [is] horrified at [the] government’s plans to drop Therapeutic Products Act”.
I am a former Associate Minister of Health, and I was responsible for righting the harm that has been done—wait for it—by surgical mesh. Anybody thought about that? Anybody know the history of that? Everybody comfortable with the fact that your repeal, without a plan, will expose more people to harm. You OK with that?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just less first person.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right; not you, Mr Speaker—them. Is that side of the House OK knowing that the Government has no plan in place after this repeal to address the very serious issues of harm that has been caused by mesh not being regulated?
Hon Casey Costello: Those controls are still in place.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: They weren’t sufficient, and that’s why the advocates have been pushing for this and support this. Fifteen years of work has gone into it and you—sorry, the Government—are just throwing it out the door with no plan to replace it. You are leaving people exposed to harm. I do not commend this bill to the House, Mr Speaker.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Isn’t it interesting that Vanessa Weenink, the member who has just resumed her speech—her seat, had nothing to say about it. Actually, she probably resumed her speech, as well. That was it—started and resumed all in one breath. This is a terrible piece of legislation.
Carl Bates: That’s why we’re getting rid of it.
TANGI UTIKERE: No, no, no—not the one that’s in place. The one that, actually, you guys have put up here—that’s the terrible one that’s on the cards today.
This was something that was in its tentative stages, actually, with the Health Committee when I was a member on it in the last Parliament, before Dr McLellan took over as chair of the committee. The existing piece of legislation indicates that there is already stuff in the Act that is provided for—yes, there’s a runway, and we’ll talk about that in a moment—but the reality is this: the Government could have simply taken time to work through these issues.
Why is it that we are here under urgency wishing to rush through the repeal of an Act that actually doesn’t come into play until late 2026? Why is it that the clocks still say that it’s Tuesday here in this place, at a time when this Government want to ram a piece of legislation through all its remaining stages in order to tick a few boxes? Really, it’s quite simple: it’s because they have to, as a collective, prove to their backers that this is a signal that they’re doing what has been asked of them.
That’s all it’s about—nothing about the aspects of the existing piece of legislation that actually would make a difference, and my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has touched on just one. That’s surgical mesh, and, actually, that reminds me about the number of constituents that have spoken to me—and I’m sure members in the House and members opposite will have had constituents or others that have spoken to them over their time in Parliament—about the impacts that this has had on not just them but their whānau and the way in which they go about their lives. Not a single member of the Government has taken a call to address how this piece of legislation will provide certainty of protection for those for whom that is a real issue. Not a single call has been made.
We question why it is that we’re in urgency and we’re having to rush through this piece of legislation when the protection that exists for women who have that as a real issue, and something that is extremely time-sensitive, as well—
Dr Hamish Campbell: We’re not rushing it through; it’s been to select committee.
TANGI UTIKERE: What’s that, Dr Campbell?
Dr Hamish Campbell: It’s been through the select committee process.
TANGI UTIKERE: Yeah, OK. Why didn’t you talk about that? You’re the deputy chair of that committee and you’ve said, basically, nothing, except that you commend this bill to the House. The second reading is the chance where this House—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Through the Chair, please.
TANGI UTIKERE: The second reading is the chance where, generally, members who are part of that committee can explain why it is that they’ve landed at this position. What I find rather disappointing is that the chair and the deputy chair of the Health Committee have taken calls, but they have not delved into the specifics around that. While Dr Campbell might say, “It’s in the report.”, well, point out where—where in the report does it indicate that this continues to protect women when it comes to issues around surgical mesh? It does not.
We would hope that when we get to the committee stage, there will be plenty of questions. I commend the Government on its former bill in terms of the committee stage, when we did actually hear from members opposite about some of the issues. I hope that they will take the opportunity to share some of the concerns, and also some of the opportunities that they have addressed as part of that, because, otherwise, members of the public who are listening and those who are watching are none the wiser as to why it is that this Government doesn’t want to maintain protections for those individuals in our community for whom surgical mesh is a real issue. That’s disappointing.
This is a bill that is going to really turn back the clock—it really is. I mean, we’re talking about returning to a piece of legislation that’s from 1981. So much has changed since 1981. When we think of the aspects of innovation and technology, and all of those sorts of things, and when we align that alongside medicine, medical devices, and opportunities, so much has changed. We can all reflect on members of our own families for whom innovation and technology in the medical space has meant the difference between life and death. This is a bill that seeks to, basically, discredit or remove not just protections but a lot of the thinking in this space around innovation and technology.
Now, we need to keep up in terms of our pace with technological change. This bill, in terms of it being a repeal bill, is doing absolutely nothing in that particular space. It is a piece of work in itself, but what it seeks to remove is all of the years of work that Governments of various different colours have been working on over the last 15 years to get to this point.
I have had an opportunity to look at the select committee report. It didn’t take very long because it’s actually very brief, let alone the fact that they had, I think, over 200 submitters—yeah, 224 submissions—but not many of them have actually been covered. There’s one bit of information there that has been raised in the report, and I do want to just touch on it because I do think it’s going to have an implication on a particular subset or sector of our community for whom this will make a real difference. It’s on page 4 of the report, and it talks about the fact that at the moment, there is a section of the Medicines Act, which is section 29, that does actually allow doctors—specifically doctors—to request the supply of medicine that hasn’t been approved by Medsafe. Now, the submitters on this process indicated that, actually, there is another group of medical professionals for whom this would make a lot of sense, and that’s nurse practitioners.
Now, when we’re having real issues in this country—and this is a Government that, clearly, wants to make it worse, because they’re not interested in having front-line support when it comes to health services in Aotearoa New Zealand—this opportunity for nurse practitioners to be able to have that right to be empowered under legislation or regulation to support communities for whom it’s really difficult to gain access to medical support or assistance and for them to be able to have that provision is going to be a game-changer. When I think about rural communities and when I think of other communities who rely on the support of health professionals and, in particular, nurse practitioners, this change is, basically, gutting that opportunity within the time frame through to late 2026. Why? Because the existing piece of legislation that is currently on the books would have allowed those prescription powers to, basically, be extended to include nurse practitioners.
I don’t know, Mr Assistant Speaker O’Connor, about your fine electorate, but I know that, in mine, nurse practitioners are doing some really good work, whether it’s around diabetes prevention, whether it’s in the asthma space and respiration, and then a whole lot more. Why is this Government on the one hand wanting to, basically, slash funding in health and support for front-line workers and, at the very same time, removing the various tools in the tool kit that will support the practitioners for whom this will make a real difference? The flow-on effect of that is through to the households that would benefit from that. It is very disappointing that that’s a particular view that those members have formed.
Of course, if we step back and look at that, it’s not just the legislation that would say that, yes, all nurse practitioners would be able to do that; what the existing legislation empowers is the Nursing Council to provide approval for it, alongside the Minister of Health. It’s not just saying that there are no guidelines here or—people might call it hurdles—no hoops to go through; this is saying that there is a regulatory and legislative process that would support and empower our communities to be able to receive that support in their time of need, if that is what they needed to do.
We haven’t heard much from the Government around this, and what I would really like to hear is how this change is going to make it safer for our communities. How is having a piece of legislation or a law drafted and enacted in 1981—I’m not saying that all laws that are historical need to be redrafted and re-enacted, but what I am saying is that, when it comes to medicine and healthcare, innovation, and technology and when we have those changes that are taking place, Governments need to be agile and responsive to those, otherwise our communities miss out. This is a short-sighted attempt to, basically, cut that opportunity off at the knees.
The Government has a runway through to late 2026. The only reason that we are progressing this under urgency this afternoon is because they simply need to tick a couple of boxes for those who have asked for this, rather than look at the bigger picture. We will continue to oppose this in light of the silence from the Government.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is pretty simple. It’s a bad piece of legislation. We’re getting rid of it, and then we’re going to replace it. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Lawrence Xu-Nan, I take it that you are applying for Te Pāti Māori’s five-minute call.
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yes, I am, in accordance with parliamentary practices.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Very quick off the mark.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to also take a five-minute call to express that we do not support this legislation, and there are a number of reasons why. I think, first of all, there are two main concerns with this particular legislation more broadly. Number one is: why? I think, when we are looking at putting legislation through the House, there is an intended purpose and a clear trajectory forward on what we are expecting to be the next step and whether we’re expecting it to be a benefit to Aotearoa and to the people, as opposed to a tit for tat.
Some of the things that I would like to explore more during the committee stage and some of the things I have seen from the very brief report from select committee is around the fact that people do not have the level of certainty to what it means if this is repealed. I guess my question is: why are we repealing a bill as opposed to bringing something fully fleshed out? The Government parties keep on mentioning that it doesn’t come into effect until 2026, which I understand, in which case it actually does give the Government parties some time to put out a fully formed bill, as opposed to repealing something that isn’t in effect yet and completely leaving a vacuum to what is to come.
Now, the second part of this is more concerning in terms of the fact that we do see the Minister in charge. It would be good to get some of that advice from the Minister when we get to the committee of the whole House stage—that we’re seeing a lot of work being done but not a lot of work being done on the main ministerial portfolio, which is seniors, which is a growing concern.
In this particular bill, I think this is one of the reasons that we’re seeing this tit for tat in Parliament, where we are repealing each other’s bills over time. One of the comments that submitters have made is the wasted time and energy that it cost people, and it cost everyone, because some of the consultations and some of the changes and some of the money have already been spent in line with the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA), despite the fact that it doesn’t come into effect until later.
To give a broader context in terms of the original TPA, I think other speakers have mentioned a lot in terms of the various elements when it comes to the natural health products (NHPs), when it comes to medical devices such as surgical mesh, when it comes to other forms of medicine and pharmaceutical active compounds, but I think one of the things that is clear when we’re looking at the original purpose and intent of the TPA is the fact that it wants to do what’s best for the people of Aotearoa, in terms of having that genuine engagement and consultation with the public in the process of putting together secondary legislation to be ready for that 2026 launch date. It is about collaborating and co-creating with the people of Aotearoa, rather than putting something forward and just deciding “You know what? This is what we’re going to do; we don’t care what people think.” and expecting other people to be brought along as a part of this.
There are other things that I think are also kind of important in this. I think many have mentioned, and I would like to home in on some particular legislation that was repealed under the TPA—or is updated in the TPA, but now has been repealed and put everyone into a limbo situation—and that is the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985. Now, people have mentioned that that is 40 years ago, and we have seen that NHPs have come a long way since 1985. There’s also a lot of research that’s being done. I want to also draw attention to the House of the most recent. In fact, over the last few days, some of the concerns by the US Food and Drug Administration is around the company AG1, and in terms of some of the investigation discovery that has been done around liver harm issues and also an increased level of hepatic enzyme functions that we’re seeing with NHPs. In fact, this is something that the Ministry for Primary Industries is currently investigating, and I think this is a really important point to mention in the context of when we are repealing this bill.
Again, there are a number of questions that we would like to ask and get clarification on from the Minister. Particularly the other thing to mention is the completely lacklustre departmental disclosure report. There is no regulatory impacts or interest, nothing. We’re just repealing it with no additional information. We’re really keen to discuss that at the committee stage. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill.
In Committee
Part 1 Repeal of Therapeutic Products Act 2023 and related matters
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 6, “Repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 and related matters”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start off by asking the Associate Minister of Health some of the broader questions, and I’m looking specifically in the context of clause 3 when we’re looking at the Therapeutic Products Act 2023.
Now, although this clause might seem quite simple, the ramifications of it on an Act with hundreds of pages and over 400 clauses is quite substantial, so this particular clause can’t be taken lightly. I guess my first question to the Minister is: what is the alternative? Why bring this bill to the House without a fully fleshed alternative already in the works? That is my first question. Thank you.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a series of questions, and it’s probably quite congruent with a bill like this that we perhaps make them a bit more sort of quick-fire questions and give the Associate Minister of Health the chance to answer in bulk.
I agree with the question that’s just been asked, and I suppose, on the back of that, I’d also like to know how does that abbreviated pathway address the complexities of regulating medical devices that currently lack suitable oversight such as surgical mesh, and pacemakers would be another good example of that.
We know that with the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA) that is being repealed, there’s been several mentions this afternoon about it coming into effect in September 2026, but, of course, before that was to happen—that was the runway, wasn’t it?—there was a huge amount of consultation and work in regards to that secondary legislation and those regulations. What is the Minister planning in that sphere to give us the requisite confidence, I suppose, if we’re just thinking about medical devices as an example? As a first question, how can she address those complexities?
Also, I’m wondering, can the Minister provide some sort of time line for the implementation, and explain how the delay that will inevitably happen? Again, we’ve heard comment that it doesn’t matter because the TPA wasn’t going to come into effect until 2026, but if you think you’re starting over again and you’re still not going to have to go through that secondary process, then that doesn’t make sense. Can the Minister provide a time line for what will be ultimately implementation, and explain how the delay could impact confidence in regard to that reform? Thank you.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Similar sort of question, but a different line, and that is around that sense of urgency—why the Associate Minister of Health believes that, when it comes to clause 3 of this part, it is important to do so despite the fact that there is an existing runway in place. That’s the first part.
In the second reading contributions, there were a number of comments about one example, and that’s surgical mesh. How does the Minister intend that, as colleagues have touched on, any new pathways that may exist—how will issues, like concerns around surgical mesh and others—I accept that there are other considerations there, but I just want to touch on that one for the time being. As a result of this legislation, as I understand it, there will then be a void in terms of any oversight over issues that relate to surgical mesh. How does the Minister intend that this part of the bill seeks to address or mitigate those concerns that certainly have been raised by constituents and others? I’m sure that some colleagues who may be watching from home will be interested in that as well.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the members for their questions and the valid concerns about why—repeal versus amendment has been raised a few times. I think it’s important to recognise that across the House we recognise this is a big piece of work.
What I want to assure the members is that this is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are very much aware that there is a lot of value in what has been done and that there’s a lot of knowledge and gain through that consultation process. The purpose of the repeal is so that we aren’t working towards a piece of work—that we are going to spend a lot of money, a lot of time, as has been mentioned, developing the secondary legislation. We really needed to clarify the position and that was the separation out of natural health products from the medicines and medical devices components. The pathway forward, as I said in my second reading speech, is the development of the medical products bill, and we have a lot of information and learnings.
One of the big discussion points we had was the concerns—and I think it came through with the select committee; there was a lot of concern—about the over-regulation, that we have significant issues like what has occurred with surgical mesh, and that we weren’t having a risk-proportionate approach in this regulatory framework that would allow us to differentiate high-risk products. That, I think, came through from the select committee responses about the over-regulation. The need to act at pace to repeal was so that we weren’t continuing with a piece of work.
I think the other thing is “Why not amend?” We broadly recognised across the House that we have talked a lot about the complexity of this legislation and the importance of getting it right. I don’t think you want to come to a piece of work that is as significant as this legislation and you have done a whole lot of amendments and repeals to the existing legislation before it’s come into place. I think it’s important that we recognise that this is about allowing us to reset the programme of work, and the repeal allows us to do that reset and keep moving forward.
There has been a lot of concerns about the surgical mesh issue, and I recognise and I give absolute total respect to those brave women who fought so hard to have this issue recognised and concerned. The controls and systems that were in place around surgical mesh, the pause on the use of surgical mesh, and the ongoing development of guidelines are continuing. There is nothing about this repeal that will change those controls and protections that are in place currently. The assurance is that we have a complete recognition of the importance to not undo anything on any of those safeguards that are currently in place.
I think the programme of work from now in, in terms of the time line—I’d love to give you a fixed time line at this point, but the repeal is the first stage. The intention is that now we will be developing the replacement legislation, but also working on the secondary legislation at the same time. I think you heard a lot in the process—there was a lot of concern that there was primary legislation without secondary legislation in place and there were a lot of unknowns. We want to make sure that there’s some balance in this process as we develop, as we move forward.
I think the recognition across the House and the expertise is that we all know how important this is to get it right. We all know how important it is, this programme of work, but we also had to recognise that the legislation, as it was, was creating a much bigger regulator and need because we had incorporated natural health products into that development of a solution. It was about how we differentiate that. I hope that’s answered some of those questions.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you, the Associate Minister of Health, for your explanation, which has helped me shape up my question and partially—partially—answered it or given me some guidance, because I wanted to reflect on my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question earlier. I understand the Minister wants to sweep things clean back to 1981 and then start again. I’m really wanting a little bit more detail about what that legislation might look like, because surely there has been some thought put into it.
What I’m really interested in is what proposals, in more detail, does the Minister have for delivering a modern regulatory regime? I’m not seeking the general approach—I’d like to hear some detail because—[Interruption]
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can we just have quiet to my right-hand side, please? I’m listening very carefully and I can hear some of the points are being made. I think the questions around the pathway to the Minister are fair, but there’s no expectation that the Minister should be able to explain—it’s a repeal process. There’s no onus on the Minister to explain the next piece of legislation that’s coming—just to clarify that.
SCOTT WILLIS: I do understand that this is a repeal, but what we are hoping for—and what we had expected to see—was that there had been some thought into not just breaking but also making. What we’ve seen from this Government is a case of vandalism over the past year, breaking and repealing legislation. This may not have been the most perfect legislation, but we haven’t seen anything positive. Creation is a difficult thing, and this is what we’ve got.
We’ve heard from members opposite that this bill took a long time, an accusation that it was very slow in the process—15 years. The irony here is that it is being slowed down—a modern regulatory regime is being slowed down—even further by a repeal. That’s the irony of what we’re facing here. The Government is accusing the previous Government of taking a long time and now is doing even worse. Why not spend some time to do it right? I’m really seeking some greater clarity from the Minister. Thank you.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I listened to that explanation from the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello and I do have further questions around this.
The option they have chosen is to repeal. We hear that the Government recognises the need to have something to replace this. We are being told that there has been some thinking that has been done around that, that maybe a lot of the work that has gone into it may not be wasted and that some of it can inform that work that they’re doing, but when I was listening to that contribution—given that this wasn’t going to come into effect until 2026—I don’t understand why we are having to rush through this repeal under urgency just before Christmas. If the Government had plenty of time before it actually came into effect, it could have done that through the work that the Minister said was being done and come back with amendments to this legislation, and not in fact just have a repeal and start with a clean slate, and so on.
I want the Minister to explain why it is so necessary to rush this through urgency when it wasn’t going to come into effect until 2026 and you know that further work has to be done and the Government knows that it could have addressed those issues with amendments. The question is: why is this being rushed through now?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member Willow-Jean Prime for her questions, and I note, as a former associate health Minister, she will appreciate the complexity of developing this legislation and that it wasn’t that we had a piece of legislation that was going to appear in 2026 and we had time to work on it. As we’ve heard, there was a huge amount of secondary legislation to develop, there were the IT systems and information systems that needed to be developed to deliver the product. Therefore, if we had continued work on that piece of legislation, then we would have been committing a whole lot of resource that wouldn’t necessarily be done. It’s important to get some really clear frameworks around what needed to be done.
I think, in terms of the member from the Green Party who was questioning about the future state or what it looks like, we need to get back to the point that there is a lot of work to be done on that future state, but this is about repealing this existing legislation. I think that one of the things the select committee heard and recognised was that there were a lot of issues to be dealt with; there wasn’t a huge amount of support for the legislation as it was. Rather than floundering around for an extended period of time with uncertainty, it was really important to demonstrate to the sector a clear path forward: that we weren’t going to be continuing with this piece of legislation; we were going to carve out natural health products.
Those decisions needed to be made to make some clear direction, both for the officials developing the legislation and for all of the external expertise that we will need to bring in to make sure this legislation is truly fit for purpose and delivering exactly what all members across the House want, which is a robust and futureproofed delivery of medicines and medical products to New Zealanders.
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s been on his feet for a little bit, or trying to, so I’m going to let him have a question. The Minister’s been very forthcoming in answering the whys around this Part 1, so please make it very succinct.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would have other members know that I always reference the clause number, and I’m always on the correct part.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s why I took your call!
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think the reason we’re asking a few questions around clause 3 is because there is no information, there is no departmental report whatsoever on this, and it is very clear in the departmental disclosure statement that no work has been done around identifying the issues around this particular repeal. I want to just ask a follow-on question to how the Minister responded to clause 3 before. I want to move on to clauses 5 and 6, but also, in particular, to the Minister’s Amendment Paper, which hasn’t gone through select committee, and this is Amendment Paper 239.
On clause 3, one of the things that the Minister said is that we are looking at a reset. I appreciate what the Minister is saying in terms of what will happen, but I want to check with the Minister again, in lieu of a departmental report or any sort of regulatory impact statement or supplementary analysis: what about the work that’s been done already? Does the Minister know how much work has been done in terms of secondary legislation or consultation before we repeal this bill? Again, there’s no information on this. This just provides some certainties to some of the submitters, who also reflected on the time, money, and effort already spent on the process of introducing the Therapeutic Products Act.
Also, if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying: if there was work that was being done on this, has the work stopped since the Minister came in to become the Associate Minister of Health, or has that work stopped when this bill went through first reading or has been introduced to the House? Again, that is significant, I think, for the public to realise whether that has been something that has stopped so people didn’t waste their time working on consultation, etc., over the last year—last 14 months, to be exact.
In terms of clauses 5 and 6—again, still on Part 1—we are looking at amendments to the Food Act. I want to just check the Minister’s clarity in terms of her Amendment Paper 239 and the new addition of section 420(3), inserted by clause 6, and new clauses 6A and 6B—particularly, I’m interested in clause 6B and the fact that we’re looking at dietary requirements, with supplements not being a part of this, or being excluded from some of these. I just wanted to ask, in light of some of the reasoned examples I mentioned, particularly with the Ministry for Primary Industries’ investigation into AG1 and other natural health product issues, whether she will have confidence that this isn’t going to put people at harm, because it’s now being excluded from some of the food standards that we have. Thank you.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member Lawrence Xu-Nan for his questions and his concerns about the future state and recognise that there is important information, but I think for the purpose of this discussion, we need to be focusing on the repeal bill. In terms of when work stopped, if you bear in mind the legislation was passed about three months before the election, work stopped as soon as that commitment to repeal was put in place. We were able to work and develop concepts and theories around the future state, but beyond that detail, it’s sort of beyond what we’re discussing here in the bill.
I think I’d like to just highlight first, before I go into the amendment—it was just to talk about how we’ve had a lot of discussion about going back to the medicines legislation and we talk about the 1981 legislation. We have to recognise that, since 1981, there has been quite a significant amount of amendments and there will continue to be amendments as we work through this process to ensure—we touched on the nurse practitioners, and so work is continuing around how we create more efficiencies within the existing legislation. We’re not sitting dormant, not doing anything about how we can gain efficiencies and improve health systems in the meantime.
I think it’s worth noting that we’re not talking about going back to anything; we are continuing with the legislation that we’re currently operating under. We’re not reverting; we’re not changing. I think, when you talk about the departmental statements and the impacts, there is no impact, because we’re not avoiding anything. They weren’t in place; therefore, there is no impact, because the existing framework continues and will continue through this process. We’re not changing anything significantly. Impact has to be considered on that basis.
I will take some time just to talk about the amendment because I can appreciate that, walking into it relatively fresh, it’s just a bit of an anomaly around the legislation. The Amendment Paper lays the groundwork for improvements to the regulation of dietary supplements. The effect of the Amendment Paper will be to move the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 from the repealed Food Act 1981 and, instead, deem them as being made under the modern Food Act 2014. While this may sound like a merely procedural change, it will bring some immediate benefits to dietary supplement exporters.
Following the lift and shift of the Dietary Supplements Regulations, exporters will be able to apply for exemptions from New Zealand labelling and composition requirements. This will enable them to better compete in international markets. At the moment, our exporters are competing with other countries’ products at a disadvantage. Other countries can make and label their products according to the laws of the importing countries. Our manufacturers must follow New Zealand rules, even if they are incompatible with overseas laws. Industry has long advocated for exemptions for exported products. We have a chance to help exporters today, and that is the reason we’re bringing it through today, because this is an opportunity to, as you’ve mentioned, do something sooner.
While the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA) would have included provisions for exported dietary supplements, it would have also imposed overly complex regulations for these products. Making this change by amendment to the TPA Repeal Bill shows that the Government is continuing to listen to industry and is delivering on its commitment to double exports within 10 years. The lift and shift of the Dietary Supplements Regulations is only the first in a series of reforms to the export of dietary supplements, and in the longer term, other natural products, and we’re working on those solutions moving forward.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I understand the member’s just put an Amendment Paper.
TANGI UTIKERE: I have, but not relevant to Part 1; it’s to the commencement. I’ll talk to that.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, thank you.
TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to clause 3. This is very important because there are still a number of questions that I understand members on this side of the committee have, and it’s important for us to work through those. The reason for that is that what clause 3 does is it repeals, basically, all the work that is currently in place at the moment, being undertaken, under the existing Act that this particular bill seeks to repeal. I know it’s one sentence, clause 3, but the implications of this—this is really where it all comes down to it—is going to, basically, can all of the work that has been put in place.
I’ve got questions around Māori approaches to rongoā. I’ve got other questions around other forms of device. I’ve got challenges around natural health. They are all things that currently are in play as a result of the legislation that is in place right here, right now. What this bill is seeking to do is to not just put it on hold; it’s, basically, seeking to can it entirely. My questions for the Minister are around what mitigation can she give for the various things that I wish to touch on to, I guess, mitigate the concerns that we may or may not have about whether we think clause 3 should be enacted or not.
This is about whether the bill is going to be repealed or not. The first one I want to touch on—and I accept that surgical mesh has been referred to—really is around the significant risks that are associated with many of these medical devices outside of surgical mesh, and what immediate measures the Minister intends to put in place. What I heard from the Minister, I think, was that there is a piece of work that will be ongoing. She cannot give a definitive time frame for that suite of works that’s going to be undertaken or given. What I think she, hopefully, is able to provide the committee with is some mitigation that these concerns that are in place, right here, right now—and that’s the reason why the principal Act has been put into place to sort of, I guess, ameliorate some of those concerns.
What is the Minister seeking to do to ensure that the risks associated with unregulated medical devices—not regulated ones, because that’s subject to a whole new process or framework—that those that might want to engage, if they’re able to, with that type of device would right here, right now understand that there was a framework in place that would provide some certainty for them? If this bill is repealed, that certainty goes, so what is the Minister’s response to address the concerns for those out there that might have concerns in this space? What are this Minister’s plans to, I guess, allay some of those concerns?
The other is around the regulatory approach to these devices. Where do we sit compared with other global or international best practices? Is the Minister concerned that, by repealing this legislation, we would be better or we would be worse or there is no difference in terms of how we might be seen in a global sense, our international reputation, which is very important to this Parliament—indeed, I don’t speak for the Government, but it could be for them—how these changes or this proposed change would place us compared with other parts of the world?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for his question and recognise that the repeal doesn’t change anything around medical products and devices that currently exist at the moment.
The legislation, as we’ve said, wasn’t in place, so there were no additional controls that were in place. The repeal doesn’t change the state of things, and, in fact, from the feedback we’ve received, and, I think, from the select committee, the risk of over-regulating and not having risk-proportionate legislation would actually have made things harder for medical products, particularly in an advancing technology environment where we need to be able to be nimble and recognise and approve products quicker. There is no impact, on that basis.
In terms of international relationships, as I understand, I think at the moment, and I think it would have been recognised as this legislation was developed, that in terms of New Zealand’s approach around medical devices, we were a bit of an outlier in terms of the other countries’ approaches to controls around medical devices and medical products, which is why we’re pushing forward with this legislation.
SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 239 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2
Repeal of this Act
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 7, “Repeal of this Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like some clarification, first of all, from the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello on this. I know it’s just one particular clause, clause 7, so I’ll only be taking one call on this unless further clarification is required.
Can I just check that this is in reference to—and I know this is probably because it’s quite late—the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA), and not in terms of repealing the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill, or is it actually to do with repeal of the current legislation? If it’s the repeal of the current legislation, then we do have an amendment on this, which is to extend the repeal of the Act on the close of not “the 28th day” but “the 128th day” in order to provide further confidence for people and for some of the areas.
I want to address a few submissions in particular. The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians Board, and the Federation of Women’s Health Council are all concerned that the repealing of the TPA without a replacement might be harmful for the people of Aotearoa and will leave significant gaps in the regulation of medical devices.
So, I guess, just a clarification of what it is repealing, and if it is the one that I think it is repealing, then we have an amendment—if the Minister wouldn’t mind considering extending the close from 28 to 128 days.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I suppose a technical explanation on this is that, effectively, once this Act becomes an Act, it repeals the Therapeutic Products Act and then this Act repeals itself within 28 days, because it’s repealed its Act, so it’s a technical process.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Part 2 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate—clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for foreshadowing earlier that I have an amendment in relation to this part of the debate. There could be one around the actual title of the bill. Often, as we all know—well, not often; the title should always be what it appears to do, and I guess you could say that this is a repeal bill; it simply does that. It might be that others might consider that there needs to be something in brackets to, effectively, sense the trigger for the reason for the appeal, and there would be plenty of options there. When I reflect on some of the contributions that have been made and what it will mean—i.e., perhaps “(Not Taking Community Health Seriously)”, “(Delivering for Those That We’d Like to Deliver for)”.
I have an Amendment Paper which is related to clause 2, which is the commencement clause. As we see currently, it is proposed that this repeal bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent. If Royal assent is received today, or whether it’s received perhaps next week, it’ll kick in thereafter. What I am suggesting is that the words “on the day” be replaced with “12 months”. This gives a 12-month window for the Government to think about the potential implications of this particular bill.
The Minister has talked about the fact that, yes, there is a little bit of work that’s happening, but there’s not much really to be gained in delaying the Royal assent for this. We on this side, certainly in Labour, disagree. By providing a 12-month window to allow for some of the issues to be worked through—when I reflect on some of the issues around surgical mesh and other medical devices, particularly those that are unregulated, a lot can happen in 12 months. This could—if this amendment is adopted or agreed upon—lend itself alongside a suite of work that the Government might be doing to ensure that any changes are not just timely but are able to take into account any changes in innovation and technology.
Firstly, I’d be interested in the Associate Minister of Health’s thoughts around that. I really don’t see how this could—I know that sometimes when you look at a longer period of time, you could talk about that creating a bit of a delay. Well, when this already has implications listed in the principal Act to come in in late 2026, a 12-month period—even if Royal assent is given at the end of this calendar year—it would still be the end of 2025. That still provides a lot of time leading into the 2026 calendar year for the Minister to perhaps think about how that might work. Now, it might be that the Minister believes that the Royal assent, once given—that this should just come in, because it does provide a different time frame, but we’d be interested to hear from the Minister around why a one-year period would be unsatisfactory in this context.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Tangi Utikere for his amendment. Unfortunately, the 12-month delay would mean that we wouldn’t be able to implement the dietary supplement lift and shift into the new Food Act, and I think that the opportunity for that sector to develop their export markets and respond would be highly disappointing for no real benefit. As we’ve said, the repeal is about providing some clarity in the work programme ahead. I see no benefit, so won’t be supporting the amendment.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first, again, check in with the Associate Minister of Health—and I know that the Minister talks about commencement date, and we also support our colleague Tangi Utikere’s amendment around some of the delay.
Hearing from what the Minister is saying, I wondered if the Minister would consider, for example, putting in a delay around the commencement date for the bill itself but then separating out in saying that clauses 4 to 6 could be coming into effect after Royal assent, if the amendment 239 from the Minister is a genuine concern from a natural health product perspective and from an export perspective. I wondered if, then, the Minister, let’s say, would make that kind of adjustment—and I don’t know if Tangi Utikere, our colleague, would be open to that, having those two being separated out. Again, I think the Minister is looking at two—we can possibly have both and look at two separate issues, one in terms of export; one in terms of the reassurance from medical products and also a pharmaceutical perspective.
Just coming to the title of the bill, I think, in terms of the title—and we hear from the Minister what the Minister is trying to get at with this bill—it generally does provide uncertainty for us to see this bill being dropped at this particular moment without a clear steer of where we’re going as we’re discussing this committee stage. I wondered if the Minister would be open to considering this to be the “Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Delay Bill”, just because we are seeing that delay in the process.
Also, I really want to round up what the Minister’s saying in terms of Amendment Paper 239, and particularly in the context of exports. I think for me, as the Green Party’s trade spokesperson, it also brings a different level of concern, which is the concern that we’re seeing with the US Food and Drug Administration and also potential non-barrier tariffs or additional sanctions if we don’t have a particularly tight or up-to-date amendment when it comes to exports of our products. Would the Minister then consider the title of this bill as the “Therapeutic Products Act Repeal (but Potentially Creating Sanctions on Export) Bill 2024”?
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): One more. Last one, but make it relevant and quick.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): And quick? Well, I’ve got four minutes and 55 seconds of relevance that I’m happy to share with the Parliament. Madam Chair, thank you.
Look, I take the point that my colleague Dr Xu-Nan has raised, and I’ll be very open to making those changes if he is aligned to support that. The 12-month time period that I’ve identified—I have heard what the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello has said, but I do think that there are significant considerations. The Minister has talked about the implications for international—what’s the word; not “negotiations”—obligations that exist, particularly in the health supplement or dietary supplement sort of frame. I invite the Minister to reflect on the consideration of all the other changes that are impacted.
I accept what the Minister has said in her response—that there are international considerations there—but, Minister, surely that needs to also be weighed up against all of the other things that, effectively, you are gutting as a result of this repeal bill through the Parliament? The commencement is very important, in terms of when it comes in. I don’t know whether my colleague from the Greens wants to initiate that particular change or not. If he has, I’m happy to support that; if not, well, then we’ll stand where we are with the original Amendment Paper, but I do invite the Minister to reflect on not just the international obligations and commitments but all of those other things that are also important as well.
I note that there have been no other contributions and the Minister has not responded to the title. My question to the Minister when it comes to clause 1, which it the title clause—I know I had identified a few options there. My question to the Minister is: is she satisfied that the title as currently provided for, the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill, is an accurate title for this bill? We haven’t heard from her around that. It might be that her view is that simply calling it a repeal bill is appropriate. In light of that, though, has she thought about the various contributions that have been made in the committee today, and, if so, has she perhaps changed her mind and would she like to consider a different title? We haven’t heard from the Minister around this.
It might be that she is somewhat persuaded by the comments and submissions that have been made by members of the committee; if not, well, then we’ll hear that, but I don’t think there are any other Amendment Papers on there. Madam Chair, I thank you for your kindness in allowing me to take a call—not exhausting all of my time allocation.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Ha, ha! Sorry, I just think it’s worth clarifying, because the previous member talked a lot about international obligations and I have, at no point, talked about international obligations. What I have talked about is international opportunities for New Zealand’s market. I think that’s the consideration here. I just wanted to get some balance into that commentary: that this is about creating opportunity for New Zealand’s export market, and that’s the reason for it.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is—
Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just started voting.
Tangi Utikere: No, but there were members seeking the call.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Carlos Cheung.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand15.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Clause 1 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace the words “on the day” with “12 months” be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clause 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time.
The Government is delivering on its commitment to New Zealanders to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act—the TPA. Repealing the TPA is about more than delivering on an election commitment; it means the Government can continue its important work to prioritise timely and equitable access to quality health services. Repealing the TPA will allow for better replacement legislation to foster innovation within our healthcare system and for fit for purpose regulations around natural health products.
I would like to thank everyone who made a submission on the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. The TPA was intended to modernise the current outdated regulatory framework for medicines, medical devices, and natural health products. However, industry, practitioners, and consumers told us and Parliament that it didn’t get the balance right. The Government agrees. We also believe, along with the vast majority of those who submitted on the TPA, that natural health products should not be regulated alongside medicine and medical devices.
We therefore have a chance to put sensible legislation in place for natural health products, including dietary supplements. This will take time as we consult with the sector on an appropriate way forward. However, we do have an opportunity to make improvements now to support our exporters.
During the committee debate, the Government amended the bill to move the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 from the long-repealed Food Act 1981 and reissue them under the more recent Food Act 2014. While a small change to the bill, this will bring meaningful change to New Zealand’s dietary supplement exporters. The change we have made will allow for manufacturers of exported products to apply for exemptions from New Zealand - labelling composition requirements so they can better compete in international markets. The Government has an ambition of doubling New Zealand’s exports within a decade, and this sensible change will help achieve that.
This is only the first of many improvements this Government is planning to support our exporters to succeed on the world stage. Officials in the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Health are already working on other changes to the regulation of dietary supplements to support this growing sector.
Our actions here in repealing the TPA show that we are a Government who listens. I have heard those in industry who have grave concerns about the TPA and how it was going to be implemented. At the same time, patient groups and practitioners had pointed to the shortcomings of our current Medicines Act, which dates back over 40 years. The Government has listened to those concerned and is moving forward with the work for a new medical products bill. This new bill will not only ensure timely access to medicines but also support our innovators, our health practitioners and, most importantly, our patients. It will include provisions ensuring New Zealand’s health system is resilient and able to respond to future public health emergencies.
Repealing the TPA was a key deliverable for the Government for 2024. The passage of the TPA repeal bill has shown the Government’s commitment in getting important work done. The TPA repeal bill delivers on our promise to New Zealanders to get rid of law that would have created unnecessary barriers to access and unnecessary barriers to innovation. Repealing the TPA also sets the stage for us to put in place a better law that gets the balance right. This Government is committed to making good and long-lasting changes to the regulations of medicines, medical devices, and natural health products. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Here we are on—what is it?—Tuesday, 10 December, talking about a piece of legislation, a repeal bill, that didn’t need to happen under urgency, that didn’t need to happen now, that had plenty of time to happen at a stage where the Government could have been a little bit more open with their dialogue, a little bit more generous with their ability to answer some important questions about this bill—if they had made a different decision and that was a decision not to put it through urgency.
Never mind, we are here, and now we find ourselves in the position of being at the third reading. What is there left to say about the repeal of the Therapeutics Products Act (TPA)? Well, quite a bit, actually, as it happens, because it’s very clear that—well, I know I still had lots of questions that I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello during the committee of the whole House stage, but I didn’t get that. Given that this is my last opportunity to ventilate and to ask those questions, I’ll probably rhetorically work my way through some of them as I muse about this third reading.
Underlying all of that is the fact that I still, having sat through this process, am no further ahead in being any more convinced about the fact that the TPA should not have just been amended. There was absolutely no need to repeal. It’s clear to me that whilst, on the surface, the Act is being repealed, below the surface, people are still working in the regulatory space. There’s some parallel aspects involved in progressing this piece of legislation, and it would have made absolute perfect sense to do that through an amendment process. The only reason it’s not being done through an amendment process is because that wouldn’t have satiated or satisfied the appetite of the people that the Government needed to appease, essentially. That is why we find ourselves in this position.
As I said, there were several things that have been left up in the air in terms of clarity, and I certainly am no clearer about whether there needs to be an abbreviated regulatory pathway from here on in, because the Minister has constantly said things or said in response to questions, as a means by which to bat off a question, that there is no impact because the bill hasn’t come into effect. Technically, that is correct, but the regulations were all—that is the runway that was in place, the regulatory work that was being done. That takes time.
This repeal Act and, essentially, starting again in two different formats—does that regulatory pathway now need an abbreviated pathway to still get us to a similar time, which is September 2026, so that the new Act that’s repealing this one, that we don’t know about yet, that we haven’t heard much about at all; we know it’s coming. I would have thought that if the Government had campaigned on a particular thing and a particular promise to a particular group of people, they would have at least done some homework and made sure that they were ready to do what was needed, rather than just simply repeal. Again, that feeds my suspicion that it was just the repeal that was going to satiate those people.
Nevertheless, it is only true of the Minister to say that there will be no impact in relation to questions that have been asked if she is able to ensure that the new piece of legislation will be in effect by, roughly, September 2026. That, to my mind, would have necessitated quite an abbreviated regulatory pathway. I think this House is now none the wiser of what that pathway’s going to look like. We are none the wiser when we talk to people in the community or stakeholders in the community about what that process might look like or what the outcome might look like, because we haven’t been able to get those answers.
As well as that, there were also several things left unsaid in relation to natural health products. It’s all very well to say that the Minister has an intentionality of parcelling natural health products out into its own separate piece of legislation, but I just really wanted to know more about why the Minister believed it would have been necessary to do that. What were the advantages? What were the potential disadvantages of having a separate legislative framework? And whether she was actually willing to take some responsibility if things went wrong in the meantime. We’ll never know what the outcome of that will be.
One of the other things that was frustrating not to be able to get some clarity on during this process—and therefore, again, this third reading is the only opportunity to make these comments and to ventilate the issue—was the Minister’s thoughts and the Minister’s intentionality towards direct-to-consumer advertising. I certainly remember, the first time round with the Therapeutic Products Act, that was a really important piece of the puzzle. It was something that exercised people. It might seem like it’s not that important, but New Zealand is one of the only countries that still has the ability to advertise medicines directly to consumers.
Of course, that raises all sorts of ethical concerns. We heard from GP associations and various clinical groups saying that they can tell when a new wonder drug or a new product has started an advertising campaign on TV because all of a sudden they are incredibly busy and valuable GP appointment time can get taken up from people who are now seeking a prescription for something because they’ve seen it on TV. It’s a thorny issue and it’s something that the Therapeutic Products Act had grappled with, and I would have loved to have heard what the new Minister was going to do in that respect.
The natural health product side of this equation—and I can see why the Minister has chosen to section that out and to handle it differently, but it’s still really, really unclear about the risk proportionality. A lot of the criticism of the TPA was based on a misnomer that natural health products shouldn’t be treated in the same way as medicines—and, of course, they never were intended to be, and that is the nature of risk-proportionate regulatory frameworks. It would have been good—again, the theme of this third reading speech is missed opportunities. During this process, we simply haven’t had the opportunity to properly look at this bill, and we haven’t properly had the opportunity to consider, as we should have, the current Act, which is still in place. A big part of that would have been looking at natural health products and what the Minister’s intentions were about that.
The real consequences of repealing this bill, and this Act going through under urgency on a Friday at this time of day—having no chance to have a little bit of time between the second stage, between the committee of the whole House stage, and between the third stage to mull things over, to think about what’s being said, and to do the bill a proper service in the way it should have been done. Nevertheless, this is the way we find ourselves.
I still think that the Government needs to explain why it’s not choosing simply to amend. In lieu of an explanation, in the void of an explanation, we can only assume that they simply don’t have a plan. I think that that has borne itself to be very true today. If they don’t have a plan, they don’t know what they’re doing, and that doesn’t leave us with much confidence. If they don’t have a plan and they don’t know what they’re doing and they’re waiting for this to be done and dusted so they can kick off the next stage, then we really are going to be left behind. We understand, on this side of the House, having gone through the previous process, how long this will take.
My concern for the New Zealand public is that by doing this, by this Minister fulfilling a promise—an election promise and a coalition deal—the people of New Zealand won’t get the modern Act in place by September 2026 that they would have done. Instead, they’ll be left with a void, and that is just another way that this Government has demonstrated that they are taking us backwards and leaving us in a mess.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We just cannot support this repeal, particularly when there’s a huge void being left when it comes to a future legislative agenda.
Hon Member: There’s no void.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I hear the words “no void”, and I think it’s disingenuous to get lost in the technicism. It was rightfully pointed out by the previous speaker, Dr Tracey McLellan, that we are repealing something that hasn’t fully come into effect, and I’m just literally going to paraphrase the previous speaker: the runway has been set, and I think that cannot be right—resources were put into place so that, actually, we could have a modernised regime to regulate medicines, medical devices, and natural health products.
I think, when it comes to legislation, it’s a lot easier to burn things down than to create new regulations and regimes. Sometimes when things are not working, like, for example, when we have a benefit sanctions regime that is not working, I do think there’s a good argument to burn it down. On the other hand, though, when it comes to issues like this, we have heard from several sector experts, patients themselves, who think that simply going back to the Medicines Act 1981 isn’t the solution, and that we do need an alternative.
To me, there are several concerns around the use of urgency around this, right? I know in a previous speech there was a lot of bickering from this side around how it was Friday in a normal working week—yes, completely right, people will be working—but, actually, it’s worthwhile taking into account that the public has not heard what genuine alternative plan this Government has in place to create a robust regulatory framework to, for example, centre patient safety when it comes to really serious issues that have been raised by patient safety advocates. To me, it’s concerning that when the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello first spoke, the narrative was predominantly around issues around commercial gain, and there was very little substantive focus on patient safety issues. This is concerning, because while I can acknowledge there were robust exchanges last term around the commercial implications of this Act, a really important consideration should have also been the other elements of this Act that would have enhanced patient safety.
I also want to touch on something the previous speaker spoke on, and I feel really strongly about this; I actually had, during the passage of the Therapeutic Products Bill at the time, an amendment to it that, actually—I had a weird moment of shared purpose with Dr Shane Reti at the time around direct-to-consumer advertising, and this is relevant to this Act because we were told at the time that an outright ban of direct-to-consumer advertising wasn’t needed. In a weird way, Dr Shane Reti and I actually agreed that it was something that should have been done, that we should have had an outright ban.
We both had similar amendments at the time seeking to ban it outright, because the previous speaker was completely right; we’re one of the few countries who allows this to continue to happen. We have heard from GPs about the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising, how it takes up time for GPs, because the information that is filtered down through the advertisement isn’t always particularly helpful, and that actually clogs up time for GPs’ services. This ends up benefiting pharmaceutical companies and not necessarily public health.
This Act could have allowed for a regulatory framework around that. We were told that it could have been something that could have been looked into as part of it, but now we’re just going back to having no mechanisms to address this. This is an issue that I do think does need to be looked at by the Government, and if Dr Shane Reti at the time felt really strongly about it, I do look forward to hearing from the Government, now that somebody like himself is in charge, about what plans there are in place to address this issue.
I think it’s also important that we acknowledge that, actually, amongst genuine concerns and nuanced conversations about the Act in the last term, there was a genuine misinformation campaign that was coming from the ground in relationship to issues in the bill. This is why debates around issues like medicines and medical devices and natural health products do need to be grounded by evidence. These are areas that are fast-evolving and that therefore require constant attention; submitters, including those that may have held the view that this Act wasn’t fit for purpose, told us that we still needed alternatives beyond the Medicines Act 1981.
I do think it’s incumbent on the Government to be clear and transparent about what’s next, because while we may have had some comments about natural health products, that is actually one component of what this Act would have covered. Again, it is concerning to see us simply just repeal the Therapeutic Products Act. When it comes to the regulation of medical devices, for example, as I said earlier, we are in a situation right now where our health workforce is particularly stretched, where patient safety advocates have told us that, when we do have a health workforce that is particularly stretched, we risk having far more incidents where medical devices that are already deemed to be of concern are used, and where more injuries and more incidents that can cause harm may, basically, be put in place.
We’re now having a pretty concerning combination of issues—a repeal of an Act that could have addressed some of these issues in future, a Government that is under-resourcing our health sector, and, on top of that, that has an unwillingness to come forward with a transparent and robust plan to, I guess, bring forward a replacement of the Medicines Act 1981 and to have a modernised, robust regulatory framework to address issues, as I said earlier, on medicines, medical devices, and natural health products.
One of the things that we considered when we were debating this Act in the past—and I hope the Government considers going forward—is that whatever comes next, if we are to have another regulatory framework where a lot of the decision making ends up being left to regulations, as it was in the case of this Act, we need to make sure that those regulatory bodies are adequately resourced so that we don’t enter into a space like we did last term in the debate, where people rightfully felt that many of our health entities hadn’t actually carefully considered the voices of patients. That’s feedback that I do think we earnestly need to take on board.
To address that requires a Government that is willing to invest in the Public Service, to unlock the potential of the Public Service to be as much in touch to the ground as they can be, to enable the voices of patients to help weave whatever alternative comes next—if there is to be an alternative, which we actually don’t yet really know about. When we talk about some of the patients most affected by some of the issues that were raised in previous debates, we’re talking about people with rare health conditions, with really life-impacting disabilities or injuries that may be really hard to actually discuss in public. Therefore, that actually requires a really well-resourced public sector to go into our communities to have these really sensitive conversations.
Finally, as we close off this debate, I do want to mihi to all the patients who have actually helped drive change in this area over the course of the years, including, actually, helping to create the very same Act that the Government is about to repeal. It was the bravery and the voices of these patients—talking, for example, about the harm that medical devices such as surgical mesh have caused—that helped drive conversations at a national level, and actually helped support people internationally as well to drive those conversations. We are seeing how in other countries, medical devices, now at risk of being left unregulated here, are now being explored to be more tightly regulated in the future. I think that should serve as a lesson for us that, actually, when we do have patients giving us, very graciously, their experiences and their information to enable change for the better, we ought to listen.
I encourage the Government to come forward with an alternative to the Medicines Act 1981 to centre the wellbeing of patients in our communities and to resource the public sector so that our communities can be involved in creating that future.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): I’m very pleased to rise on behalf of ACT to talk about the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. ACT campaigned on repealing the Therapeutic Products Act, let’s be clear. We were very pleased to get that into our coalition agreement and we’re very pleased to deliver this today. Why did we campaign on that? Because, like in so many areas, the last Government got it wrong. They did not engage properly with stakeholders. They did not understand how to do public policy and they totally missed the mark. They didn’t involve patients and patient organisations properly. They didn’t involve healthcare professionals properly. They didn’t involve industry properly. And everyone agreed the Therapeutic Products Act was not fit for purpose; we know that from the submissions on the repeal.
What we are going to do in ACT and as part of the Government is actually get in place safe, effective, and efficient regulations that will actually get medical technologies to New Zealand faster and quicker. Just like our record investment in Pharmac—yes, that was this Government that delivered that; getting the latest medicines to New Zealanders—we’re going to do the same in the area of medical technologies. We’re actually going to talk to people, we’re actually going to find out how to do it, and we’re actually going to make sure that what we are getting is the best medical technologies. In addition, today, we’re doing something great by allowing our wonderful natural product exporters to actually get on, export the products, and make this country some money. This is a brilliant day. ACT is very happy to be supporting this bill; we are again delivering real change for New Zealand.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, this is a very simple repeal bill. Most of the Health Committee submitters who came in were in favour of the repeal. The original bill, the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA), was not fit for purpose. That was clear in the feedback. We are going to repeal this bill. Noting that the TPA has not commenced yet—it doesn’t commence until 1 September 2026—it is a simple repeal. This Government will provide enduring legislation to make sure that we get this right. I commend this bill.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): As my colleagues have previously said, we oppose vehemently the repeal of this Therapeutic Products Act 2023. People actually deserve medical products that are safe. They should be able to trust that when they are patients and when they are getting medical care, that the products that are used are regulated. I would say that, actually, patients probably assume that there’s good regulation in place if products are being used on them, especially here in Aotearoa where we have so much and we have the ability to actually have a world-class healthcare system.
If this Act is repealed, it leaves Kiwis without a safety net and it leaves people without adequate safeguards that the medical products used here are fit for purpose and won’t be harmful. It’s really concerning that when this repeal goes through, we’re going to be relying on an Act that is decades—decades—old. It really speaks to—if we’re to take the kōrero from the other side—this potentially well-meaning but flip-flop society, where we are actually just not on the fast track to anywhere except 1981. I think that that is super-concerning for us, because we just want to have laws that actually make sense out there outside of this Chamber.
The Therapeutic Products Act, which my colleagues across the House want to repeal, was worked on for over 15 years across successive Governments, and now that pathway has just been slashed. We are, like I said, on a fast track back to 1981. I think that it’s important that we think about the huge number of medical treatments and advancements and devices that are on the market now that will not have the protections in place that patients need and deserve. Regulation isn’t about banning medicines. It’s about having an up-to-date and modern healthcare system, which is completely achievable if we prioritise the people of New Zealand and patients who need our care.
Look, we have heard from patients who have raised serious concerns that out-of-date laws are leaving them with lifelong pain and injury, and it’s just not good enough. We can do better. Patients have told us of the heartbreaking harm caused by surgical mesh that has been dangerous and should not have been used. Every single surgical mesh case is heartbreaking and shocking. Now, former Green MP Jan Logie worked really hard to bring this to light and to be a strong voice and advocate for women who had been harmed in these medical procedures. She stood here in this House and said, “I will be the voice for you here.” She also said, “Harm caused by mesh can be life changing and include chronic pain, infections, and organ damage. People want to know that the health system is going to make them better, not add further to the pain and suffering they’ve already experienced.”
Now, we know that the Government is repealing this and are saying, “Hey, we don’t have anything to show you. We can’t show you the plan of where we’re going. But you know what? It’s OK. Let’s go back to 1981.” We oppose the repeal of this Act. Thank you.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to support the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. The Therapeutic Products Act 2023 has raised significant concerns amongst our community health sector and industry. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Rachel Brooking.
Hon Member: It’s you.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Sorry. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The split call there was my issue. I’m delighted to now be speaking after what has been a long week—still on Tuesday, 10 December, despite the rest of the country being on Friday afternoon—speaking here on the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill and—
Cameron Luxton: They finished the joinery this afternoon; they’re still going.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I can hardly hear myself speak, for whatever is happening over there.
I’m happy now to be talking about the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA); sad, of course, that it’s being repealed. Why am I sad about that? Well, that would be because this is a very inefficient way to go about lawmaking. We know—we have heard from previous speakers—that there is law around medicines and it’s from 1981. For 15 years, there was work trying to modernise that law. Why was there work trying to modernise a law from 1981? Well, that is likely to be because there have been many advances in the medical world since 1981. There are many more medical devices. There is new medical equipment. There is stem cell and CAR T therapy.
These are all things that were not around or not very well advanced in 1981 when that legislation was done. And, of course, we all know that we’ve recently had a COVID emergency that also doesn’t—
Hon Member: Do they know that?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No idea.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh! My colleagues are asking if the other side of the House remembers the COVID emergency, and if we listen to them and hear, we would think not. No, no, it doesn’t seem to—not sure that they want any sort of regulation or have any memory of that, but it is handy to have some laws on hand before an emergency happens rather than after it. [Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If you could keep it down. It’s important; the nation is listening. Doc—the Hon Rachel Brooking.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Not doctor—there we go. The TPA, as we’ve heard, covered a wide range of issues, and we know that some of these issues were unpopular. It seems that what that side of the House has done is responded to a very noisy group of people who were concerned about some particular aspects of that Act, and so they’re repealing the whole thing. They’re not dealing with the specific concerns at all; they are just getting rid of the whole thing, when there could have been discreet amendments to deal with the issues that they campaigned on and were concerned about—but no.
We know that this TPA legislation relied heavily on secondary legislation—that is, specific regulations. I’ve heard the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello say in one of her contributions that the work that was being done into developing those regulations will be continued, so I will take this opportunity to say to the Minister that I hope that she does use a robust process and doesn’t undo that 15 years of work that we have heard about. We’ve heard about it in a number of speeches and I’m sure that the Health Committee heard about it as well.
We also know that that regulation that was going to be made under the TPA would have been proportionate to risk. I often hear members from the other side of the House talking about how everything should be risk-based, particularly if it comes to undoing what they call red tape around environmental protections, but here there seems to be no interest in acknowledging that those regulations would have been proportionate to the risk of that medicine or device, which means if it was a low-risk natural health product, it would have had very different regulatory requirements.
We know that harm can occur without regulations and that there are gaps in the current law, hence the 15 years trying to fix that. We see in the select committee report that “Other submitters were concerned that the repeal of the TPA may leave gaps in the regulation of medical devices within New Zealand, as the TPA introduced regulations not already covered in the Medicines Act.” Then the select committee report goes on to a different issue, and this is around Medsafe, which I know some members opposite will be interested in; that was that many submitters “pointed out issues with the current regime for the regulation of medicines, medical devices, and NHPs.”
This included—and we’ve heard about that direct consumer advertising from my colleague—“Section 29 of the Medicines Act allows doctors to request the supply of a medicine that has not been approved by Medsafe. Submitters told us that, under the Medicines Act, nurse practitioners have all the prescribing powers of doctors, with the exception of being able to supply unapproved medicines. The TPA would have allowed the prescribing powers to be expanded, subject to the approval of the Nursing Council and the Minister of Health. Submitters suggested that this could be amended in future legislation.”
We know that there were many good things about the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). The TPA was needed. This Government has just decided to do what they do best. What is that? That is taking this country backwards by simply being exceptionally lazy and just repealing things willy-nilly. Now, we’ve seen that in the resource management space. About this time last year, I was standing here with the repeal of both the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. What happened is that the Government promised, “You, Labour”—sorry, not you, Mr Speaker, but the Labour Party—“when in Government, did a lot of work to reform the Resource Management Act, and had a long process and then two separate bills, and would have made it so much more efficient with the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. It would have taken all the heat out of the consent process and put it into the plans and the national direction—but, no.”
The Government said, “We’re going to throw this out, and we’re going to replace it one day. But, first of all, we’re just going to do these little bits and pieces here and there. Oh, and do you know what else we’re going to do? We’re just going to totally override the existing regime that we’ve gone back to, which everybody agrees doesn’t work. We’ll just do a fast-track. We’ll just say, ‘Oh, hey, our friends over here who want to do a particular project that we’ve got on to a schedule of the bill, let’s just do that and ignore the legislation that we know we don’t like.’ We won’t fix it. We won’t fix that legislation. We’ll talk about some future point that we might fix it.”
We can all sit here and agree that the Medicines Act 1981 is out of date. The Resource Management Act 1991 is out of date. But what are we going to do about it? We’re going to complain about it! We’re going to say any—
Hon Members: We’re going to fix it.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I’m hearing from the other side that they’re going to fix it. We haven’t seen any fixes in any of these things. All that’s happening here is it’s a lazy repeal and these empty promises of fixing things. It’s hard to fix things. It takes a lot of intellectual heft to fix things. You have to talk to a wide range of people, not just your mates. You’ve got to talk to everybody about how to fix difficult regulatory issues.
Hon Nicole McKee: That’s something Labour never did.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I think I heard someone say that Labour never talked to people about reform. That is very interesting, given the very full select committee processes that happened, that had exposure drafts to bills, that had panels with reports that went around and were talked to everybody about. But that is not what we see with this Government—no. They just go, “Oh, we don’t like this issue. There’s some political heat in it. I know, we’ll repeal it.”
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, I know that everybody’s excited to be still here, but if I could ask people to contain the chatter so that we can hear the speeches more clearly.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Mr Speaker, thank you. Unlike that side of the House, the MPs on this side of the House listen to people. We work for people. That is why we are repealing this Therapeutic Products Act. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I just was getting really excited then and thought that we were about to get an actual contribution to share with us what they actually heard from those people that they say they have talked to. But, no, we just got another 10-second contribution. The members on the other side of the House say that they have done this, but they have given us no evidence of them actually doing that in any of their contributions this afternoon.
I spoke earlier, in the second reading of this bill, and I want to say that after the very short committee stage of this bill, none of the concerns that I had when I spoke just a short time ago have been allayed—not a single one of them. I go back and make my points that this repeal is taking us backwards. This Government just cuts and repeals and has no plan for us to discuss and debate. They are taking us back to 1981. They think the system that is there is fine, that they can leave it in place for an undetermined amount of time because we didn’t hear when the replacement is going to come. I didn’t hear a good argument for why the issues that they say are in this legislation couldn’t have been worked out in secondary legislation, with industry, in the regulations in the time that is still available—“Nope, we’ll just repeal it and we will say that we’re going to do something, but we will not commit to the time frame for that.” Let me guess, they’ll probably say, “before the next election”—we will all wait until then and probably not see it. We didn’t get any clearer information on that.
On a very serious note—those points were serious, but on a more serious note—what I think we’re seeing here is the addressing of industry concerns over that of stakeholders and patients. You are giving them certainty, but it is at the cost of the certainty that stakeholders and patients needed. This is a political gesture, and I’m going to guess that the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party are going to race to claim that they have delivered for their voters, because it is both of them who are saying that it was their negotiation skills that got this particular bill over the line. It is all about political expediency and not truly that of the issues that needed to be addressed from outdated legislation.
In my earlier contribution, I was talking to the disappointment, frustration, and anger of patient advocates, particularly around surgical mesh. As I said, I was a former Associate Minister of Health who had that issue as part of my portfolio. An advocate in that space, Carmel Berry said, “I’m horrified. After so many years of developing and rewriting the act and getting it through … shame on them.” She is horrified that it is being repealed when it was only signed into law last July.
Now, the Ministry of Health last year paused the use of surgical mesh to fix incontinence until safeguards are in place, including a register and more training for surgeons, “But [Carmel] Berry said there was now nothing to stop another tragedy like mesh, which has so far cost ACC more than $32.5m in claims.” I did not hear the entire time I have been in the House for this bill anything from the other side that gives me any confidence that that solution is coming any time soon. This Government is rushing through this repeal under urgency with no plan to replace it. That leaves everybody, including industry friends, with uncertainty. I am so concerned about the patients, like the advocates that have spoken up, who are concerned about the repeal of this bill. I do not commend it to the House.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is not taking us anywhere; this is repealing the Therapeutic Products Act, which has not yet come into effect and has no impact on anyone. I commend this repeal bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s almost like déjà vu. For my last contribution at the second reading, I followed Dr Weenink. This time around, she’s added an extra couple of sentences. It’s really disappointing to hear that Government members on their benches are not taking calls, as part of this process, to actually explain to the public of Aotearoa New Zealand why this is a good idea. It’s almost like they’re handing around a little laminated card that says, “I commend this bill to the House.”, and then they sit down. They’ve got to that particular part in the week where it’s “Who can say it the quickest and sit down?”
I’ll tell you what, once my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime resumed her seat, I knew I was ready to go, because there was no chance they were going to make a full call—no chance at all. At least they’ve been consistent. We oppose this particular bill on this side of the House, and it’s almost like we have been talking to vacant seats of individuals over there, because the contributions that have been made from other members on this side of the House have been very considered, very erudite, and are really raising some of the issues of concern, and there is absolutely nothing but crickets and a little bit of chipper over that side of the House.
This is a bill that, as colleagues have said, will be taking New Zealand backwards. Why? Because the very Act that is currently in place is one that was seeking to replace, I guess, what 1981 looked like in some respects—technology, innovation, medical approaches, medical devices, all of these sorts of things. Members on that side want to take us back to that, because they have not identified an alternative instead. What they have said is that we’re simply going to wipe the slate clean and we’re going to start again in 1981—we’re going to start again in 1981—instead of acknowledging that there has been huge innovative progress, there have been huge opportunities around technological advancement and development. They’re not interested in that.
This bill, which is a repeal bill, basically seeks to get rid of 15 years’ worth of work in this Parliament—as has been said, 15 years of work from Governments of different colours, not just a Government of a particular shade, shall we say. This is a Government now that wants to wipe all that away and say, “Do you know what? We’re not going to actually have any replacement opportunity in place.” The Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello, in her response, talked about international opportunities. International opportunities are important—absolutely they’re important—but so is protecting the health and the wellbeing of citizens and residents of this country. That is exactly what this bill is going to compromise. It is going to compromise the health and safety of anyone who wishes to engage with anything that relates to health.
Todd Stephenson: There’s no change—no change.
TANGI UTIKERE: Now, Mr Stephenson says, “No change.” Well, if you don’t need to change, why do you need this bill? If you don’t need to change, why do you need this bill? What we have in place is a suite of work that is under way to address some of the real concerns and issues that have been raised. We’ve heard a little bit about surgical mesh. There was a response, granted, from the Minister around that, acknowledging that that was an issue—nothing from Government members, even though it has been raised on more than one occasion.
This is simply winding back the clock, and some would say, if you kind of looked at a parallel universe, it would be much earlier than 1981. There is always the opportunity for certainty, and what this Government is doing is quite the opposite. It is actually providing uncertainty in the area of health and wellbeing and of community safety.
We’ve heard a wee bit this afternoon about the direct consumer approach—the need for consumer protections—and we’ve all heard “Call within the next 30 minutes and get two for free.” The thing is, when it’s about consumer engagement and protections, what is so wrong with that? Well, members on this side of the House would say, “Nothing.” What members opposite are saying is “Actually, we’re not interested in addressing some of the protections for consumers when it comes to natural health supplements and the like. We don’t want to have a regulatory system that’s centralised to allow one port of call, so to speak, instead of all the different types of ad hoc legislation, whether they be primary or regulation through secondary legislation.” Instead, this is a Government that wants to remove all of that.
I want to thank my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking for picking up the point again about nurse practitioners. I touched on that in my second reading contribution. Not a single member of the Government since that point has identified the crucial role that nurse practitioners play. The Health Committee, granted, did contain that in its report, but the members opposite didn’t bother to talk about the impact that this would have—where this has been called for from communities of interest, where this particular bill will, basically, wipe away the opportunity that nurse practitioners have in the community to prescribe medicines that doctors would be able to but with two additional criteria: one, that there’s certification or some form of approval process through the Nursing Council, and the other is that the Minister of Health directly would need to approve it.
Members opposite, having had that information presented to them, are not interested in that. That’s not changing their minds. They don’t care about the role that nurse practitioners have. They don’t care about the communities in Aotearoa New Zealand that have called out for nurse practitioners to be able to do that as part of the work they do. Then, again, they don’t support the front-line workers in our health sector anyway, so it really comes as no surprise to me or to other members of this House on this side, because that’s their approach. Even though it’s pointed out to them, they’re not interested in that at all. This is what this bill does: it strips away opportunities for those hard-working members in our community in the health sector to do exactly that.
I proposed an Amendment Paper that the Minister didn’t like, so she voted it down, which is disappointing on a Friday afternoon, but that’s her prerogative.
James Meager: It’s a Tuesday.
TANGI UTIKERE: It is a Tuesday, yeah. For those that are actually tuning in, you might be wondering why the member from the Government’s saying that it’s Tuesday. It’s Friday 13th and we’re still here at Parliament, but the clock stops on the day that urgency starts, so it’s been a long, long four days here. I think it’s actually been longer than the National and Government members were actually anticipating, but that’s all right—they like to get an easy ride from time to time.
The proposal that I had in the tabled amendment was to, effectively, draw out to a 12-month period when this particular bill would come into effect. There was nothing to be afraid of around that. I mean, the Minister herself said that there was some work going on, but she didn’t really outline the details of that, and that just goes to the fact that this is a Government that is very happy to say, “You know what, we don’t like that. Why don’t we like it? Well, because as part of our election campaign, we promised to a smaller group of individuals that we need to deliver on this. We’ve delivered, tick the box, don’t really care—move on.” Well, that might be the particular purview of this particular Government, but it is not the purview of members on this side of the House.
Arena Williams: Not how it’s meant to work.
TANGI UTIKERE: It is not how it is meant to work. This is an unfortunate bill. It is an unfortunate bill that members opposite have not been able to elaborate on as to their reasons for supporting this. They’ve had ample opportunities. When New Zealanders reflect on the parliamentary record as to why this Government decided to repeal a piece of legislation and they have a look, there’s not going to be much actually there for them to go on, because the Government simply has not made out the case.
This is another example of the Government wanting to take this country backwards with its approach. All they needed to do was simply amend the existing legislation. Wasn’t that hard, wasn’t that bad. They simply needed—
Hon Members: We did.
TANGI UTIKERE: Well, members opposite, they mustn’t know. They said, “We did, we did.” That’s what a repeal bill is about: you’re actually not amending it; you’re getting rid of it. That’s what the word “repeal” actually means.
The reason why they’re not actually amending it is because they don’t have anything to put in and replace to amend it, so the easiest option for them is to simply wipe it all out and repeal it, and that’s exactly what they are going to do. They do not know what they are going to do. They cannot provide certainty for those in our community that want certainty when it comes to engaging supplements, but also when it comes to accessing medical devices of a whole range there.
This is a dumb decision, and instead of addressing these concerns that they might have through an easy option by way of regulation or secondary legislation, they are deciding to simply throw it all out with everything else. Unfortunately, we’re not surprised on this side of the House. It is a dumb piece of legislation, it is the wrong thing to do, and so we will continue to oppose it.
Arena Williams: To the last minute.
TANGI UTIKERE: To the very last second. On that basis, I do not commend this bill to the House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill provides certainty to the industry, to consumers, and to practitioners, much like the legislative agenda this week. This week, the Government’s delivered.
Hon Members: Mr Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Let’s see whose—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. [Interruption]
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. After all, we are looking at a call that was for the Opposition. I thank all of the members who had a last jolt of energy on this final stretch. Again, thank you all for being a part of this very long—I would say over 80 hours—10 December.
Now, in terms of this bill, one of the things that we wanted to check on with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello during the committee stage is what plan is there going forward and what plan has been done up until this stage. I think one of the things—and the Minister did explain and sort of enlighten the committee on a few elements, but one of the things that we don’t know for certain and there is no certainty on at this stage is the fact that we don’t know what the time line is for this new bill. That has been the concern of some of the submitters. It is at least good to know from the Minister that work on this bill has, basically, stopped almost immediately. Again, if the Government really wanted to, this was something that they could have introduced as early as last year, but that wasn’t the case and there wasn’t sufficient time during the committee stage to tease out why that was.
I do find it concerning that countless hours and months of work to produce 441 clauses, four schedules—in total, 257 pages of legislation—was able to be struck down and repealed with a sweep of one sentence in clause 3 of this bill. It is so easy for anyone—not just for the Government—to undo months and years of work. We know the public talks about wasteful spending—and the Government talks about wasteful spending. I ask: isn’t this an example of wasteful spending, of undoing everything that others are doing?
There is something that was very interesting that the Minister mentioned during the committee stage, and that is in Amendment Paper 239, and particularly with regard to export potentials. Again, what we haven’t heard and what hasn’t been produced is that that might be the intent but, again, that was new. That wasn’t simply a repeal of what is in the Therapeutic Products Act. That is something that the Minister wanted to do, and we have not seen or got confirmed evidence or information or advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, on the feasibility of any of this. I am concerned that when we do add in new amendments like this, when we do repeal legislation like this, that other countries have moved on and we are stuck in the 1980s and we have not moved on with the times.
As we’ve seen—and I mentioned before—with some of the latest concerns from New Zealand -owned or New Zealand - based or New Zealand - backed natural health products and the interactions with a US free-trade agreement, it does cause us concern whether we are potentially looking at tougher sanctions or higher non-tariff barriers from certain countries that this legislation would not have factored in.
Overall, like I said in the beginning, I am concerned. We have had a number of bills this week; every single one of them was to undo what the previous Government has done. Every single one of them is a case of tit for tat, and this is no different. Truly, if we want what is best for Aotearoa and for the people of Aotearoa, we should be looking at things that are going to be good for everyone and working in a direction that is going to be good for everyone. But I don’t get a sense of that from any of the bills that we have been debating on this year. So I will not commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Therapeutic Products Repeal Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 37
New Zealand Labour 22; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, this Tuesday has come to an end—it has become a Friday. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 17 December 2024. Kia pai te mutunga wiki—have a great weekend.
The House adjourned at 4.48 p.m. (Friday)