Tuesday, 17 December 2024

TUESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2024

TUESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Carlo Jaminola requesting that the House urge the Government to grant international qualified nurses (IQN) who have obtained their annual practicing certificate a 3-year open work visa, and limit the flow of IQN coming to New Zealand

petition of Shinichi Yamada requesting that the House urge the Government to advocate that the Japanese Government stops running 12 nuclear reactors in the southern part of Japan

petition of Maher Nazzal requesting that, on behalf of NZ All Out for Gaza, the House urge the Government to join South Africa’s International Court of Justice case against Israel, sanction Israel and their supporters violating international law, recognise Palestinian statehood, and increase humanitarian aid funding to the United Nations Relief & Works Agency.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 13 papers.

CLERK:

Government responses on the:

report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Hannah Blumhardt

report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Lydia Chai

petition of Seiji Tonouchi

2023-24 annual reports:

Network for Learning Limited

New Zealand Conservation Authority

Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust

Whakaata Māori

erratum to the New Zealand Film Commission annual report 2024

2024-2028 strategic intentions for the Social Investment Agency

2024-2028 statement of intent for Pharmac

2024-2025 amendment to the statement of performance expectations for the Electricity Authority

report to the Ministry for the Environment on New Zealand’s first emissions reduction plan: Amendment 2024, and Our journey towards net zero: New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan 2026-30, and the Technical Annex.

SPEAKER: I present an optional protocol to the convention against torture report of the Ombudsman on examination of the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Fifteen select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Environment Committee on the:

petition of Aaron Joyes

petition of Brigitte Sistig

petition of James Hita

petition of Niki Gladding

report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: Knowing what’s out there: Regulating the environmental fate of chemicals

report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: Wellbeing budgets and the environment: A promised land?

report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: Environmental reporting, research and investment: Do we know if we’re making a difference?

report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: Estimate of environmental expenditure 2019/20: Method and results, October 2022

reports of the Justice Committee:

District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

petition of Josiah Tualamali’i: Inquiry into solutions for youth justice

petition of Sunny Kaushal

review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Serious Fraud Office

reports of the Petitions Committee:

petition of Epilepsy Waikato Charitable Trust

petition of Public Health Association New Zealand

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the petition of Joseph Griffen

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee:

Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Report of the Attorney-General, Reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the review briefings are set down for consideration. The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: The Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Urgent Debates

Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024—Release

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Barbara Edmonds seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the release of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). Normally, urgent debate applications must be received an hour before the House sits. The Speaker has discretion to consider applications received after that time but before the House sits—Standing Order 399 and Speakers’ Ruling 215/1. The HYEFU was released at 1 p.m. and the application received shortly afterwards, so I’ve considered it. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. While not every release of Budget information will give rise to an urgent debate, the application today warrants setting aside the business of the House. Therefore, after oral questions, I’ll call on the Hon Barbara Edmonds to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Workplace Relations and Safety

1. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has she made in her workplace relations and safety portfolio?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): This coalition Government has been working hard in the lead-up to Christmas and I’m pleased to share it has been a busy month for my workplace relations and safety portfolio. Over the past month, I’ve announced a high income threshold for unjustified dismissal personal grievances, the removal of remedies for personal grievances in cases where the employee contributed to the grievance, the reintroduction of wage deductions for partial strikes, I’ve asked my officials to develop an hours-based accrual system for annual leave, and today I announced the new minimum wage rate for 2025 in order to give businesses certainty leading into the new year. Together, these changes will help rebalance the employment relations landscape. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Can you just stop for a minute. Now, that constant barrage across the House is not acceptable. Rare and reasonable was the deal. The Minister will continue.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you. Together, these changes will help rebalance the employment relations landscape, make it easier to hire workers, and reduce compliance costs so that both workers and employers can focus on what they do best.

Laura McClure: How will your announced changes affect employers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’ve met a lot of employers up and down the country, and I know that these changes will be welcomed by many. Dealing with vexatious personal grievances can be extremely stressful for employers, who can find themselves facing large and unanticipated costs. An employer’s own wellbeing and reputation can be harmed throughout the grievance process, yet for employers there is no recourse. Reintroducing wage deductions for partial strikes will be particularly welcomed by employers with workers in customer-serving industries, where it is often the public that suffer as a consequence of partial strikes. And employers have welcomed the decision I’ve made to scrap the previous Government’s approach to fixing the Holidays Act and pursue a much simpler and more workable path of an hours-based accrual to annual leave.

Laura McClure: So how will your announced changes affect workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: These changes recognise and reward the hard-working, aspirational Kiwis out there who are doing their best to make a good living for themselves and the people they care about. The changes to personal grievances will improve workplace culture and morale. Many workers will be able to recall a time they’ve had to work with a difficult—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Minister will just stop. I just spoke to the House about the constant barrage of interjections, none of which are reasonable, and they are certainly not rare. I point the House to Speaker’s ruling 65/2 by Assistant Speaker Robertson and Speaker Wilson and suggest that that is the course that we’re going to follow. The Minister can start the answer again.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: These changes recognise and reward the hard-working, aspirational Kiwis out there who are doing their best to make a good living for themselves and the people they care about. The changes to personal grievances will improve workplace culture and morale. Many workers will be able to recall a time they’ve had to work with a difficult employee or manager. This change is for workers who find it galling that the worst behaviour or mediocre performance receives a financial payout. An hours-based accrual system for annual leave will reduce the risk of underpayment that has plagued the current Holidays Act, and the 1.5 percent increase to the minimum wage rate that I’ve announced today will make sure young people continue to have the opportunity to get their first job, enjoy their newfound sense of responsibility, and build those necessary life skills that will take them far in their career ahead.

SPEAKER: Yeah, order is helped by Ministers being concise in their answers.

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 work to complete our latest quarterly action plan. In the last three months, we’ve completed 42 actions designed to lift New Zealand’s economic performance, restore law and order, and improve the public services that all of us rely upon. This quarter, that included a massive package of changes to the Resource Management Act designed to unlock growth and investment by slashing red tape for farmers and the primary sector, unlocking regionally and nationally significant projects through fast track—it’s still not too late for the other side to support it—and introducing fresh changes designed to unleash investment, housing, energy infrastructure, and farmers. This Government is working hard to make sure that we deliver for New Zealanders, and I want to say thank you to all my hard-working Ministers and the officials, who have been up all day and night making sure we unleash fast track on New Zealand. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, just wait until your own side settles down. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So who is correct, then: the Prime Minister, who says that his whole Government is relentlessly focused on his quarterly action plan, or his Deputy Prime Minister, who says—and I quote—“I don’t have this sort of dashboard crap that I see other people perform on and a 50-point plan, or a 100-point plan, or a quarter-year plan”, and if Winston Peters thinks that his plans are crap, why should Kiwis think otherwise?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just want to say what a fantastic Deputy Prime Minister we have, because not only did he complete his two actions in the quarter four action plan—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Wait on.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —on the racing industry—

SPEAKER: Excuse me—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and around knocking off—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —greyhounds; he did a brilliant job—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry.

SPEAKER: Reaction to something is fine, but keeping it on like that is not. Now, I’d invite you to start again, but I don’t want that reaction again, so pick up where you left off, please, Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I was saying, the Deputy Prime Minister did an excellent job of completing his two actions of the 43 in the quarter four action plan, which were to help the racing industry get ahead, and also to make sure we deal with the greyhound industry, which he did very, very effectively and very, very well. And I think, if you asked the Deputy Prime Minister, he was referencing his previous experience working with the last Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has his Government agreed to increase the fees paid to directors of Government companies by between 39 percent and 104 percent while increasing the minimum wage by less than the rate of inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if I take the last issue first, we have found a balance with a 1.5 percent increase to the minimum wage—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, sorry, this has got to stop or someone is leaving, or a number will be leaving. It’s unbelievably bad. Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I would talk to minimum wage, we’ve proposed a 1.5 percent increase to the minimum wage. But this is also a Government that actually cares about low and middle income working New Zealanders. Unlike the other side, who failed to support tax relief for low and middle income workers, for the first time in 14 years this Government has delivered tax relief, inflation relief, and interest rate relief. Importantly, every quarter of this Government, wages have grown faster than prices, unlike the 13 quarters in a row under the previous administration. So we care about working New Zealanders, on this side. We’re supporting them with FamilyBoost and supporting them with Working for Family credits and tax relief.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why—

SPEAKER: No, no—hang on. There’s a lot of people on your own side talking while you’re starting. Just wait until the House is quiet, and the House—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister actually addressed the questions that were asked, rather than giving a long speech about things unrelated to the question, there might be less interjection on this side of the House.

SPEAKER: Well—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Order in the House goes both ways, Mr Speaker. If you’d like order on this side, you might want to make sure that side is also complying with the rules. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Hon Shane Jones: Three strikes.

SPEAKER: Excuse me. The member might like to reflect on his own question: “Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions?” That leaves it open to anything and any answer from that point.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s a very new ruling; one that’s not consistent with any—

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a new ruling.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —other Speakers’ rulings in the past.

SPEAKER: It’s not a new ruling.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A supplementary question that is quite specific is still a specific supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Well, look, that might be the member’s view, but I’ve heard Speakers—many Speakers—talk about the open nature of that particular question, which is a feature of today’s question time: “Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?” That would assume that he can talk about anything that the Government has done: actions and statements.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: You’re speaking to your point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, a further point of order, Mr Speaker. If I place a more specific question to the Prime Minister at a future question time, will you ensure that it cannot be transferred to another Minister?

SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately, the Standing Orders allow the Government to do that. The member is welcome to have his representatives on the Standing Orders Committee raise that, along with the other six matters that the Standing Orders Committee is currently dealing with for matters that are of contention in the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, a new point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be aware that the Standing Orders Committee has previously discussed whether questions should be specifically allocated to the Prime Minister and there should be a set number of those, and it was the National Party that blocked that.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that—

Hon Chris Bishop: That’s not right—that’s just not right.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Thank you. The Leader of the House is not immune to the prospect of being asked to leave. Don’t speak whilst points of order are being taken. I’m sure that the member will be aware of the convention—which, apparently, are very, very important here—that one Parliament is not bound by another. So I’m sure that if the member’s people brought that to the Standing Orders Committee, it would get a fair hearing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is it that under his Government, minimum wage workers have to tighten their belts with a real-terms pay cut while company directors get a 100 percent pay rise?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we’ve talked about minimum wage workers. There’s a 1.5 percent increase, along with income tax relief, along with FamilyBoost, along with Working for Families credits. With respect to professional directors that we’re asking to run some of our largest entities, they are not paid market rates, they won’t still be, but it’s actually acknowledging that we want to attract good people to make sure we have high-quality governance. I’m sure the member would understand that, given the variety of messes that he left behind in the last Government. Good governance matters to deliver—to deliver—and get outcomes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that that sort of response from the person answering the question does elicit a reaction, which I think is reasonable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why are minimum wage earners having their pay cut in real terms, despite the cost of living crisis, while their power bills keep going up and the directors of Transpower, who are increasing the charges all New Zealand consumers face, get a pay increase of over 56 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just point to that member and say that this is a Government that has, for four quarters in a row, seen wages rise faster than prices—total wages, right? So, if you think about that, under the previous administration, there were 13 quarters in a row where prices were greater than inflation. So real wages are increasing under this Government in our first 12 months. That’s fantastic. You’re in a situation where you see three rate cuts versus 12 rate rises—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, there were admittedly two parts to that question: one concerned minimum wage workers; the other concerned directors of Transpower. I didn’t ask about average wages; I asked about minimum wage workers and the directors of Transpower. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed either of those questions.

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister was cut off in the middle of the answer—although it was extremely long. What I would also suggest is that minimum wage is part of the average wage calculation. Prime Minister.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will finish the answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I’ve said, we want to make sure that we get professional directors that are closer to market rates, not at market rates, to make sure that we have good governance of significant Government entities that need to deliver. That’s what we’re focused on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If KiwiRail did such a lousy job of managing the Interislander, why has he agreed to giving its directors a 90 percent pay increase while minimum wage workers go backwards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I won’t get into the specifics of decisions of the board of KiwiRail around CEO pay, but what I will say is that we are determined to improve the quality of governance of our Government entities across New Zealand. It’s really important. So all we’re doing is we’re not going to full market rates; we’re just finding a pathway to make sure that we can actually attract good people to come on and do those very important roles.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealand’s minimum wage at around 70 percent of the median wage is one of the highest in the developed world, and does he find it surprising that the Labour Party would like directors of public Government-owned companies to be paid a fraction of what private sector companies are paid?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, today, you’ve been very harsh on this side of the House in terms of our compliance with the Standing Orders. The minute David Seymour mentioned the Labour Party in his question, the question should have been ruled out of order. He has no responsibility for the Labour Party, and using a Government patsy question to attack the Opposition is completely out of order.

SPEAKER: You’re quite right, and had it not been for the speed with which the member raced to his feet to take a point of order, I may well have ruled that way. I’m doing so now. Leave that out; finish the question.

Hon David Seymour: Could I start again from the beginning, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, not if it’s going to be the same question.

Hon David Seymour: It’ll be a revised version.

SPEAKER: Well, a lot of revised versions cause trouble, but do your best.

Hon David Seymour: This’ll be designed to cause as little trouble as possible.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, he’s asking a question.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister wish to confirm that the minimum wage in New Zealand, at around 70 percent of the median wage, is among the very highest in the developed world, and does he believe it important that publicly owned companies have directors that are remunerated at a rate that is comparable and perhaps almost competitive with the rates paid to directors of privately owned companies so they can be productive and efficient for the public?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to both legs of that question, yes and yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who’s correct: Nicola Willis, who claims she has “delivered” new interisland ferries, despite not knowing who will build them, how much they’ll cost, or who’s going to pay for them; or Winston Peters, who said, “There are far more viable propositions that are yet to be considered.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am very proud of the value-for-money option that Nicola Willis has delivered, because it is a safe, reliable, resilient service that will be in operation in 2029: two rail-compatible ferries. But we have a new Minister for Rail and, given we’ve got time to make the ultimate procurement decision, if he can improve on that: good luck.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Good to see them working so well together!

SPEAKER: Question number—good, when everyone’s ready.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on Government finances?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Earlier today, I released the Budget Policy Statement. At the same time, Treasury released its half-year update, which contains the latest set of forecasts. They tell a positive story about growth returning to the New Zealand economy, and they also highlight some challenges for the Government’s books. Forecast provisions have made it more difficult to address the situation we inherited, a rapid increase in debt over the past five years, and an extended period of Budget deficits, but we are firmly committed to turning that around, and the books show we are headed in the right direction.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the Budget Policy Statement say about Budget 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Budget Policy Statement sets four priorities for Budget 2025: (1) lifting economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges; (2) implementing a social investment approach to drive better results from the Government’s investment in social services and thereby improve life outcomes for people with high needs; (3) keeping tight control of Government spending while funding a limited number of high-priority Government policy commitments and cost pressures that cannot be met from reprioritisation; and (4) developing a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investment.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is improving productivity so important?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government’s focus is not just on the fiscals; we are also focused resolutely on growth, and that must come from productivity improvements, not just from working more. The Government has a busy programme but is collectively aimed at improving productivity, from resource management reforms to overseas investment, to gene technology, to fast-track consenting, to labour market regulation, to education, to infrastructure, and so on, and that has a loop back to the fiscals. Additional growth of even a quarter of a percent of nominal GDP each year would boost tax revenue by $2 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. That’s a win-win.

Ryan Hamilton: What alternative advice has she received about fiscal strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I receive a lot of advice about fiscal strategy, much of it unsolicited. For example, I recently received a letter from 15 economists telling me to increase current and future Government spending. I noticed that several people who signed this letter telling me to spend more were advisers to the previous Minister of Finance, and two are currently on the Labour Party policy council. I wasn’t surprised. I’ve also heard advice from a person saying that the Budget surplus is a moot point and that a future Government that they could be finance Minister in would consider taking on more debt. This actually did surprise me, because it came from Barbara Edmonds.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially today’s announcement that we are taking further actions to keep Kiwis safe in emergency departments (EDs) this summer. If you visit, or work in, an ED, you deserve to feel safe. And over the holiday period, EDs can be particularly busy and stressful places. That’s why we’re building on last year’s successful programme and ensuring more support is available to keep Kiwis safe: 20 hospitals will receive additional funding for security, and further funding will be available if there is a major incident or event that requires a greater security presence. Our Government’s working hard at improving public services that all Kiwis can rely on, whether that’s in the community or in an emergency department.

Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government’s benefit sanctions help to put more kai on the table or less kai on the table this Christmas for the thousands of hungry tamariki in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of the traffic light system that our great Minister from the Ministry of Social Development has implemented, because what it means is a pretty simple requirement: show up and talk to your case manager, get a resume, and show up to your job interviews.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that his decision to put the wellbeing of landlords over the wellbeing of tamariki will put 20,000 more children into poverty by the time his term is up?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud about is under Budget ‘24, with all the cost of living measures that this Government delivered for low and middle income New Zealanders, 17,000 children are going to be taken out of poverty—compared to the last year of the Labour Government, where 23,000 more children were put in poverty.

Rawiri Waititi: What does he say to Logan, a 7-year-old tamaiti who wrote to Santa asking for a burger to share with his mum for Christmas?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I acknowledge that across New Zealand, it’s a pretty tough time. That’s what happens when you don’t run an economy well. If you care about low and middle income New Zealanders, you run the books well. You don’t spend more, tax more, borrow more, and deliver less.

Rawiri Waititi: If I sold three houses and earned $769,500 in untaxed capital gains, how many burgers can I buy for Logan and his mum?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order!

SPEAKER: Well, the point I’d make is that the Prime Minister cannot be expected to know the fluctuating price of burgers anywhere in the world, let alone New Zealand. The question is out of order.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that “I earned that $769,500 through hard work” or did I benefit from the increased demand of housing driven by his mega-landlord donors?

SPEAKER: Now, that question’s out of order too.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I do suggest that we’re going to have to, some time between Christmas and New Year, do a familiarisation course for members of Parliament. That sort of question is outrageous in the extreme; it’s hypothetical in the extreme and would not be accepted in any First World Parliament, let alone this one here that’s been going since 1854. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me. Who’s speaking during a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Marsden Point close-down merchant was speaking to me when I was talking.

SPEAKER: Was that helpful?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What was that?

SPEAKER: In fact, I didn’t hear it. I’m sorry. The point was that the question is out of order and I’d already ruled it out of order before the point of order.

Rawiri Waititi: Has he read the book by Mary McHugh, How Not to Become a Crotchety Old Man?

SPEAKER: Well, much as it might be of interest to the House to find out what the Prime Minister’s personal reading materials are, I don’t think it was necessary to give a demonstration of what the book was about.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In context, yes. I particularly stand by my statement to the effect that now more than ever is a time for disciplined Government spending and a focus on driving economic growth.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the last time net core Crown debt was this high, which will peak at 46.5 percent of GDP, was in 1994?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is also the case that in the past five years, the last Labour Government added more than $100 billion to New Zealand’s debt. And we, as a Government, are now saddled with the task of bending that debt curve back—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on! Just stop. Stop, thank you. You can’t expect me to have any view on the quality of an answer if the noise is so loud it can’t be heard. Now, that might be the intention, but it’s not going to continue. Minister, begin answering the question—answer the question again from the start. I am going to make it clearly a point that it is not inappropriate to mention matters of policy conducted by a previous Government.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The context for New Zealand’s debt position is that in recent years, more than a hundred billion dollars was added to debt, blowing it out as a proportion of GDP. It is the fiscal intention of this Government to see that debt curve curve down, and we have laid out a path to achieving it. I’d also note that the member opposite is the very same member who told Radio New Zealand she doesn’t think debt is a problem.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that net core Crown debt will now be 3.5 percentage points higher than what was forecast in her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have set out today in the Budget Policy Statement, it is the case that forecast revisions to New Zealand’s GDP trajectory will have an effect on debt. That is why it is so important that the Government maintain a disciplined fiscal position with lower operating allowances than have been the case in recent years when the last Government blew spending out as a proportion of GDP, leaving our economy in a very challenged state. If that member wants to join those on this side of the House in the pursuit of fiscal discipline, I can only welcome it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that there will be $58.7 billion more debt, peaking at $235 billion, than what was forecast in her Budget only six months ago?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have laid out today in the Budget Policy Statement and as Treasury has laid out in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, downward revisions to the fiscal forecasts have had an effect in two ways. One, the current recession is estimated to have started earlier and to be more protracted than had previously been forecast. And, two, there has been a downward revision to productivity forecasts. This does have an effect on debt. Now, this Government believes there is a place for debt, for borrowing for long-term infrastructure assets. We also believe it is very important to get debt down to a trajectory under 40 percent of GDP. Again, I note that if the member wishes to join us in that pursuit, that would be novel for her and her party—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. That’s enough—you’ve answered the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: She knows what she’s doing. No wonder you warn her.

SPEAKER: Listen, it’s very hard to listen to an answer when you’ve got a very, you know, resounding voice coming in one ear.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Do you want me to talk to her?

SPEAKER: If you wouldn’t mind.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she take responsibility for the growth forecast being revised downwards since her Budget and predicted to be $20 billion smaller in 2028?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I won’t take responsibility for the mistakes of the last Government, but I will take responsibility for fixing it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she plan on shifting any other goalposts to help reach her targets, like she has done with the definition of “OBEGAL” and with child poverty targets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisations of the member’s question.

Question No. 6—RMA Reform

6. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What progress has been made in meeting the commitment in the Government’s Quarter Four Action Plan to “Passing the Fast-track Approvals Bill to speed up delivery of regional and national projects of significance”?

Rawiri Waititi: By getting rid of the Treaty.

SPEAKER: Whoa—just give him a minute.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you very much. This afternoon, the Fast-track Approvals Bill will receive its third reading, fulfilling one of the actions in the Quarter Four Action Plan. The new system will be up and running in early February 2025, with listed projects able to apply directly to the Environmental Protection Authority for their substantive application process to begin. We’ve long said it takes too long and it is too hard to consent things in this country. This Government is getting on with the job of fixing that through fast-track.

Katie Nimon: What positive feedback has he received on the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s been extraordinary going up and down the country. Anyone who’s tried to get anything built in this country has been radicalised against our current consenting process. One constituent wrote to me to say, “The fast-track process is an excellent initiative for the right project. I agree it needs to be maintained.” Another simply wrote, “Keep up the excellent work. Protesters are only a minority.” And, of course, it was interesting in the House last week to see Labour Party MPs both vote against the fast-track but spend much of the committee stage debate lauding various projects listed in the bill, most notably the Hope Bypass project down in Nelson, which is, of course, a road of national significance and a Government priority—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sit down!

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: You’re a tangiweto!

SPEAKER: The member knows that those proceedings should not be brought into the House at this particular time. And I’d say to the member on the end of the cross benches on the Opposition side that she needs to modify her contributions considerably in order to stay.

Katie Nimon: Does the Minister expect to see economic growth benefits from the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, we do. There’s no doubt that the cost and time of consenting stifles economic growth: so much time and money spent on long costly processes. These 149 projects, the initial tranche, will help rebuild our struggling economy and kick-start growth around the country. If we want a brighter future for New Zealand, we have to stop giving in to a nimby, low-growth, status quo minority. We deserve a country with thriving infrastructure and world-class industry, where New Zealanders can live the lives they want to live without having to get sign-off from the local council for every single thing they do. Fast-track is about saying yes, when for too long we have said no.

Katie Nimon: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: And this will be a nice concise answer, I’m sure. Ask the question.

Katie Nimon: Why is economic growth so important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as members will have seen today, the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update shows the Crown’s financial position has deteriorated over the past six years, and I echo the views of the Minister of Finance, who has rightly noted that this reinforces the need to drive greater economic growth if we want better public services and more opportunities for young Kiwis. We are battling anaemic levels of economic growth. Our status as a First World country is not guaranteed. We should not take it for granted. If we want to be a growing economy that provides the revenue and the world-class opportunities New Zealanders need, we need growth. Fast-track is a way to deliver that, and that’s why this Government is backing it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he really thinks that he’s given due credit to the Hon David Parker, who provided so much inspirational precedence for this legislation?

SPEAKER: That would be a question asking the Minister to reflect on what might be considered a personal failing, so we’ll move on now to Question No. 7.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. 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: Does the Prime Minister think that it is the job of his Government to decrease wealth inequality?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government’s working incredibly hard to raise incomes, to provide economic growth, and to lower the cost of living.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister name one—just one—Government policy that will decrease inequality in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have adjusted tax for low and middle income working New Zealanders. We have increased the Working for Families credits. We have also provided FamilyBoost for people dealing with expensive childcare. We have provided inflation, interest rate, rent stability, and also tax relief for low and middle income working New Zealanders.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister believe that we have a fair tax system when the IRD told us all last year that the wealthiest 311 households in this country pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander, and his Government has chosen to re-entrench those settings?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s well established by Treasury that, you’ve heard them say, we have a progressive tax system.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did the Prime Minister also hear Treasury say that we would have a more productive economy if we were to implement a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can tell you that would not be the case. That would be a wrecking ball through our economy, because we have been in recession for three years—

Chlöe Swarbrick: The IMF! The OECD!

SPEAKER: No, sorry. The member’s just asked a question. If she keeps on yelling out across the House like that, she won’t be asking any more questions for the rest of the day, let alone participating. Let the answer come to a question you’ve put so much time into asking.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry, point of order, Mr Speaker. That was the first time that I heckled the Prime Minister, that I offered a response to what the Prime Minister was saying. Are you saying now, as a Speaker’s ruling, that I am not allowed to respond in the course of an answer being provided by the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: I’m saying that you can find it in Speaker’s Rulings on page 65—and I think it’s 2 or 3—that you cannot sit in your seat and yell at people; it’s not how it works. Does the member have another question?

Chlöe Swarbrick: How tough have the choices been for this Government to knowingly make decisions to enable the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer in real terms?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I absolutely reject the characterisation of that question. This is a Government that has been working incredibly hard to make sure that we rebuild an economy that helps low and middle income New Zealanders get ahead. That is the failing of the last Labour-Greens Government.

Question No. 8—Health

8. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Health: What recent statements has the Government made on keeping emergency departments safe this summer?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): At Wellington hospital this morning I reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to keeping staff and patients safe in emergency departments (EDs) this summer. We know that EDs can be particularly busy and stressful places during the holiday period. That is why our Government is again taking extra safety steps to ease this by building on last year’s successful programme and our additional commitment in Budget 2024. Over the summer, Health New Zealand will increase security in 20 mostly provincial hospitals across the country and have further surge capacity available if additional security is needed. We want to ensure that our ED staff stay safe this summer.

Tim Costley: Why was it a priority for the Government to provide this uplift in emergency department security?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Violence or aggression against patients, visitors, and health workers won’t be tolerated. Both staff and patients alike deserve to feel safe when they’re working or visiting hospitals in their time of need. This initiative reinforces that. That is why we announced both fixed funding positions as well as a flexible funding package which allows Health New Zealand to surge security support across emergency departments when needed. This is particularly helpful during summer for the many events being held in regional and rural areas.

Tim Costley: What feedback has the Minister received on the importance of this initiative?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Since becoming the Minister of Health, I have travelled across the country, visiting both regional and rural hospitals to hear feedback from the front line. During these visits, both staff and patients have commented to me how important this initiative has been in ensuring that people feel safe when visiting or working in ED. That is why this initiative will provide 44 additional full-time security personnel across our eight high-priority EDs, a flexible funding package to surge security support when needed and further provisioning for 12 security trainers.

Tim Costley: What other initiatives has the Government undertaken to improve our emergency departments?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Last week, we provided an update on our five key health targets. After years of deterioration, ED wait times remained relatively the same as they were the year before, whilst seeing roughly 18,000 more people presenting to our EDs. This is a particularly impressive achievement given our hospitals were tackling some of the highest rates of respiratory illness in almost a decade. However, there is still more work to be done to continue driving improvements in our ED wait times. That’s why we have introduced initiatives like new acute-flow operational standards and invested in discharge and transit lounges. We are absolutely committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his refusal to be interviewed on cuts to information technology in hospitals on the ground that it is an operational matter; if so, can he guarantee that hospital care and data will be safe?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes. Health New Zealand is undergoing a reset process as a result of the troubled health reforms of previous years. Cost blowouts have meant that Health New Zealand needs to refocus on its core functions, which include providing the healthcare that New Zealanders need whilst living within its means. The health commissioner is leading this process with staff, with the aim of gathering feedback on proposals. It’s important to note that no final decisions have been made. I’ve been reassured by the commissioner that the reset is being undertaken in a careful and considered way, and it remains my expectation that hospitals and data will continue to be safe.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement in the House that redundancies for vital support staff at Health New Zealand are an operational matter as well, and, if so, what does he say to clinicians who are being tied up in admin rather than providing care?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In response to the answer to the first arm of her question, yes, I stand by that statement.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his refusal to comment on the loss of face-to-face after-hours services in Porirua because it is an operational matter, and, if so, what does he say to community members who want to know if they’ll get the care they need?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In response to the first arm of that question, yes, it is well known that where technical or detailed operational matters are concerned, it is an operational matter for Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why is he evading questions on the operational realities of how New Zealanders are cared for in our health system and the consequences that stem from his direction to cut $1.4 billion in health spending?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I reject the assertions in that question and would point to the fact that we are trying to turn around the reset from the botched two years of health reforms that member was a part of.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his commitment to lower wait times for surgeries, or are operations now operational too?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes, I do stand by that commitment to lower the wait times for surgeries.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about getting councils back to basics?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced reforms to get councils back to basics to reduce pressure on rates, deliver core services, and modernise outdated rules to drive efficiency and cost savings. These measures include removing the four “well-beings” from the Local Government Act, benchmarking council performance to hold them accountable. Ratepayers deserve councils that focus on the basics, like fixing pipes, filling potholes, and delivering reliable services, rather than expensive nice-to-haves.

Tom Rutherford: Why is the Government removing the four “well-beings” from the Local Government Act?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The evidence shows that when the four “well-beings” were in legislation, rates increased approximately 2 percent more per year. Removing them sends a clear signal that councils must prioritise roads, rubbish, and reliable infrastructure. Ratepayers simply cannot afford excessive spending on nice-to-have projects or duplication of roles with central government. By focusing on core responsibilities, councils will reduce unnecessary financial burdens on their communities.

Tom Rutherford: How will benchmarking improve council accountability?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Benchmarking is a crucial tool for improving transparency and accountability. The Department of Internal Affairs will publish an annual report on councils’ performance, including key metrics such as rates, council debt, capital expenditure, balanced budgets, and road conditions. By providing ratepayers with clear information, these reports will empower communities to assess how well their councils are managing resources and delivering services in their local communities.

Tom Rutherford: When will the first benchmarking report on local councils be released?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news: the first benchmarking report on local councils will be released in the middle of 2025, ahead of the 2025 local elections. This report will give hard-working ratepayers and residents across the country clear information about their council’s financial performance prior to going to the polls in October 2025.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. LAN PHAM (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): Sorry, I missed the translation. Can you repeat the question? I missed the translation.

Lan Pham: 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: Yes.

Lan Pham: Can the Prime Minister confirm that no level of environmental protection will remain for public conservation covenants, outstanding natural landscapes, or water conservation orders under the Fast-track Approvals Bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s not an accurate—I reject the characterisation of that question. But what I’d say to you is that I am incredibly proud of the fast-track legislation, and I really hope it’s not too late for the Green Party to get on board, because we really do want to have a 30 percent increase in renewable energy projects across this country, we do really want to build 55,000 more houses, and we want to build up 180 kilometres of new roads.

Lan Pham: What would he say to the public concerned that some of the 149 project applications that his Cabinet approved under the fast-track process were required to disclose their track record of prior compliance and enforcement actions against them, and didn’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’m not getting into the details of individual projects; there’s an expert panel process that will manage that. But what I would say to that member is that the New Zealand public are actually sick of how long it takes to get things built in this country. There is no justification to take 19 months to build a three- to four-bedroom home that’s 50 percent more expensive than the same home in Australia.

Lan Pham: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment. OK.

Lan Pham: Did Cabinet consider whether the 149 applications contributed to regionally and nationally significant infrastructure, and, if so, what was the rationale for including projects that didn’t even bother answering how they supported regional or nationally significant infrastructure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we have a process where projects will go through an expert panel. But what I’d say is these are projects of national and regional significance, and we make no apologies for making sure that we prioritise economic growth after three years of being in a recession, thanks to a Labour-Greens Government.

Lan Pham: Will he commit to reconsidering projects included in the Fast-track Approvals Bill if the Auditor-General inquiry into Cabinet’s handling of conflicts of interest finds the process was not managed appropriately?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: A hypothetical question—I’m not answering it.

Lan Pham: Where does localism fit, when his Government won’t give local councils the decency of a response in even acknowledging their opposition to the fast-track projects in their city, district, or region, when even their democratic plans will soon have no weight in protecting their communities and their environment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There is a way, through the expert panels, for them to make a contribution. But, again, this is a Government that is making no apologies for getting things built quicker, prioritising economic growth, and making sure we get things done. That is what this country needs and I can tell you people are excited about fast track coming to a town near them shortly.

Question No. 12—Rail

12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statement regarding any new Cook Strait ferries that “Rail-enabled ferries is part of our considerations, yes, and that is a no-brainer”; if so, will he guarantee that the new ferries will be rail-enabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Can I say to that member: I’d have thought this is far more important to be question No. 12 today, but we get on with the answer. Nothing has been ruled in or out. We are looking at all the options—the costs and benefits, and the pluses and minuses—and we’ll make decisions based on the best interests of our country. We are not going to make silly pledges before the work is done, and we can guarantee the member that we are not going to be asleep at the wheel like his colleagues were for the last three years.

Tangi Utikere: Was the Government advised that work on a new Picton wharf needed to begin this year, and, if so, what impact will any wharf and linkspan upgrades in Picton have on the ongoing operation of the rail-enabled Aratere ferry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’s not a secret to anyone apart from that side of the House that the port of Picton needs to be rebuilt in the next few years regardless, and we’re going to be looking at those plans as we find out from the experts what it might entail.

Tangi Utikere: Was the Government advised that the rail-enabled Aratere would need to be retired in 2025?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Reality is that that was a scenario painted by the now disbanded ministerial advisory group, and the reality is that the decisions have not been taken by the Cabinet on that matter.

Tangi Utikere: Can he then guarantee that the Interislander’s sole rail-enabled ferry, the Aratere, will be scheduled to continue operations until 2029?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can guarantee is that, having had a meeting early this morning with KiwiRail and MUNZ—that’s the Maritime Union—at midday, and we’re going to consult with everybody, and we’re going to find out exactly what’s going on and what went wrong. And then we’ll come to this House and declare transparently—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Don’t you know?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, we don’t go off the top of our head like the previous Government. We get the information and we don’t go from $401 million—which is what I charged them with in May 2020—to now, according to Treasury, $4 billion. That’s inexcusable.

Tangi Utikere: Was the Government advised that the cheapest and most basic option for new Cook Strait ferries came in at $282 million each, which for two ferries would add up to more than the rail-enabled ferries contracted under iReX?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What’s amazing about that question is this: that we were talking about two ferries and we ended up with $4 billion on the account and no one over there is being responsible. We’ll make one promise over here: we’ll come in far, far, far less than that.

Tangi Utikere: Why did Nicola Willis miss the deadline for making a decision on ferries at the end of July this year, as recommended by her ministerial advisory group?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Actually, ministerial advisory groups don’t set deadlines for this Government. We’re not run by the bureaucracy; we run the thing from Cabinet. And the Minister that you’re talking about, the finance Minister, had a nightmare on her hands and I’m deeply sympathetic with her predicament.

Urgent Debates

Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024—Release

SPEAKER: I call on the Hon Barbara Edmonds to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

There was once a time in our country where a child who’d lost their parent could rely on the State to provide a safety net so that they wouldn’t fall through the cracks, where a child whose parents lost their jobs could turn up to the local WINZ and be treated with respect, have dignity, and be asked questions like “How can we help you get into work?” There was once a time in this country where a Government would help their people get into their first home, and would continue to build social housing so that those who didn’t have a home could have access to a roof over their heads. There was once a time in this country where evidence, science, and data would drive decisions by a Government—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon Chris Bishop: Bishop.

SPEAKER: Bishop—sorry. Yeah, OK, let’s start again, shall we?

Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, you have granted an urgent debate on the Government’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). We are now one minute into the speech of the member who requested the urgent debate, and we’ve had a lot of talk about children, or one particular child, but the HYEFU has yet to be mentioned. So it’s a bit strange that we’re now enduring a general debate speech with two days left to go in the year, when we’re meant to be having a debate about the HYEFU. We’re prepared to debate it, but the member seems unprepared to actually address the issues.

SPEAKER: Well, that I consider to be a pretty unhelpful point of order. I was watching the clock. The member will come to a point very, very quickly, but I suspect that she was setting up the points that she wants to make about the HYEFU, which is not unreasonable from someone who is getting to move a debate.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Economics is about people.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Because it’s all about people. Every single number in the HYEFU is about decisions that impact people, that impact communities, that impact organisations, and that impact businesses in our country.

There was once a time in our country where social service providers could depend on Government funding to serve communities that the Government could not reach. There was once a time where Oranga Tamariki service providers could care for vulnerable children because they knew that funding was coming down the line. They knew that when times were going to be tough, there would be a Government to serve them. There was once a time in our country where Governments made decisions, took responsibility for them, and paved a vision and a future for our country that served everyone, not just their mates in the tobacco companies, not just their mates who are landlords, not just their mates who are getting far higher remuneration than minimum-wage earners.

With the release of the half-yearly fiscal update and the Budget Policy Statement, it’s very clear that those days are over. Let me run the House through the numbers. Net core Crown debt will peak at 46.5 percent. Net core Crown debt will now be 3.5 percent higher than what was forecast in the Budget; $58.7 billion more debt, peaking at $235 billion, than what was forecast at Budget. The economy is shrinking. It is predicted to be $20 billion smaller in 2028. The $19 billion higher net core Crown debt will be higher than what was in the Minister of Finance’s Budget.

If it wasn’t clear, I am pretty sure it is crystal clear now that this Government is borrowing for the groceries, is borrowing for tax cuts, and has made deliberate choices to make it hard on every single body except for their mates. They are giving with one hand, “With tax relief”, the Minister will crow, but, on the other hand, they have reduced the subsidies for public transport funding. It’s going to be more expensive for our kids—

Hon Nicola Willis: What’s this got to do with the HYEFU?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —to catch the train or the bus. And the Minister of Finance is asking, “What’s the relevance of this?” That’s the problem. That is the problem. She is so removed from the connection of her decisions to people in our community, to the families who have to put their children on rail or buses, from the families who have to depend on their schools to pay for their lunches. For the ratepayers who depend on a Government to support them with water infrastructure, to spread out the debt across the generations to help them so that this generation is not crippled with that debt—that is what fiscal prudency is about. But, again, that side of the House fails to connect that this document with numbers is all about people.

Now, I will hear the same spin I have heard for the last year from this Government. We will hear the same spin: “We inherited a mess.” Well, you know what? We take responsibility for our spending that saved lives, that ensured families and employees stayed connected to their workers. We take responsibility for that, because 20,000 people did not die because of those decisions. We take responsibility for the infrastructure spend that we had to do, which I note many Government MPs across the House have been present at to either cut a ribbon or to put a shovel in the ground. And I get it, right—I get it. I get that the infrastructure spending through COVID to fix fire stations across the country were needed. Fire stations help meet the needs of communities, so I welcomed those Government MPs last year when I was cutting the ribbon, because I knew the importance to the community, I knew the importance to people.

What really, really grates me is this particular sentence in the Budget Policy Statement, on page 3: “Second, savings will need to be found, beyond those already identified in the previous Budget.”

Hon Nicola Willis: Yes—absolutely.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: “And third, with a small number of exceptions, government departments should expect to receive no additional funding in the Budget.” And “Yes”, the Minister of Finance says—but it’s choices. We told the Minister of Finance that the tax cuts were unaffordable. We told the Minister of Finance that that was absolutely irresponsible, but she still gave the tax cuts, she borrowed more for the tax cuts, and as a result she has taken away with the other hand. She has ripped away that relief by making it harder for families to access relief for early childhood education, by making it harder for families for public transport subsidies, by removing universal prescription fees, by ensuring that they’re not putting downward pressure on rents, by giving tax breaks for landlords. This side of the House did have interest deductibility, but it was for the build of new houses. It was to incentivise the building of new houses.

What do we see from the other side of the House—and this is what I need to warn New Zealanders of. Every single MP, when you go to your community, will need to go eye to eye with these social service providers who are dealing with more homeless people, who are dealing with more people who cannot make their everyday budget because of decisions made by this Government. Instead of helping those families being able to access their entitlements—their entitlements—this Government has just made it worse. Dashboards, performance indicators—what about these people’s entitlements? They’ve lost their jobs. It’s quite clear in HYEFU that this Government has no plan to help the economy grow, and that’s why the numbers reflect that. That’s why our economy is shrinking.

No matter how much this Government likes to say productivity will get us out of here, I’m still waiting for that plan. Has anyone seen that plan? Anyone seen that plan? Anyone seen the plan to build infrastructure? I’ve seen plans for potholes—I’ve seen plans for potholes—but what I haven’t seen is a vision, a plan for our country. All we’ve seen is cuts, but then handing out free relief to their mates—taking away from everyday New Zealanders in order to pass the buck on to them another way.

We are having more New Zealanders—almost every five minutes—leave this country because they don’t see any hope. We are seeing grandchildren leaving this country because they will get paid better over the ditch. They will get better work conditions. They will have people that will fight for them. There will be infrastructure projects that are happening. Instead, we have 12,000 fewer construction sector workers because this Government, based on these numbers, based on more cuts to come, will not be building houses. They will not be helping to repair our schools that need repair. They will not be helping to ensure that our infrastructure and our construction sector workers stay here. You need that pipeline—you cannot just wish a pipeline of builders, plumbers, and sparkies. That’s why we are having net record migration from our green shores: because this Government is failing New Zealand, with no plan and no vision for the future.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, for the first minute I wondered if that was going to be a leadership pitch, but judging by the faces opposite, that made them feel even glummer than they do when Chris Hipkins is asking questions. What that speech confirmed is that the Labour finance spokesperson is still labouring under the naive illusion that every spending whim can be met from the magic money tree at the bottom of the garden. Well, there is no magic money tree. There is the back pockets of working New Zealanders. While the last Government was happy to treat them like a bottomless ATM, running up the credit card, there’s now a fiscally disciplined team in charge. What that speech demonstrated is that the Labour Party members opposite have not yet taken pause to consider, “How should we differentiate ourselves from the spendthrift, debt-ratcheting lot that preceded us?” Instead, what they are doing is saying, “Everything is fine here.” In fact, it’s like The Lego Movie: “Everything is awesome”. “It’s all fine—nothing to do with us.”

Well, a few facts, because I like numbers—I think that’s good in a finance spokesperson. Here’s the first one: net core Crown debt under the previous Government went from $57 billion to $175 billion; more than $100 billion added to debt in just five years under the past Government, going from 19.5 percent of GDP to over 40 percent of GDP. Here’s another one: the operating balance—the difference between what the Government was earning and spending—was in deficit for five of the years they were in office. Here’s the third thing: what was driving that? Well, spending was so lavish—went up by more than 80 percent on things like light rail phantom projects that went nowhere, three waters reforms that nobody wanted, the idea for a pedestrian bridge over the harbour—that operating Crown expenses went from under 30 percent of GDP, 27 percent, to more than 33 percent. And all of that spending, what did it do? It drove inflation to 7.2 percent, creating the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. What do we get from the finance spokesperson? She says we should have just carried on as we were.

Well, today, what I laid out is that this is a Government with a tough job on its hands. In the half-year update, we are truly seeing Labour’s chickens coming home to roost. Now, we’ve had a chapter in New Zealand political history where the Government’s focus was continuously on how they could spend it—how they could spend more and more and more and add more layers. Well, that chapter now needs to come to an elegant close as we open the chapter called “How do we earn it?” What New Zealanders understand is that, if you want a nicer car, you need to earn more money. On this side of the House, we understand that. For New Zealand to have the public services that Kiwis deserve, for young people to have the opportunities that they need, for us to be able to have the growing incomes we all aspire to, we have to grow the long-term productivity of this economy. Today’s books lay that very bare.

Now, I am a little confused by Labour’s position. I want to take you through a few things. On the one hand, today, we had a focus on the fact that, yes, as a result of the deteriorating fiscal forecasts, we are expecting an uptick in debt as a proportion of GDP. That is something our Government takes very, very seriously. It is why we have instilled a disciplined fiscal stance with very tight operating allowances. It is why we are conducting the good business that small businesses, households, everyday New Zealanders do all the time, which is saying, “What can I reprioritise to make sure my money is going to the most important things?” As a Government, we’re saying, “We want to invest in schools, in hospitals, in police.” To do that responsibly, without creating a monster debt burden, we have to be prepared to look for savings.

Barbara Edmonds seems to think that we should just ignore debt. As recently as March—just eight months ago, colleagues—she told Radio New Zealand that a future Labour Government would consider taking on more debt. That’s her solution. Just two weeks ago at the Labour Party conference, surrounded by her mates, she argued that surplus—that is getting the books back into balance—is a moot point. This kind of mixed position is very hard to take seriously. Of course, I actually feel for her, because what she’s surrounded by is a group of people who wouldn’t know how to run a business and a set of accounts if it rolled them over. Two members of her own party policy council recently burst into print, arguing that the way out of the Government’s economic challenges is to spend more. That was their answer that, in fact, what needs to happen is to simply spend more. Well, when we look at the fiscal position that the Treasury updated today, what it does show is that that position has deteriorated significantly over the past six years. It turns out that the Labour Government’s decision to go on a reckless spending spree has had pretty significant impacts on our economy.

I do want to highlight this for members, because we are going into Christmas and New Zealanders deserve some good cheer. Here I would tell you there is some good cheer in the documents that were released today that Barbara Edmonds is clearly yet to read. The first is this: the economy has reached a turning point. Inflation is back under control. And that matters to every New Zealander who has struggled with rising prices over these past three years. The Reserve Bank has begun reducing interest rates. That matters not just to every family with a mortgage, but it matters to the small businesses who are going to see more money flowing into their tills too as those families have a bit more to spend. What these books also show is that household spending and business activity is expected to lift.

After several years of growth jumping along the bottom, in and out of recession, we are now able to forecast confidently a sustained period of economic growth. I do care about what that means for GDP and I do care about what that means for debt to GDP and the operating balance and all of the measures which we’ve accounted for in these books, but mostly why I care about it—and this is the disconnect with the member opposite—is because when you grow an economy more, you provide better opportunities for New Zealanders. Actually, that’s where higher incomes come from, that’s where better jobs come from. Higher employment comes with higher growth. If you look around the world, the countries with the best health systems, the countries with the best appointed classrooms, the countries that invest the most in science, are the very same countries that are the wealthiest.

That is why, on this side of the House, we take so seriously our duty to take a range of measures to increase the productive capacity of the economy. There’s no silver bullet. It’s not all going to deliver tomorrow. Does that mean we shouldn’t improve human capital by getting the basics back in our schools? No, it doesn’t. It means it should have been done six years ago, and they didn’t do it. We’re going to continue our reforms to cut back the red tape that has weaponised too many of New Zealand’s laws against progress, against development. We are on the side of getting things built and getting things done, and the fast-track legislation today proves just that.

We are a Government that will get into 2024, when it comes to infrastructure delivery, partnering with the private sector, using modern funding and financing tools so that New Zealand can have the infrastructure needed for productive growth. We’re going to get serious about the science system, about making it commercial, because, actually, we need to connect our economic growth objectives with a considerable investment that we make in science. We need to not just sell to ourselves and talk to ourselves about how to spend money. We need to connect with the world. We need to say yes to investment from those firms and countries who want to create good jobs and incomes here, and we need to trade with those countries too.

Where we stand today is in a very stark place, because I recall, in my time in this Chamber, thoughtful debates where people talked about how to solve the problems. What we’ve had from those opposite is simply wilful denial about the challenges New Zealand faces. Well, the good news is this: Kiwis are smart people. They elected a Government who they could trust to get on and solve it. We have laid out a path to get our books back in balance, to bend the debt curve down, and to do it while investing in essential services. And here’s the thing: we’ve closed the chapter that’s all about spending more for spending’s sake, and now we’re getting on and earning it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. You cannot cut your way to prosperity, and here I just want to point out a few things from the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). The fiscal decisions of this Government and of this Minister of Finance have exacerbated the recession. The Reserve Bank initially indicated that we were facing just a light downturn, but now the growth numbers keep on getting worse. This time last year, HYEFU was projecting a 1.5 percent growth this year; now, the actual rate is minus 0.2 percent. Next year’s growth, at the Budget in May, was projected to be 1.7 percent, but it’s now projected to be 0.5 percent. That is because this Government is not even meeting its own rhetoric and metrics of economic orthodoxy. The Government is cutting its spending from approximately 34 percent to 30 percent, but it knows that households and small businesses, and definitely not the oligopoly that we’ve been taking about at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, are not going to fill that gap.

Government decisions, decisions made by the politicians sitting on that side of the House, are diminishing the growth that they so love to talk about. They are diminishing productivity, and they are knowingly increasing inequality and climate-changing emissions—

Hon Simon Watts: Rubbish!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —which, Minister of Climate Change, will only make things worse for future generations. Treasury’s forecasts have only massively deteriorated since the Government took power. In just one year, the Crown’s forecast operating balance for 2025 has worsened by 50 percent, from a deficit of $6.6 billion to $9.9 billion. This is unprecedented outside of global financial crises, and it’s self-inflicted because the Government has decided to contract its spending so much.

HYEFU shows us what all of us know—that is, that tax revenues have stalled due to unemployment, which Government decisions have exacerbated, and company failures and a deep recession; that the Government expenditure is climbing due to that unemployment and those company failures, and there is no evidence whatsoever, no plan that we are hearing from this Government, to get us out of that. This is the austerity playbook. It is to defund public services to failure, to watch them fail, point that out to the public, and then say, “Hey, we should privatise that.” Mark my words: that is the next thing on the agenda. Treasury notes that the Government’s planned road-building frenzy, which the Minister of Transport was crowing about in question time today, has no believable source of revenue other than to widen the deficit faster than Waka Kotahi can widen those lanes.

We heard just before, from the Minister of Finance, about how if you want a nicer car, you’ve got to earn more money. I think the Minister, who was doling out to members of the Opposition some orthodox economic speaking notes, should in fact reflect on the fact that the economy is not a car. The economy is all of us, the stuff that we create, and the rules that we put in place in order to try and get certain outcomes, and what this HYEFU underscores is that we are setting up for a two-track economy—that is, wage and salary earners, beneficiaries, and small businesses all going backwards. Meanwhile, the oligopolies—that is, our banks, our supermarkets, and our gentailers—will continue to compound their power and their profits under decisions made by this Government.

We can have a better world. It is entirely within our grasp. In fact, all members of this Chamber know that, because all members of this Chamber were across the Inland Revenue Department report released last year which told us that the top 311 households in this country hold more wealth combined than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders. That is not an accident; that is a conscious decision made by politicians in this place to entrench a tax system that, we all know, sees those at the top pay an effective tax rate less than half that of the average New Zealander—that is, our teachers, our nurses, our doctors, and those public servants at the front line, who are paying double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest. This landlord Government is laughing their way to the bank.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to talk about this Budget Policy Statement and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, but first, I just want to remark on a couple of comments I’ve just heard from Chlöe Swarbrick.

She said that this is an austerity Government that’s spending so little money so that it can make businesses go broke and then point to the failure. Now, I just want to bring some facts into the debate. In the back of this document we’re debating today, it says very clearly that in 2018, 2019, when Chlöe Swarbrick was on the Government benches, voting for every Budget, the Government spent 27 percent, 28 percent at max; today, in this statement, the Government is spending 33 percent of GDP. Only Chlöe Swarbrick can point to a Government that’s spending five percentage points more of the economy than she was responsible for spending and then say that this is an austerity Government. What I’d say to Chlöe Swarbrick is that a political career is a little bit like one of those polaroid photos: slowly, people see your true form. Chlöe Swarbrick is increasingly being found out for having great-sounding rhetoric, but when you look at even the most basic facts of what we’re debating, she doesn’t stack up.

I want to say to Barbara Edmonds, who stood up and said, “These numbers are about people—these numbers are about people.” Yes, we know that, Barbara Edmonds, but the fact that people are facing such a tough time at the moment is precisely because we had a Government that was happy to lock people down—to lock people down in their homes, to stop them from seeing their loved ones, and she said, “Oh, I’m so proud of our spending that saved people’s lives.” Actually, the spending was made necessary by the excessive response to COVID. Here’s the really interesting thing about that argument from Barbara Edmonds: the spending kept on going, even after COVID had ended. That is what this Government now faces. That is what we hear from the Opposition. I didn’t want to spend the first half of my speech talking about the Opposition, but people need to see what the alternative actually is: people that are profligate and wasteful and put us in a position where, yes, Barbara Edmonds, real people are having hard choices going into Christmas because the predecessors spent it all.

I’m proud to stand on this side of the House, where we don’t sugarcoat it; we face up to the reality that these are tough times. These are tough times for the New Zealand economy. They are tougher, it’s been revealed in these documents, than the Treasury had previously reported. They’ve had to point out that the economic conditions five years ago were not as good as they were reporting back then. That is because we have a productivity problem in New Zealand. No matter how hard people work—and we’re some of the hardest-working people in the world—people aren’t getting the increase in productivity.

What are we going to do about it as a Government? Well, two things. We are going to reduce wasteful Government spending. I predict we’re going to have to reduce it by around $6 billion and find ways to do stuff better and smarter. I know what the other guys will say; they’ll say, “Oh, well that means you’re going to cut services.” No, actually, spending money is not its own objective. Our objective is to deliver better and more efficient outcomes for less money, just like people in farms and firms and families have had to do while they were in Government, and continue to as we turn the economy around.

The second thing we’re going to do is we’re going to reduce red tape and regulation so people can spend more time doing the things that make their lives better and allow them to provide for themselves and their loved ones, and less time in compliance and administration activity or being dissuaded from using their creativity whatsoever. That’s what we have to do.

We cannot afford to listen to the rhetoric, the empty and—as I’ve shown—inaccurate rhetoric of the Opposition. We must confront the reality that this Government faces alongside New Zealanders and make our own operations more efficient in order that New Zealanders can see the Government taking a smaller slice means having more for themselves. The Government places less red tape and regulation on them so that New Zealanders can use their time and talents for the good of our nation and themselves and their families. Under those conditions, I’m confident we will see a turn-around that will keep these people far away from any levers of power for a generation to come. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Finance): The value of today is that the New Zealand public has been given access to data which reflects that Treasury itself realises it needs to do better. This is a revision of forecasts where Treasury itself says that it’s had to go back and rework its own modelling, and this document says that those forecasts reflect nothing in terms of what this Government is doing to remedy and turn around the situation that the Government has inherited.

Yes, you’ll hear all sorts of strange, bizarre rationalisations from the cooker, lentil speakers from that side of the House. This has got nothing—nothing—to do with the changes that we are making because they are overdue. Go no further than page 8—growth strategy. The growth strategy is necessary because we’ve come out of a recession. We’ve come out of a period of time where the Reserve Bank has maintained extraordinarily high interest rates to deal with the legacy that we inherited: too much money chasing too few goods.

If you’ve got any doubt as to whether or not the recipe we are pursuing viewing will or won’t deliver, look no further than the massive growth in export income coming from the primary sector announced last week. Fisheries up. Horticulture up. Farming up. Forestry increasing. What does the other side of the House want us to do? They don’t want a growth strategy. They want us to halt our regulatory green, brown, red tape - busting efforts, but unless we free the economy from the calcified rules and regulations we’ve inherited, we will not see the growth.

Sure, we are going through a struggler’s gully dip, but then all Kiwis know that, because they’re managing their own household budgets. No one believes the green soup, the cultural promises that have been put about by the Opposition. It is only by building confidence and certainty with new investment, which will flow and blow forward into our economy like leaves in an autumn storm, and the effect of the fast track will be like a storm—blow away all the cobwebs of complacency, blow away all of the insects trying to eat and gorge upon our own ability to pay and govern ourselves with a surplus.

I say to you Kiwis, the reality is that this is a day of a turning day. We are confident that we have the policies, we have made the decisions—yes, we do need to make an effort to take the public with us, but we’re justifying why we’re doing these things because it leads to economic surplus. The economic surplus is the only way the hospitals, the schools, the nurses will thrive. That will not take place unless we boost innovation, change the regulatory framework, and also invest in education. Strip out of our education all of these marginal issues to do with gender and such matters. Go back to science, go back to mathematics, go back to reading and writing, because that’s where we’ve got a deficit.

Of course, these are contestable ideas, but there are things that you cannot contest—i.e., we have inherited a system where costs are consistently understated and risks are overstated. For those reasons, the recipe, the changes, and, indeed, the options that will be outlined later today inside the fast track—and it’s a tragedy that they won’t vote for it, but they will all be present when the projects are opened. They will all stand and cuddle the workers when they have new jobs. They’ll all stand and use the new infrastructure—bridges, roads, new infrastructure that will define a new era of prosperity in regional New Zealand.

My plea: New Zealanders, dismiss the empty promises, and, as I’ve described earlier, the cooker, lentil Green thinking. Kia ora tātou.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Well, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric coming from that side of the House—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Harry Potter.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —and that was like listening to a Harry Potter movie, not that I’ve watched many. I would suspect that’s what it sounds like: “That we’re doing the best we can for all of New Zealanders, and the growth strategy, but it’s important to work now to create conditions for future growth!” They talked about employment, but unemployment is up. It’s the furthest up it’s been in a generation, at 4.6 percent. For Māori, it’s double that: 9 percent unemployment—shame! Shame on you.

Māori debt—no surplus. There’s more debt, no surplus. It’s different Government, same story for Māori. This is what happens when you put a landlord who flips houses for profit in charge of the country. This is what happens. I’ve got a bit lost with David Seymour’s kōrero. I know he’s not lost because he’s got an “atlas”. He’s got an atlas to show him the way, and when you hear the rhetoric coming out of that side, they’ve all got an atlas. You hear “elite Māori”, you hear all of that. All of that has been orchestrated by their atlas you use to ensure that you don’t get lost when you’re using the mother of right-wing think tanks—when you’ve got the mother of right-wing think tanks and the mother of the past chairperson of Atlas Network giving money, donating money to ACT. Dame Jenny Gibbs—absolutely: $50,000. You can tell that they have an atlas that makes sure that they don’t get lost, and lost in a way that continues their policies to benefit the 2 percent of the population that control 50 percent of this country’s wealth. That is what we’re dealing with.

You get $3 billion in tax cuts for landlords while more than 2 million people are earning less than $30,000 per year. You get a tax system that lets the richest New Zealanders get away with only paying 9.4 percent in tax while the rest pay 20 percent. You get a Prime Minister who makes $769,500 in untaxed capital gains while he cuts school lunches. Five more years of deficit means five more years of pōharatanga—of austerity and pain for our people.

This Government is facilitating the biggest transfer of wealth in a generation from hard-working whānau to property developers and landlords, all while putting our country in an economic hole. As people, they are ripping off the working class, the poor, and we’ll have to dig ourselves out of this hole. Talk is cheap—talk is cheap, unless you are the Minister of Finance. When you’re the Minister of Finance, it costs $1 million an hour. That is how much this Government is borrowing to make up the services they cut. This Government can borrow billions for deficits of their own making, cut jobs of hard-working people, cuts to healthcare, and give landlords a free ride. Where is the investment? It isn’t where it should be, in the future of our mokopuna.

Real deficits are staring at us in the face: a housing crisis that leaves whānau in garages, a health deficit that sends Māori to their graves early, an education deficit that is cutting funding to critical areas, an economic deficit of their own making; deficits that keep hard-working whānau struggling and the wealthier getting richer.

The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update paints a clear picture of the Government entrenched in the deficit and debt, yet blind to the realities that Māori communities face every single day. This Government has a choice: it can perpetuate the deficit for Māori or it can invest in us as the solution. It is time to invest in Māori-led solutions that uplift our whānau. We know the answer: they lie in recognising the value of tikanga, rangatiratanga, and kotahitanga as foundational to a thriving Aotearoa. Our message is clear: there can be no fiscal wellbeing without Māori wellbeing. Deficits will not disappear until Māori are at the table. Thank you very much, kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This debate started, within the first minute or so, with the Leader of the House calling a point of order and asking why our finance spokesperson in Labour was talking about people. I think there could be no greater moment in this debate that shows what this Government is about—and it certainly is not about people. It is about the child that Barbara Edmonds was talking about. It is about that child and all the other children whose parents are coming into mine and colleagues’ electorate offices who can’t get into transitional housing. Some of them have major medical conditions, but they can’t even get on the waiting list and they’re living in their cars. When we see in this Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update that transitional housing has been removed as a risk, it tells a story of a Government that has given up on its people. Sure, the expenditure on motels has been reduced, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker—and we have many, many cases—they are living in their cars.

Then we had the Minister of Finance, who spent her time not only talking about the last Labour Government, but so bereft of vision and ideas, she was talking about the Labour Party Policy Council. Now, I haven’t even resorted to talking about the Labour Party Policy Council in a speech I’ve given in this House, but talking about our conference and our policy council, this is some serious inside bull that shows that that Minister has no vision and no plan for New Zealand.

That is a great tragedy because this document that was delivered today tells a very grim story for New Zealand and it tells a grim story for the people of New Zealand. This is what this Government has to understand: economics is not something that sits outside the domain of people’s everyday lives. This talks about rising unemployment—this talks about unemployment rising further into 2025, more people and more families who cannot get by. This document talks about net core Crown debt peaking at its highest level since 1994. That tells a story about us having to spend more money on that borrowing rather than schools and hospitals and houses. This is about choices this Government has made. Let us not forget that they gave $2.9 billion in tax cuts at the last Budget, when faced with many of the forecasts that we’re seeing continuing in this project.

Disturbingly, what it shows is the austere Budgets that are to come in the next two cycles. It confirms the operating allowances of $2.4 billion, but well over a billion dollars of that for Budget 2025 has already been committed. There is $700 million of unallocated operating allowance that remains to be allocated. This means all those things that the Government has yet to deliver on in its coalition agreements and in its manifestos stand next to no chance. We’ve seen the cuts and we see dire warnings in this document that actually the Government is leaving optionality around further cuts—they’re saying, “No, at the moment, but we’ll reassess and see what economic conditions look like in 2025.”

Be afraid, be very, very afraid, of Budget 2025 and what it is going to bring. It is going to bring more cuts. It certainly isn’t going to bring more spending, and Minister Jones might like to reflect when he’s talking about how great the spending decisions are that are outlined in this document, what the document says about his Regional Infrastructure Fund—the fact that it may need to be adjusted, more money—but Nicola Willis has given a clear message to the country today that she has prioritised tax cuts for landlords and tax breaks to tobacco companies over the fact that New Zealand needs more spending. That is what is coming home to roost. This is a Government that does not understand about that child; it does not understand about people. It is a Government that is failing New Zealanders at every turn.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. What is clear is that New Zealand, like many other countries, has faced significant economic challenges in recent years. New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households are doing it very tough, and I think the reality is that New Zealand households already know that the results included in this Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update are the reality in which they already face. They see the challenges every day when they go into the supermarket; they see the impacts in their bank account. They see the impacts of what is a result of what has been inherited by this Government—and that is, we have inherited a sick economy.

What this Government has been working very hard on, in only 12 months, is to write the prescription to dose the medicine to get this economy back on track, but the reality is, as we’ve heard today, time and time again, the Opposition are in denial. They still deny that they are the problem and that their actions have led us to where we are today, but New Zealanders are not silly; New Zealanders understand why we are where we are today, and they put the trust in this side of the House to get them out of the ditch and get us back to where we need to be.

Slower growth in our economy has resulted in lower forecasts of tax revenue. As the Minister of Revenue, I see this very clearly. Revenue forecast, as a result of that constriction in our economy, is down $13 billion over the forecast period, peaking at around a $4 billion reduction per annum over that period. That is a significant reduction in revenue available to Government to fund the public services which we require. The likely comparative numbers around that are the Defence budget and the Police budget. Together, they do not even add up to $13 billion. That is the quantum of reduction of economic constriction as a result of decisions made by that prior Government.

What it also has shown in the Treasury forecast is that their over-optimistic assumptions in past forecasts have hidden some of the issues. I wish we had had this forecast when we came into Government. I wish that we could have had this perspective of what is the reality in our fiscal situation and what is only now coming to light as a result of over-optimistic assumptions in past forecasts being corrected. Revised economic forecasts affect the fiscal outlook, and the reality is that this fiscal outlook will continue to be challenging.

The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update reinforces the importance of the trajectory that this Government are leading, which is focused on fiscal discipline around expenditure, getting us back on track, living within our means, only spending what we can afford, and not indebting the future generations of debt that doesn’t deliver anything new—no new significant infrastructure on the increase in debt by that prior Government. That is absolutely disgraceful. And where is the apology? Where is the accountability for the debt that has been laden on future generations by that past Government?

They are like crickets. They are crickets because they do not take accountability for their actions, and that is going to be on this side of the House to tidy up that mess, and by hell, we’re going to do that. We are doing that relentlessly and we will continue to do that. Why? Because we understand the reality of hard-working Kiwis around this country. We’re the first to make sure that we’re going to be putting money back into their back pockets—of hard-working Kiwis—not taking it away, not thinking we know how to spend their money better than they do. That is the change in reality, and that is what we will continue.

What is positive to note is that the outlook going forward is going to be better. We know that the economic growth forecast for next year is increasing. We are at a turning point. We are in a turn-round, and the actions that this Government has taken, on this side of our House, are setting the foundations for a successful future in this country which will see increased economic growth, increased value, and increased benefits for hard-working Kiwis.

This Government is proud of its contribution and we are proud of the efforts that we will be doing to get this country back on track.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): There is something quite revealing in this Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). It’s talking about the new risks to the Government’s financial statements, the new fiscal risks. On page 67, these statements tell us that the Health New Zealand operating deficit is a risk. What does that tell you about the attitude of that Government? It says that people and their health are a risk, a real risk. Now, they’re worried about the operating deficit in Health New Zealand—a deficit that I might add was run up by some very clever accounting. They say, “There is a risk that the Crown may be required to provide further funding to support Health New Zealand”. Colleagues, your health, my health, the health of our families, the health of those mums and dads and their children—that Government regards it as a risk; not something that simply must be done but a risk, and that tells you their entire attitude.

When we dig into this half-yearly economic and fiscal update, let me start with the sentence that sets the framework. It says, “The New Zealand economy is experiencing a prolonged period of flat activity.” How is that getting expressed? Well, sitting on the page which has got the inflation data—inflation that was starting to turn down when we were in Government—it tells us that the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion reports that firms have a modest uptick in how they feel about the economy, but the fact is—and I quote—“firms are as pessimistic about their current activity as they were during the global financial crisis.” That is on that Government’s watch. They are the Government now; they’ve been there for a year—“as pessimistic now as they were during the global financial crisis.” Confidence is down. We know that unemployment is going up, but it has increased, it says, “at a slower-than-expected rate largely owing to more people exiting the [workforce].”—that is people leaving New Zealand because of that Government, leaving the workforce and leaving New Zealand. It is a sad state that the economy is in.

There are all sorts of figures sitting here, but I want to talk to you about the Government’s plan. Their major plan, which they have set out in these documents but have not particularly talked about, is they want to ensure that the economy grows through lifting economic growth to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenge. Again, sitting in this document, how do we lift New Zealand’s productivity? Well, we lift it through education, we lift it through science. In particular, we know that if we lift tertiary education, if we ensure that around about 80 percent of New Zealanders have a diploma or a degree, then productivity will lift, but, sitting in here, we can see the funding for tertiary education projected out over the next few years: it doesn’t change at all. In fact, it stays at around about $5 billion. There is no investment in tertiary education.

Sitting in here, we can look and see the figures for science expenses. Now, that’s where we get some of our innovation; that’s where the new ideas come through. That’s where our talented people are supported in order to do the science which from time to time generates the idea that brings great innovation to this economy. Science funding: it’s flat or decreasing. In fact, the funding, of course, for Crown research institutes disappears, as we know it’s going to, but there is no indication of what this Government is planning to spend on science. They talk a big talk about lifting productivity, but there is no actual substance there behind their game.

I want to end by talking about their novel financial measure, OBEGAL—operating balance before gains and losses. It’s a standard measure. Alas, that standard measure did not show what the Government wanted, so they’ve created a new measure called OBEGALx, which does give a measure that the Government likes. They have engaged in some more creative accounting. It sits in page 9 of the Budget Policy Statement. We can see that by the time the Government finally gets there, they cannot get OBEGAL, the standard accounting measure, over the line, but by creating OBEGALx they can claim a success. I suggest that the Government does this a little bit more. It could have “Dunedin Hospital X” and claim that Dunedin Hospital has been built as promised. Perhaps they could have the “child poverty targets X”. They’ve shifted those around so that they can claim that they can meet them. What about the “ferries X”? There’s going to be an X there as well.

The half-yearly economic and fiscal update—that’s what HYEFU stands for, but I’m going to say it stands for “How You Economically Fouled it Up”.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance): It is interesting listening to members opposite, because, as various colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out, it is an extraordinary fiscal fantasyland that the Opposition live in. Having taken net core Crown debt from $57 billion—

Hon Rachel Brooking: We can remember wage subsidies.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —listen up; this is your record—to $175 billion in just five years, their solution is to borrow more, spend more, and tax more. It’s like the last five, six, seven years just never happened. It is quite extraordinary. How do you come down here to the House, having stuffed the economy, having bequeathed to the incoming Government the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) and the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, and the HYEFU that we’re now talking about in this snap debate, and say with a straight face, “Don’t worry. We’ve got the answer”—says Deborah Russell and Barbara Edmonds and all of the also-rans on the other side—“Don’t worry about it. We’ve got the answer. The answer is more debt. The answer is more spending and more tax.”? It’s like the last six years never happened. It is truly an extraordinary fiscal fantasyland that they live in.

The operating balance was in deficit for five years, and now Barbara Edmonds stands up and says, “Nicola Willis is running deficits.” Yep, we are running deficits, and we’re determined to get back to surplus as quickly as we can. Barbara Edmonds stands up and says, “Well, the Government is borrowing more. The Government is in debt. The Government is borrowing more.” Yep, we are, because the last Government left us with this extraordinary spending track that we cannot turn around in one Budget alone. Barbara Edmonds says crazy things, like—

Ryan Hamilton: She does.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You haven’t actually heard what I said, but I agree with you; she does. She says crazy things like, “Debt is not the problem.” Her entire question time today to Nicola Willis was to ask a series of questions about increases in debt—after having said, earlier in the year, that debt is not a problem. Well, which is it? Is debt a problem that the Government can be lashed for or is debt something that we don’t need to worry about? The Labour Party need to work out what their best line of attack on the Government is. Is it that we are borrowing too much or is it that we are not borrowing enough? They don’t have their story straight.

Well, this Government has got its story straight. This Government’s story is the economic and fiscal reality that we inherited, which is that years and years of high Government spending, much of it wasteful, has driven Government spending to record levels, such that we ran operating deficits for five of the last six years, debt blew out to 42 percent of GDP, and we’ve got to get the country and the Government books back on track. That’s not an easy task, and the HYEFU that we are talking about in this special debate makes that really clear. I thought it was interesting when Barbara Edmonds led off the debate, because I thought we were going to be talking about HYEFU, but actually we spent 90 seconds with a sob story. It was sort of like a year 10 debating speech that somehow made its way into Parliament. It was quite an extraordinary series of events.

We’ve got our story straight, which is that, at the end of the day, what matters? Fiscal discipline matters. Yep, you can keep spending and laying it on the credit card bill, but guess what; eventually the people who lent you money come calling and you have to show a credible path back to surplus. That is what this Government is focused on. That involves tough decisions. It’s really easy in Opposition—I’ve been there—to stand up and say things like, “We will rebuild the new Dunedin Hospital.” OK. Well, to do that, you actually need to know how much it costs. The Opposition left us a project, with the new Dunedin Hospital, that started life as $1.2 billion and ended up on the thick end of $3 billion. It’s a bit like with iReX—iReX being another paradigmatic example. iReX sounded great when it was first posited: two new ferries for $700 million. Except, they forgot about the $3 billion on top of that to actually house the ferries.

Government involves tough decisions, and until the Labour Party Opposition get their heads around the fact that there is not a magic money tree at the end of the garden, they will continue to fail. And we are getting this Government’s books back on track.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Fast-track Approvals Bill

Third Reading

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

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

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

This is a speech that I will give with a level of seriousness because of the critical importance for the New Zealand public, to the affairs of this House, that this piece of legislation represents. This piece of legislation is built on an innovation that the Hon David Parker introduced during COVID, into this House, to fast track the consideration of proposals dedicated to boosting New Zealand’s resilience. Our party, lost in political wilderness for three years, did a great deal of work as to how David Parker’s efforts could be improved. With that recipe, we came forward and formed the Government, and that Government was formed with the party led by the Prime Minister, and the ACT Party.

A key feature of what our party negotiated was the inclusion into a parliamentary body of work called the “fast-track bill”. In some respects, it ought to have been called the “One-Stop Shop Bill”, because the most important development contained in this bill is the attempt that it makes to conflate multiple consents into a singular process so that those New Zealand investors, those investors who are coming from overseas can join us in our efforts to boost not only our wealth but our resilience and can have confidence that there will be an outcome within a short and reasonable period of time.

We now have, arguably, the most permissive regime to effect growth and development in Australasia. Perhaps, for some people in this Parliament, no higher praise could be recited other than the fact that President Trump in America, himself, has now promised to deliver a fast-track bill if you are willing to spend a billion dollars and turn around the greatest capitalist economy in the world. High praise that I will back myself.

I will now continue to acknowledge that a great deal of work was undertaken by the Civil Service. The Environment Committee put in a sterling effort. The people that submitted to the bill—they supported their democratic entitlements to make applications; to have, through the submission process, the bill changed. And changed it was—against what I campaigned for. The authority under this bill for applications to gain consents, to develop our resources, to build roads, to deliver energy will be made by an independent panel; an independent panel that I’m hopeful will have the quality of people that the independent assessment panel chaired by a well-known lawyer—David Tapsell—undertook the analysis to deliver us the 149 projects that are in the Schedule.

It was a very bleak day that, in a tawdry attempt to capture public attention, members on the other side of the House sought to stigmatise, demonise, and spread a whole host of mythology about applicants, including those who are going to improve the housing outcomes for New Zealand. On behalf of the sentient, respectful members of this House, I want to apologise to the people associated with projects on that list, including the Winton company, that they were dragged through muck, they were misrepresented, and they were subject to a host of demonising remarks that people who made those remarks will never mention such things outside of the House.

Of course, one of the problems with this bill is it has attracted a great deal of dangerous rhetoric from the other side of the House. Applicants on the Schedule within this bill are now receiving letters from the Māori Party. The Māori Party is promising to strip any applicant of their resource consent rights that they may achieve under this bill. Now we have the Venezuelan example here in New Zealand: that if you gave a legal, statutory consent, then you’re going to be stripped of it in the event that the Māori Party forms part of an alternative Government. I can assure you that they have nothing to worry about, because the Māori Party won’t be here at the next election. If the Serious Fraud Office doesn’t drive them out, the people who voted them in will turn their backs on them, because this bill actually embeds genuine statutory engagement and participation rights for Māoridom.

Of course, we will enrich our nation through the minerals sector. The minerals sector is about to get a great boost off the coast of Taranaki, as a consequence of this bill, where people will have a statutory entitlement to apply for a resource consent—something that has been denied them through mythology, cultural fabrications, but science—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No one supports you, Shane. No one supports seabed mining.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Ngarewa-Packer, there’s a difference between interjections and a continual commentary, and you’re certainly erring on the latter at the moment. Could you just tone it down a little bit, please.

Hon SHANE JONES: Sir, there’s a line out of the Bible, “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” As I was saying—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, there’s a line out of the Bible: don’t comment on what comes from the Chair—or some equivalent of—so just carry on, Mr Jones.

Hon SHANE JONES: Ah, yes. Far for me to give you deified status, but I will take on board what you’ve just said.

What have I covered off? I’ve covered off that this is pro-development; this is pro-growth. Why are we doing it? We’re doing it because the country needs an economic boost. It will achieve economic surplus, jobs that will attract New Zealanders back to the Land of the Long White Cloud, certainty for investors, and where there are opportunities for people to participate, it will be limited to those who actually need to participate.

Those who have, in the past, weaponised environmental law, sought to use it for irrelevant purposes such as creating indigenous sovereignty movements inversely related to the wellbeing of New Zealanders or our economy—they will be ruled completely out of court; they will be marginalised because their contribution will not enrich the country.

Now, on the question of “Where to from here?”: shortly, the apparatus will be in place for the fast-track bill to be operationalised. As we go forward over the next 12 to 15 months, where there may be examples that in the operationalisation, this majestic piece of legislation needs further refinement, those opportunities will be seized, but they’ll be driven by people who are investing their own time, their own money, and they have a desire to create wealth and an upgrade of the quality of life in New Zealand throughout the four winds.

I look forward to massive growth in the mining sector. In fact, it was only Friday that an additional $700 million is being invested into the mining sector, on the strength of this bill and, naturally, the quality of the mining Minister’s advocacy. But humility requires me to not say much more about that.

We’ll also see water storage. We’ll see the projects that have been hobbled, undermined, and marginalised through factors that don’t belong in resource management law. Sadly, that side of the House has sought to elevate factors that are inversely related to economic growth and economic development. We are going to see the expansion not only of irrigation and water—because unlike what blighted Hawke’s Bay water development options, this bill gives a level of certainty because decisions will be made on the basis of economic rationalism, scientific certainty, and not fabricating tikanga Māori that lessens the status of Māori culture because it becomes weaponised in the part of ideology that is actually alien and foreign to all Kiwis who want to create an opportunity to boost the economy. The economy boost is coming through fast track.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start what will be a serious speech about a very serious topic, which is the statement that the Government members make over and over again that this bill was based on David Parker’s fast track. Why I want to do that is to make the point to disagree with something that the Government members have been suggesting, which is that the Labour Party is anti-development and anti-housing. That is quite wrong—we are neither of those things. We had the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act, which included a fast track, which will remain on the books for some time. There is no need for this fast-track bill, which totally overrides all of our environmental protections, and that is a key component—a key difference—that I am going to talk about some more in a minute.

You could argue, as the Minister for Regional Development has just said, that this bill should have been called the “One-stop Shop Bill”, and that is a significant difference from David Parker’s fast-track bills. That is not the aspect of this bill that we have been so deeply opposed to. What we in the Labour Party are deeply opposed to is the overriding of our environmental protections for a select few that have got their names on a list, and it’s a disgrace. We have seen a terrible process with this bill. Yes, the bill did go to the select committee for six months, which is unusual for this Government, but then we came back and we reported back, and we didn’t have that list of 149 projects. The Environment Committee had never seen that.

We came back, and on the day—in the afternoon—that we were starting the committee debate on this bill, which is the debate where we get to ask serious questions and have, hopefully, useful commentary on the Hansard from the Ministers, that was the day that we saw a giant Amendment Paper, a Government Amendment Paper, on the bill. Many of the issues included in that giant amendment were never traversed by the Ministers in the chair. There were some specific questions that were answered, many specific questions were not, and there were no general statements on those changes. Then, when we were debating in the committee stage of the bill, the Minister had to put up a number of other amendments during the committee stage of the debate because that Amendment Paper 238, in Minister Bishop’s name, was big and significant and there had not been enough rigour applied to it, and that just goes to show what nincompoops this Government are.

There is no social licence for the projects included in this bill, which means that there is no certainty for them, and why there is no social licence is, as we’ve just heard Minister Jones say that people like members of the community, environmental groups, neighbours that aren’t adjoining, and iwi groups that don’t have Treaty settlements have no input into these processes. There’s that problem.

Then we know that the purpose of the bill doesn’t refer to the environment or terms like “sustainable management”, despite all the advice going to the Minister saying that that should be included. I’ve just heard from the Minister Jones how he was being modest, or saying something about being modest in the minerals sector. Well, I was reminded the other night that Straterra, the advocacy group for the minerals sector, submitted that they wanted an environmental clause included in that purpose of the bill. They don’t want this bill to override all of our environmental protections, because they know that when they go to their international investors and the like, and try and show that they have adhered to good environmental regulations, it will be impossible to do that under the fast track in that form, of course. They did also apply to be on that list of 149, which, in my view, is problematic.

Now, because there is no social licence, and because these projects are going across just because the Ministers agreed for them to be on the list, some of those projects will have large environmental effects and will really muck up the livelihoods of those around them. Not all of the projects—of course, this is a cynical Government that makes sure that it puts projects on the list that they know will be popular, like some housing projects and some renewable energy projects. But then there is the coalmine in the kiwi habitat, the housing on flood plains, and who knows what else will come to pass, because, of course, new projects can be added? There will be protests, and that will lead to uncertainty, and my advice to applicants is to not use this process.

Then, of course, we’ve had the debate—we had the Clerk rule and the Speaker overturn him—that those 149 projects listed in this bill are getting a private benefit. The Minister, or one of the Ministers, may say, “Well, they not getting consents and they can be declined.” That is true that they can be declined, but it’s very unlikely that they will be declined once they’re on this list because of how the bill is written—that is, the primary focus of decision makers has to be on that purpose, which is to facilitate the projects—and these applications can be for things that are prohibited under the Resource Management Act, which means that it is not possible to get a resource consent. An applicant can go from not being able to even get a consent because something is prohibited, to being able to get a consent, and that is a private gain. That is why these projects should have been included on private bills, and not in this Government’s piece of legislation.

We’ve heard a lot about the zombie projects, which are those projects that have already been declined, and the Minister might say, “Well, they can submit different proposals, proposals where the environmental effects have been modified.” I put up an amendment so that that could be the case, but, like with all my other amendments, of course the Government voted against it, and then, since we were in the committee stage last week, we have had the delivery of some of the information about those applications for the 149 listed projects and we can see from those that there is no change from what was applied for and what was declined in the past.

That is a very real private benefit to those companies on that list. Those companies that have already been declined consent could not go ahead with their projects. Now, they have the opportunity to do that and it’s highly likely that they will proceed in some form or other, and that is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace to our public law system that donors to the Government can get themselves on to a list, and, hopefully, everybody can realise why that is dangerous and why it is that we have these conventions that Government bills can specify different groups of people, but not individuals and not individual companies. It is a disgrace.

We of course—and I’ll talk about this in the next bill, as well—have made bipartisan offers to talk with the Government, and they’ve come to nothing. This is an extremely radical law. It’s good that the ministerial decision-making was changed, and I thank those people who protested against the fast-track bill when it was in that form, but this is still radical law. This is still law that changes our constitutional arrangements. It’s bad for New Zealand’s reputation. It’s bad for democracy. It creates uncertainty. Any future Government that might look to review these consents that are granted that are going to harm the environment—it’s not on them; it’s on this Government for producing such a horrendous Act that goes against so many of New Zealand’s norms of fairness and having the same rules apply to everyone.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s with a heavy heart and disappointment and genuine dismay that I speak here today on this complete abomination of a fast-track bill bulldozing its final way through Parliament. My dismay is ultimately because it sets up this new legal framework that specifically, and very definitively, creates this process where private profit of the few can so brazenly trump our people and te taiao—our environment.

It was summed up really eloquently by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in their submission on the fast-track bill, and they described it as having one set of rules for everyone and then another set through fast track for “the big end of town”. It feels genuinely like this Government is in some sort of alternate universe to be here in 2024, when all the weight of science, of research, of evidence, of mātauranga—our literal ways of knowing—tell us that we’re in trouble. It tells us that our environment is in trouble and we can’t keep taking it for granted and exploiting it. Yet this Government is here today passing this destructive fast-track bill. How can it be that they have the access to every piece of information and evidence and experience in our communities and in this building and yet understand so very little?

It’s been really clear from the start that the public didn’t want, and still don’t want, this bill. Only 0.6 percent of submitters actually supported this bill. Over 27,000 people actually submitted, and almost 55,000 if we include petitions. We’d had so many voices across the country saying they don’t want these projects, some of which have already been declined by the courts because of their significant harm to either communities or the environment. I just wanted to elevate a snapshot of just a few of those voices and their very accurate descriptions of the bill.

The first one: “It prioritises corporate interests over environmental and human protection.” Too right it does, and yet somehow the Environment Committee actually strengthened, not weakened, this aspect in directing that decisions are made giving the greatest weight—the greatest weight—in the bill to the purpose of development at all costs now being made a reality today. Here’s another submitter: “It dismantles decades of environmental safeguards, posing a grave risk to both people and the economy.” Again, it is completely accurate, in that this is a bill that relegates what we did once consider—you know, our already pitiful state of environmental protections are now relegated to mere considerations under this bill and directed to be overridden by development.

It’s an unexpected and unwanted merry Christmas to Aotearoa where what were our environmental protections are now virtually non-existent. You could describe them as a threatened species on the verge of extinction, and that is unacceptable in 2024. Even in the committee of the whole House, the Minister wouldn’t address the question of where environmental outcomes actually sit in this bill. There’s no answer to that because no one wants to be put on the record in 2024 to admit that the environment is actually at the bottom.

Te Tai Kaha Māori collective, among so many others who submitted, brought up this bill’s regard for Te Tiriti when they said “Development can be done sustainably and sound environmental management is good for economic development. The bill just does not provide a framework to strike the right balance. It disproportionately prioritises development over te taiao.” Again, they’re spot on. This bill violates Māori rights and Te Tiriti in failing to provide for the unique role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki. It completely fails to safeguard their ability to meaningfully and substantively engage in the exercise of tino rangatiratanga and mana whakahaere in their rohe.

It’s really hard to gauge from the select committee process and in this Chamber who from the Government side is actually listening or paying attention. I keep thinking if they knew what was really in this bill, if they knew the places and communities that would be put at serious risk by these projects, they would not be passing this bill.

I wanted to touch really briefly on two of these projects just to highlight why. Now, the first glaring example is the Waimate waste incineration plant. It’s a disaster waiting to happen in terms of highlighting how serious these impacts on people and te taiao are. These plants overseas, where they’ve been in operation for a number of years, have been proven to be so harmful to people and the environment that a number of countries, particularly across the EU, are now decommissioning or banning them. Fonterra actually opposed a similar plant being proposed in Te Awamutu, due to staff welfare concerns. The council don’t want it, Waihao rūnaka don’t want it, the school doesn’t want it, the local GP doesn’t want it, the neighbouring farmers don’t want it, and yet under fast track, here is a pathway to allow this project to happen.

We’ve got the Bendigo-Ophir open-cast goldmine by Santana, and this breaches the outstanding landscape provisions in the district plan. It crosses numerous conservation covenants. It threatens not only the water supply but the burgeoning wine industry that has taken hold not only in the valley but the wider Central Otago region. It’s all at stake. It’s all up for sale when we allow these pathways for private companies to benefit and override the good and wellbeing of everyone else.

Now, in both of these cases, the local council and mayor have made clear that they don’t want these projects in their areas. How can this Government go on trumpeting about localism and then pass this bill that so comprehensively discards the wishes of community and their democratic rights in forming their district and regional plans? I am still yet to hear any rationale about why prohibited activities should still be eligible for approval under this bill.

This is the level of recklessness in this bill. It’s been unprecedented in the way it’s actually threatened the integrity of this Parliament in going against the advice of the Clerks and the majority of our Speakers in this House. We want to make it really clear when it comes to Te Pāti Kakariki that we will not let this happen. We want every company and every individual and every shareholder to know that, yes, this process is risky—it risks all of our environment; it risks all of our local voice—and we believe companies and shareholders that try to get approvals under this bill should bear that risk, not our communities.

We absolutely commit to reviewing and potentially revoking every consent rammed through under this fast-track bill, because if these companies want to come and give so little disregard to Te Tiriti, to our democratic process, and to our environmental protections, then there is no security for them in that and they have no future here in Aotearoa—and we make absolutely no apology for that. Fast track deserves to be consigned to the ashes of history, and Te Pāti Kakariki oppose it every single step of the way.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Fast-track Approvals Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Growing productivity in this country is an important part of what this Government is trying to achieve so that we can get our country in a state of affairs economically where we can afford to pay for the “nice-to-haves”.

We also want to be able to build stuff, and after the nincompoops on the other side created an obstruction economy, it’s getting ever-harder to do that. We spend, according to the Infrastructure Commission, over $1.3 billion a year on consenting. That is a sunk cost that we cannot afford in a housing crisis, in a massive infrastructure deficit, and in a country where we are signing up to ambitious climate change targets.

This bill will be a one-stop shop to bring 10 Acts of Parliament into one to make it easier to consent, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before we take the next speaker, I’d invite the member—there isn’t a list of terms you can use to call the Opposition, but I just wonder whether it reflects well on him, some of the terms that he does use, but I’ll leave that with him.

Cameron Luxton: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, no; it’s just an observation, but I’ll leave it to him to reflect on that himself.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a great bill, and this will get our infrastructure and our economy back on track. I’m thrilled to commend it to the House. [Disturbance in public gallery]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave the House! Leave! No, no, don’t do that, members—don’t interfere. [Disturbance in public gallery continues] Leave the House! All right. Thank you, House, for maintaining your composure. That was appreciated. No one here will have known that was going to happen. It doesn’t do anyone any good when that happens. Thank you, we’ll carry on. Who was the next speaker? It is Te Pāti Māori—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I guess they are part of the 83 percent that oppose this bill. This is what we need to remind ourselves: that that type of behaviour is felt very strongly in the communities that I represent and move along, because the fast-track bill, no matter how you want to call it—I heard the Minister say, “Oh, we should call it the ‘One-stop Shop’.” Oh hell, no! This is what we would call the “Ram Raid Bill”. It’s a ram raid bill; it’s going to bulldoze itself through our environments, bulldoze through the communities, bulldoze over those who passionately—passionately—don’t want to see things happen in their communities.

The Government has chosen to ignore them, using the terminology of economic development. Do not insult our intelligence. Do not insult those communities that live there and know their communities better than the Government ever will that this is what this bill is about. It is a shortcut. That’s the concern that we can see out in the community: that there is a shortcut. It gives no effect to our role and our rights as tangata whenua and mana whenua. It gives no effect to Te Tiriti. It gives no effect to those who are here intergenerationally looking after our communities.

In fact, what we’ve seen unleashed is scathing attacks from the very Minister that started the kōrero today: “Pixie-like hapū, we’re going to milk mother Earth of everything she has.” The arrogance that has come out of this Government in thinking that there would be no consequences. I think there was another terminology—and, again, it’s not lost on any of us—“excessive wokeness”. Well, isn’t that interesting? There was never any excessive wokeness when we saw quarry connections to the Ministers and donors, because that is what this is. It is not lost on us what this is about. It is not lost on us that this has been directed very, very clearly by those who actually have an atlas to be able to show their way forward in Aotearoa’s economy. The atlas has shown everyone really what it is that’s at stake here. The arrogance in this bill has been unprecedented.

The flaws—and we’ve seen this. I want to really talk about a couple of the other projects, because I’m not here with a full 10 minutes, like those who actually only spoke for a minute. What we have here is a Government that has been allowed to bring back to life, to resurrect, to bring zombie projects back that every court in Aotearoa had said were not good enough—their practices were not good enough. They could not meet the threshold that we require in our highest environmental threshold. Again, I talk about Trans-Tasman Resources, who promised to bring $1 billion to Aotearoa’s economy and, in fact, their promises were so bad, they had to do a formal retraction to the Australian Stock Exchange. What the heck is that economic strategy? Four judges agreed—four judges agreed—on New Zealand’s legal obligation in this threshold not only to Te Tiriti but to the international ocean law.

What we have here is a Government that’s ignored it. They do not care that we are allowing seabed mining into our oceans. They do not care that the rest of the world is sitting there, shunning seabed mining. They do not care that no one in the communities—including their own voters; including those who voted for the general seats in Whanganui, who have been sitting there, making that MP know very strongly what they think about it. We’ve got Ministers with no experience prepared to gamble the safety of our ocean with an experimental sector that failed to meet any environmental thresholds—again, I’ll repeat—not just in one court, not in two courts, not in three courts; in four courts. And we’ve been expected to believe this Government’s whole agenda is economic development. Rubbish!

What we have here, sadly—and I’m going to say this again—when we had a Minister say only a small group in Taranaki are against Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining, that could not be more further from the truth. That is the arrogance that has been fabricated that we’re all prepared to have to listen to. This whole analogy of economic anaemia—economic anaemia. Well, what we’ve seen is bloated greed—bloated greed—at the expense of our environments and then bloated greed at the expense of our communities, who they will never ever bother to go and see.

I think what we’ve got to remember is that the saddest part about this bill—it’s the darkest part about this bill—is that there is absolutely no accountability to the 83 percent who voted against it; to the communities in Taranaki that, through their own hard efforts, funded numerous courts, right up until the Supreme Court, who ruled against Trans-Tasman Resources’ ability to be able to safely mine. They ruled, in effect, for the rule of caution for all generations of Aotearoa. This bill is a shameful disgrace and a slight on this Government, unsurprisingly.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Across this country today, in multiple regions, there’ll be people who care about the environment, people who care about the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and people who care about democracy who will be lamenting, who will be thinking, “Coming to my area soon is a rushed and fast-tracked project”—without the licence, without the consent of the local people; in fact, explicitly overriding the will and the wishes of the local people. That’s what this fast-track bill does.

From Trans-Tasman Resources in Taranaki, where the extraordinarily destructive seabed mining is scheduled to occur—the people have resisted for over a decade. The local community, the local iwi, and the fishing industry themselves have resisted, and non-Government organisations. It has been kicked back by the Supreme Court. It has been kicked back by every consideration body in the country.

The Tukituki water project, the Ruataniwha Dam—back from the dead—the zombie project that the people of the Hawke’s Bay stood up and resisted and opposed and that had no credibility; Bathurst coal extension on the West Coast of the South Island. The Waitaha Hydro Project, in the magnificent river of the West Coast of the South Island, was found to be so destructive and harmful for the environment that it was turned down and turned back. The significant impacts on the natural character of the area made it not worth it.

The OceanaGold project by Macraes in Otago, establishing a huge open-pit mine with a byproduct of cyanide tailings dams and a byproduct of arsenic contamination for generations to come—because goldmining leaves a legacy for decades, in fact centuries, after the Aussie goldminers have packed up and gone home. You could call this the “Aussie Mining Fast-track Bill”, because you think about Trans-Tasman Resources, you think about all these gold miners, you think about the Bathurst coalminers—what this really does for Aotearoa New Zealand is override the principle that we care about the environment here, and it overrides the principle that the local people should have a say as to what happens in their area.

And the poor people of Glenavy, in Waimate District, who overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to the waste incineration plant there—overwhelmingly—even the local council has expressed their opposition, and this Government approved the overseas sale. Minister Penk approved that, along with Minister Seymour, to be given to this company, which misled on what it was capable of doing, in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to landfill. It was absolute bunkum what they pitched.

Time and again in these projects, the Government has accepted the companies at their word and has permitted them into these projects without thorough evaluation. People throughout this country are lamenting today, and what a backwards step is represented by this fast-track legislation.

The Prime Minister wants to tell us that we should be supporting it because of the renewable energy projects, because of the housing projects. If this was a bill that sought to find a means to fast-track renewable energy projects or housing projects and took into account Te Tiriti o Waitangi and took into account the environment and the climate, the conversation would be very different. It would be a very different conversation, but this is an everything soup of whoever’s next mate wanted to have a crack at doing some project that had been sent to bed and put down and said no to decades ago, years ago.

This is a very sad day, and that Macraes, that OceanaGold in Waihī project—this is the Freddy the Frog killer project. This is the one that will impact Archey’s frog. Well, the people of this country are going to resist these projects in their areas, and we will stand with them in that resistance. We will stand with them, and the worst of these projects, as my colleague has said, shall be subject to re-evaluation in a new Government. We reserve the right to revoke and rescind the permits issued for them, because it is utterly inappropriate and undemocratic and unconstitutional the way that this fast-track bill is pushing through and forcing these projects through against the will and the interests of all New Zealanders.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I stand in support of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, a bill which says yes to jobs, yes to opportunities, yes to energy security, yes to building the roads that are needed to unlock economic growth and opportunity, yes to houses, and yes to making sure that this country can actually deliver the opportunities which keep our children here in New Zealand. On the other side of the House, we see the people who say “No, no, no” to all of those things, and the people of New Zealand will say no to them at the 2026 election.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): We heard it again at question time today, where the Government tried to masquerade this fast-track legislation behind the merits of the earlier versions. We’ve had two prior versions of fast track. The first was the COVID response fast-track, and the second was embedded, on a permanent basis, through the Natural and Built Environment Act, which repealed the Resource Management Act and carried fast track for ever, but there are major differences between those forms of fast track and this one that is in this legislation. Some members have already covered it, but I’m going to reiterate what I think are the important differences.

The Opposition parties, including the Labour Party, have long acknowledged that there is a problem with excessive costs for consenting mid-size infrastructure, particularly—not so much the larger infrastructure, but the mid-size and smaller infrastructure projects in New Zealand.

Hon Simeon Brown: Why did you say no to the Waitaha dam?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost and delay of consenting has been excessive, and we in Government proved it through the Infrastructure Commission that we set up, and we remedied it, Mr Simeon Brown, through the legislation that we passed. More than 90 percent of the projects that went through that fast track were eventually consented. Less than 10 percent were declined, and they were declined for good reasons. That was achieved by focusing on the speed of the process, not by overriding the laws which govern the balance between development and environmental harm.

There was no need to override the Resource Management Act. We, in our version of fast track, consented wind farms, solar farms—the biggest solar farms ever to be built in New Zealand were consented under our fast track. We consented roads; we consented geothermal. In the next version, renewals of hydro were also able to be fast tracked, but not new hydro projects which for ever alter the environment of a river system that is dammed and inundated. We consented whole new towns. We consented thousands of building opportunities—high rise, some new subdivisions. We consented factories. I think, for Simeon Brown, he’ll also be aware that we consented roads. Not once did we have to override the Conservation Act or the Wildlife Act or the Resource Management Act or the historic places legislation, all of which are necessary.

Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, a former National Party Minister for the Environment, who has held the highest ever office of a New Zealander in an environmental role overseas in that he was head of the OECD environment division, came to the Environment Committee and said that this legislation is worse than the National Development Act—1979, I think it was—passed by Muldoon, and removed by the following Labour Government because it went too far.

He said that legislation had more checks and balances than this, because that legislation meant that you had, for a large project, a thorough process that people could participate in. The contentious issues could be critiqued, they could be worked through, and a consent was either approved or declined at the end of it. Under this legislation, there is no environmental test to speak of, because the rules in the Conservation Act can be overridden and the Wildlife Act and the historic places legislation and the Resource Management Act, and that means that the environmental outcomes can be worse.

What does this mean in practice? We’ve heard from other members that it means that things that couldn’t be consented under the old regime now will be. What are they? They are things that will make New Zealand a worse place to be in. They will extend the life and extent of coalmines. Do many people in this House think that’s a good idea that you should fast track more greenhouse gas emissions? The outgoing chair of the emissions agency, Rod Carr, said digging up more fossil fuels is a crime against humanity. Those are pretty strong words from the leader of our response on climate change, and he was right. That’s what this bill does. It enables more fossil fuel extraction.

Hon Simeon Brown: The ban on oil and gas has crashed the energy market.

Hon DAVID PARKER: While we hear Simeon Brown—look, he’s even worse on energy than he is on roads. This is the man that would double New Zealand’s electricity price by importing liquefied natural gas (LNG). That was his response to a dry year this year—a complete overreaction, just like we had with Nicola Willis on the ferries; head in the sand as to what are the long-term solutions to energy challenges, which involve backing up our intermittent renewables in a dry year. They do not involve importing LNG, which would double the price of electricity in a dry year.

Now, he’s learnt that since, because he shut up on that particular dumb idea that he took to the country just months ago, because he was so embarrassed when he actually saw the advice as to what would be the effect on electricity prices. Those sorts of projects, dumb though they are, could be fast tracked under this legislation.

What else can be overridden? Do you know, we haven’t got many rivers protected in New Zealand under water conservation orders, but every one of those water conservation orders is at risk now under this Government, because they would give themselves the right to override a water conservation order protecting an outstanding river, and they have to be an outstanding river to be protected in that way.

What’s going to happen to some of the council costs? Under our fast track, we didn’t override a plan. If a plan said you shouldn’t subdivide in that particular area, you had to go through a plan change. You couldn’t override it through a consent with the approval of a Minister saying, “Oh, we know better. We’re going to force those infrastructure costs upon a council by having an out-of-order subdivision over there, even though there are no libraries and pools and we’re going to have to put in more libraries and pools and there aren’t decent roads and there’s no public transport for people to use. We’re going to override that and we’re going to have a subdivision over there.” It’s quite unprincipled and wrong and unnecessary, as we proved with our version of fast track, because plenty of subdivision opportunities were created under that legislation.

This legislation is based on a false dichotomy. It says that you cannot have environmental protection and a clean environment. It’s just wrong. If you do it right, you can have both, but you don’t achieve that by having a development-only test in the legislation, enabling Ministers to override other legislation. You don’t achieve that if the only people who can appear as of right are the people who are the applicant and the adjoining landowner. Under our legislation, Business New Zealand could appear, but so could the Environmental Defence Society, and, as a consequence, important information would be put before a decision-making panel before that decision was made. None of that information can be guaranteed to be required now and there is no environmental voice that is required by this legislation.

I think the former Minister for the Environment the Hon Simon Upton was right when he said that, if you’re going to have these extraordinary override powers, you should reserve them for projects that are of a public benefit. Now, I agree with Chris Bishop that not all projects with a public benefit are necessarily owned by the Government or local government. I agree with that, but that’s not what he was saying; he was saying that if there’s a project for a public benefit, you should have these override powers on rare occasions. You do occasionally need them. Legislation already allows for them.

National direction that is meant to protect the environment already has very wide exemptions for infrastructure, so you can put a road where necessary through a wetland or through an area which is a bird habitat if that’s the only place that the road can go. There are already exceptions provided for that, similarly, in respect of other infrastructure. If the Government really thought we had a problem with being able to consent infrastructure under the existing regime, they should say “projects with a public benefit”, as opposed to a private benefit like a private subdivision or a mine—that you should reserve it for those public infrastructure projects rather than conferring these overrides of environmental legislation to the private sector. That’s what he thought. He didn’t like this legislation, but he said, “If you’re going to have those override powers, limit their application.”

The other thing is there are some projects that are just so big and contentious that the public will never be satisfied if there isn’t a process that allows their voice to be heard, and there are sometimes contentious projects that none the less ought to be consented. You’ll never settle down public disquiet if you exclude the people from the process, and that’s one of the things that the other fast-track thing didn’t do. It didn’t impose the will of Government in respect of those serious issues where there should be some public process prior to decisions being taken. This is far worse and different to the earlier versions of fast track.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It is great to be able to stand here for the third reading of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I’d like to start by saying thank you to the vast army of officials across the Public Service who have moved at pace over the last year or so to pull this together.

The genesis of this bill has been traversed by the Hon Shane Jones in moving the third reading of this bill. It comes from the desire of the New Zealand First Party to build upon the framework left by the Hon David Parker. I accept that he dislikes the comparison between the COVID-19 fast-track legislation, but it is true in the most obvious sense that the COVID-19 fast-track legislation is the building block for this legislation. It is more expansive, it is more ambitious, the tests are different, some of the machinery is different—that is true—but the framework, the architecture is similar.

New Zealand First came to us after the election and said, “We’ve campaigned on this thing called a one-stop shop fast track. How do you feel about it?” The National Party in coalition negotiations signed up to that. I was tasked, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and as infrastructure Minister, with shepherding it into law, alongside my friend and colleague the Hon Shane Jones. It has been a herculean task. It has been a mammoth undertaking, and a horde of officials from across the Public Service have worked on this: the Ministry for the Environment; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Department of Conservation; the Infrastructure Commission; Crown Law; and the Ministry for Primary Industries.

At one point, when we were having these late-evening meetings in my office, we had to go out and go to all the other offices on the sixth floor and pull together more chairs for the officials. Then it turned out there were more officials sitting on Zoom in the corner of the room overseeing everything on the TV screen. I have somewhat happy memories of those meetings. They were enjoyable meetings on one level, and there’s been an enormous amount of work from across the Public Service, pulling this together. I want to start by saying thank you.

It is trite to say, but I’ll say it anyway, that we have a problem in this country with how difficult it is to do things. I actually think there’s broad consensus around the Parliament across that—and that, at least, is progress, because, for quite a long time, that was denied. I actually think there’s broad consensus that it’s too hard to build houses, it’s too hard to build renewable energy, it’s too hard to get a mine consented, and it’s too hard to get a quarry consented in this country—and quarries are critical to the future of construction and infrastructure. It’s too hard to get roads done. It’s too hard to do almost anything. I actually think that the public understand that, and that’s why it’s critical that over the next two years and beyond, we nail resource management reform.

If you go back, the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 has been a wrecking ball through the New Zealand economy, and you can directly trace the onset of our housing affordability crisis to the RMA 1991. It actually goes all the way back to the Town and Country Planning Act, but it was supercharged by the RMA 1991. There’s a lot of extensive research about this now. Overly burdensome planning regulations have driven up the cost of land and driven up the cost of housing. You can trace our infrastructure cost overruns and blowouts—which actually is occurring under this Government and occurred under the last Government and the Government before that—to the RMA 1991 because of overly punitive conditions, overly litigious court processes, endless debate about the word “avoid”, endless hours and days and hundreds of millions of dollars spent in court debating singular words, and overly complex and elaborate tests that go all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond, to just build stuff.

The East-West Link project, which members will have different views about, has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond and is coming all the way back down again. It took 10 years to re-consent an existing geothermal power station that got built in the 1950s.

Hon David Parker: That’s decades ago, and their consent did not expire.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, it’s only 15 years ago. Anyway, I’m making a point about the consensus that is now there around difficulty.

Fast track is a way of cutting through this and it is needed more than ever before because today, HYEFU—the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update—revealed just how parlous the state of this country’s economy is: anaemic levels of economic growth, a country that has been in recession, a country that is staring mountains and mountains of red ink in the face. Again, members will have a debate about who’s responsible for that, but can we at least acknowledge the reality, which is that so much of our problems as a country could be addressed through economic growth: better health, better education, a better standard of living, better wages, inequality.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Regulations for renewable energy. You could have spent 100 days on that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Mrs Ngarewa-Packer is ranting away, as she always does, but just not listening to the facts, which is that so many issues that she purports to care about could be solved through economic growth. That is the missing gap in the New Zealand economic story over the last 20 years. That is why we are 30 percent poorer than Australia, because for 30 years we have grown, on average, at a lower rate than they have. Productivity is part of that, and the RMA feeds into that. Fast track is about getting going on these projects and building a pipeline of projects.

Can I deal with this public-private distinction? It was really good to hear the Hon David Parker make a point about that. My argument right through the ongoing debate last week about whether there were private benefits in this bill was that the whole debate was facile and actually ridiculous, because we live in a mixed economy. There are public and private electricity generators; there are private deliverers of infrastructure. Many of our airports are privately owned, or some combination of private and public ownership. In the case of mixed-ownership companies, they’re literally listed, and the Government owns 51 percent of them. The Wellington Electricity network is privately owned, for example; people think it’s owned by the council, but it’s not. It’s owned by a foreign company based out of Hong Kong, from memory.

The whole debate is facile, because what we are doing is recognising that, for infrastructure projects and projects of regional national significance, the ownership is, essentially, irrelevant to the question of the public benefit test. So, we are fast-tracking projects that have an ownership structure that is private. I was really disappointed to hear the defamatory remarks of Arena Williams during the debate on the committee stage—remarks, I note, that she has not been prepared to repeat outside Parliament, which I think says it all, and remarks that were grossly disorderly in the sense that she was casting about allegations that I think she will regret in time.

It is true that there are private development projects fast tracked through this bill, and the reason for doing so is because of the public benefits that they accrue to the country. We need more houses. Most houses in New Zealand are built by the private sector; they are not built by the Government. We need more renewable energy. Some projects will be built by Meridian, but others will be built by the private sector. We need more mines in this country. Now, we used to own a State-owned coalmining company; we don’t any more—didn’t work out that well. Most projects will be delivered by the private sector. We need more agriculture projects. We need more agriculture in this country, and there are a whole range of iwi projects involved in aquaculture, some of which are listed in the bill.

I point out again, as I did during the last debate, that in the COVID-19 fast-track piece of legislation, most of them were public projects, but a couple of them were private projects. We’ve had this debate in the past. Can I finally finish with the disgraceful comments from the Māori Party—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Te Pāti Māori.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —Te Pāti Māori—essentially, trying to make New Zealand into a banana republic. This idea that the Māori Party or Te Pāti Māori would—I mean, firstly, the idea they’d ever receive ministerial warrants is frankly fanciful, and we should all make sure that day never happens, because the idea of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer running anything in this Government fills me with dread. The idea that they will get into Government and cancel consents lawfully granted is, frankly, disgraceful, and I call upon the Labour Opposition to rule out such constitutional stupidity.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): The Hon Shane Jones used his speech, on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, in this debate, to allege that I have dragged the name of Winton Land company through the muck, and so I would ask him and his ministerial colleagues in this last opportunity that they have before this bill passes to clarify for the House: how many millions will the Winton Land company make when this bill passes? What is the value of Winton’s land before these projects made their way on to the 149-project list, compared to later in this week when this bill becomes law? What is the value of the land when the New Zealand Transport Agency will be required to buy land for a road—land that was not valuable, rural land before this project was mooted, but the project has now been set down in legislation, and public money will go to buy that road—land which was not valuable before but is valuable now?

The Ministers who have alleged that those comments are defamatory owe the House an explanation about what is untrue; about the value of private benefit that is going to this company because of this legislation, not only from the value of uplifts of the options that they own on the land but also from the public purse, going straight into the hands of developers who only owned an option on this land and don’t in fact own the land at all. This is a disgrace. This is law that moves private benefit into private hands in a way which has never been done in New Zealand’s legislative process. It should be struck out at this stage.

Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s a constitutional embarrassment.

ARENA WILLIAMS: None of these amendments should be allowed. It is a constitutional embarrassment, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has said. This is not how we should be making law in New Zealand, and this is not something that we should ever tolerate again in this way.

The Government has used the legislative process to force private development through with none of the normal checks and balances to ensure the public’s interests are properly represented in this. People who live near these developments get to have a say, normally, in the way that these projects are rolled out, and I’ll speak more generally to this: the Government is trying, here, to change our planning laws for the better but this is not how other countries we like to compare ourselves to do these kinds of changes.

In the last 10 years, we’ve seen politicians and senior leaders take more accountability for the infrastructure projects that they are championing. Politicians in Australia, in the state of Victoria, getting out in front of their infrastructure projects, leading people along with them, winning the argument in people’s hearts, convincing people that these are important projects and they should happen. This goes in the face of that; this is the opposite to that. This is about ramming through pet projects that people cannot possibly have faith in because they’re a list of 149 projects that people don’t get a look at. Not only was there no public scrutiny in these but this is to the benefit of some developers over others.

I want to speak directly to supporters of the ACT Party, here: if you’re not on this list, you have lost out. This is not liberalising planning laws, this is not about red-zoning everything for development, this is not about allowing mining everywhere that it could be done; this is about allowing some projects at the expense of others. Small-business owners and medium-sized business owners are losing out because of these projects where someone has more access than those supporters do.

This recognises that there are limitations on the kinds of developments that we can do in New Zealand but has prioritised people with the most political access over everybody else who wants to make some money and do some public good. If the Government was serious about this, they would have given serious consideration to exactly those projects where land for roads, land for schools, is now seriously valuable to those people on this list, and money will be changing hands from the public purse directly to private benefit as well. Those projects, above all, should have been struck out.

I want to also say very briefly, since the Minister has thanked the public officials who have worked on this—they have done a huge and gargantuan task, and it must feel good to get that off the plate before Christmas—this bill tries to require the Public Service act in contravention of the Cabinet Manual, the Public Service Act, and their own procurement processes. We are telling Waka Kotaki and New Zealand Transport Agency officials that they must acquire land from a specific developer who has now benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for the project that they were going to do at a much cheaper rate. Shame—shame—on asking public servants to spend New Zealand public money on schools, on roads which they would not have to have done, and should not have had to have done. This is a disgrace.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): The Fast-track Approvals Bill is a crucial step in unlocking New Zealand’s potential. Whether it’s housing or renewable energy or aquaculture, this bill aims to streamline the approval process for infrastructure and development projects which are of significant regional and national benefit. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Democracy takes time. We heard in the select committee process, from not one but many submitters, that democracy takes time. This legislation, as we have heard, as we have seen, as we continue to see just runs roughshod over our democracy. It does so many disservices to not only our democracy but to our environment, to our obligations and our responsibilities to Te Tiriti, to our engagement with local communities, right through to the court processes. We’ve heard already this afternoon, in this debate, about zombie projects—about projects that have been rejected, that suddenly, magically, who knows how, end up in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

Now, more than 27,000 people submitted on this piece of legislation. Not all of them had the opportunity to speak to their submissions to the Environment Committee, which is, again, a shame and a challenge to our democracy. I want to quote from one of our submitters who made a very poignant statement around our democracy and the importance of it—to ensure that as we move different laws and legislation through this House, we do right by people and we do right by our democracy. Ngā Rangahautira in their submission said, “Democracy is not exercised once every three years. A healthy democratic society allows for the frequent exercise of democratic rights when decisions are being made that affect the public, particularly in their own communities. This bill erases those opportunities for democratic consultation.”

That’s why this bill concerns me—because it’s not only running roughshod over lots of pieces of legislation and laws; but this comes into the very heart of democracy itself. Who is affected most when there is a new road, where there is a new energy project, when there is a new coalmine?

Joseph Mooney: How are commissioners making a decision better?

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

GLEN BENNETT: It is those people who are closest to it that are the most affected. I’m not sure why that’s funny—why we should laugh about the fact that those are affected, but they are. This piece of legislation is going to run roughshod over them. That is the challenge. In the previous fast-track legislation that the Hon David Parker had, there were checks and balances in place, and the environment, of course, was part—was part—of the purpose, so that had to be taken in consideration.

Now, I won’t be able to quote every single Act of Parliament that is actually being ignored or run over the top of, but I can name a few for you this afternoon. We’ve got the Crown Minerals Act 1991. We’ve got the Wildlife Act 1953. We’ve got the Reserves Act 1977. We’ve got the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. We’ve got the Fisheries Act 1996. We’ve got the Resource Management Act 1991. We’ve got the Conservation Act 1987. We’ve got the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983. We’ve got the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Of course, we’ve got the Public Works Act 1981, and then there’s the Treaty itself—yeah, there’s bits of it that it mentions in there, but it very much runs roughshod over that. Those are just some of the statutes that are being run over the top of in this space.

I am concerned that not only is it about the challenge to our democracy, not only is it a challenge to our environment, but it is a challenge to Te Tiriti itself. As a Te Tiriti partner, my responsibility is to stand up for the sake of my role and my responsibility as an ancestor who came here on the premise of what Te Tiriti offered to my people.

I continue on with another submission that was made. They said—and I quote—“By bypassing proper consultation processes and disregarding the protections guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it undermines the rights and interests of Māori and the conservation of sacred lands, including wāhi tapu in public conservation areas.” Now, that should alarm the House, the fact that a submitter has considered and looked, and as we talked of in terms of when we were in select committee and then through the committee of the whole House—the fact that this legislation, that this bill, I assume, unless those on the Government side want to cross the floor with us this afternoon and vote it down, has the potential to run roughshod over our responsibilities to our democracy, to Te Tiriti, but also to sacred spaces, but also to our urupās—

Joseph Mooney: Have you read the bill?

GLEN BENNETT: —to our wāhi tapu sites, to all those kind of spaces. Mr Mooney, I have read the bill. I’ve been on the committee for the past six months, so I know it very well and know the fact that you can—sorry, you do not need to in terms of there’s some responsibilities, but there’s some “mays”: they may have to do this; they may have to do that. We cannot support this bill. We are concerned.

I also want to raise—again, through our select committee process that we went through—another organisation’s submission, and that was from the Insurance Council of New Zealand. The Insurance Council of New Zealand, in their written submission, made it very clear that—and I quote—“it is paramount that the Bill does not inadvertently provide a pathway for projects which expose communities to excessive financial and physical risk[s] of natural hazards.” And this bill does.

They go on to talk about “Decision-makers should take a long term view that supports the broad availability of insurance by avoiding new development in high risk areas.” And what does this bill do? What do some of those 149 projects do? They are definitely spaces where we probably should not be building new houses and new subdivisions. They go on and talk about—this is the Insurance Council of New Zealand—the Auckland Anniversary weekend weather event, they talk about Cyclone Gabrielle and the challenge that they had with 110,000 claims from those two events, with an estimated cost of $3.75 billion.

Now, the reason I bring up that number in their submission is because the events that they spoke to us about highlight that we must have a stronger focus on our land use, the development. As we look at the climate change adaptation—the challenges that we have faced—we are going to be responsible for more and more of this kind of activity, where houses and where properties are built in places that they should never be built in the first place, but this fast-track bill allows for them not to consider some of those spaces and to move on and allow those terrible things to happen.

Our world is burning, and this Government is just throwing more fuel on that fire. Whether it’s this legislation, whether it’s the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and other legislation that they are trying to get through at pace, this is not good, not only for us today but for those into the future.

I want to reflect on what this means when we talk about zombie projects that have been brought back to life in this bill, when we talk about projects that the courts have rejected for the environmental challenges. My colleague and friend from Taranaki Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has also spoken about Trans-Tasman Resources and the challenge that there’s a private company in this bill and all they’re going to do is dig up and suck up all the sand off the bottom of our beautiful Taranaki ocean, and then the profits go over to Australia, where the company’s from, and they jeopardise the fact that offshore wind is viable. But no—no—let’s just throw them in the list. Let’s just make sure that they’re there so that they can—they’ve had their day in court, it hasn’t gone well, and now we just throw this zombie project back on the list. To me, it’s just despicable and terrible.

As has been said, there’s renewable energy projects in this bill, but it is just smoke and mirrors—it is just smoke and mirrors—in terms of what they are wanting to achieve.

In closing, I want to remember the 30,000-plus people that walked down Queen Street back in June, who walked to protest against this bill and what it was going to do—for the sake of nature, for the sake of our climate, and for the sake of democracy. We don’t want to be fossil fools on this side of the House. We want a fast track, not like the trash that they talk about on the other side of the House—nature doesn’t need a speeding ticket. The final thing I would like to say is one of those billboards on that march was “Make Aotearoa Green Again”.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Do you know what is truly despicable? It’s that members opposite talked about respecting Te Tiriti, but guess what! Last week, there was an Amendment Paper put forward to remove Mana Ahuriri from this bill. Mana Ahuriri, for those that don’t know, are a Napier post-Treaty settlement group who want to develop their ancestral land for affordable housing, a business park, recreational ground, historical education, and the members opposite wanted to remove it. How is that for progress? Look, at the end of the day, this bill is progress for everybody. That is what we are doing. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fast-track Approvals 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

Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement for the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

This bill continues the coalition Government’s commitment to reform the resource management system, to drive economic growth and increase productivity by making it easier to get things done in New Zealand. It follows on from fast track and our first resource management amendment bill, which passed into law in October.

This bill is a precursor to full replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but it makes important changes in the short term to make it quicker and simpler to consent renewable energy, boost housing supply, and reduce red tape for the primary sector. As I said, at length, in the last debate, the current RMA isn’t working; it’s a handbrake on growth for the country.

We have taken a phased approach to RMA reform. Phase one, which was completed almost a year ago, was to repeal the previous Government’s excessively complicated reforms. We’re now in the middle of phase two: making improvements to the existing RMA, to cut red tape and green tape for primary industries and development in infrastructure, whilst maintaining environmental protections. These reforms will lay the groundwork for phase three: the long-term replacement for the RMA, with legislation based on the enjoyment of property rights.

There are five major changes in this bill. This is quite a chunky and substantive bill; far more substantive than bill No. 1. The infrastructure and energy package in the bill gives effect to the Government’s Electrify New Zealand reforms, which are all about making it easier to get renewable energy built, as well as improving how ports run.

There are key changes delivered through this bill—councils must decide renewable energy generation consents within one year of application; consents for renewable energy generation will receive 35-year consents by default. The default lapse period for renewable energy consents and for infrastructure project designations will go from five years to 10 years. Ports will be given “requiring authority status”, and port coastal permits will be extended for another 20 years, to 2046. Designating authorities will no longer have to complete detailed assessments of alternatives when they are the sole landholder.

The housing package is particularly important. It includes reforms to enable the first pillar of the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policy. It will allow councils to opt out of the medium-density residential standards (MDRS), as well as providing councils with ways to make faster plan changes. It also provides for new intervention powers for the Minister for the Environment to ensure councils comply with national direction.

In relation to the MDRS, the bill introduces a ratification vote for councils on the medium-density residential standards to decide whether to keep, change, or remove them, whilst also ensuring councils are providing for 30 years of housing growth. The quid pro quo of being allowed to opt out of the MDRS is that councils deliver 30 years of live-zoned housing growth.

The bill also makes changes to the streamlined planning process and requires all plan changes that use this process—including for the MDRS—to establish an independent hearings panel (IHP). The bill empowers the Minister to appoint up to half the members of the IHP. The bill makes councils, rather than the Minister, the final decision maker, but it also provides the Minister for the Environment with new intervention powers to ensure compliance with national direction.

All of that is quite complicated, sir; let me just give you a little bit of colour. Over the last few years, councils been going through this process to bring their plan changes into line with not only the MDRS but also the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). I think everyone acknowledges that having the councils appeal to either the Minister responsible for RMA Reform or the Minister for the Environment is not a particularly great way to go about it. It’s produced some quite good outcomes in some cases, but it is not really what you’d like. The bill changes that and it means that councils are the final decision-makers.

However, it is also true to say that the independent hearings panel process has not been that great either. the bill provides for the Minister to appoint up to half the members of the IHP. To give effect to the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policies, it is necessary to have greater intervention in the way in which councils complete the housing and business capacity assessments as per the NPS-UD, and there’s a range of changes coming there as part of the national direction package, which is not included in this bill but is coming next year.

The changes in the bill will allow councils to delist heritage buildings identified in the district plans in a faster way, using the streamlined planning process (SPP). At present, if councils wish to remove a building from the heritage list, they have to use a standard plan-making process. It’s a very complicated process, very convoluted, it has many steps, takes a long time, and has quite broad rights of appeal. Under the changes introduced by this bill, councils will be able to apply to the Minister for the Environment for an SPP that is of appropriate scale to the issue being addressed, and the changes for housing and heritage will work in conjunction with national direction, as I say.

The third series of changes is around the farming and primary sector package to unlock primary sector productivity. It reduces the regulatory overlap between the RMA and the Fisheries Act. It will provide for flexibility and certainty for marine farm consent processes. It will make farm plan certification more practical and cost-effective, as well as making sure resource consent applications for wood processing are decided within one year.

There’s a section in relation to emergency and natural hazards. The bill will make responses to natural hazards and emergencies more efficient and effective, as well as ensure that the planning system is not allowing inappropriate development in areas with significant natural hazard risk. The bill introduces a new regulation-making power to support emergency responses to assist with recovery, and clarifies and strengthens councils’ ability to decline land-use consents or to apply appropriate conditions where there are significant risks of natural hazards, and, of course, we are working on a natural hazard national direction package, which, I think, has been quite widely welcomed by local government land, and that will be part of 2025 as well.

Finally, the bill introduces a series of sensible system improvements, which, I think, most people will welcome. There are higher fines for non-compliance. There are changes to how resource consent applications are dealt with. Fines for non-compliance with the RMA will be increased, and insurance that pays those fines will be banned. Councils will be able to recover more costs from those breaching the RMA, as well as consider compliance history during resource consent applications—and there’s a bit of debate around that, and during the fast-track process.

We’re also changing the discharge rules under section 70, to provide certainty and to align with changes to section 107 that were done through the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024. There are minor changes to Department of Conservation (DOC) functions, to improve the management of discharges on the DOC estate and improve RMA compliance checks on offshore islands. The amount of further information a council can request from a consent applicant will be clarified so that it is not overly onerous. Applicants will be able to request to review consent conditions prior to a consent decision being issued, and councils will be able to return abandoned consent applications. These are system improvements—is the easiest way to describe it.

I think it’s worth noting that these changes are designed to work in conjunction with a whole series of changes we’re making to national direction—national policy statements and national environmental standards are next year. Much of the changes we are making are designed to port over into the new regime.

We’re acutely conscious that the Government is moving fast and we’re making a lot of changes to resource management law, but we eventually want to settle on a system that is enduring and we eventually want to settle on a system that settles down, so that we can actually get on with implementation. As much as possible, we are taking a least-regrets approach to reform. As much as we can, the changes through this bill and the changes through the national direction, next year, we want to port across and transition into the new system to reduce the need for constant chopping and changing and constant council churn and flux. That is a difficult task, I’ve got to be honest with the House. That is tricky, but if we can get it right, we can create a more enabling framework for everybody, and an enabling framework that also protects and upholds environmental protections and also sets environmental bottom lines. I think it is possible to do that.

I actually think there’s more consensus across the Parliament, when it comes to resource management reform, than, perhaps, you would think from what we’ve heard during the quite heated debate around fast track. I think most people are in favour of greater standardisation. I think most people are in favour of fewer plans, and most people are in favour of less litigation and more certainty, most people are in favour of an enabling framework and a spatial planning framework that makes it easier to plan, consent, and deliver infrastructure for the future. Most reasonable people are in favour of that, and that is the Government’s goal as well.

A lot of 2025 is going to be about the delivery of national direction and building a framework that can set New Zealand up for growth and development whilst protecting the environment in the 2020s and beyond. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hopefully I’m a reasonable person, and the list that the Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, just gave out, many of the things—I cannot recite it verbatim, but they are things that I certainly agree with. We should move this system and the resource management system to the national instruments and away from a bespoke consent-by-consent issue. That is why, of course, we reformed the Resource Management Act (RMA) over a long period of time and had the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act.

Both of those Acts were repealed last year—last December—and the Minister says with pride, “Look at all the things we’re doing.” “Look, we’ve repealed this legislation that fixed the Resource Management Act, which, we all agree, doesn’t work,” he says. Then, in the next breath, he says, “Oh, and we’ve done this fast-track bill”—which will soon be signed into an Act—“that railroads over all of the environmental protections.” I heard, in that list, that we do need to protect the environment, and that is not what the fast track does.

Now, I realise I am talking about a different bill—I’m talking about the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill—

Hon Member: Yeah, speak to that bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Whoever made the snarky little comment over there on the National side, I say to you that it’s relevant, because if you were listening to your Minister, you would know that this is a set of different pieces of legislation to replace what we had done and what that Government has repealed.

I noted, when I was listening to the Minister and when I was listening to the Prime Minister in question time, that there is a lot of focus on checklists, and it might be that this piece of legislation—this one in the House today—is only here the week before Christmas to meet that checklist. We all know that we were only in the committee stage of that fast-track bill last week, for hours and hours and hours, because it was on that checklist, and we saw those amendments that came in at the very last minute. This is a very bad way to make laws, and it seems that the Prime Minister does not understand that fundamental need for laws to be scrutinised.

Now, this bill, as we’ve heard the Minister say, covers a range of different issues. It is not a replacement for the RMA at all. It’s not a Natural and Built Environment Act or a Spatial Planning Act or what he says might happen next year. It changes rules around fishing, with the Motiti decision. It could end up enabling more houses on green fields as the quid pro quo for not having the medium-density residential standards (MDRS). It is a backtrack on the MDRS. In the last term, National and Labour agreed to have these mixed-density residential zones provisions. This National Government is backtracking on that by not requiring councils to do it but making it optional. It makes all the other discussions—and I’m going to come to this soon—on bipartisanship and working together very different when that is the record that we are dealing with.

Then, there is a change to section 70, and the Minister noted that that links in with that out-of-scope, in my opinion, change to section 107 that came through the last RMA amendment bill a month or so ago—a change that was not consulted on, that was not in the bill as introduced, but that some irrigators and others wanted and were able to submit on, but groups like Forest & Bird were stopped from submitting on. There was a change to that section 107 that links with section 70 here, and there would have been an opportunity, if this Government was interested in good-faith proper processes, to have had that section 107 discussion here. They haven’t done that.

There are also changes to farm plan certification that may or may not be beneficial, and, of course, we’ve heard that appeal rights for heritage decisions are going to be changed. It doesn’t deal with the funding of public infrastructure, which is always the trickiest issue. It does also work on hazards compliance, emergency regulations, renewable energy, and ports. I will be asking officials for their advice on comparisons with the Natural and Build Environment Act, because it seems that some of those provisions have come from that.

On that note, we will be supporting it to select committee, and we hope that the Ministers will ask their members to interrogate it and improve it.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill makes a wide suite of changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) and, ironically, it wouldn’t even have been needed, and actually isn’t needed in this form if the Government hadn’t embarked on a wholesale destruction of legislation through urgency; legislation like the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act. So, no, we won’t support this bill, because it’s poorly done and there are a number of provisions that just aren’t consistent with Green Party policy.

For example, we’re sceptical about the Going for Housing Growth framework in this bill, which makes what was the wonderful and, temporarily, bipartisan medium-density residential standards optional. If we want smart and efficient cities, we need to prioritise building homes where the infrastructure already is. Mixed-use housing and enabling more housing and shops around strategic transport corridors is a good step towards building the density we need to bring our cities to life. However, disjointed greenfields development, and a transport policy that prioritises cars will see the status quo of sprawl continue.

We literally can’t afford more car-dependent sprawl, especially with the urgent need to reduce emissions.

Hon Simeon Brown: I hope you don’t drive a car.

SCOTT WILLIS: Sprawling suburbs will see the efficiency of our cities decline, and I wish I didn’t need to drive a car. I wish we had trains and rail-enabled ferries, but that’s not happening either. There is nothing stopping councils for zoning for fewer new homes under the Going for Housing Growth reforms than they would have been required to allow for under the medium-density residential standards if the medium-density residential standards required more than their contested 30-year targets. It’s a lost opportunity, flooding urban land markets with supply, but it’s a win for the nimbies in Epsom, and it will allow for discharges into polluted water bodies and override local decision-making.

Additionally, this time frame limits the identification of options, the level of analysis, the collation and review of evidence, and engagement with industry, council, iwi, hapū, and Māori and other stakeholders. It does not favour those communities the Government is elected to serve. We know, now, that this Government hates local decision-making, and even the area where I was looking for some positive—and there is a little bit of positive, but it’s pretty disappointing.

As the regulatory impact statement (RIS) says, “constraints imposed by the policy development process (ie the limited time available to undertake the analysis and the inability to conduct consultation with affected groups) have meant that the criteria cannot be fully met. In some cases, the evidence base is missing on which to form a clear understanding of the policy problem, and its causes, which limits the analysis of options to address them.”

To be clear, we can support things like a 35-year default consent duration for renewable electricity generation, but oppose a 35-year default consent duration for long-lived infrastructure like gas pipelines. We’re not convinced that doubling the lapse periods for renewables, up from five to 10 years, is helpful when we need to build renewables at pace and avoid land banking. Any positives in this bill have clearly been regurgitated from the Natural and Built Environment Act, which begs the question again: why throw out something really useful when it could have been amended and gained more support?

We understand that the RIS was prepared when several decisions from Government were still to be made, such as the Government’s direction on fresh water and the inclusion of wood-processing projects. This is the problem with the Government’s rushed lawmaking, something that legal experts, officials, and even a Cabinet Minister have warned against. It’s bad, rushed lawmaking, like so much this Government does; like the failure to get law through because it’s badly written.

Now, instead, what I’d like to see—what I think this Government could do—is deliver the long-promised National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, promised six months ago, and a natural environmental standard for smaller wind projects, something that was called for back in 2010. That’s 14 years ago. I know many farmers who are waiting and waiting for this legislative change so they can build and host small wind farms.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired. Just before I take the next call, we did have a sharp shock and a bit of a shake there. It was very, very brief, and so if that does happen again, we will be ducking and covering.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise in support of this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. We certainly welcome advancement of our coalition commitment in this bill around the councils being able to have the choice of applying these medium-density residential standards. I’m sure some of my colleagues will speak more on this through the select committee process and second and third readings. Obviously, my definition of “medium density” is being able to see two of my neighbours, so I’m probably not the best person to speak to it.

I do want to talk about the farm plans and the elements that relate to primary industries, though. We all know the benefits of farm plans. They enable farmers to be able to highlight the critical source areas on their farms, to be able to work out plans and procedures of how they can address that and work together as a community. These are important tools that will help our farmers drive better results to the environment.

Now, what we’re doing in this bill is ensuring that the plans that many farmers already have—virtually every single dairy farmer already has a water management plan, every horticultural grower has one through the Good Agricultural Practice scheme, many sheep and beef farmers now have them through the FAP Plus process. This is about ensuring that peat farmers are not going to have to do a job twice. If there’s one thing farmers hate, it’s having to do something twice. They want to do something once and they want to do it right.

Hon Damien O’Connor: They milk cows twice a day.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: We’ve got the systems in place already and it’s important that we use them. The member there is making a lot of noise. Previously, he was saying how he loved these plans and how the farm plans already provided what he wanted to have. Yet we had a system that wouldn’t have allowed those, so we’re fixing that. We’re making what he tried to say was going to happen, actually happen. That’s what we’re doing in this plan. We’re removing the duplication throughout this process and we’ll obviously be looking at other things we can improve there.

Just finally, this is all about providing certainty to farmers that it’s going to be good operating going forward, that they’ve got certainty to invest—they know where the rules lie and they can invest well. That’s so critical with section 70. That, combined with the section 107 rules, placed a huge degree of uncertainty, particularly for many farmers in the South Island, as to whether or not they could go ahead with their farming businesses. Would they be able to get consents? Can they invest for the future? Huge risks that were holding farmers back.

By providing this certainty, people know they can invest; they can make better productivity on their farms. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Mr Speaker. Look, I’ve had 30-plus years of personal involvement in the Resource Management Act (RMA), and I’ve seen it work really, really well and I’ve seen it work really, really badly, as well. What almost everyone says is that it’s become a triumph of process over outcomes, and it’s become too unwieldy, and it’s still not delivered adequately for the environment. Look, I chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I’ve also met with many businesses, iwi councils, etc., all around New Zealand, and almost without exception they are saying that the Resource Management Act is a barrier to development.

This Government is resolutely focused on making New Zealand’s economy more productive. If we don’t do that, then the things that the people on the opposite benches say that they care about—we will not be able to afford them. We will not be able to afford the good quality social services, the health and education system, etc. We will not be able to afford the quality of life and the wages that we all aspire to. That is what this is all about. We often talk about an infrastructure deficit. The Infrastructure Commission’s advice to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was that we invest about the right amount in infrastructure, but what we don’t do is get value for it, and that is largely because of the processes that we get tangled up in.

Look, there are four quick points that I wanted to make. The first one of them is the duration of some of these consents: re-consenting is a bane on our economy; the cost of it and the uncertainty of it is costing this country millions, even billions, of dollars a year.

Secondly, the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)—I had the joy of dealing with that at the council. What this does is it gets Government out of making the decision and allows local councils to make the decision with their community. We rely on them to do that professionally and competently and to engage with their community really, really well, and that is very, very important. The MDRS did not target growth close to services. It allowed it to be scattergunned all across urban areas. I think that is a really good move forward. The one plea I would make in this is that if we’re going to require councils to meet 30 years of population growth, they need to know what 30 years of population growth looks like, because we are not replacing ourselves—it is based on immigration, and we don’t have a population strategy. That is something which belongs here, not with council.

Third thing to mention is it simplifies the process for listing and de-listing heritage. Heritage is really, really important and I hope that that is done well and thoughtfully, and it’s not just based on reckons.

The final thing I wanted to say is that it expands the councils’ powers to manage natural hazards. This is really, really important—the insurance industry will tell us to stop building dumb things in dumb places, because otherwise they will pull out of insuring.

Glen Bennett: Fast-track bill.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Kill the fast-track bill.

ANDY FOSTER: That is really, really important—and, yes, it might challenge that in some ways. Look, the other thing to say there is that if we had allowed councils more power, we probably would not have had the Christchurch red zone, and that has cost this country enormously. Building the right things in the right places is absolutely essential.

I’m looking forward to the submissions on this and I’m sure they will assist the bill, going forward. I commend the bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā hoki tātou. E tū ake ana ahau ki te mihi ki ngā mahi huhua i oti nei i te iwi Māori i roto i ngā tau 30 neke atu, ki te whakakanohi i a ia me tōna mana i roto i ngā kawenga, i roto i ngā hapori, te whakawhanaketanga o tēnei whenua. Nāku anō ngā kōrero mō te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa i waha i tērā tau ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei Kāwana i tēnei taha i tērā wā.

Ko Tātai Hākurei me te hunga rā, a Hōri, rātou i whakakanohi i te hiahia me te tūmanako o ngā tini marae o te motu, ā, aroha mai, kua hoki pēnei mai tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to all of us. I stand to acknowledge the many endeavours that were completed by the Māori people in the last 30 years or more to represent themselves and their authority within the responsibilities, within the communities, and the development of this land. I myself spoke about the New Zealand Māori Council, who last year came before this Government on this side at that time.

Tātai Hākurei and those people, Hōri, they who represented the needs and hopes of the many marae of the nation, and, sadly, we’ve come back to this.]

To groups such as the New Zealand Māori Council, Te Tai Kaha, Te Mana o te Wai—groups that have poured years into already consulting and working with the Government themselves as the Māori, the tangata whenua Treaty partner, with the Government Treaty partner for the last five years—sadly, we find ourselves here, back at the place where Māori rights are being stripped out of the Resource Management Act (RMA) quite bluntly. The RMA has served as a 30-year barrier to Māori fulfilment and achievement and exercising of their own rights inside their own rohe, in towns in their own rohe—30-year exclusion.

So, here we are, the Government are using renewable energy and housing projects as an excuse to continue to remove Māori rights and voices from the consenting process and to diminish Māori rights and interests in our whenua, our moana, our fresh water, our geothermal areas, everything. While we acknowledge the need for Aotearoa to transition to renewable energy, Māori need to part of this transition. We will no longer be sidelined, as we have been for the last 164 years. This side of the House, who are the Treaty partner—the current Government—need to take some deep consideration of their role as the Treaty partner in this House. The Ministry for the Environment admitted that the short time frame afforded to the bill prevented full engagement with te iwi Māori, and there’s nothing new there. This is a consistent pattern. We’ve been dealing with it through this whole first year. It’s exhausting.

The Government have refused to engage with te iwi Māori, despite their own ministry identifying numerous Treaty breaches. Despite the fact that they themselves are the Tiriti partner, they seem to care nothing for it—the very document that underpins the workings of this House. It will further reduce our already limited influence in the consenting process, as I’ve said, for the last 30-plus years, particularly as it relates to sites of significance, or wāhi tapu; the takutai moana, or fresh water; and te wai Māori, our coastal marine taonga.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi said, “ō rātou whenua, ō rātou moana, ō rātou kāinga, ō rātou taonga katoa.” [“their lands, their oceans, their estates, and all of their treasures.”] I think you fullas should know that line inside out; I know you don’t. Heoi anō, without consent or consultation, this bill will make it impossible to recognise Māori rights in fresh water, geothermal rights—all of the rights that I’ve already mentioned that were enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. By the way, those rights weren’t granted to us in Tiriti o Waitangi. They were pre-existing rights that Te Tiriti simply acknowledged. Te iwi Māori want renewable energy and we want more houses, but we cannot afford to lose more rights.

As has been voiced by this side of the House, doing away with ideas like te taiao, te mauri o te taiao—“mumbo-jumbo”, I think they called it down here. “Mumbo-jumbo”—I’d put it down to a thousand-plus years of living in a place, watching it, using it, utilising it, dispensing it, observing it, and maintaining it for that long, but “mumbo-jumbo” it’s called over here. It’s a little bit like the prayer that starts every sitting of this House—mumbo-jumbo. Like that sceptre over there—mumbo-jumbo. [Interruption] Oh, yes—yes, yes. Go and think about it and come back.

Thirty years’ worth of exclusion—30 years’ worth of exclusion. Te mana o tēnei Whare, kāre au e paku, paku, paku whakaaro nui ki te mana o tēnei Whare, te mana o tērā taha, me ngā tāngata e noho nā, e kawe nei i ngā mahi a te Kāwanatanga. Kūare rawa atu ki ngā tikanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi, te Tiriti o Waitangi nāna koutou i whakaae kia noho mai ki tēnei whenua, ā, ka riro i a koe tētahi mana mō te toru tau.

Kia kaha, kia hāneanea tō noho mō te rua tau. Ka mutu te rua tau, kua ngaro noa atu koutou.

Nō reira, ka huri, ka hoki anō ahau ki ngā kōrero nāku i tīmata.

[The authority of this House, I have not an iota, iota, iota of consideration for the authority of this House, the authority of that side, and the people seated there that are carrying out the activities of the Government. Entirely ignorant of the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi that allowed you to settle in this country, and you have received some power for three years.

Go for it, sit comfortably for two years. After two years, you will be gone.

And so I’ll pivot, I’ll come back to the statements that I myself initiated.]

We do not support the bill in the slightest.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I’ll be chairing the select committee that the bill is going to. I’m very much looking forward to the submissions that will be received, and I know that the committee will give very due and full consideration to all the submissions.

I want to just make the point in the House this afternoon that this bill is a part of the fix-it plan that we campaigned on as a Government, a coalition Government, just over 12 months ago. This time 12 months ago, we were busy repealing the previous administration’s natural and built environment and spatial planning legislation because we knew that that would just further stymie and act as a further roadblock to getting the country growing and thriving, particularly in economic terms.

This bill is intent on actually providing across five key themes: the first one being infrastructure and energy, the second one being housing growth, the third one being farming and the primary sector, the fourth one being natural hazards and emergencies, and the fifth one being systems improvements. It’s a precursor to a significant rewrite of resource law in New Zealand that will come later in the term of this Parliament.

On that note, then, I endorse the bill. I’m looking forward to hearing what submitters have to say and to working with the select committee on it. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you. As you will have heard from a prior speaker, Rachel Brooking, on behalf of the Labour Party, we are supporting this at first reading to select committee. I would have some words of advice for the Government on this.

There has been, now, too much to-ing and fro-ing on Resource Management Act (RMA) law and as a country we actually need to settle it. I have heard the Hon Chris Bishop say that he’s up for that, to trying to reach an accommodation that everyone can live with; and I heard Te Pāti Māori’s disquiet with the legislation because they don’t feel that their interests are properly protected or provided for in this legislation. I think the Hon Scott Simpson, when he chairs this select committee, will, I hope, apply his wisdom to the hearing of submissions so that some of these issues can be worked through in a way that everyone can live with them. Otherwise, we’re actually going to continue the game of ping pong here in a way that’s not very good.

Now, I heard the other side say that this is the key to unlocking the development potential of the country. It is relevant to that—I’m not denying its relevance—but I do think that it’s a little bit overstated that it’s planning constraints that lie behind New Zealand’s lack of productivity growth. Indeed, I don’t really know of any planning constraints—I know they’re frustrating to the rural sector, on whom we rely for the vast bulk of our primary production exports, but I think there’s some exaggerated claims as to that being what’s held back productivity growth in New Zealand.

I’ll mention a couple of areas that I think deserve serious consideration. Te Pāti Māori are concerned that their article 2 rights, in respect of what they still are left owning, are effectively frustrated by the existing planning legislation. The Natural and Build Environment Act—which replaced the RMA; which the incoming Government repealed—did delegate to Māoridom the right to, for example, consent communal housing, papakāinga, on Māori land. Now, I think those sorts of recognitions of tino rangatiratanga under article 2 should not be problematic for us as a country. I don’t see why we should be politicising those issues.

Similarly, if there is a geothermal resource which is sitting under Māori-owned land, I don’t have a problem with that consent decision being delegated to the Māori owners of that land either. I think if the Government was willing to listen to those sorts of concerns from Māoridom, some of these issues might be sorted out.

Now, I don’t go so far as to say that any subset of the population should be able to take all decisions in respect of land—even their own land, whether it’s a private non-Māori owner or a private Māori owner. For example, I don’t think we should follow the North American example of where you can consent a casino on people’s land. I think that’s bad law.

That said, there are some good things in this legislation, and I’ll run through them. It might surprise the Associate Minister for the Environment, the Hon Andrew Hoggard, but I agree with what’s proposed here for farm plans. I think that having the audit and certification regimes trialled through farm industry organisations—I know that’s something that the Hon Damien O’Connor wanted and he was frustrated that we hadn’t landed that in a more simple form by the time we left office. I think that’s good progress, but it should be in support of an objective, which is, where we have degraded waterways, their gradual improvement over time; and where they’re in good condition, not allowing them to degrade further. If this, however, is accompanied by efforts to undermine the existing freshwater protection rules that we have under the RMA, that will be a step too far, in my opinion. There have been some criticisms of the Te Mana o te Wai framework, but surely as a mature society we can work through those differences and get somewhere where we land there.

I’ve only got limited time. In respect of the flip-flop that we had from National on the medium-density zone—which they agreed under Judith Collins through Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis, but then resiled from later—my concern about this iteration is that if you don’t internalise the inefficiency of improperly put infrastructure costs to the decision, you’ll get to an economically wrong outcome and I hope the select committee looks at that as you do.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill.

There’s an old farming saying: “Every dog has its day”. The Resource Management Act, as we know it, is well past its use-by date. Is it past its use-by date? Yes, it is. Does it need fixing? Yes, it does. Can we fix it? Yes, we will. Yes, we can, and, yes, we will, thank you.

This amendment bill seeks to, in amongst what it seeks to do, make it fit for purpose and to make it easier to consent for new infrastructure, renewable energy, and building houses. It is also enhancing some of the rules for clarification around some of the requirements within the farming sector.

We used to be a country that got stuff done, and then, all of a sudden, we weren’t. This bill gets us back on the path to doing stuff, so what’s not to like about that? I’m more than happy to commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): The previous speaker, Mike Butterick, just talked about the fact that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken and needs to be fixed, but I would say that this legislation is more about tinkering than fixing anything. As was said from my colleagues earlier, we had a plan—we developed a plan, we designed a plan—and then, of course, the plan of the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act was canned this time last year. I know my colleague in the House, the Hon Rachel Brooking, mentioned earlier that she wrote to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to say, “Look, we will work to find a way forward.”, but, of course, there was no reply to that.

We reluctantly, I guess, consider what is being proposed here this evening, and we see there are, obviously, good parts to it—there are challenging parts, but also good parts. For us, we need to think critically about what we’re doing since we’re back, I guess, at square one in many ways, with the RMA. I mean, it is a struggle, because this does feel like tinkering, but, none the less, it is the bill that is in front of us.

As I look through the legislation, there are some things that I think are OK. There are a few things that do disappoint me, though. Often in this House, particularly with this Government and particularly around RMA reform, there’s calls for “Let’s work together, let’s work in bipartisanship, let’s do all that together.”, and we did. It’s hard to trust that process when we committed—and I know that the Hon Judith Collins, David Parker, and Megan Woods stood on the podium together back in 2021 to announce and implement the medium-density residential standards plan, which, again, in this legislation, they’re watering it down. They’ve said, “No, we don’t really like that any more.” For us, it is a challenge when we talk and want to be bipartisan but then it comes back to bite us.

As I look at this legislation, I just want to bring the House’s attention to a couple of things. One is around the emergency response and natural hazards, which, I think, in this day and age, we need to consider and we need to look at in terms of where we’re at. You know, earlier in the afternoon I was speaking on the Fast-track Approvals Bill, opposing it as best I could, but in my speech on that legislation I talked about the Insurance Council of New Zealand and their concerns in terms of what is going on around climate and the challenges of climate change.

With this bill, it does introduce new regulation-making powers for the Minister to respond to natural hazards and other emergencies and enable recovery efforts in affected areas. I think what the bill does, it’s helpful in terms of outlining an assessment of natural hazards and risks that councils must then complete the assessment in terms of this, and when they want to grant land consent for an area subject to natural hazard risks.

I look at the agenda for today in terms of legislation that’s being formed and being made, and I think it probably is important to have that in here, in light of the Fast-track Approvals Bill, to have this part of the policy in place, because there are some real challenges around consenting and our natural hazards in terms of where we are and where things are placed. I think, if this bill does provide an increased suite of tools that are going to help in terms of looking at our natural hazards, looking at what emergency events may arise and finding ways to make better decisions and to be more effective, that is something that we can support, because we know that there are going to be more challenges, and in terms of when councils are looking at consenting, when they’re looking at the areas for growth in terms of building houses, we’ve got to find a way forward.

Finally, as a member of the Environment Committee, I would like to speak to my colleagues on the Environment Committee, as this bill will come to us. I will challenge myself and I will challenge my fellow committee members to really delve into this legislation—to interrogate it, to listen carefully to submitters who submit on it, to look carefully at the bill, at the challenges it poses, not just to go along with what is expected from the Ministers above them but to actually really look into this legislation to make sure that we can bring this back to the House and have it in a far better condition than it is today, to really look at what is important in terms of going forward with this legislation. We commend this bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise in support of this Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. I think everybody in this House agrees that our resource management system here in New Zealand is holding us back and the management of our resources is flawed.

This is part of our plan of reforming our resource management system. It has three phases. This bill is part two. Of course, we’ve already gone through and repealed some of the unworkable legislation that had been put in place. This is really about targeted changes to the current resource management system and this will address some of the more necessary changes that we need to do to really drive economic growth and productivity.

Of course, we’ve already traversed this, as other speakers on this side of the House have talked about, making it easier to consent for new infrastructure, including renewable energy, building houses, and enhancing the primary sector. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Gene Technology Bill

First Reading

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Gene Technology Bill.

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

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I move, That the Gene Technology Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

What a great day for science. As part of the agreements with our coalition partners, New Zealand First and the ACT Party, this Government has committed to introducing dedicated legislation for gene technology. This bill is a result of that commitment and the commitment we made to the New Zealand public to bring our regulations for gene technology into the 21st century. Our current regulations for genetically modified organisms are some of the most backward looking in the world. New Zealand has lagged behind other countries, such as Australia, Canada, and England, which have safely embraced these technologies for the benefit of their people and their economies.

Despite gene technologies having been in use in New Zealand since the 1970s, the restrictive rules and time-consuming processes we have imposed on researchers have made testing and embracing innovation outside the lab all but impossible. But no more. This Government has listened to our research, primary industry, and medical communities and the frustrations that they have felt over many years. Today, New Zealand moves into the present with a safe enabling regulatory regime. The legislation will enable the sorts of innovation that will benefit New Zealand while effectively managing risks to the health and safety of people and the environment.

Instead of continuing to frustrate, we want to enable New Zealand’s biotech ecosystem to attract and retain the brightest minds so that we can deliver solutions to the challenges New Zealand faces, such as climate change, such as increasing the productivity of our primary sector, such as conservation, such as human health—potential cancer cures. From advances in health treatments in our hospitals to supporting our farmers to produce the best food in the world, the transformative path of innovation is key to our country’s future and key to making New Zealanders’ lives better.

The key objective of this legislation is to proportionately regulate gene technologies. A one-size-fits-all approach is neither efficient nor appropriate for managing risks to the health and safety of people and the environment, and we have decades of experience, both here and abroad, to proportionately regulate gene technology. With a new regime, the Government is also taking a forward-looking and sensible approach to the regulation of innovative technologies like gene editing. Other countries around the world, from Australia to Japan to England, are safely embracing these very predictable technologies, and this new legislation will ensure we no longer lag behind. Rather than being apprehensive of innovation, we intend to regulate these more predictable technologies based on their most important factor—that’s their outcomes. Previous approaches have been akin to regulating electric cars more stringently because they are a new technology, whereas our approach will be logical, science-based, safe, and fair.

As a small country, we need to be realistic about what we can achieve and where we can best rely on overseas expertise to deliver benefits for New Zealanders. Our gene technology regime will allow the recognition of comparable overseas gene technologies regulators, which will enable us to make better use of considerable expertise overseas and expand the number of medical therapies available to New Zealanders. This will also have the benefit of freeing up the time of our new regulator, enabling them and supporting their staff to concentrate on areas where their limited time is best spent. It will enhance the efficiency of the regime for researchers and developers of new beneficial applications.

This Government is committed to creating a new regime that provides both transparent and understandable decisions from the new gene technology regulator and enables participation under a number of application types, so that the public can provide input. We believe an effective forum in which the public and users of the regime can express their views on these applications will be essential for public trust and building a more effective system over time. This will be enabled in a range of ways, from specific licence applications right through to the risk-tiering framework, which will underpin this new regime.

I want to take a moment to address some of the rhetoric I’ve heard this year, so as to assure New Zealanders what this change means and what it doesn’t. This change does not mean a free-for-all on genetic technologies in New Zealand. This change simply means that gene technologies have a pathway to regulatory assessment that is designed to ensure the public and environmental safety of New Zealand. This change does not mean that people have to use gene technologies. This change gives those who want to benefit from these technologies a regulatory approval method so that they can. They can opt in. They do not have to opt out. They’d have to opt in in order to use them.

This change does not mean we can no longer have organics or be GE-free. Genetically engineered products have been in New Zealand for years, in things such as soy milk. Other countries with a gene technology regime still have organic sectors. Think of the United States and Australia. The US is the largest organics producer in the world while also being the largest producer of genetically modified food. This change does not mean that we are opening up the floodgates to genetic engineering of all kinds—just to be very clear on that point. I can assure you that the genetic engineering of human embryos will remain banned.

What this does mean for New Zealanders and their families is this: New Zealanders will have better access to more effective cancer treatments, such as CAR T-cell therapy—if they want to. Our farmers will have access to productivity tools and emissions-reduction technologies, helping them to meet their climate goals and get higher yields—but only if they want to. Our scientists will no longer be confined to petri dishes; instead, having a chance to get their amazing technology approved for use outside the lab, and the New Zealand economy reaping the benefits of that.

Think of genetically edited apples that take one year to grow, fruit, and produce, rather than the five to seven years of other apples. Think how useful that would have been after Cyclone Gabrielle decimated so much of the Hawke’s Bay horticulture. I’ve seen this in one of our labs in a Crown research institute already being done here, but they can’t take it out the lab. We already have the science to do all of this, and these are the productivity tools. If we use them, they will save family businesses and they will save livelihoods. This is a wonderful day for science, and I encourage all New Zealanders to engage in what gene technology can do for them.

I would like to thank all the members and staff from around the House who engaged with myself and my office on these changes. As this bill progresses through the parliamentary process, I encourage all parties not to lose sight of the real aims of this new legislation. Increased productivity isn’t just a number on a spreadsheet; it means more income for our hard-working farmers, horticulturalists, and support for our rural and provincial communities. Greater innovation isn’t just another publication or science journal; it means more tools to address the big challenges of our age and provides greater opportunities to incentivise our researchers to stay.

A defining moment was the invention of the ability to precisely edit individual genes. The CRISPR process was announced in 2012, and it won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020. That changed everything, because it means that we’re not splicing together genes from different species but that we’re editing existing genes. And more medical therapies aren’t just a nice to have; it means more effective and safe cancer treatments, and it means greater hope and quality of life for patients and their families.

I would also like to thank the staff at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for all the hard work they’ve been doing, and also my own staff, who have worked so hard to bring this to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is a bill of gaps. The first gap is the gap between what the Minister says is happening and what is actually happening. The Minister says that we’re bringing our rules into alignment with other countries and, in particular, Australia, but there’s a critical difference. It lies in the space of non-regulated technologies and organisms.

It’s a tricky, technical area, where I’ve taken advice from experts. Those experts have told me that we would allow non-regulation of SDN-2 processes, where other countries such as Australia allow non-regulation of only SDN-1 processes—that’s site-directed nucleases. Although it sounds like precision engineering, that’s only in comparison with the old, mash-it-together techniques. The key point is that our rules would be much more permissive than Australia’s and, indeed, most countries’ rules. Australia is in the process of changing its rules, but it is consulting with the public on them. In the meantime, our proposed rules are not aligned with Australia or with other countries. We are way out ahead.

The second gap in this proposed legislation, unlike Australia, is that there has been no public consultation. There has been targeted consultation, but it has been conducted primarily with those who stand to benefit from the legislation. To their credit, officials have turned to researchers to fill the gap, but it is clear from the published research that most New Zealanders feel the need for much more information about genetic technologies and many have strongly nuanced views.

One study showed that when it comes to gene editing and genetic modification, 11 percent of Māori and 12 percent of non-Māori were strongly supportive, and 33 percent of Māori and 23 percent of non-Māori leaned supportive. It might be easy to interpret that as showing a fair degree of support for the use of GMOs and gene editing, but when I contacted the authors of that study, they clarified that “Although the leaning support of clusters—both Māori and non-Māori—had a quantitative score that leaned closer towards support for these new technologies, the open-ended responses found strong ambivalence”—and that’s their original emphasis there—“especially among Māori due to the uncertainty respondents felt about benefits and risks. For example, the qualitative responses of those in the Māori leaning supportive cluster listed significantly more concerns than opportunities, with several apprehensions about unintended consequences, ethical breaches, and lack of adequate information to make considered opinions.”

I am not convinced that New Zealanders support the widespread use of GMOs and gene technologies. Of course they support medical applications, but, as for wider uses, it’s an open question and one that the Minister has not grappled with.

The third gap is the lack of any economic analysis, beyond some hand-waving about possible benefits. There are no numbers in the regulatory impact statement as published. Any numbers that might have been there have been redacted. Worryingly, in the regulatory impact statement, officials say that there are “unquantified costs to organic/non-GMO primary producers.” The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has quantified the possible costs and they estimate that the effect on our exports might be in the order of $10 billion to $20 billion a year. It’s not just the organic producers who will be affected. All New Zealand producers benefit from our clean, green imagine—an image that will be irreparably damaged if we do not get this legislation right.

The fourth gap is the exclusion of expertise. The regulator is required to set up a technical advisory committee, but that committee has no space for an ethicist. And while the regulator is also required to set up a Māori advisory committee, they are not required to consult that committee. I think that most of us in this House, like most New Zealanders, would support the use of GMO and gene editing techniques for medical applications. Indeed, Labour as a Government was working towards updating our rules for exactly that purpose. But this bill goes far further. It doesn’t just liberalise our rules around genetic engineering; it takes us out in advance of other countries, and it does so with no public consultation, no analysis of the impact on trade, no certain role for tangata whenua, no ethics input. There simply are too many gaps in this bill.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The ability to intervene directly in life at the genetic level is a powerful ability. That is why it must be done with precaution, with ethics, and with broader societal values and costs and benefits of the technology, including the economy, being taken into consideration, and in recognition of the fact that proprietary interests are the main player in the genetically engineered field.

Here in New Zealand, we have a founding agreement that also affirms Māori have sovereignty over taonga and, thereby, protects indigenous species from proprietary ownership and modification without consent, and the important considerations of the Wai 262 claim and findings.

Genetic medicine is not contentious and has always been supported by the Greens, from insulin through to vaccines, and so too is contained precision fermentation. The release of live, self-replicating organisms into the environment and agricultural systems is a different story.

This particular legislation is a reckless rush job of potentially monumental proportions, because it has failed to take into account those who are most impacted by this liberalisation of the current regime. It is extraordinary that this Government has not done a full economic analysis of the impact of this legislation, and the only one done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research finds a potential $10 billion to $20 billion cost of our existing value-added component to our primary production sector. That is an extraordinary cost to risk.

What is more, when it is assessed as to the marginal costs and benefits of the package, in the regulatory impact statement it states, “When GMOs are eventually released into the environment under the proposed regime, there will be additional costs to certify products as GMO free. In the Australian canola example, the additional certifications costs were estimated to be A$14.00 per tonne.” Which is to say, the burden of remaining GMO-free—as every current producer in this country is, whether you’re an animal producer, a fruit or a vegetable producer, or a crop producer—will now fall on those producers to prove their non-GMO status.

“It is expected that additional costs to obtain”—is the word that is used—“this premium should be borne by those seeking to obtain value from it.” Which is to say—and farmers of New Zealand, you should hear this out—you no longer are maintaining your current GE-free status, you in fact are having to pay the cost of obtaining it. This legislation, effectively, forfeits New Zealand’s current non-GMO producer status at a cost of potentially tens of billions of dollars to the economy. What an extraordinarily reckless piece of legislation this is. One would hope that this was actually treated with true scientific rigour in assessment of the evidence.

The evidence of genetic engineering is that the hyperbolic claims made by the Luxon Government for what it can do are not borne out by what we’ve seen in 30 years of commercial production of GE crops. New Zealand is not an outlier in having a rigorous regulatory regime. There are only actually 27 countries in the world that have commercial production of GE crops, out of 195 countries. Most of those countries are in the Americas and, of the four main commodity crops produced, 99 percentage of the global acreage is four crops: soy, maize, cotton, canola. They mostly end up as animal feed or as biofuels. There is no single product that has high commercial value that is sold as direct human food in the global market—after 40 years of billions of dollars of investment in the United States and thousands of field trials. When the Government suggests that, somehow, us forfeiting our GMO-free status is going to get us some sort of high-value product, it just doesn’t bear out with the evidence of what GE does.

The Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology talks about genetically engineering apples. Well, we currently have a potential 95 percent premium on New Zealand apples because they are GMO free, and there is no genetically engineered apple sold anywhere in the world that has extra commercial value—in fact, I know don’t know of any. Let’s be clear that when we evaluate how best to use GE—such as its amazing opportunities in medicine, which are not contentious—the cost to New Zealand farmers of that forfeiture, whereby they will wear the burden, is a big cost. They should be screaming blue murder, frankly, for this Government being willing to sacrifice and risk the value of their primary production industry. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call. I am so pleased to take this call. I know that a lot of hard work has gone into this issue to bring it to this stage, and I can attest to that.

It was in 2019 when I stood up as an Opposition member of Parliament and announced a policy which is, basically, reflected in this legislation. Then, in 2023, when the Hon David Seymour announced me as a candidate for the ACT Party at the ACT Party rally, I had the opportunity to deliver a speech, and in that speech I talked about this issue of profound significance: approaching genetic modification differently in New Zealand. I said that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act), which regulates genetic modification in New Zealand, is no longer fit for purpose. It was really pleasing to see that, a week after that, National reannounced a policy that is to change the approach towards genetic modification. Then it became part of our coalition agreement, and here we have this bill going through the first reading.

The examples that I used in my 2019 announcement are still valid. The examples I used were of HME ryegrass. This is high metabolisable energy ryegrass, developed by AgResearch. It was looking really promising, when they did all the tests at lab level, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but then they couldn’t do field trials here in New Zealand. They could have, but they didn’t want to go through all the hoops dealing with the HSNO Act, so they decided to go overseas to do those field trials.

The other example is of another Crown Research Institute, Plant and Food Research. They developed red-fleshed apples. This is an apple—it is not just the skin that has red skin, but the flesh is also red. For any fruit, as we know, nutrition is important, but then the taste is important as well. The scientists couldn’t taste that fruit here in New Zealand; they had to take that red-fleshed apple overseas to taste.

With these two examples, what we can see is that the time line for bringing these products to commercial level was pushed out not just by months but by years and years. That is the kind of delay that is happening in the work that is happening in our labs at the moment, and this work is of really high value. It’s expensive as well, and we know that it’s highly skilled people who do this kind of work. When this kind of work goes overseas, we also, knowingly and unknowingly, are losing a lot of skilled workers, going to other countries where they can take that work to the next level.

It’s really important that we change this legislation and that the legislation is fit for purpose. We want to see that the legislation is not only working for the next 20 years. As we have seen, the past legislation, the HSNO Act, has worked for around 20 years, and already, from the last five to six years, I have been advocating for a change of this legislation. We want to see that this legislation actually works for longer, because this is a technology that is advancing really, really fast. That’s why it’s important that the legislation is not based on technique, but on risk. Regulation should be proportional to risk.

The other thing that is really important here is that we want to see that it’s consistent legislation all through the country, because scientists need consistency. They need certainty. If different local bodies start making regulations at their level, approaching genetic modification differently, then it will cause confusion, which is happening at the moment. We want to stop that confusion happening as well.

It’s really important to note that scientists out there are quite frustrated. They really want us to act on this and they want us to act on this really soon. I did a survey earlier this year. I surveyed scientists, those who are doing work in this field, and the responses that I received were quite amazing. I’m hearing the kind of work that they are doing. This work is of really, really high value. I have said this before and I will say this again: we cannot continue to feel proud standing up and saying that we are GE-free, because that means we are still stuck in that trial-and-error method of selective breeding.

Just to finish, it’s really great to see that so many colleagues on this side will be supporting this bill and are in support of this change, this approach that we’re changing towards genetic modification. In the start, when I started talking about this, I was advised not to use these two words: “genetic modification”; I was asked to use a different term. It’s really good to see that now these two words, “genetic modification”, can be used the way they should be used. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support this first reading of the Gene Technology Bill. This is a long-overdue update to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Science has moved on a long way, and this has been a third rail, I think, in New Zealand politics probably since the “Corngate” saga, so it is high time we had a look at this legislation.

Essentially, we are looking at liberalising the laws around gene technology, establishing a regulator. It is a three-tier system: a non-notifiable pathway, which is a fast track, if you like, for the lower-risk technologies; a notifiable pathway; and a licensed pathway. There is no doubt that there are more tools available for our scientists and the potential for significant and speedier advancements in technology, and we’ve heard quite a bit of support, particularly in the medical space already here this evening.

Of course, this is a wide-ranging technology. It is a very broad category. It is a continuum—from gene editing, the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats stuff, where you’re, essentially, speeding up natural processes, right through to genetic modification and splicing different genes together. I note that it is a coalition agreement to “Liberalise genetic engineering laws”—it does go on to say, “while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment.”

I know this is going to be a very consequential select committee. This is a very complex area for which there is a wide variety of views. New Zealand First will be led by that select committee report. We must not trade away our GE-free competitive advantage lightly. We, essentially, have last-mover advantage to think very, very carefully about how we position ourselves in this space, particularly in food. We are a major food exporter. We must take the feedback of that sector, particularly our major exporters, extremely seriously. Fonterra has historically been very cautious on this technology. I understand their attitude has softened a bit of late, but it is those major exporters, particularly, that we must look to, to give some guidance. We must understand the trade-offs we are making. This is very much a risk-reward.

The organic sector also, we do have some concerns around them. We must understand what the impacts are on them and what mechanisms are going to be available for them to continue on growing their sector.

Consumer sentiment is also a factor. We’ve seen recently a methane inhibitor released in the UK, the Bovaer product, that has received major consumer pushback, and so there is often a difference between the enthusiasm of scientists for this technology, and consumers, and we must look to understand that. We have to be alert and humble enough to recognise that truism. We must also be compatible with our trading partners. There is no point getting too far ahead of ourselves in that regard.

Our GE regime is going to change. The live question is where we draw the line. We look forward to the select committee report, and New Zealand First will be closely scrutinising. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. I’ve got to say that this is one of the most complex, technical, and contentious bills—potentially just as contentious as the Treaty principles bill. Why? This bill may not be about a treaty between two people, but it is a treaty between humankind and all living things, the environment, animals, and food.

This is a kaupapa that I’m very passionate about. Before this political life, I was living the dream. I was a full-time gardener and a project manager where we created the first ever Māori organic community kai garden, in partnership with the Ministry for Primary Industries. We turned a once huge corn maze, which, honestly, just gave us hay fever, into a Māori supermarket, with lush, abundant, good, nutritious food for the local communities in my electorate. This is where I was introduced to the concept of what GE and GMO is, and the whakapapa of our kai.

What is gene technology, to break it down for all the rangatahi watching right now? It is the science of changing or controlling the genes inside living things, like plants, animals, or even bacteria, to make them do things we want. Genes are like the instructions that tell living things how to grow, look, and work. With gene technology, scientists can add, remove, or change these instructions to improve health, make better crops, or even create new medicines. It’s like editing a recipe to make it better, different, or, potentially, even worse.

I, myself, have personally been a GE- and GMO-free advocate, and before I carry on, I’d like to acknowledge the many different teams—He Waka Kai Ora, Hua Para Kore, He Whenua Rongo, Koro Hiakai, and te Papawhakaritorito Charitable Trust—for their continuous advocation and knowledge in this kaupapa.

What are the pros and cons? Pros: improved crops, disease treatment, better nutrition, and medical advancement. Cons: environmental risks, health concerns, ethical issues, and cost and controls. In my eyes, GE in the right hands is great, but GE in the wrong hands is terrible.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s current status on genetically modified organisms, otherwise known as GMOs, is that no fresh produce or meat is genetically modified and no GMOs are grown commercially. However, some processed foods may contain approved GMO ingredients that have been imported. With the introduction of this bill, that is about to completely change. J R Bruning from the Daily Telegraph NZ said, “The proposed deregulation of GMOs is so extreme that Judith Collins’ current proposal would turn New Zealand from best practice, tightly regulated jurisdiction to one of the weakest in the western world.”

This bill is taking the lead from Australia and it acknowledges that we need to bring our legislation up to par with the international framework. However, proposed European legislation has stalled, and in Europe, deregulation exclusively concerns plants; while in New Zealand, deregulation would encompass plants, animals, and microbes.

My first policy release was an Aotearoa kai sovereignty policy. Some of the main points within this policy were to honour Wai 262 and to reject research and the commercialisation that is done without hapū, iwi, and whānau consent. Two unresolved issues raised in the Wai 262 claim remain outstanding, and it is the duty of this Parliament to honour the claim and bring the claim to conclusion: decisions about flora, fauna, and wider environment that are symbolic to Māori, and decisions about how education, culture, and heritage agencies support the transmission of Māori culture. We don’t oppose the research and rangahau that can create massive benefits for humankind, but, as a nation, we must ensure that these checks and balances in our regulatory system framework are in a place that is robust enough to counter the potential risk factors. We have no idea of the long-term impacts into the future. We are literally going into the unknown, or, otherwise, opening a can of worms.

As Māori gardeners, me, Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi have various seeds that were handed down from our ancestors, all the way from Hawaiki, which we still plant in our back yards today. This speaks volumes as to the way in which we protect our Māori intangible and tangible resources and taonga. I could have gone on longer, but—[Time expired]

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Government is ending the 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab. There’s a reason we’re doing this: it’s because we are going to tackle climate change. There is technology out there that we can use to tackle climate change, that we can use to help people get better from cancer, that we can use to boost productivity—and at the current settings, we don’t have the ability to do that. That’s what we’re going to. It’s going to be a key source of science that has the potential to deliver enormous benefit to New Zealand, and we intend to utilise it.

Now, there are people out there that are worried about the safeguards. Let me say to that: as the Minister has clearly articulated, there will be a regulator set up which will be established to oversee the use of gene technology in New Zealand. You don’t have to utilise it if you don’t want to, as Minister Collins said on a number of occasions.

We did hear a member opposite, I think, raise concerns about a lack of public consultation on the matter; there will be. It’s called a select committee. I know the members of the Health Committee will do a very good job on that when it comes to us soon.

We are moving to deliver on our pre-election commitment to deliver gene technology and we are delivering on our coalition agreements with our partners. We are going to use technology, like gene technology, for the benefit of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this gene technology editing piece of legislation which unfortunately Labour at this stage cannot support going any further, and I’d like to cover off the reasons as to why.

As my colleague previously mentioned before, we can see the absolute benefits as far as medical research, etc., vaccines, and all of those things go, but where we have concern is partly around the consultation process, or lack thereof. The previous speaker, Sam Uffindell, talked about the fact that consultation will be happening as part of the select committee process, but I would argue that before something as big and complex as this is developed, there should be far wider consultation before it even gets to this stage; before the bill is even completely developed.

In fact, there was some research done recently which showed 93 percent of the farmers that were surveyed thought it was important that there was widespread consultation with farmers. That has not happened. We know that there is a wide and diverse range of views as far as this particular subject goes, and I would argue that is particularly relevant as far as the horticultural sector goes. There is some real concern out there, within that sector, as to what this could mean for them.

If we think about those that are growing organically, what happens if we have some sort of a crop or something that flowers and then contaminates a property nearby that is organic? Who pays for that happening? Will there be insurances taken out for those who are responsible for that in order for them to have to pay compensation? Is there going to be additional costs for those organic growers to have to go through and show that they continue to comply and be organic farmers?

I also want to touch on some of the information that we have seen in this regulatory impact statement (RIS), which is put together with advice for the Minister. There are a lot of concerns that were raised, particularly around the lack of being able to consult widely. They were only able to do some specific, targeted consultation, and I just think that that’s really irresponsible when we’re looking at a piece of legislation that means that our farmers and our growers and others are going to have to just put up with—whether they choose it or not, it’s going to be out there.

Yes, I can understand and see the benefits as far as research and innovation goes. When we think about reducing our methane targets and all those kinds of things, I absolutely understand and get that, but the crux of the matter is—

Hon Mark Patterson: Support it to the select committee.

Hon JO LUXTON: —that there is lack of consultation, Mr Patterson; lack of consultation from all those relevant in the sectors, and it should be done well before the select committee process, Mr Patterson.

Sam Uffindell: There was an election, as well.

Hon JO LUXTON: The other thing—that’s not consultation on this particular piece of legislation. The consultation—[Interruption]

OK, they talk about their election and their campaigning, and they campaigned on it, but you didn’t campaign on the details, did you, Mr Uffindell? You didn’t campaign on the details; you didn’t campaign on the potential risks to our trade, which I know that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor is going to speak to, because there are some serious implications.

The one other thing that I would like to highlight is that they’re going to establish a Māori advisory committee. As far as I can tell, this is simply tokenistic; absolutely tokenistic because, reading this RIS, they talk about: “The proposals alter the status quo by placing a duty [of] decision makers to manage adverse effects to Māori kaitiaki relationships with specific species, instead of requiring them to take into account Te Tiriti principles more generally. Given time and scope constraints, officials did not analyse a wide range of options on how to best protect Māori rights and interests.”

They also gave different options to Ministers—which they chose not to give Māori the opportunity to have decision making in this process. We do not support this.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It is a great day for science. I have spent my working life dedicated to scientific research, including using these genetic technologies, which, ultimately, is about improving the health outcomes of all New Zealanders and improving our quality of life. I’m also an organic producer, so I understand people that are producing things organically, and the two aren’t mutually exclusive; we can do both.

This bill is very important to unleash our medical research, our agricultural research, because this is not just about CAR T-cells and cancer treatments; it’s also about environmental and economic outcomes for all New Zealanders. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): In 2023, a report was put out by Te Puna Whakaaronui which recommended that we have a conversation on GE regulation because we had fallen behind. At the same time, the Labour Government was looking at changes to GE regulations for medical purposes. The conversation has not occurred. What we have received in the House is a bill—a bill that would have limited scope for change, that this Government is going to proceed with.

The question I have is: who paid money to bring this bill into this House? Who paid money to bring this bill into this House? There are officials up there, they’ve done quite a lot of work. They’ve been instructed by the Government to rush that work, and they’ve written the report here—

Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitated to interrupt the member on his feet, but to allege that money had transferred to bring a bill into this House is utterly unparliamentary and the member should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was on the border, but the thing that was concerning me was bringing officials into the debate, which actually, the Hon Damien O’Connor, I think, probably wasn’t the wisest thing across that whole sentence.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I just acknowledge it wasn’t to discredit in any way the officials, but they’ve done a report here of 131 pages, which is quite comprehensive, and you should read it. It sets up a regulator—a person within the Environmental Protection Authority who is accountable only to the Minister—only to the Minister. What piece of legislation of such significance would set up such a regime?

I’ve gone through this in detail. I’ll start off here—[Interruption]—with officials’ advice that says—they’re very sensitive, aren’t they, on this? Very sensitive, they are. “We are unable to comprehensively quantify these expected benefits as technology development is uncertain, there are few “ready for market” gene technologies in New Zealand currently and the make-up of New Zealand’s food and fibre industry is distinct.” The reality is that our economy depends on the production and the sale of the finest food and fibre in the world. Our economy depends upon it and the report quite clearly says that there is general enthusiasm and support for progress in medicine, but not in the food and fibre sectors, which is where a conversation needs to occur.

I’ll go through this again and quote here: “Current understanding of the current and potential gene technology sector limited our ability to outline both benefits and potential impacts (and is in part a consequence of the existing regulatory constraints on the activity).” They go on to say, “This scope limitation has meant [and] mean that we have not considered all potential options that may have effectively addressed key issues underlying”. This has been rushed. There has been no conversation. In here, it once again says that there may not be the public licence to progress the very changes that this Government may want to see—and indeed I want to see as well, but I want to see a cautious progress here.

Can I go on to say from this report, which everyone should have, “The policy development process has been limited by a time line seeking to Cabinet approval of policy decisions to enable the introduction of a Bill into the House before the end of 2024, [in order to] enable the regime to be operational in 2025. This has compressed the analysis able to be undertaken in a highly complex area, and may mean options, impacts, and consequences were not (or … fully) considered.”

There has been little or no consideration of what the impacts of this might be on core parts of our economy. I’ll go on to say that in assessing the so-called risk analysis, the question of whether trade in our markets should be taken into account, it has been rejected. It says here, “The expected eventual release into the environment of some GMOs would involve potential risks for trade and market access because trading partners may not accept exports that have been ‘contaminated’ by GMOs, incidentally or otherwise.”

This puts at risk our markets and the sale of all of our primary produce, and there has not been any proper consultation, proper consideration. Indeed, this bill prevents the consideration, on the basis of the recommendations in here, of those market access. This is potentially disastrous for trade. Labour will be not supporting this bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to be the final speaker in this debate on the first reading of the Gene Technology Bill. It’s a great day for science, as many have said. This bill puts in place the regulatory enablement to allow the exciting advancements in potential in health research and biotech, in the plant and food sector, and especially in our Crown research institutes, like Scion. This is a great day. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Gene Technology 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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 53.

That the Gene Technology Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

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 55

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

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is,

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Local Government (Water Services) Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.

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

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I move, That the Local Government (Water Services) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is the third part of this Government’s work to deliver comprehensive reform of New Zealand’s water service delivery. It gives councils a range of innovative new structures for the delivery of water services from which they can choose. The bill does not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Councils and voters resoundingly rejected Labour’s expensive and bureaucratic three waters approach, which wasted $1.2 billion, stripping local communities of control over their water assets while failing to address New Zealand’s water infrastructure deficit. The bill gives councils flexibility, recognises that they know the needs of their communities best, and supports council-driven change. The bill also reduces the regulatory burden on councils by ensuring that regulation is proportionate and its costs do not outweigh its benefits. It also introduces economic regulation to local government water services.

Local Water Done Well gives councils the tools they need to do the basics brilliantly. It provides appropriate accountability mechanisms for ratepayers and communities to be assured that water services are being delivered effectively in their local communities. These changes provide greater certainty and improved efficiency to benefit all New Zealanders. We know that Local Water Done Well works. We have delivered on our election promise to provide a financially sustainable model for Auckland under our Local Water Done Well plan. The plan, which has been unanimously supported and endorsed by Auckland Council’s governing body, sees Aucklanders retain local control of water assets and avoid a 25.8 percent water rate hike, which would have been piled on to Aucklanders already struggling with a prolonged cost of living crisis.

We fixed that issue. We did a deal with Auckland Council, and, while I’ve heard commentary from other members of Parliament trying to say that they would have done a better job, the reality is that under their plan, they would have lumped another billion dollars of establishment costs on to their three water entities model. They would have had higher water rates increases in Auckland, causing further cost of living constraints and also limiting the capital expenditure on Auckland Watercare and the important work that they’re doing in Auckland. This Government has fixed that issue because the last Government’s approach did not stack up, which is why New Zealanders rejected it.

This bill establishes a new central piece of legislation for the delivery of water services and amends several other Acts. I intend the bill will be split during this legislative process into a stand-alone Act and one that amends and repeals other pieces of legislation. As this is the third stage of the Local Water Done Well process, the bill is built on the foundation set in the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024. This Act requires councils to prepare water service delivery plans by September 2025. The plans will lay out the current state of water services in their districts, which will show how councils will deliver water services in the future in a financially sustainable way and meet economic, environmental, and drinking water - quality standards.

This bill provides the enduring settings for the delivery of local government water services. It will inform the development of councils’ water service delivery plans, and I encourage councils to submit on the bill while they work through these plans. I’m also going to be asking the Finance and Expenditure Committee to accept submissions from councils up till the end of February, so that councils can consider their submissions at their first meetings of the new year and have enough time to submit on this bill.

The bill gives councils flexibility and discretion to determine the optimal structure for water service delivery arrangements that will work for their communities. It is not prescriptive but sets the requirements and parameters to guide council decision-making. The bill also establishes a new class of water service provider, water organisations based on existing council-controlled organisation (CCO) models. Councils can combine or establish solely owned water organisations, they can continue to provide water services in-house using the improved regulatory and service delivery settings in the bill, or they can come to other arrangements, including third party contracting or joint arrangements with other water service providers. A new model of water organisation owned by consumer trusts is also set out in the bill. This model is similar to energy trusts which own electricity distribution businesses, such as Entrust’s ownership of Vector in Auckland. Councils can establish a consumer trust to act in the interest of consumers, run by trustees elected through free and fair elections.

A series of core principles will apply to all water service providers, which includes financial sustainability, revenue sufficiency—requiring that revenue from water services is only spent on water services—and restrictions against privatisation. The streamlined consultation provisions provided by the preliminary arrangements Act, as a temporary measure to support councils in creating CCOs, carry across to this bill. These efficient consultation and decision-making processes will be a permanent feature.

This bill will implement our new economic regulation regime, which will be overseen by the Commerce Commission, to ensure water revenue is ring-fenced for investment in water infrastructure and not diverted to other council pet projects. This will promote efficient, high-quality drinking- and waste-water services, with the ability to regulate stormwater services at a later date if necessary and, importantly, as I said, allow requiring councils to ring-fence that funding so that the money that’s raised for water isn’t spent on other things—it’s spent on water. What a novel idea, and a critical part of fixing the issues we’re seeing up and down the country.

The regulatory tools available to the commission will include information disclosure, revenue thresholds, and powers to monitor and enforce the requirement that revenue from regulated water services is spent on water services. The Commerce Commission will also have a role in consumer protection. It will monitor how consumers are treated by regulated suppliers through information disclosure. If issues exist, the commission will be able to issue guidelines to the suppliers, and a mandatory service quality code if necessary. The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs may also recommend consumer protection regulations be made. The water services regulator will also be renamed the Water Services Authority, and the legislation will put the English name first.

The bill reduces the regulatory burden of the drinking water quality regime. It ensures that the authority’s regulatory approach is proportionate to the scale, complexity, and capability of the regulated suppliers. Low-risk, shared domestic suppliers are excluded from direct regulation under the Water Services Act for that reason—an important thing for many of our rural communities. The bill changes the operating principles of the authority, requiring it to consider the costs of regulatory compliance for suppliers. The authority must also work proactively with suppliers and network operators. This is to ensure that compliance requirements take into account the risk profile and capacity of each supply.

There’s also a number of transitionary arrangements and exemptions for Watercare, which, as I said earlier, was financially separated from Auckland Council by the preliminary arrangements Act, making Auckland water services affordable, saving households about $899 million over four years while ensuring improved service quality and record infrastructure investment. This bill includes several exemptions for Watercare agreed with Auckland Council, recognising the work that is already well under way for Auckland.

In conclusion, our Government is now delivering the enduring components of water services through our Local Water Done Well plan, giving local council the ability and the clarity it needs to invest in local infrastructure, while delivering economic regulation to minimise costs for ratepayers. This delivers on the coalition’s promises that we took to the last election from the National Party, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand First Party to repeal Labour’s disastrous and expensive co-governed, bureaucratic three waters approach and replace it with Local Water Done Well, which restores councils’ ownership of their assets and allows councils to invest sustainably in their local infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is a crock. It is an absolute disgrace—a disgrace of a bill introduced by a disingenuous Minister. The reason I say that is that he stood up yet again in this House and promised New Zealanders that this bill would work: “We know that Local Water Done Well works and we have fixed the issue.” That is not true, and he knows it’s not true. This is what is so disgraceful about this entire process. This isn’t a solution; this is a political PR exercise. This is the result of a Minister who promised the country that he would deliver a water services system that would be cheaper, knowing that it won’t be. At no point throughout this entire process—a process that concludes with this bill tonight—has he ever produced numbers to demonstrate that it adds up.

Hon Peeni Henare: And he knows it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: He knows it doesn’t. This is the thing that I find so egregious: he knows this won’t work, and yet he stands up in the House tonight and promises, yet again, empty promises—promises he never intends to keep; if he did, he’d be able to prove it. Every time we have asked him to, he’s deflected or denied; he’s never provided evidence.

Let’s look at the facts. From councils’ own numbers, over the next 30 years they need to spend $185 billion. If this proposal is set up against that figure, it doesn’t add up. So they’ve made up another figure. They haven’t used $185 billion; they’ve used the long-term plans—only 10 years’ worth of expenditure—but they know that many of the large pieces of infrastructure are not included in those long-term plans. They know that, but they’ve chosen to do it anyway. It is a fraction of that $185 billion. The only reason they’ve done that is to try and make their system add up. It is dishonest and it will result in unaffordable bills that this Government is setting local councils up to take the fall.

Listen to their language: the Prime Minister turning up to the local government conference and saying that mayors and councillors need to stop doing dumb things, when up to 90 percent of council expenditure is spent on water and roads, as it is. They know that; they don’t care. They know that there is disgruntlement in the community towards local councils as a whole, and they are manipulating that to suit their political agenda.

I think it’s disgraceful, because this is only going to make things worse, it’s not going to fix the problem, and when that inevitably arises, what is this Government going to do? “That’s the responsibility of local government.” We’ve heard that before. “Local government is accountable to their own communities.” We’ve heard that before. Why are they saying it? It’s to wash their hands of any responsibility. But it is their responsibility, because this is a massive issue facing this country. It’s not just the local government sector, this obscure thing we can kick when we want to; it’s ratepayers and it’s renters, because when rates go up, household income goes down. When rates go up, rents go down. That’s what’s going to happen.

This Government was elected, in part, because they promised that they would fix it. Tonight’s bill is not a solution. This is going to lead to higher rates—the credit rating agencies have said it. The credit rating agencies have said, because of this bill and because this Government repealed affordable water, councils’ credit ratings will go down. That is a direct result of their policies, and it’s out there in the public domain.

They don’t care because they are looking New Zealanders in the eye and telling them that they have made it cheaper for them, but they haven’t. I’ll tell you who they have made it cheaper for: the Government—that’s all this is about. All this was about was getting a political issue off the table.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Ah, I apologise—never mind!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apology accepted.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Water matters to every single one of us, and I really get sick of stating the bleeding obvious like that, but, unfortunately, we forget. We forget how foundational water is to us as human beings and how foundational water is when it comes to a functional planet. We need progress so badly in this water services space, because these challenges that we have across Aotearoa are so very real and they’re not going away without significant intervention—but not progress like this; progress that takes us backwards rather than forwards.

Sadly, Te Pāti Kākāriki will not be supporting this bill tonight, and there’s three initial reasons why. Firstly, the health of our people: we don’t support the narrowing of the scope of who does and doesn’t need to comply with the regulatory standards. Now, this is under the guise of reducing regulatory burden of the drinking-water quality regime, but the inequities when it comes to access to clean, healthy water and access to waste-water and stormwater networks that don’t unnecessarily pollute our environment and ourselves is staggering.

I recall just over a year ago when Tāhuna Queenstown was wrestling with its cryptosporidium outbreak. That absolutely got headlines and attention, and even international attention. We should all be well aware of the Havelock North tragedy that this country experienced, but what needs as much attention is the thousands of Kiwis who experience this rolling risk profile of ongoing boil-water notices and the like in places like Ward in Marlborough, in Waimate in South Canterbury, in places like Te Kao in Te Tai Tokerau, and so many other places where our people are throwing a dice every time they turn on the tap for a drink at their home, on marae, at their school, on their farm, at their place of work. We need strong protections when it comes to protection and regulation of these small and rural water supplies in place, particularly in light of the recent Ministry for the Environment report on rural drinking water, which found concerning levels of E. coli and nitrates in schools.

Secondly, the health of te taiao: it’s incredibly disappointing that this Government is continuing to not recognise the importance of te mana o te wai in water services, considering we literally cannot have human health improvements without the improvements of te taiao.

Thirdly, if the Government’s going to make any changes, especially foundational changes, to the governance and delivery of water services here in Aotearoa, then the Government actually needs to act like they live in Aotearoa, where Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our foundation. That means what some have called co-governance but what more appropriately is just called governance—it’s actually partnering with iwi and hapū in appropriate governance over wai and water service delivery.

I want to acknowledge our councils and councillors in the context of this bill. They’ve had to spend the last few months tasked with the unenviable task of working out their water service delivery plans and talking about partnerships with councils around them in the absence of the full legislative framework, and it’s made it hugely challenging, if not impossible, to actually meaningfully engage with communities and get their views. It’s so important that they submit on this bill, and it’s so important that they engage with their communities.

We’re really concerned about the plans to push the full cost of the regulators on to local communities. We just heard from Palmerston North City Council that they’ve estimated that to be in the realm of $400,000 a year and, no doubt, much higher costs for smaller councils.

We’re really happy to see the protections against privatisation, but of course we want to make sure that these are really strong. Healthy drinking water is and should be recognised as a human right, and we want strong local voice and control at every stage of this bill ahead. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Gene Technology Bill

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I take the next speaker, members, during the vote on the first reading of the Gene Technology Bill, the result was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 68, Noes 53. The correct result is Ayes 68, Noes 55. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Local Government (Water Services) Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party to the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, first reading. It’s an important bill to set up a regulatory framework for water services delivery. It makes clear that councils need to provide an assets condition register and also a plan to show how they envision investing for long-term upgrades and maintenance and capital upgrades. The water services providers are natural monopolies and so having a strong and credible regulatory framework is vital.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we all agree that more investment is needed in the three waters and that, actually, long term, that’s been something which has been under-invested in by local government, but lest central government get too above itself, central government’s asset management is even worse than local government’s, so I think we’ve got a job to do there.

We’ve been lectured through the day, particularly during the Fast-track Approvals Bill, about not listening to submissions, and I’d just like to remind people as I speak, about the number of submissions that there were on Labour’s Water Services Entities Act, which we’ve heard is so popular! There were 680 submissions in support of it, there were 160 neutral submissions, and 85,584 against—99 percent opposition. And did they listen? Did they what! No, they did not. They did not listen to the councils at all. It was one of the things that absolutely split local government. These guys do not want to listen to that—it is an inconvenient truth for them.

Not only have we been lectured on that, Labour’s model was very, very expensive: $185 billion, they were talking about. They were too invasive. They went down, at one stage, to two households being managed by the State. It was ideological. We’ve already heard about the co-governance arrangements which racially divided New Zealand. Even the courts—even the courts—when three brave councils went to court, found that it was appropriation without compensation. That is theft—theft. That is what the last Government was indulging in, and that is what they should not have been doing.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Now, time to go on to the modern bill—you’ve had an hour and a half.

ANDY FOSTER: That’s exactly what I was about to do. In comparison—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A minute and a half.

ANDY FOSTER: In comparison, this legislation leaves assets with the communities and the councils that have built them up over the last 150-odd years. It gives councils the choice over their delivery arrangements. It allows councils to set statements of expectation to guide the water entities. It is subject to the disciplines of the Commerce Commission and the Water Services Authority—Taumata Arowai, which I think will be a very good discipline on them. And there is a lot of transparency requirement on them. It ring-fences finances, which I think is an excellent thing to do. It also clarifies one thing, which I don’t think Labour ever actually managed to do, which is to allow water companies to charge for water services—and also, I think, very pleasingly, to be able to charge for development contributions, which I think is a very, very sensible thing to do.

It allows for waste-water standards to be set by Order in Council. Labour was asking where does—you know, how’s this going to save money? That’s one of the places it might well do that. It also allows, by Order in Council, national engineering standards, which I think will be very, very helpful to councils in saving money, and protect against privatisation. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the House and through the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa. The context of this is, and I’ve heard it referred to briefly in terms of the numbers, where I come from, Te Tai Tokerau, in a cute little place that Peeni and I know, which is Kaeō—25 years on boil-water notice in one tiny little place, in Kaeō. Te Kao—no different; you have to either buy your water or boil it, and clearly this is what this bill ignores completely.

This, in my opening discussion, brace yourself—Māori erasure, a theme extended into even water services. I know I can feel people prickling, but just hold on. The alienation of te iwi Māori from the Local Government (Water Services) Bill is merely a continuation of the infringements on the rights of tangata whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, just to throw that in. The key difference between the previous reform—and I’ve got some experience in that, because 11 iwi across the Tai Tokerau tae mai i Waikato tae atu ki Te Reinga [Northland from Waikato, all the way through to Cape Reinga] combined under a body called Waipuna aa rangi in the three waters gig, and we thought, “Let’s give this a go. Let’s do our best, because we are our own solutions.” Well, that’s been taken away and shut away, because good ideas that are designed and delivered by Māori clearly don’t make the cut with this current Government.

The Government’s current repeal replaces policy—the previous reform recognised and provided for te iwi Māori. It does not in this bill—it does not. In fact, it ignores it and puts it to the side, but we’re kind of used to that. It’s been a year of that. The ongoing Crown position that everyone owns the water is designed to extinguish the rights of tangata whenua. I don’t know how many times you need to say this for the left side of the House to actually sink in and understand that at a very fundamental level. Clearly, if you don’t have the capacity to do that, you simply can’t get it, because you have an already always listening, an already always racist listening, which is to—

Andy Foster: That’s not racist—everybody has the water.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Well, you can’t say that, can you? When you’re a Pākehā guy, you just can’t say that, so let’s move along.

Nowhere in this new bill—nowhere in this new bill—are council obligated to consult with te iwi Māori. Nowhere in this bill. For this reform to be successful, she says laughingly, negotiations between Government and hapū and iwi have to occur. They have to happen, but they don’t, not really. They might say, “Oh, look, I’ll choose that Māori or one that’s part Māori. Let’s choose the part Māori and let’s talk to that bit and see what we get across the line.” There might be people in this House that understand the concept of part Māori. It astounds me, whatever the hell that is or whatever that is—sorry, Mr Speaker.

This is exactly what the Waitangi Tribunal recommended to our last Government during the establishment of three waters. The Crown should be working directly with hapū and iwi to create a standard process for addressing Māori rights. I’m not going to hold my breath and nor are the 100,000 people that visited recently to say you were utterly mucking up and let’s think about this and try to have a decent and Treaty-based conversation, but that’s unlikely to happen.

For the most part, local councils are expected to join or establish new water services entities labelled as council-controlled organisations who are funded by grants by the Government. For these organisations to secure funding from Government, they must have no link to council or council decision making. Try and figure that one out. What this means is that these organisations will, in part, be privatised and entirely separate entities from council. Be aware that this partial privatisation is the stepping stone for complete privatisation of water as a whole. The danger in this is that our water is then managed and owned not by ourselves but by companies and organisations who will likely lead the erosion of water as belonging to the people and instead will prioritise corporate interests over our welfare.

Our position of the party is unequivocally in opposition to this bill. This Government can send their agenda of Māori erasure down the pipeline out of the three waters they intend to manage. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill. There’s been quite a number of speeches tonight; some have actually been on the subject the bill is covering and quite a few have not.

I think the best feature of this bill is that it ring-fences the funding that is collected from rates for water services and ensures that those funds are spent on water services. The best example of that not happening is only a few metres away, out on the corner of Hill Street and Molesworth Street, where there’s yet another leak in the water pipes in, what is it, the only green council in New Zealand, which has the worst water services in New Zealand—very poor management. This is a great bill, and I commend it with pleasure to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It’s pretty clear that Stuart Smith, the previous speaker, hasn’t talked to the mayors across the top of the South, because they are not happy with the arrangements that this Government has come forward with and I’m going to talk to that.

People have been talking about the levies that are going to be paid to Taumata Arowai, which are greater than what would have been paid under Labour’s plan. The primary amount of that money is going to actually go to the Commerce Commission for the regulation that they do of the water regulation system. We heard about Palmerston North having to pay $400,000 a year. In Nelson, it’ll be $200,000 a year, and in Tasman, it’ll be $350,000 a year. Nelson Mayor Nick Smith even went on to say that the Government is overreaching with the proposed new levies.

What I’ve heard from our local mayors across the top of the South is that it’s yet another cost being put on to the—

Jamie Arbuckle: That’s not right.

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, this is what’s being reported in the media, so are you disagreeing with what the media reported?

The mayors across the top of the South are deeply concerned about two things: one, the cost burden being passed on to them and therefore on to the ratepayers; and, secondly, the structural arrangements. It is an absolute cluster that we’re going to have a water system set up and a structure set up in Nelson where Nelson and Tasman aren’t working together. It’s absolutely bizarre.

When you look at the shared services between Tasman and Nelson, the waste-water Bell Island treatment plant is jointly owned by Nelson and Tasman. It takes waste water from Nelson—from Richmond, from Brightwater, from Wakefield, and Māpua—yet Nelson and Tasman aren’t going to be working together on water even though they actually co-own assets together. It’s utterly bonkers. Let alone that Tasman provides water to Nelson for the Whakatū industrial estate, which I’m really pleased the Labour Government put money into for the three waters systems to help protect it so that it doesn’t get millions of dollars of damage during flooding—one of those things we paid for. Tasman provides the water to that estate in Nelson as well as homes in Nelson South, where I live. Yet, somehow, we’re not going to have a shared Nelson/Tasman water service. It’s bizarre. Tasman’s probably going to go with Marlborough and possibly going to go with Buller, so we’ll have the top of the South but no Nelson.

Now, the advice that Nelson has received shows very clearly that by going alone they will end up paying more—and myself as a Nelson ratepayer will end up paying more—than under Labour’s plan. That’s the advice they’ve got. They’ve chosen to go alone instead of actually working together across the top of the South. I know that the Minister actually wants to see councils working together. Every other part of the country, we are seeing councils get into groups together because it brings down the cost to the ratepayer, especially when you have bizarre situations—absolutely bizarre situations—like Tasman providing services to Nelson, but, somehow, we’re not going to work together.

The Minister was very forthright about how he’d saved everything for Auckland and cost Auckland all this money. He might have saved Auckland money, but money is going to be lumped on to the rest of the country—the people in the provinces who are going to have smaller asset bases, greater amounts of debt, larger areas to cover, fewer people to actually pay for the water services. All of those small councils are going to end up paying significantly more than under Labour’s plan. That’s what all the evidence actually shows and the Minister’s refusing to engage in that conversation.

Funnily enough, so much of what the Government is actually putting in place through all of the bills is comparable to what Labour did, but the missing piece—the missing piece—is the sheer number of councils you actually need to have in the room together to get the economies of scale so that you can make the investment you need. I think the cluster that is happening across the top of the South, where we’re going to end up seeing—who knows whether Buller and Tasman and Marlborough can even get together. If they don’t, we’re going to end up with four small councils all operating on their own and every ratepayer paying a significant amount of money without being able to sort out the nonsense, because they have to work together because they actually have shared ownership of assets.

For the Government to think that somehow they’ve come up with some magic solution that is better than Labour’s plan, when the people in the top of the South are going to be paying significantly more money, is absolutely bonkers, and I do not commend this terrible bill to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. Look, it took the last Government six years and $1.2 billion to come up with an undemocratic, highly controversial, co-governance model. It has taken our Government 12 months to put water back in local ownership, have a democratic process, and come up with a regulatory framework that is going to work. It’s outcomes, it’s solutions, it’s democratic, it’s local ownership. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am having some déjà vu from earlier times in the House today, where the Government members say, “Oh, Labour did this review and it was all terrible, but aren’t we great? We’re so good at repealing things, and now we’re going to replace them with something in the Resource Management Act space over and over and over and over again. We’re going to do that and somehow it’s going to work.” Well, this does not fix any of the problems; all it does is cost ratepayers more in the longer term. It is shameful.

Hon Member: It’s your favourite word.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Now, we know—oh, I hear a Government member say that’s my favourite word. It is my favourite word at the moment because what this Government is doing is shameful: going around telling councils, “Oh, you can’t do pet projects, but we’re going to do every single pet project we want to do on our fast-track legislation.” It is shameful.

Oh, the Government members say “We’re somehow going to magically fix the funding for water pipes and treatment stations.”, and what happens? Nothing. All that this does is we know that there’s a problem with balance sheet separation—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: We knew that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: We knew that. We’ve known that for a long time. We know that economies of scale can be a good idea, as well.

All that this Government is doing is saying, “Oh, councils, you can look after that water infrastructure that you’ve always been looking after and haven’t been properly funded for and is degrading and is not maintained. We’re not going to give you any of the tools, like balance sheet separation. So we know that the ratings agencies will downgrade you. We know that the money will cost you more. We know that all this will do is put more money on ratepayers.”

Then the Minister says, “Oh, but we’ve done a deal with Auckland.” As if that solves the problem!

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What about Whangārei?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: “What about Whangārei?”, Barbara Edmonds says. What about Northland? These are very good questions, and they are not solved by letting Auckland, of course a very large and significant council with significant assets and very large interceptor pipes going in at the moment, which will hopefully decrease the runoff into the harbour—these do not fix the problems of Northland; Northland with the low ratepayer base, Northland with a lot of problems that we all know about with their pipes and treatment stations, and have done for years and years. The Auckland deal doesn’t fix any of that.

We know that there’s $185 billion needed over 30 years to upgrade our pipes and treatment stations. What has the Government done? Oh, the Government’s looking at long-term plans, and what is the time frame for a long-term plan? Is it 30 years? No. Is it 20 years? No. It’s 10 years. So, of course, the figures are different. That’s all that this Government does: changes the target, changes the numbers. It doesn’t fix the fundamental problem; instead maybe the Clutha council will go bankrupt. That is what this Government wants to call “localism.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Shameful.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Shameful. Now, we’ve also heard in a lot of speeches from Government members that somehow—somehow—this legislation is going to solve things because it’s going to ring-fence money for pipes and that that is somehow going to fix councils’ financial woes. Councils already spend about 90 percent of their money on pipes and treatment stations and roads. I don’t think that even includes waste. These are not frivolous “nice-to-haves”; this is the basic infrastructure. They are already spending all their money on that. There is no magical pipe-tree provided by this piece of legislation. It doesn’t help anything. It doesn’t help Northland.

Hon Peeni Henare: It does nothing.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: “It does nothing.”, as all of my colleagues are saying. This bill doesn’t fix the problem and it will cost ratepayers more.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): It’s great to be one of the last speakers in the first reading of the third one of these bills—the trilogy, if you will—and, frankly, I think it’s just time for me to get out of the way and let it flow. I commend the Local Government (Water Services) Bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Water Services) 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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Local Government (Water Services) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Offshore Renewable Energy Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I present a legislative statement on the Offshore Renewable Energy 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 SIMEON BROWN: I move, That the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

This bill delivers on a commitment to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy as part of the Government’s Electrify NZ plan. Offshore wind is the most developed offshore renewable energy technology, and New Zealand has world-class offshore wind resources, with some of the highest capacity factors in the world. New Zealand currently does not have a regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy, and this bill delivers that regulatory regime so that we can unlock the potential that offshore renewable energy has for New Zealand.

This bill establishes new permitting regimes for all forms of offshore renewable energy, including wind, wave, and tidal. The permitting regime aims to provide greater certainty to potential developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments and allows the selection of developments that best meet New Zealand’s interests. The bill also provides for the management of risks to the Crown and the public. Establishing a regime is an important step that will give investors the confidence to construct generation assets to help power New Zealand’s increasing electrified economy. This bill will help us do that.

This bill introduces two dedicated offshore renewable energy permits—first, feasibility permits, which will give developers greater certainty to undertake feasibility studies in specified areas. It will give the holder the right to apply for relevant resource and marine consents in that area and the exclusive ability to apply for a commercial permit to build and operate offshore renewable energy infrastructure in that area. Secondly, it allows for commercial permits. A commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins and provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. It will complement the environmental consents and other approvals required to build and operate offshore renewable energy infrastructure.

The bill limits the ability for developers to landbank certain areas—not that it’s necessarily land—or impede other developments. Permits will have “use it or lose it” provisions, meaning that if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. Feasibility permit applications will be assessed on a comparative basis and awarded to the projects that are most likely to deliver the most benefits for New Zealanders. Applicants will need to meet minimum eligibility thresholds and establish that they have the technical and financial capability to install, operate, maintain, and decommission the proposed infrastructure.

The Minister for Energy will consider feasibility permit applications and must have regard to any significant risks to national security or public order posed by the applicants, the impact on Treaty settlements, the applicant’s approach to managing existing rights and interests in the area, and the applicant’s compliance record in New Zealand and internationally. Feasibility permit holders will be able to apply for commercial permits whenever they are ready to do so. The commercial permit process will provide assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. The Minister for Energy will consider commercial permit applications and must have regard to readiness to carry out the proposed development, compliance with requirements in the legislation and conditions of the applicant’s feasibility permit, and the applicant’s ability to put in place an acceptable financial security arrangement.

It is important that people can have their say on potential developments, and there will be an opportunity to do this before the Minister for Energy decides to grant feasibility permits. Feasibility permit applications will be publicly notified, and any person who wishes to make a submission will have a reasonable opportunity to do so. Applicants for feasibility and commercial permits will be required to consult with relevant iwi and hapū ahead of submitting their applications. The Minister for Energy must also consult those iwi and hapū before granting any permit. Provisions in the bill relating to upholding Treaty settlements and associated rights and interests will align with those in the fast-track approvals legislation which was passed earlier today.

We want to ensure that offshore renewable energy infrastructure does not become a significant financial risk to the Crown. The bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of its life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost of the Crown in the event that permit holders or infrastructure owners fail to meet their obligations to decommission. This is consistent with standard practice internationally.

Other protections in the bill include the ability to have safety zones to protect the infrastructure and people from intentional or accidental harm.

The bill enables the administration, monitoring, and enforcement of the regime, and it is intended that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertake this role.

The bill also includes a range of offences and penalties for breaches of the regime, ranging from $3,000 to $10 million fines through to permit revocation or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Significant fines and penalties were considered necessary in certain circumstances to provide an effective deterrent, given the financial capability of likely permit holders.

The bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedural and implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit, and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees and levies to recover the costs of the regulator, and I intend to progress feasibility and permit and cost recovery regulations at the same time as the bill progresses through the House.

The policy proposals in this bill have been developed with input from industry and stakeholders, with two rounds of public consultation. Ultimately, no decisions by Cabinet had been made prior to this Government coming to power, and so this Government has had to make those decisions, draft the legislation, and now bring this legislation to the House. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to do that in our first year in Government—to bring this legislation to the House so we can enable an offshore renewable energy regime here in New Zealand to unlock the significant potential that exists in our oceans surrounding our country, and, critically importantly, unlock that electricity which will help power our country and our economy out into the future; critically important to meeting our net zero 2050 target.

The proposed regime borrows the best from more mature regimes, such as in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia, and is adapted to suit here in New Zealand. This Government is committed to enabling offshore renewable energy. It is intended for the offshore renewable energy regime to be in place by mid-2025, and the first feasibility permit application round to be opened in late 2025. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and very pleased to see it come to the House. Labour will be supporting this bill. This is work that I think continues very much the work that was begun by our Government—the two consultation rounds that the Minister referred to, of course, were consultation rounds that were initiated by our Government. It is pleasing to see that this work has appeared this year. The intention, of course, was to have a regulatory regime up and running this year, but it is pleasing to say that it has had some progress.

One of the things that I will put on the table that Labour wants to see is some increased momentum around this work. We have already seen one significant international investor leave New Zealand—partly because of lack of momentum, also because of decisions with the fast-track bill around competing interests. I’m putting on the table that, while Labour supports the bill, we do think there is far more urgency that the Government could bring to this work. New Zealand undoubtedly has some of the best offshore wind resources in the world. I know, meeting with the Global Wind Energy Council, that they described the resources in New Zealand as some of the best that they have seen.

When we came to think about how it is that we would put together a consenting regime, we looked around the world for best examples. We looked to places like Scotland, who had put together a sophisticated regime that brought community in, and very much about how that engagement with community worked very well. One of the other things that we looked to was regimes where it had enabled the development—not just the seabed banking of permits to block our competitors, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions such as Japan; how it is that we could facilitate not only the concept but the building of it.

For us, there were several key points we looked at. What we will be looking at through the select committee stage of this legislation: one is around the pace—what can we do to pick up the pace? We’ve already lost momentum with this Government not progressing the work on the original time line. What can we do to pick that up? I’m pleased to see that there is an attempt to have alignment with Australia. The reality is much of the international capital that will be attracted is looking for Australasian investment opportunities, so we will be looking to see how that alignment looks, not only with Australia but without, within the Asia-Pacific region.

One of the critical components is “use it or lose it” clauses, and are these strong enough in not having loopholes? What we have seen in other jurisdictions such as Japan is someone will apply for permits without the intention of ever building offshore wind but in an attempt to block out competitors—something we have to ensure our regime doesn’t have. We need to see a benefit to New Zealand.

One of the fundamental issues that has always sat at the core of this—and what we cannot borrow from international regimes—is getting our Treaty partnerships right. How is it that we’re going to engage with mana whenua? What is the role for mana whenua? What are the opportunities in terms of the 21st century energy system that is different from a 20th century energy system—oil and gas exploration, in particular—that has seen an exploitative model where mana whenua have been a tick-box exercise, rather than commercial players sitting at the table and actually there being good commercial opportunities.

At select committee, Labour will be ensuring that we have enduring provisions within this bill to make sure that we have this right, because what international capital coming to New Zealand realises is that—I don’t think this Government does—unless you get this right, we will tie up offshore wind in the courts for years. This is an absolutely critical component. Yes, this is an absolutely critical component of us making sure that we can get it right. Other things we’ll be looking at in select committee are the royalties regime; also price stabilisation, which we’re seeing in other parts of the world; competing uses—we’ve already seen BlueFloat leave New Zealand shores because of decisions this Government has made. What are we doing in terms of planning to make sure that we’re not crowding out renewable energy?

While we’re supporting this and are pleased to support this bill to select committee, there are many areas—it is a reasonably complex piece of legislation—where we’ll be seeking to work with the Government to make sure we have the best regime for New Zealand.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): BlueFloat Energy may have sailed from our shores—and we’re still waiting for the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, which was due in June this year—but finally, at last, here comes the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

We do need legislation to govern the construction, operation, and decommissioning of offshore renewable energy developments, so we will support this bill to select committee because we want a rich and thoughtful examination of this bill. The irony—the irony—however, is that National’s Electrify NZ plan is now so far off track, in no small measure due to reneging on the promise to increase demand by supplying 9,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points, its failure to deliver the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation in June, and its one-eyed fixation on fast-tracking coalmines, goldmines, and seabed mining.

Seabed mining is, of course, incompatible with offshore wind development, and that’s why BlueFloat sailed away. Seabed mining will significantly disrupt the seafloor up to a depth of 11 metres. BlueFloat said offshore wind turbines and electrical cables could not be constructed in the same location as an active seabed mining operation, resulting in the unavailability of that zone for offshore wind generation for the duration of mining activities, and we’ve seen a request to make those mining activities a 35-year existence. Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, in partnership with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, are still hanging on, but we don’t know for how long. That’s an early taste of the disaster that is the fast-track legislation, and it’s no wonder that there are protests. Here in the House, it’s no wonder that the multinationals are leaving.

Meanwhile, we in the Greens do have many questions about offshore wind and we want to have that conversation. Our priority is onshore wind and solar and geothermal simply because it is faster, cheaper, less resource intensive, and with fewer environmental impacts than offshore wind. It can also be located close to where there is demand and provides for ease of maintenance.

What we like in this bill, however, are the provisions around decommissioning, particularly the financial security obligations to ensure that the decommissioning of offshore renewable energy infrastructure occurs at the expense of the permit holder and owners of related transmission infrastructure.

There are other positives such as safety zones. However, we do want to know how necessary this is and how it will be managed, as other offshore wind developments support local businesses, like boat operators and local guides, providing an alternative source of income and a diversified tourism offering. The two-stage permitting regime—feasibility first, followed by, if appropriate, commercial permits—is also a positive.

What needs greater clarity, however, is how Te Tiriti obligations will be met and what the process is to co-develop with Māori the national guidance and legislation. It appears that this legislation hasn’t gone through this process and only intends to consult with Māori groups before granting any permit, and consultation is very different to co-development. Meanwhile, the regulatory impact statement notes that tangata whenua, iwi, and hāpu have significant rights and interests in the marine area, including recognised customary interests, and cultural and economic interests, etc., and we want to see these interests upheld.

We’re also concerned that the existing Resource Management Act and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act consenting environmental assessment regimes are not robust or effective enough at protecting marine ecosystems or mammals. What about other technologies such as tidal generation? There are a number of questions.

There’s another big, big question that we want to see at select committee about port infrastructure to host offshore wind developments, and connecting offshore wind and energy to onshore connection points—the question of “Who pays?” Will the taxpayer be expected to foot the bill or will they do it? In parallel, will we have a reinvention of the electricity market to provide longer-term hedge contracts?

We will support this bill to select committee because we want a rich and thoughtful examination. Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports this bill. We love innovation. The Offshore Renewable Energy Bill has got the right framework in place, including the construction, operation, and decommissioning. I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. I had the opportunity, earlier in the year, to travel to Taranaki and have a look at the opportunity that offshore wind has the potential for in the New Zealand energy sector, and it is really exciting to see what could actually be done. This bill sets up the legislative way it can be governed. It’s around the construction of the renewable wind, especially the turbines.

When you look at how large some of those turbines are, and the effort that it would actually take to even put one of those into the water—these are a scale that is huge. Just to learn about that—the actual operation of the turbines and the decommissioning side of it as well—is something that’s really important and is taken care of in this bill. It’s also about the investment and the potential developers out there—actually giving them some certainty, and the investment that’s required.

This bill gives that framework to put that in place. It is also about doubling renewable energy by 2050—and that’s the goal of this Government—and this goes as another one of those options. It’s only one part of that puzzle, the renewable energy sector, and especially the offshore wind. On that, I commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you. In standing to speak to this bill, I guess it’s one of those situations where we’ve got more questions than answers and look forward to what it is that comes out of the select committee.

The first question that we have is: what is the problem this particular bill is solving or resolving, and is it going to help address the energy security issue that we have in Aotearoa? Is it going to address significantly the energy and equity issue that we have in Aotearoa? Is there a benefit for Aotearoa, for our businesses, for our partnerships, and Te Tiriti claims and states? Or is it going to be, once again, offshore companies that are going to be helping to craft this bill and it’s going to be designed to suit them more than anyone else, energy will be exported, the prices exported and controlled offshore? I guess the question as we were caucusing this was: what is it changing?

The other part of it is: is it addressing the climate issues? Will it lower emissions? Is it going to put us forward truly, in using the full sense of the word “renewable”, noting that turbines last approximately 15 to 17 years offshore, and that when they are devolved then it becomes, effectively, an urupā of turbines in our ocean—and respecting that we did see the decommissioning clause. We live in Taranaki with the decommissioning and have, effectively, seen its failings and as taxpayers have had to pay millions of dollars for the clean-up of those failings.

Is this bill also going to look at business? I think the bill has made it really clear that it is going to be investor-led; investor-focused. That being the case, then, how do we make sure that those investors are our own? Unlike what we saw in the nationalisation of oil and minerals, the Crown Minerals Act—that it’s been really difficult for Māori, even for New Zealand companies, to be able to become part of the oil and mineral sector. I say that conservatively, because if we are going to go down this path, we first and foremost must look and think about our own nationhood.

Our own nationhood has a history, pre-nationalisation, and the recognition of tangata whenua’s rights and the recognition as Wai claims 796 and 852 spoke about. If we go back to looking at some of the things that—I think Margaret Wilson made a statement in 2000 that “The Government’s reaffirmed policy that Crown minerals including petroleum are owned and managed in national interests will not be included in a lot of the Taranaki settlement claims.” She did make a commitment, though, that the Government will explore ways to address the Crown’s contemporary obligations to Māori under the Treaty with regard to natural resources.

Now, this is an opportunity for the nationhood and the wellbeing of Aotearoa to be discussed and realised with those Taranaki iwi that had to forgo the historical grievances in the Crown minerals space, and how that would indeed be put into effect in a way that is best for all of Aotearoa. I would welcome hearing some of this again, as I said, in the select committee stage. Are we looking to transition and do something radically different in the energy space for the betterment of all in New Zealand? Or are we going to open up for the corporate entities that have come in in the name of renewable energy, who will then take everything offshore and make it just as expensive for our businesses, for our communities, and our families to be able to live in Aotearoa?

These are some of the questions that, with all honesty, we haven’t landed with the answers in this bill because, unfortunately, we do have a cynical view of some of the ways that this Government has taken energy and big corporate bias. We’ve seen the fast track today, third reading; we’re seeing the Resource Management Act amendment first reading; we’re seeing this particular bill’s first reading, and nowhere are we seeing a different approach where, in fact, there is an opening up of what could be the protection of Māori, iwi, hapū investments with this Government and for the protection of all citizens of Aotearoa to be able to afford to have good, sustainable energy options.

Those are some of the questions that we have that we look forward to in the next phase of this bill. Kia ora rā.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support, and speak on, this very important bill. As part of our policy of electrifying New Zealand, we believe in getting on with doing things, which is what we’re going to do. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It’s good to be here this evening and contributing to this piece of legislation, which is well overdue. I want to reflect in terms of the process in recent years, and being the MP for New Plymouth at the time—I really want to honour and thank the Hon Dr Megan Woods for her hard work in this space.

The Minister for Energy, the Hon Simeon Brown, in his initial statement did comment in terms of the engagement of communities and the engagement of iwi—and I believe that in terms of that process, it was done pre - last election and the work that we did. I really want to note that there was one particular day—I want to thank the Hon Dr Megan Woods, who committed to a day sitting down with Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, the eight iwi representatives of our region, to sit and listen and engage around the energy space in Taranaki.

What was really telling from that hui was the fact that I heard loud and clear that, for 150 years, Māori had never been included or consulted on when it came to the resources that were being extracted from the whenua of Taranaki. It wasn’t a gracious “Thank you so much, Minister, for listening to us.”, but it was an acknowledgment of how we need to learn and we need to listen. I’m glad but also cautious that this piece of legislation is looking in terms of ways that it actually does listen, it does engage with iwi, with hapū, but also with communities.

As we take this into select committee, I hope and ask of the members of the committee that they’ll really prosecute and dig deep into the community engagement, dig deep into what it means to actually truly engage and consult with local iwi, whether it’s in Taranaki or wherever it may be. We look at this legislation and it’s around offshore renewable energy. It’s not the “Offshore Wind Energy Bill”; it’s the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, because we know there’s more than just wind blowing out there and what is possible when it comes to wave technology, even solar panels and other forms. I think it is a good day for us to be moving, but I hoped and wished that we could have been here a little bit earlier.

Now, the regulatory framework for offshore renewable energy has been in the pipeline and it has been meandering and moving its way through, and it felt like it sort of stalled a little bit about a year ago. I’m looking through the legislation that dropped this week and seeing that, yeah, work has been done and work needs to continue. The select committee process is the appropriate place. It’s the workhorse of Parliament where it actually engages with experts, engages with community, engages with iwi, engages in all those spaces. I look forward to participating, hopefully, but also seeing the progress that the select committee has on this.

I do find it interesting that on the same day we passed the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which allows the option and the potential beginning of excavating and seabed mining off the South Taranaki coast—on the very same day it passes—we have this piece of legislation around the regulations for offshore renewable energy. I find it so fascinating, as has been said by previous speakers, the fact that BlueFloat has up and left the country because of the uncertainty not only of the regulatory regime; also the fact that the sweet spot for offshore wind, in particular, is in the same spot, and we have heard time and time again in this House that they are not compatible together; and the fact that we’re allowing, on the one hand, a private business in a public piece of legislation to have the option of seabed mining and then, on the other hand, we’re saying, “Hey, look, let’s bring in this wonderful offshore energy regime that’s going to change the world but they can’t coexist together.” The challenge for us is how we get this right to make sure that we can actually have options.

As Scott Willis said earlier, this is about creating options for the future, that we have lots of consented onshore renewable energy projects. This is giving options with the potential of offshore, and this needs a robust and a very thorough select committee process.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, which establishes a legislative regime to govern the construction, operation, and decommissioning of offshore renewable energy.

As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I’m looking forward to consultation and public submissions and ensuring that this is a practical piece of legislation for our country, moving forward. I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill, and I want to first acknowledge the Government’s work in bringing the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill to the House. It’s something to celebrate to be introducing a piece of legislation in which the intent is to establish a regulatory framework for offshore wind energy in New Zealand. That’s a great thing because by 2030, this country has signed-up commitments which require us to have 100 percent renewables in our energy grid. That’s achievable for New Zealand. That is possible.

We are a country rich in natural resources, especially our water. Our dams were built so many decades ago that now the cost of running them is negligible, and that energy should be cheap. It is the greenest in the world, and it’s something New Zealanders should be proud of. Our offshore wind energy also provides us with so many significant opportunities not for only economic growth but for cheaper energy prices for consumers. That’s something we can all agree on in this House, and this piece of legislation is a step towards that. It’s something that we should be able to get around the table in the select committee room and really get into the detail about how to make this work for New Zealanders, because the Government has said that it’s still committed to increasing the supply of affordable clean energy and to facilitating New Zealand’s transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

What we need to make sure of is that pieces of legislation like this don’t gloss over the fact that the Government is cutting many of the things which will help it to achieve those commitments. We need to hold it to these commitments in this piece of legislation, but things like lifting the oil and gas exploration ban fly in the face of that. Delaying agricultural emissions pricing for five years flies in the face of that. Promoting mining projects that have already been considered and rejected flies in the face of that. Missing its own electric vehicle targets—which it promised voters at the election—flies in the face of that.

We need offshore wind to step into the gap that this Government has created with its policy choices, and New Zealand, as we know, is a signatory to the Paris Agreement. We have signed up to it not only for our domestic obligations under the Climate Change Response Act but also for our global obligations that our partners rely on us for and that our trade relationships rely on us for. The EU fair-trade agreement is a world-leading trade response. It’s great for our agricultural sector. We need our trade partners in the EU to believe that New Zealand is still committed to our clean, green reputation, and here, on this side of the House, we are. I want to encourage Government members to find a way to expedite the process for this. This should be something that we can all agree needs to happen quickly and needs to happen well. Those two things can be done at once.

This legislation is expected to be passed in mid-2025, with the first permits being considered at the end of next year. We’re going to make sure that there’s no impediment to getting these projects built. Projects that would get in the way of an offshore wind energy project—

Glen Bennett: Tell us, Arena. What is it?

ARENA WILLIAMS: —as Glen Bennett has mentioned, are deep-sea mining projects, which are directly in competition with the kind of space that these projects will need. It’s incumbent on all of us to make sure that these projects—these wind projects, which we all agree are needed—are given priority within the regulatory framework.

I’ll tell you how that’s done overseas. In Ireland, they are very committed to their offshore wind energy projects. In fact, they have legislation like this alongside ambitious capacity targets for how much wind should be generating in their energy grid. I think it’s 5 megawatts that was set for their 2030 goal. That would mean a huge investment not only in Government but also through private development. If our Government truly believed in getting these projects off the ground, it needs to set targets in an energy plan, but where’s the energy plan? It is not here. We do not have it, because the Government has not owned up to the fact that it needs a plan to transition to net zero. We need that plan and to be able to integrate offshore wind into it.

Ireland also has a comprehensive policy framework and a national strategy for offshore wind. That needs to sit alongside this legislation—

Hon Member: Has Hipkins got a target on his back? What happened to working together?

ARENA WILLIAMS: —so that it’s not merely window dressing, and I hear members on the other side saying, “Weren’t we working together?” I’m doing their homework for them.

I can give them the national energy plan in Ireland, so they can study up and do their homework, so that they know how legislation like this can actually make a difference to New Zealand’s commitments to climate change not only on the world stage but also domestically, so that New Zealanders now have cheaper energy and so that our children in the future have an environment that they can enjoy and have air that they can breathe.

This is incredibly important to everyone in this House. We need to hold the Government to the commitments that they say outside one side of their mouths, but they cut things that will really make a difference to it out the other. This must make a difference. This is all they’ve got, so we’re relying on it.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to stand on this bill here, the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and it’s hard to disagree with some of the comments made around the House. It’s great to see that there is full support to move this through to the important stage that is the select committee stage.

I do just want to talk briefly about the importance of the energy trilemma, and that’s the fact that we want secure energy, we want affordable energy, and we also want sustainable energy. We are blessed as a country with regard to the methods we can use to be able to generate sustainable energy, with solar, hydro, geothermal, and of course, this one here, with wind, not just onshore but now we’re talking about offshore.

The size of these units, as was mentioned by the member from New Zealand First, is immense. If you think about the blades, one blade off one of these units is over 100 metres long. It wouldn’t fit in this room. They are huge. They’re higher than the Sky Tower. If we’re talking about 1 gigawatt, which is what is potentially proposed off the South Taranaki Bight, that’s 70 of these units, spaced about two kilometres apart—an immense amount of area consumed by the units, but generating a good amount of electricity and valuable electricity for New Zealand. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: I present a legislative statement—

Hon Willie Jackson: Where’s the Minister?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Enough—enough.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) 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 TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Hon Willie Jackson: Where’s the Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill will remove advertising restrictions from section 81—

Hon Willie Jackson: Where’s the Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which currently prohibits broadcast television advertising—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Willie Jackson will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I warned you; you’ve said it twice since.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK, I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Mr Potaka—continue.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill will remove advertising restrictions from section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which currently prohibits broadcast television advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

Section 81 is no longer aligned with the ways in which audiences consume content. As technology and audiences continue to move away from traditional methods of viewing television shows and listening to radio programming, these restrictions have become increasingly redundant. In fact, New Zealand On Air data shows this year YouTube was the most popular platform in the country, reaching 44 percent of the population daily. The repeal will level the playing field by ensuring local media companies are not disadvantaged by restricted advertising times when global streaming platforms like YouTube are unregulated in this respect.

In a challenging economic environment for New Zealand media companies, section 81 is actively hindering broadcasters’ ability to earn revenue from advertising. Industry estimates suggest that local media companies could earn approximately $6 million annually if the restrictions were removed. Lost opportunities for revenue are significant in the current tight financial context, where broadcasters are reducing their commissioning of local content.

In June, the Government outlined a range of actions it will take to better support New Zealand’s media and content production sector. This delivers on a promise made in that announcement and comes as we assess how we will proceed with the proposed Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

The New Zealand media sector has been calling for this change for a long time. It is an anomaly that needs to be fixed, and I am pleased to be taking action to support the media sector. I therefore commend this bill to the House—to this Whare.

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

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): This is a sad, sad, sad night, having to stand up and support this bill. It’s one of the saddest times of my political life, having to stand up and support a bill because Jenny Marcroft and New Zealand First have betrayed the coalition. And, of course, they have come across to the sensible side of the House, because we realise that any sort of pūtea, any sort of dollars for our broadcasting media crew is something—is something—when you consider this coalition has decided to forget all about broadcasting and media, particularly the Minister of Conservation, who just sat down, who’s let down Māori broadcasting, let down Māori Television, let down the Māori nation, let down his people, because he has not got one extra cent for Māori TV and for Māori broadcasting—not one extra cent.

Hon Member: You didn’t either.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Look, I wouldn’t talk too much, some of the people on the other side of the House. What did you get in Audrey Young’s analysis? I think it was a “D”—a “D”. And you got a “C”. Mr Meager got an “A”—he’s on fire; he’s got an “A”. What did Tama Potaka get in the analysis? I’d be quiet if I was you, because I’ll come out with all the—in fact, I’ve got the assessment here of how all the first-year National MPs did, and it was bloody miserable, I tell you.

I’ve got to say, coming back to this bill—we need to stay on the subject—we support this bill because it is a reshaping of the 1989 Act. It’s a reshaping of that. We have to give our people in radio and TV a bit of an opportunity. It’s not because we want to bombard them with advertising on Anzac Day, on Christmas Day. We get it—we get it—on Anzac Day, on Christmas Day, on holidays, those days should be sacrosanct. We get that, but we’ve moved into 2024, New Zealand First, so tell your leader, “I know you think you’re doing a wonderful job, but we’ve got a media setup that is dying—that is dying—and so we need some help.” We don’t need useless Ministers standing up and saying, “Well, this is what we’re going to do.”; what we need is the digital bargaining bill.

We need the digital bargaining bill; we don’t need Mr Goldsmith buckling to the Googles and the—no, no, no, we need him to stand up and show some fortitude, show some strength. Don’t just be like these weak-kneed MPs over here. Grant, you got a “B”, eh? You got a “C”. What did you get, James? James got an “A+”. Give James a clap. He’s going to have a hell of a job on that Justice Committee. I can’t wait to get on the Justice Committee to watch how James deals with some of our people; it’s going to be fabulous. I’m really looking forward to how James handles it, so is Rawiri Waititi. “A+”—what did Rawiri Waititi get?

Rawiri Waititi: “A+”!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I don’t think so. No, too many hakas—too many hakas.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, I hope you get back to the bill—what everyone else got—Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Coming back to the bill. It’s about revenue. The media has been doing it tough for a number of years, and the official forecasts in terms of the repeal of section 81 will provide an additional $6 million to the media sector. It’s about modernising the Act. The media sector’s currently operating under the Broadcasting Act of 1989.

We get it, on this side. That’s why we want to give, sadly, this useless coalition some support, because they’ve been betrayed by New Zealand First. Minister Goldsmith—yes, we’ll help you, “Goldie”, yes, we’ll help you, but why don’t you help the broadcasting sector, you useless broadcasting Minister? Do something. Provide a plan. Do something. Help Tama Potaka. Tama’s getting smashed to pieces by all his relations. The Māori Party are threatening him in the House. He’s a disgrace to the Māori—but we love him on this side, me and Peeni. We’ll look after him. Do something for the media. Do something for broadcasting, you useless National Party members. You’re a disgrace, but we support the bill. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it was entertaining, if a little unprincipled, but we appreciate it, Mr Jackson; we do appreciate it. For the sake of those who are seeking to see the progressive side of the House hold the line on principles of not further allowing the pernicious, constant infiltration and presence and, you know, pervasive presence of advertising in all parts of our lives and existence, we will be voting against this bill.

Let’s be clear: the current legislation restricts broadcast television advertising on Sunday and Anzac mornings between 6 a.m. and noon, and both television and radio broadcast advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. Is there nothing left; is there nothing left? I mean, most of us only ever watch TV on a Christmas Day, so why would we not at least protect the purity of the actual day? Out of some decency, why would we not keep it advertising-free if there is such—and Willie Jackson’s absolutely right: public broadcasting in this country is sorely in need of proper funding and investment. But this piddling sop to the need for funding public broadcasting and the advertising agency is not the way to do it; it’s not the way to do it.

Believe it or not, one of my jobs shortly after leaving high school was that I worked in the advertising industry. I worked in the advertising industry and it always amazed me how, even after the 1987 share market crash, people would turn up and spend tens of thousands of dollars on advertising. Do you know why they spend all that money on it? It seems subtle to those of us in the community, but it actually has this very pervasive effect of working. Advertising sells products, many of which are products that we don’t need to be convinced we should be consuming more of, like alcohol, like fizzy drinks.

Now, the reason that the advertising industry is constantly pushing to have the right to be part of every single part of our lives is because it gets into our brains, it gets into our heads, it makes people buy products that they don’t need and don’t want and are not in our best interests. Let’s be honest, I mean, who does not prefer a day of not having to see advertising?

Todd Stephenson: Just turn it off.

STEVE ABEL: Yeah, that’s what we’re voting for: we’re voting for turning it off. We’re voting for advertising not being put on those last few days of the year where advertising is currently restricted. We’re voting to keep it that way—that we will ensure, on Anzac Day of all days, there is no advertising. We actually let it be the day it should be, of honouring those who lost their lives in those brutal colonial, imperial wars of the First World War, and protecting the public holiday of Christmas Day; and for some who are Christian and sacred, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. They should have their right to have those days remain sacred and free of advertising. We will be voting against this. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the House is suspended. I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider members’ orders of the day. Good night.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2024

(continued on Wednesday, 18 December 2024)

Bills

Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed. We are on the first reading of the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill. We are up to call No. 2, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mōrena, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. We support this bill; I think that comes as no surprise. We don’t like slavery and it’s a pity in some ways that this bill only goes as far as it does, because what it really does is it looks at the slavery offences, and there’s some that have been around for a while, some a little bit more recent, and it aligns their penalties—all well and good. That’s fine. It’s just a bit of a pity that the Government hasn’t taken on some of this work and looked at the problem of modern slavery, which we—

James Meager: Oh, come on!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, well—you know, we’ve got a Minister for workplace relations who says she has other priorities, whilst in Gloriavale we’ve got people who are, basically, in bonded servitude. That’s the attitude of this Government.

Good on the member. I understand members’ bills in Government are a bit tricky because senior members don’t like you to step on their turf. I have no doubt that Brooke van Velden wouldn’t want the backbench members to be showing up her lack of attention to modern slavery, because she’s got more important things to do, like giving workers a pay cut with a 1.5 percent minimum wage increase.

Look, I’ll stop there, because it’s a perfectly reasonable bill. It does something which is a good little tidy-up. It’s a common-sense change. Of course, we do want to set slavery apart as a really egregious crime, not one that you’re three strikable for—the ACT Party’s three-strikes bill—but nevertheless one of the most serious crimes that really you can imagine. Good on the member. I suspect it will get support around the House, and I see no reason to delay it on that process. Kia ora.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Dr Duncan Webb’s suspicions are correct: there is support for this bill from the Green Party. Just to acknowledge, as a country we should always be opposing slavery. I mean, it seems like a fairly obvious thing that we should be doing: upholding human rights and fairness is something we should always encourage. I also do take the point that this bill doesn’t go far enough, and I think the member acknowledged that in his first reading speech as well.

The bill itself amends sections 98 and 98AA of the Crimes Act. In that Act, there is some pretty heinous stuff in there. It deals with people under 18 in terms of sexual exploitation, removal of body parts, and engagement in forced labour—it’s terrible and heinous stuff. What this bill does is make sure that there is alignment for those penalties—so, consistency. When we were thinking about this bill and looking through it, we couldn’t see any reason why there was that inconsistency, so making sure we are consistent with our approach is incredibly, incredibly important.

I do note that there were mentions in the member’s first reading speech around there being companion legislation around modern slavery, which is incredibly important, because this is something that Parliament should actually have consensus on. I do take the point that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety didn’t consider this a priority, even though, in 2022, the now Prime Minister and then Leader of the Opposition said he would march in the streets for modern-slavery legislation. There’s been a lot of marching in the streets. I’ve yet to see the Prime Minister out there joining us.

I think it’s important to note that there was actually work that was already being done by the previous Government. There was a working group that was looking at bringing modern-slavery legislation to the House, and all of a sudden it’s not a priority—it’s not a priority for this Government. I do want to acknowledge the member Greg Fleming, who does see this as a priority, and I would continue to encourage him to work right across the House to bring in those more substantive pieces of legislation.

I do want to acknowledge the work that has been happening in terms of getting that companion legislation together, and I was actually reading the report. Part of that companion legislation will bring in a number of different positions. One of them is around having an independent commissioner and getting a definition of actually what “modern slavery” is, because it’s a bit bitsy—here, there, and everywhere—and so I think this is a good move forward.

There are some things I think we can do in the mid-term and short term about things that we can do to curtail exploitation, because this is what is at the heart of this type of legislation, or should be at the heart of this type of legislation. I think of, for example, migrant exploitation, de-coupling work visas, and offering amnesty for overstayers, because there is always the power imbalance, and the member previously mentioned workers at Gloriavale. It is all about making sure that you can balance that out so that people have those protections, so that when they find themselves in particular positions where they are vulnerable, there is legislation to protect them, which we do not have at this particular point in time.

The Greens will be supporting this bill. I’m looking forward to that more substantive work in terms of the companion legislation. Good luck to the member in convincing the rest of the Government parties, given that this, actually, in my mind, should have been a Government bill—we should have had modern-slavery legislation that the whole House can support—but acknowledging the initiative here to try to get something done through the backbenchers as a member’s bill. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to support—we will be supporting it—and also to talk to the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill.

I want to acknowledge Mr Fleming for getting this bill drawn and getting it to the House and for having this first reading, at which it looks likely to pass, given the indications from the other members this morning. It’s quite exciting to have your member’s bill drawn. I’ve had that myself, and I can assure Mr Fleming that his bill will be in good hands, as it is being referred to the Justice Committee—that very hard-working committee that looks at issues like this. We will be very careful in our consideration of this and look forward to adding it to our very busy work agenda.

This is a simple but important bill, and I don’t want to get mixed up with discussions on modern slavery, which are an entirely different topic from what this bill actually tries to address. In ACT, as I said, we’re very happy to support this, because it is a simple but very effective and required bill. It is bringing New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions around its penalties for slavery offences, and I think it is good that this has been brought forward and that we are going to have support across the House to deal with this.

It is concerning when you actually have the US calling you out for your slavery offences not being top-notch and not where they need to be, and that was, obviously, done in 2001, when the Trafficking in Persons Report by the US State Department said we had dropped down to a tier 2 standard, and so we needed to do this to get our standards back up and aligned with our very important partners.

Actually, human trafficking and slavery isn’t something that just happens in other places; actually, since 2015, there have been four human trafficking prosecutions in New Zealand, and a number of victims identified. It is important that our local laws do keep up with what is happening out there and making sure that we are aligned. The New Zealand Government actually does have some plans in this area to make sure that we are trying to stop slavery and people trafficking and things in this area, and so, obviously, we’ve got a plan of action against forced labour, people trafficking, and slavery. That, obviously, has some key pillars, which Government agencies are working on.

We’re also very active in the international community, cooperating with like-minded countries, including in the Indo-Pacific. We are in international forums, like the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crimes, the Pacific Immigration Directors Conference, and the Migration 5 meetings. We are an active partner and participant in this area, and Mr Fleming’s bill is actually good, to ensure that we are doing our part with our local Crimes Act, actually reflecting what it should and what other countries are doing.

The last point I would make is that ACT—and, in fact, the Government—has a law and order agenda, and I think it’s good that this fits nicely into what we are doing in our broader law and order agenda. Other members across the House have already mentioned some of those things, like three strikes. Later this morning, we’ll actually be talking about another bill around victims’ rights. We are a victims’ rights, principled Government, ensuring that victims’ rights are placed at the forefront and actually ensuring that people are punished appropriately for the crimes they do against others. Again, I think Mr Fleming’s bill very nicely fits into the Government’s broader law and order agenda. We are very happy to support it, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Immigration): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill. This is a necessary step to ensure that there is some consistency and clarity around our penalty requirements around this area of how we treat workers and those that are exploited.

New Zealand has had only a recent involvement with a conviction of slavery, and my knowledge of that case was quite intimate. I appreciate the challenges and difficulty we had bringing those charges of slavery. The reality is that slavery has been in existence as long as people have been living in societies, and it is a scourge on those societies, but we have to be realistic and practical in our approaches to deal with this issue. Fundamentally, we have to ensure we drive a level of consistency and priority in this area.

I have been very pleased to announce the establishment of a ministerial advisory group looking at organised crime, because organised crime is a massive driver of slavery and exploitation across the world and in New Zealand. I have intimate experience of managing those investigations and dealing with the reality of what that looks like for workers in New Zealand.

There is good legislation, there is good existing frameworks to work under, but what we have to do is deal with the practical priorities of how we investigate these offences. What is important is that we provide consistency of the penalties to ensure that we establish that one is not greater than the other, that slavery is considered an abhorrent offence, and this is one step to deal with that positioning of our legislation. Yes, as stated, there is lots of work to be done in this space; it’s how we prioritise that workload. There are significant steps that are already under way in this space, and I commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it is a real honour to get up today and speak in support of Greg Fleming’s bill—my colleague Greg Fleming. It’s quite disappointing that it took about 30 seconds this morning from the Opposition before they had a crack at Mr Fleming and at the current Government. I’m not sure how short Dr Webb’s memory is, but he was part of a Government that for three very, very, very long years had an absolute majority in this House and did absolutely zip about this issue. If we’re going to get a lecture about why it took so long for certain Governments to prioritise certain bits of legislation and for the Leader of the Opposition to say he’d march in the streets for this and then spend six years doing nothing about it, I’m not going to take lessons from Dr Webb, 30 seconds into the morning, about what did or didn’t happen last term of Government and what is or is not a priority this term of Government.

Of course, other members have mentioned about members’ bills and said that this member’s bill doesn’t go far enough. Well, of course, those members have been around long enough to know how members’ bills work, in particular how members’ bills work when you’re in Government. The goal of members’ bills in Government is for backbenchers and for people who don’t have the ability to put bills through Cabinet, like some of the members opposite who were in Cabinet—or, actually, some of them didn’t quite make it to Cabinet—and who were Ministers in the previous Government and who had the chance to get bills like this on the legislative agenda but did not do it.

All the lessons in the world from the members opposite about whether or not they prioritise this bill—they should look at themselves first before they sling arrows at Mr Fleming. Mr Fleming has done a brilliant job bringing this bill forward and is actually, I understand, working very constructively with members of the Opposition on this bill and on other pieces of legislation to go further on this bill and to try and get cross-party consensus on it. It was incredibly disappointing that, 30 seconds into the morning, that consensus seems to be undermined by members who want to, at 9 o’clock in the morning, have a crack at the Government. There you go; that’s the standard that we’re setting today ahead of a very, very long morning and long afternoon.

I am standing in support of the bill. The bill does one very simple thing: it increases and improves the penalty regime for what we call modern slavery offences. It’s important because, as members have noted, there was a report in 2021—not sure who was in Government at that point, but, in 2021, a report noticed that New Zealand dropped from being a tier 1 nation in this area to a tier 2 nation. At that point there should have been a wake-up call for the New Zealand Government about doing something in this area, but yet nothing was done. We do have to take some steps, and if we have to do it in Government or we have to do it as backbenchers, we will do so.

This particular bill takes that first step, and it is about increasing the penalties in sections 98 and 98AA about trafficking people—about trafficking humans. Of course, human trafficking is one of the world’s most insidious crimes, but it’s also one of the fastest-growing crimes that is happening globally. Of course, these actors are becoming increasingly sophisticated as countries around the world get to grips with increasing global conflict and some of the issues around the increasing numbers of refugees coming in and out of different nations There are insidious actors and there are insidious operatives around the world who will take advantage of global instability and who will take advantage of incredibly vulnerable people and try and put out an offer of hope or an offer of a better life when, actually, what they’re doing is they’re trafficking these vulnerable people. We need to step up as a country, and Mr Fleming is taking the lead on this particular issue. He’s also, I understand, working with members opposite about trying to improve the regime overall, so I do congratulate those of us who are willing to work together on this.

I wanted to also touch on the fact that one of the members did mention that the Leader of the Opposition said he’d march in the streets for these kinds of issues. Well, that’s all well and good, but we have a very special privilege in this House; we do have the ability to actually change the law. It’s all well and good to stand there and march in the streets for a cause that you do or do not support, but, actually, we have a very unique ability to actually change the law. I think we should do the talking in this House and do the convincing in this House about what laws should or shouldn’t change, rather than spend all our time outside marching for causes that we may well feel very strongly about. Then we get in the House, and we actually need to make those decisions about laws that we change.

We have the ability to change the laws, so why spend all our time walking around outside, marching in the streets when we can actually sit in the House, put members’ bills forward, work constructively across the backbench to try and get consensus around these issues, and actually change the law for the good, rather than have cheap little snipes at the Government backbench at 9 o’clock in the morning just so that the members can pad these speeches out because they haven’t done their reading from the notes overnight?

This is a great bill. It’s a good bill. It’s going to be supported across the House. I will certainly be supporting it. Our side of the House will be supporting it. I hope that all members in the House will be supporting it throughout the morning.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill. I wonder if I could just take the debate up a notch a wee bit. It is close to Christmas, we are debating a bill that most people in this House agree with, and it is on a serious matter. It’s with that in mind that I will make my comments today.

This bill is a good start into addressing some of the shortfalls that, I think, around the House, we can recognise and have not just in our law but also in our country in relation to our practices in relation to servitude and slavery. I want to start by acknowledging the people who first brought this idea to the House, and that was acknowledged by the member Greg Fleming, in whose name this bill is. Kaylee Hill and Alex Prendergast first went, I understand, to Nicola Grigg and brought this to her attention. It’s always commendable when members of the public see an issue with the law, bring that to the attention of representatives, and then see action as a result, and it’s one of the reasons that I’m in politics—that type of way of changing problems and issues within society. I want to acknowledge them, and also Nicola Grigg and Greg Fleming, for bringing this particular bill.

I think there was an acknowledgment from the member in his first reading speech that this bill didn’t go far enough in two ways. The first way is foreshadowing some amendments that I understand he wishes to make, to make this more substantive. Obviously, we’re not privy to exactly what they may be, and I understand that they will need Government support, like so many things that require change in this House. I wish the member the best of luck with that, and we’d like to work constructively to ensure that practical, meaningful changes can be made to this bill, as well.

Also, it would be remiss of me not to mention the added need for increased measures in relation to modern slavery. There are a few tos and fros around the House on this, but the clear issue is that New Zealand is well behind in where it should be regarding modern-slavery reporting. We know this. That’s why the Labour Government set up an excellent group to build consensus around this issue, and why we proposed legislation to bring this into the House and make this law, to make sure that our supply chains were free of the insidious crime that is slavery, no matter where it happens in the world.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What happened to that group?

CAMILLA BELICH: Unfortunately, that group was disbanded, but we have tried to make sure that this issue is not lost from the agenda of this House or from the leaders of this House, and I think it is good to be reminded that the Prime Minister did state that he would march in the streets for modern slavery. I agree with the member James Meager when he said that we have a special role in this House in terms of debating and making laws, and my request to the Prime Minister would be to make good on that promise with his special role that he has in this House to work with parties across the House, the majority of whom, I think, want to see this legislation come forward. That would be my plea. This bill is a good start.

Before I conclude, I just wanted to mention something that many of us in this House—myself, Duncan Webb, and James Meager—have been looking at, which is Gloriavale, which is of concern to many of us in the House. It is concerning when we read of situations that may be very similar to what we are trying to prohibit here, happening in our own country. I think that more needs to be done in that area. That is another area where I do believe there needs to be cross-party support for an ongoing solution for those people in that community, working with people like the Gloriavale Leavers’ Support Trust. It was great to be able, along with James Meager, to host them in the House recently and to hear of their concerns and to hear about what’s happening currently.

For me, the key thing that I saw from that, in my workplace relations role—and there are many other concerns in that community that leavers will articulate—was hearing that six-year-olds are employees there. For me, that is not right, and it does mean we need to look at the work and the type of work and the nature of the work that happens in that community. I would implore the House, with my final comments, to see if we can find a way forward that works for the people who are there, the people who have left their families, and, indeed, all of New Zealand so that we can be sure that no corner of this country is left without the human rights that they deserve.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s great to hear the more conciliatory comments by the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, towards this bill, calling it a good start. I know the work she’s done with the sponsor of the bill, Greg Fleming, even co-hosting, on the morning of his first reading on 20 November, a gathering of UNICEF young adults. I know that if there’s anyone that’s going to be able to get across the political aisle, it’ll be Greg Fleming, the sponsor of this member’s bill.

Greg comes to the House with a background steeped around working with young people, around working with Māori, around working with humanitarian causes and charitable organisations, so he is perfectly placed to strengthen up this bill, as has been indicated, through the select committee process, the Justice Committee process, in the coming months. I also note that this will be—it might be the 28th or 29th Justice Committee—

James Meager: 29th.

CAMERON BREWER: 29th Justice Committee bill, and we look forward to processing the submissions.

I also note from earlier comments, particularly from the Green Party member, that this should have been a Government bill and that the Government’s not taking it seriously and that a member’s bill was not the right forum or right format. Well, as the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, just reminded us—and there’s been threats of marching in the street and everything else by the Opposition—that they had six years and an absolute majority of 65 MPs. Now they wake up, one year into Opposition, and they’re full of despair that our good member Greg Fleming is advancing this Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill. They didn’t manage it themselves when they had 65 MPs.

They could have sorted it out in the caucus party; they didn’t even need to pick up the phone to anyone in the House. They had absolutely every opportunity, and they let that one go, so thank you to Mr Greg Fleming. He hasn’t managed, just yet, to convince Auckland Council to dredge the Onehunga lagoon—I thought I’d give that a plug in case Mayor Brown’s watching—but he has managed—

Hon Member: Highly unlikely.

CAMERON BREWER: He’s going to do that—he’s going to do that. Mr Brown’s going to do that. Mr Fleming has managed to get this member’s bill into the biscuit tin and, even more importantly, drawn.

That comes before the Justice Committee for interrogation and for submissions, and I invite anyone who takes an interest in the international context and legislative framework around modern-day slavery and human trafficking to have a look at this bill and front up to the Justice Committee and have their say, because we across the Justice Committee will be all ears. The member in charge of the bill, Greg Fleming, has indicated that he wants to strengthen up provisions around the prosecution and against previously used defences.

We are thrilled that this has come, that this has been drawn, that the member who is responsible for it comes with the context that he is the right person to work across the aisle. He is the right person that comes with the lens into this Parliament, steeped in humanitarian causes and charitable organisations. He brings compassion to this Parliament and he will be the right person to shepherd this through the Justice Committee.

The overall aim of the bill, for those who might have just tuned in to Parliament TV or Truth Radio—this bill aims to achieve a cohesive penalty regime that is a step forward to achieving New Zealand’s hard stance against human trafficking. This is all about toughening up, and as previous speakers have said, some might be surprised in the public that we’re not as tough as we should be and we’ve been sliding down the international scales. We can do a lot better, and this bill will get us there. I commend the bill.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re happy to support this member’s bill brought to the House by the liberal conscience of the National backbench. He’s a kind of lonely ambassador, is Greg Fleming, sent out from the National caucus to try to make contact with the civilised world on behalf of his lost tribe, who are unkindly referred to as “the Taliban” and other uncharitable expressions. He is welcome to come and talk to the civilised world any time he likes, and we’ll see what we can do to build consensus.

This bill, as colleagues have already said, increases and aligns the penalties for slavery offences, and it’s a modest but worthwhile technical bill and we’re glad to support it. But, having said that, it’s inevitable when a member brings a bill like this to the House—

Andy Foster: But.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —yes, there is a “but”—a modest technical bill, that it inevitably shines a torch light on the yawning absence of action by the Government on related matters. My colleagues have already talked about the Gloriavale issue, which desperately needs intervention by this Parliament and by the Government on the related issue of forced labour at Gloriavale. The celebrated quote from the Prime Minister that he would march in the streets for modern slavery—not a threat from this side of the House to march in the streets; he said it. He wanted to march in the streets. What have we heard on modern slavery since then? Crickets—crickets.

There’s a lot of appetite elsewhere in the House across a number of parties to see action on the global supply chains that sustain modern slavery at scale in the world today, and New Zealand needs to do its bit. I know that the liberal conscience of the national backbench would like to see action on this, and I just wish he could get enough of his colleagues in the caucus to take the issue seriously so that we could see some action.

There’s a third issue that this debate puts the spotlight on, and that is human trafficking. Now, we have a serious problem in this country with the exploitation of migrant labour. There are a number of cases recently that have come very close to human trafficking and quite possibly do meet the definition of “human trafficking”, which is the transport, the transit, the receiving of workers, often for forced labour or sexual exploitation, by fraud or coercion.

If you accept that people are being fraudulently moved across State borders for the purpose of working here and then find themselves smack bang in the middle of extremely exploitative circumstances, we arguably have cases right now of human trafficking in New Zealand and we need action on that. Unfortunately, what have we seen from the Minister who was very vocal on these questions when in the Opposition? We’ve seen the cutting in half of the ability of exploited migrant workers to get an open work visa to try to regularise the situation or at least find another job. That’s the single most significant thing that’s been done—a halving of their ability to get an open work visa for the time period.

Yesterday, we saw the removal of the median wage requirement for migrant workers which, in one fell swoop, shifts vast amounts of money out of the pockets of migrant workers who come to New Zealand, in order to reduce the bottom line for employers. It will inevitably undermine the incentive for employers to hire local workers. It takes money out of the pockets of migrant workers and reduces their bargaining power.

We do support this bill, but the other side shouldn’t be defensive about these things. Just take it on the chin and get on with the job.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to close out this debate, my first member’s bill. I do just want to acknowledge once again the original sponsor of this bill, the Hon Nicola Grigg, and as has been mentioned today by Todd Stephenson, it was a real honour to have this bill pulled out and then be able to guide it through.

On that one, I do just want to acknowledge the importance of members’ bills as part of our legislative process. I understand why there has been a lot of mention about my own leader’s comments before we became Government about this, and I can assure you that he remains a strong advocate for this kind of legislation. The reality of it is that this bill is in play, and this is a legitimate way of attending to some of the deficiencies in our law. I’m keen for us, as a Parliament, to run this process through, get as many changes as we possibly can through the select committee process, which is going to be chaired by my good friend and colleague James Meager. Thank you for your encouraging comments, and also to Cameron Brewer as well.

I’m confident that, by the time we get to that end of the process, we will actually have a far more robust framework within section 98 of the Crimes Act, which is that area of our law that provides us with the ability to be able to seek out cases of domestic human trafficking and prosecute effectively. I would just encourage us, as a House, to not diminish the place of members’ bills. There have also been some helpful comments and actually a great invitation there from Phil Twyford for me to strike out to new and undiscovered lands. I certainly intend to do that. In fact, I’m pleased to say that I’ve already been doing that.

Hon Member: Tell us when you find “Planet Labour”.

GREG FLEMING: Ha, ha! And to that one, I do want to acknowledge my colleague and friend Camilla Belich for her thoughtful work in this area. She’s laboured away in this area for a long time. I’ve really enjoyed working with Camilla in these recent months as we’ve continued to look at what might be possible in terms of companion legislation—that’s in the area of modern slavery and reporting, which Todd Stephenson mentioned. He drew a helpful distinction between that kind of legislation, that kind of work, and what this particular bill at hand does. The way that I would distinguish those, I think, most succinctly is to say that this current bill focuses on cases of domestic trafficking, of migrant exploitation.

A number of the members opposite have helpfully raised issues currently before us in New Zealand. In fact, the Hon Casey Costello spoke of her experience in that area. I hadn’t realised that, Minister, until I began my own research in this—that this is part of your very wide work in this space. I’m excited to hear of the working group you’ve put together, and I’m hopeful that this piece of legislation can contribute helpfully in that space as well. There’s no doubt at all that we do need some changes in this country, particularly around section 98, and that’s what this bill aims to do.

Then the companion legislation is the area of modern slavery reporting. To that extent, I’ve been looking to build on the excellent work of the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group, the research group that met for a couple of years. They and other groups, including World Vision, TEAR Fund New Zealand, and a host of other advocacy groups in New Zealand have done an enormous amount of helpful work looking at international jurisdictions. That is informing a piece of legislation that, hopefully, will be brought to the biscuit tin in the coming year.

With that, I thank the House for their considered support of this bill. It does look like it’s going to go through to the select committee, which I’m very excited about. At that stage, there will be a raft of amendments brought to make that section 98 even more robust. To that extent, thank you to the House, and I commend this bill to it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, may I first acknowledge my god-daughter, Ishara, whose 16th birthday is today, and her mother, my dear friend Manuja Samarasinha, who passed away a few months ago unexpectedly. Manuja was a staunch believer in women’s empowerment through education, and she was here in this House earlier this year, two days before this bill was drawn from the ballot for my maiden speech. I would like to honour my dear friend, with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, and wish my god-daughter, Ishara, a beautiful, blessed birthday.

Good morning. Ata mārie, colleagues and those listening from beyond the walls of Parliament. It’s an honour to stand here this morning as we debate my member’s bill for the third and final time, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. As I have mentioned previously, this bill was drawn from the ballot on the first day of February of this year, and although I was not involved in its inception, having inherited it from Minister Louise Upston after she took up her ministerial roles, I hope that the House and, most importantly, victims feel that I have cradled this bill and its kaupapa safely and effectively to this last parliamentary stage.

What began as a desire to place an obligation on the Corrections chief executive and prison managers to make sure that victims of crime and parties to protection orders are not contacted by offenders under the supervision of Corrections, the bill went through a metamorphosis of some kind in form, but the intention remained the same: to further protect victims of crime from unwanted contact by offenders responsible for the crimes and offences against them.

The transformation of this bill, from what it began as to what it is now, has been traversed extensively, particularly in my second reading speech. But, in summary, the main shift was from placing an obligation on Corrections to make sure that everyone in their protection, both within prisons and in the community, falls under this scope. The big shift we did is we took away the requirement for this obligation to fall upon those offenders that are in the community and confined it to those within prison. In a nutshell, the reason why we made this change, as I’ve explained in my former speech, is because from an operational level, it would have been almost impossible for Corrections to monitor everyone that’s out in the community—that’s over 26,000 people.

Although it saddens me that we cannot offer more protection, or concrete protection—for victims whose offenders are serving community sentences, for example—it comforts me to acknowledge that our Government, with the support of the whole House so far, is progressing with our stalking bill, which, no doubt, will strengthen protection for victims as well.

In its final form, what this bill seeks to do is to add another layer of protection for victims of crime and those under whom protection orders are in place for—another layer, if you will, of fortification around victims. This extra layer is in the form of a few pages. It’s a short bill, but it’s made up of the following proposed changes to the principal Act—the principal Act being the Corrections Act 2004—which has enjoyed the support of this House so far.

Essentially, it’s going to be placing an obligation on the chief executive of Corrections to implement processes to protect victims from unwanted contact. These processes will include informing visitors of prisoners, and those who receive prisoner communication, that there are measures they can take if they don’t want to be contacted by a prisoner. Another change is that Corrections must—not may, but must—take into account the interests of victims, in particular being free from unwanted contact from prisoners when deciding what conditions to impose on prisoners regarding outgoing phone calls and outgoing mail.

A key change with this bill is that we’re introducing a new offence to the list of prisoner offences that fall under section 128 of the Corrections Act. This offence is, essentially, that where a prisoner contacts a person, or solicits another person to contact a person, who the prisoner knows or ought to have known reasonably doesn’t want to be contacted, they will be guilty of a prisoner offence.

I began this speech, as I have with my other speeches—or maybe I didn’t begin this speech—by saying that it’s an honour to rise and speak on this bill, but this honour is underpinned with a quiet sadness, because the reality is that bills like this are actually desperately needed to protect victims from the mental and psychological torture of revictimisation.

Revictimisation in the form of grossly inappropriate drawings of a perverse sexual nature being sent by mail to young girls by a serial rapist in jail as early as January of this year. This rapist is their father, and despite the Family Court ruling that this sick man was not to contact his daughters, he blatantly disregarded this and sent them drawing after drawing. They were revictimised with every drawing.

Revictimisation in the form of a psychopathic sex attacker successfully sending letters from prison to his victim in 2019. This victim had suffered three days of repeated sexual assault and violence. I’m getting goosebumps as I speak about this because this is real and this is happening in Aotearoa New Zealand. In her victim impact statement, the poor woman asked: “How is this possible? How is it possible that this can happen?”, referring to the repeated contact and saying that “Now, I never feel safe.” This horrible ordeal revictimised her with every point of contact.

Revictimisation in the form of a victim being subjected to over 100 phone calls made from within prison by the perpetrator of crimes against them in 2018. With every harrowing phone call, this victim was revictimised. Although the Corrections Act had some type of general references to protecting victims of crime, we needed to make it more specific, and that’s what this bill does.

One would think, and rightfully presume, that when an offender is in jail, the victim will be free from the criminal’s torment, at least while the perpetrator is behind bars, but these examples that I’ve briefly outlined are only three out of an alarming plethora of examples of such cases, and it shows that this reasonable expectation is not being met in many circumstances—again, hence why this amendment bill is needed.

If I may, I would like to extend my warm gratitude to every single individual connected in some way to the progress of this bill and the intention behind this bill. I’d like to show my gratitude to the Hon Louise Upston for giving this bill renewed life after she was so moved by the number of horrible forms of contact by offenders to their victims from prison. I’d like to thank the Hon Mark Mitchell, Minister of Corrections, for supporting the kaupapa behind these amendments; to the Corrections advisers who answered all my questions—and there were many—thoroughly and in earnest. My colleagues on the Justice Committee, and also my colleagues across the House, but especially our chair, James Meager, for all his patience with my queries.

Finally, I’d like to thank my mother, who, from a very young age, has encouraged me to see who the victims are and to stick up for them. With that, I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member who has brought this bill to the House and has very tenaciously asked all of those questions and worked through the process, because things are never as simple as they seem and there’s always something under the good that requires a little bit more thought or a little bit more pragmatism than what was anticipated. I do congratulate the member for working all her way through those things. I’d also like to acknowledge the people who are victims of retraumatisation and the fact that we should, as a society, have the expectation that when someone commits an offence against us and they are imprisoned, that should be the end of the process and not the beginning of a whole new process and a whole new experience.

The bill, as has been said, doesn’t address all of the offender communications because it just wasn’t practical when you start to think about how you could do that, but it does do the ones it can do and it does limit those interactions from prison. I think that that is an absolute step in the right direction. In that sense it does, as members’ bills should do, take a very specific and a very practical step and even modest progress is valuable when it affirms victims’ rights to safety and to peace of mind. It does so primarily, as the member responsible for the bill herself said, by introducing a new offence under the prison discipline regime for making unwanted contact, and it sends a signal therefore that harassment of victims won’t be tolerated.

To achieve that practically, it does somewhat rely on victim education. It does somewhat rely on the recipient of prisoner communications being informed about the practical steps that they can do and what the Corrections department can do to help them understand how they can stop that unwanted contact. Whilst not perfect and whilst the onus is somewhat being on the victim, it is a step in the right direction, and it will be interesting to follow the progress of how this bill makes an impact in the Corrections system.

It also places an expectation, as was said, on the Department of Corrections, to actively consider the victims when they make the types of decisions that they make around communications. As you can imagine, it’s not a simple linear and tidy package of decision making that has to be made when you’re balancing people’s rights to communicate with victims’ rights to not receive some communication. Again, it will be interesting to see how that progresses, and the Department of Corrections will need to report on that as well. That provides us with that tool.

It’s a practical step forward. It supports victims in managing their own safety. For that reason, we commend the member who has ushered this through, and support the bill.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise in support of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues previously, I want to mihi across the House, and of course to MP Rima Nakhle, for the work that has been done to get this bill to this stage. On our last day in the House for 2024, it feels fitting that we are passing a bill that has unanimous support across the House and will make a tangible and real difference to protection for survivors. This work is important work. This work will help protect people from retraumatisation. This is what it’s all about.

At the core of this bill is a vision for a world free from violence, from family violence, and from sexual violence. We shouldn’t accept these issues as inevitable. To reach our goal of eliminating family and sexual violence, it is imperative that we have a survivor-centred approach to justice, one that protects survivors from further abuse, trauma, pain, and suffering. A survivor-focused approach means listening and learning, and that is actually what the Justice Committee did through the select committee process. We heard survivors, we heard those submitters, and we acted, and that is why, here at the Greens, we support this bill.

What is clear is that this Government is taking a fundamentally different approach to prevention. There have been some big changes in this bill since its first reading. After hearing from the Department of Corrections that the first iteration of this bill would be very difficult to implement operationally, the Justice Committee went back and did that mahi and really made those changes that mean that it will make a tangible difference and it will be implemented in a way that actually protects survivors.

We know a survivor-centred approach to justice is fundamentally different from the tough-on-crime stance which this Government is dedicated to, and we welcome this bill as a protection for survivors. To have a truly survivor-centred approach to justice is the key to eliminating family violence and sexual violence. We can’t keep using punitive measures that are doomed to fail over and over again. The reality is prevention and rehabilitation is not a priority for this Government, even though survivors are telling us this is what they want.

It’s time to learn from our mistakes and be really bold and learn from people with lived experience. When it comes to family violence, it ends up being the justice system itself that can cause as much harm as the actual family violence. Generations of family violence survivors have told us that they regretted reporting abuse, as the justice system’s response often left them feeling more harmed than the violence itself. This is a truly sobering reflection of the system’s failures.

We welcome this bill and the positive changes, and we know we need to transform the justice system to be survivor-centred, to focus on prevention and rehabilitation. We hear this from survivors, advocates, and experts, and it’s time for us to continue in the true spirit of survivor-centred justice.

On Sunday, the second action plan of Te Aorerekura was launched. This is a bold initiative shepherded in by the Hon Marama Davidson. This is an across-Government strategy which focuses on primary prevention. One of the key components to success is breaking down the barriers of Government agencies talking to each other and working together. And so that talking together and planning together and committing to prevention work is what is needed, and that is what we can do. This is an example of how we do that. The Greens strongly urge the Government to reprioritise Te Aorerekura and the vital system-wide changes needed, like resourcing front-line services who provide the support families need.

What is Te Aorerekura all about? It acknowledges the importance of prevention. It is an area that is chronically underfunded in New Zealand, and, sadly, this Government has decided to further—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t want to be mean-spirited at the moment, but we’re on the third reading of a bill—and I accept that the members mentioned this as an important component, but I would really like the member to come back to this piece of legislation. Thank you.

KAHURANGI CARTER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Thank you. We want to see this commitment in the prevention space, and this bill is a step towards that because we are prioritising survivors and what survivors have asked for and something that actually will prevent them from retraumatisation. I do want to shout out to successful programmes like Te Whakaruruhau, Waitomo Papakainga, and Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri, where wāhine and tāne are supported to break free from these cycles of violence.

The Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill represents a big step towards a truly survivor-centred approach within our justice system. This bill protects survivors of family violence from unwanted contact, which is crucial to their healing journey. It is clear that a survivor-centred approach to justice is vital for the changes that we need to protect our future generations. If we genuinely want to transform our justice system and provide effective protection for survivors, we must ensure that prevention is prioritised. Let’s keep moving forward and working together on this prevention and rehabilitation work. We support this bill.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill in this third reading. Firstly, I want to pay tribute to Rima Nakhle, whose name this bill is in. Obviously, as she has outlined this morning, she did inherit this bill, but I don’t think there could have been a better person to actually have inherited this bill. Ms Nakhle is a very hard-working member of the Justice Committee—and, I am sure, of other parliamentary activities as well—but I’ve had a lot to do with her on the Justice Committee. She is a very victim and survivor-centric person, she’s very intelligent, and she did an amazing job shepherding this bill through the select committee process, asking the right questions, always pushing for more and more.

As she said, the bill started off in one place, it developed—you know, she would have had a regime that actually would have covered every person under Corrections supervision in all of New Zealand, but accepted that there was some impracticality to that, but did keep pushing. I want to talk about that a little bit later, about some of the things that I think we can do to follow up this bill, which looks set to pass. I want to say thank you to Rima for continuing to be the voice of victims and survivors, and I think we’re going to deliver you a slightly early Christmas present this morning—but, more importantly, we’re actually going to deliver a Christmas present for victims and survivors in New Zealand.

Really, as has been outlined, what this does is strengthen the protections in place for victims and survivors of crime who do not want to hear from the perpetrators of the crimes against them. Now, that’s a pretty simple concept. If you have been subject to a crime—often violent and often sexual offences—and you do not want to hear from that person ever again, I think that that is something that you should have as a right, as a victim or a survivor. While there were some general protections in place, they were not adequate. That is clear, because, actually, Corrections worked and actually asked for a six-month implementation period because they wanted to make sure they had the proper processes and practices in place. They are clearly going to be strengthening what they do already.

Another important point which we did uncover—and, I think, again, has been referred to this morning—is there is some education that needs to be done, actually, for victims and survivors around their rights. We heard from Corrections about what they’re going to put in place in relation to that. They will be trying to make sure, at contact points they have with victims and survivors, that they will be making their rights known to them, and the process when they do want to stop this unwanted contact.

It’s also been touched on this morning that we do have, obviously, a family and sexual violence culture problem in New Zealand. It has been referred to that we had the second launch of the action plan on Sunday, and I do want to pay tribute both to the current Minister, the Hon Karen Chhour, and previous Ministers who have put that plan in place. I hope that we can actually have a discussion across the House about how we can deliver the things in that plan, because it is very important as a lot of those—and, again, Ms Nakhle referred to some of the types of unwanted contact this morning—are family and sexual violence cases.

We want to, obviously, stop this for as many victims and survivors of crime as possible. We need to be doing things at the prevention and punishment end, but also, obviously, in relation to victims’ and survivors’ rights. Again, I think the stalking law which we introduced last week is a part of that. One of the other interesting things which I know Ms Nakhle was slightly disappointed about was that we couldn’t actually put a reporting aspect into this bill. I think that was discussed at length, because it would actually force Corrections to report on what they had done, and the outcomes.

One of the great things about select committees and the annual review process is we do actually have Corrections in every year to our select committee. We discussed the opportunity to ask questions of Corrections about the implementation of this bill and what they’re doing to protect victims’ rights and survivors’ rights. I look forward to that being a topic of discussion next year when the Corrections department comes in, and we can actually ask them some detailed questions about this regime, how it’s going, and actually what the results have been. That is something that, again, is a great part of our parliamentary process and actually will allow us to follow up on Ms Nahkle’s bill.

I also want to pay tribute to people who did submit to this bill. We did cover this in the second reading, but it’s just worth calling out that we did have some submissions in relation to this bill. Some submitters had gone to a lot of effort. I noted the New Zealand Law Students’ Association went to some effort and detail to actually go through the bill—the improvements that they saw could be made—and I want to thank groups like that that did actually look at the substance of the bill and make suggestions.

I also want to just reference Victim Support, because they also did do a submission, and a really excellent submission. Again, a lot of the things that they put in their submission have been touched on this morning in the House, but there are four points in their submission that I do want to draw people’s attention to, because they really outlined reasons why they were going to support this bill on behalf of victims and survivors.

The reasons they put forward were these: victims deserve to feel safe. This comes back to my earlier comments: if people have been the subject of a crime and they do not want to hear from the perpetrator of that crime, that should be their right, and they deserve to feel safe in getting on with their lives.

They deserve to be free from revictimization. We’ve heard some comments this morning from across the House about the importance of dealing with revictimisation, and unwanted contact is a form of revictimisation. Again, we heard some quite traumatic examples of what can be communicated to people.

Victims deserve to have autonomy. This comes, again, back to my point that if people make a decision about how they want to not hear from someone and get on with their lives, they should be able to do that, and actually regain control, particularly when it’s a family violence case or sexual violence case—actually having that autonomy and actually being able to take control over your life is very, very important.

Fourthly, they said this could help assist victims to move on. I think that is really, again, another key point. Someone who’s been subject to a crime needs to decide how they want to move on and live their lives, and if that includes cutting someone off and cutting off contact from someone, they should be allowed to do that.

Also, Victim Support put forward a couple of other really helpful suggestions in their submission, which we dealt with. It has been touched on this morning, this idea of having prisoners and inmates using other prisoners and inmates to reach out to the people. Again, we’ve heard how that will not be allowed either; so you can’t ask someone else in your prison facility to do the contacting on your behalf, and if you’re doing that, that will be an offence. They also talked about some process changes. I thought that their submission actually summed up really nicely what Rima Nakhle was trying to achieve in this bill.

I do think this is an excellent piece of legislation, which, obviously, is being supported across the House, and is a very victim- and survivor-centric piece of work. I want to commend this bill to the House on behalf of ACT.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. As others have done in the House, I would like to recognise the member Rima Nakhle for her compassionate, considered, and empathetic approach that she has taken to this bill. She has given credit, of course, to Minister Louise Upston, who first presented the bill, but I think it is her collaborative and empathetic approach to this bill that has enabled it to traverse the journey it has and bring it to this House. She is an individual who has tremendous warmth, and it is hard not to be caught up by her passion on this issue and her genuine concern for delivering positive outcomes. I thank her for the work that she’s done to bring this to the House.

I’d like to pause a little bit when we talk about the need for protection and recognise that a big component of this is about the power relationship. This is about offenders continuing to hold a power, control, through whatever means, over vulnerable people, and this communication is just one of the ways in which they influence. When they don’t have the ability to be physically in control or physically intimidating or constraining their victims, then they use this as a method of continuing to share their influence and control over vulnerable victims. It is important when we talk about this need to reduce the impact on victims and affording better protections that the reality is there has to be a punitive measure in this space. We would love to be able to police by consent, we would love to be able to not have to lock anybody up because nobody makes bad decisions, but the reality is we owe these vulnerable people some degree of greater protection, and punitive impacts are a reality in this space.

There are opportunities, of course, to break the cycle, and I think that we have to be a bit more considered about the environment of corrections. I think the work that the member did through this process in working with Corrections was quite an eye-opener as to how much Corrections actually do deliver in terms of trying to break the cycle: to rehabilitate, to educate, to strengthen, to make a different pathway so that different decisions can be made. But that doesn’t happen overnight, and the reality is these victims need protection all the time. As we work through that process of better education, of better housing, of better career opportunities, all of those things that will enable people to live better lives and reach their potential, that is not immediate. Therefore, these steps need to be taken to ensure that we have some assurance to victims.

I’d comment a little bit on observations that were made across the House about victims regretting reporting. From my experience, one of the biggest regrets that victims had was the fact that there was no punishment—that they go through this enormous process that is incredibly terrifying and toll taking, and at the end of the day, the offender who has inflicted so much harm bears no consequence for that. That is part of those realities that we have to recognise—that this system is flawed. It isn’t perfect, but the point of putting victims first is ensuring that we can provide an assurance that, if they go through this process, they will be protected; that the person who is responsible for this harm is dealt with in a way that makes the process of reporting worthwhile. The greatest fear you have is that, once you’ve gone through this and exposed it, this person either can show up on your doorstep the next day or can write letters or phone calls or send objectionable material.

The ways in which they can continue to create this influence is evident any time you meet with any organisation that’s trying to reduce family violence and harm; the insidious way in which they can continue to invoke controls, whether it is through transactions into bank accounts, whether it’s controlling money, whether it’s sending text messages, sending other people to send messages. It is this ongoing level of control that this bill is serving to reduce.

So, yes, we do have a flawed system. Yes, there is lots of work to be done if we are to strengthen our societies, but fundamentally we have to reduce the number of victims, and when we have victims, we provide them assurance that they will be protected. This bill goes a long way to sending a very clear message that this Government is listening, that we understand the realities. There is lots of work to be done, but for this bill, on this day, we can say that we have taken one more step to ensuring that your voice is heard and we will put some wrap-around protections on you. Therefore, New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.

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

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the member Rima Nakhle for bringing this work forward, and I congratulate her.

I want to thank all members of the House as speeches in previous readings have shown unanimous support for this bill. It’s a good reflection that on issues like this, like the greyhound bill, we can come together and actually do good things together, despite the sort of incentives that encourage conflict and partisanship. We are physically set up in opposition to each other, and that’s a feature of the Westminster system, which actually comes into a bit of conflict, I guess, with one of the features of the mixed member proportional system, which is that different parties do have to work together on issues to try and achieve consensus. I think that’s been one of the tensions across this Government, and it was a tension in previous Governments as well.

I also want to thank Minister Chhour and previous Ministers who worked in this space, and I want to acknowledge the generous tribute that Todd Stephenson mentioned towards previous Ministers, like Marama Davidson, on the work on Te Aorerekura. It’s really important that this continues to be an issue that transcends partisan political boundaries.

I think my colleague Kahurangi Carter has already outlined the Green Party’s position on this bill and why we’re supporting it. This bill puts additional support towards victims so that there’s a decreased chance of their being revictimised by perpetrators, and it does this in a way that is consistent with a victim- or survivor-centred approach that is inherent in that strategy.

I won’t labour the point. Thank you to all members for their support. Thank you to Rima Nakhle for bringing this important work forward. I hope that we as a House can continue to work together on issues like this that transcend partisan party politics. Kia ora.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure and privilege to rise to speak in the third reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

I particularly acknowledge my very good and hard-working colleague Rima Nakhle, the MP for Takanini. It’s a real honour to get a member’s bill drawn and to get to this point, where you’re about to actually pass law. I think that’s quite something. It’s one of the privileges we get as MPs. I’d like to also acknowledge her very supportive husband, Roger, who is here today. It’s great to have that support. We know how much they support each other, so it’s great to have you; I acknowledge you up here as well.

Look, I can’t imagine actually being a victim and then being revictimised by someone who you thought you should be safe from, because they’re in prison. In this day and age, we really have to make sure that people are given every chance to move on from being a victim, as much as they can, and deal with it. It must be such a traumatic experience, so to actually then allow for more protection for victims is outstanding, and it’s a great reason for this bill.

It actually fits in really well with what our Government is doing in the whole law and order space. It’s putting a real focus on victims. We felt, in the past, that that balance had been lost, and we’re bringing it back to a situation where victims are at the centre of the justice system, not the criminals themselves. It’s going to make quite a difference for people, I think, to put an obligation on the CEO of Corrections to actually go the extra mile to make sure people aren’t being revictimised while their perpetrator is in jail. I mean, it’s obviously a challenge, because recently we’ve seen pictures from within jail taken of people on smuggled phones and so forth, so it might just add that extra focus in that space, which I think will be a really good thing.

In terms of the other aspects around helping the victims of crime, one of the things that we brought to the House recently is around the stalking situation. It all flows into that same area. For some who’ve never been there, they might not necessarily understand it, but, by damn, it can be very traumatic for the individuals that are caught up in  this situation, so I really think this will really make a difference for people.

I mean, it also fits in with all the other things. We’re sending that message out there to say to the people who want to commit crime that we don’t accept it; society does not accept it. We put a real focus in that space around the gangs and the work we’ve done there and said to them, “Look, don’t wear gang patches.”, because, actually, in many ways, when people go outside and they see gangs, they can feel traumatised by that if they were a victim of a gang crime. I think that sort of thing can really, really help in that space as well.

I think it’s important to acknowledge, in this whole process with this bill, which was drawn, as Rima told us earlier on, on 1 February this year, just after the maiden speech—gee, some people are lucky—and then went through the process. The first reading was on 20 March and then submissions were open for a month from 6 April to 6 May, and they received 12 submissions. Clearly, I think we had better pay tribute to the very hard-working members of the Justice Committee. They seem to be always complaining about the amount of work they do. I really don’t know what their problem is, actually.

James Meager: Love the work.

GRANT McCALLUM: It’s what we get paid to do, Mr Meager. I pay compliments to the chair—he’s done a good job of chairing it—and the deputy chair, Jamie Arbuckle. We’ve got the infamous Cameron Brewer over here, who’s also on that select committee. He seems to spend all his life in this House, because the Justice Committee does seem to have a few bills in here. We’ve also got Rima on that same select committee; Paulo Garcia, who can’t be here at the moment. I acknowledge Todd Stephenson, who spoke earlier, and Ginny Andersen, who’s on that select committee. And, of course, Duncan—of course I’ve got to acknowledge Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is this your Christmas card list?

GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! Well, I’m getting through it, yeah—and Tracey McLellan and Tamatha and Tākuta Ferris. I think it’s really important that we acknowledge the hard work that’s been done by people on that committee.

With that, I really do commend this bill to the House. It’s a great bill. It will make a real difference for victims in in our society, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Grant McCallum, for running through the members of the Justice Committee for the record there.

Look, across the House we will not agree on all criminal justice policy and we fiercely disagree about large parts of it, but in terms of at least the theory of better support and appropriate support for victims and the reduction in the number of victims, we do agree—absolutely agree—and that’s good. Congratulations to the member. She’s going to see her bill passed today, and the bill has a good foundation in what is seeks to achieve.

What it really does is it puts into law the processes that Corrections certainly endeavour to implement anyway, and that’s a good thing, because Corrections should be required to protect victims from unwanted contact from offenders, indeed any offender. So, good on you. We do know that Corrections doesn’t have a great record of doing what they’re legally obliged to do. I hope the member will keep tabs on what’s happening. I know we talked about having some record-keeping, but certainly I know, on this side of the House, we intend to ask some questions to make sure that they’re keeping up.

This is part of a wider project, and the member just spoke about the stalking bill. Ginny Andersen put a stalking bill into the ballot and prompted the Government to accelerate work on stalking. That’s also a really important aspect, and not unrelated to the current bill, which is about unwanted contact and, essentially, taking vulnerable people and revictimising them. In our last term, we tripled the amount of support for the victims’ assistance scheme and doubled the level of funding for Victim Support.

I’ve spoken to Victim Support and they do struggle. They do a fantastic job with very limited resources, given the number of victims they do assist. I hope that not only will we put in law these existing practices for Corrections, but we’ll also make sure that funding keeps up with demand in terms of victims.

That’s probably all I really need to say. I congratulate the member. She is an advocate for victims. I’m always happy to talk about how we can do better there in a cross-party way. Let’s keep tabs on Corrections and make sure they live up to their promises. I know the officials worked hard and were very cooperative in making a workable piece of legislation, but what really matters is how it works on the ground, and we’ll need to keep tabs on that. Let’s continue to work together, both to reduce the number of victims—how we do that, I think, we’ll have some discussions about—and in terms of supporting people who are victims, and making sure that we can give them the best path out of a pretty horrible situation is something we all agree on. Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s great that members across the House are supporting this third reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. Like others, I just want to acknowledge its sponsor, Rima Nakhle, and all the work that she continues to do around advocating for victims.

I just want to reflect on what she said in her second reading speech, as the sponsor: “This bill at its core is about victims. I don’t shy away from the fact that victims and protecting victims plays a huge role in the course and the direction of my actions and my thoughts, especially having the privilege of being a member of Parliament.” And, as Grant McCallum so eloquently said, that is one of the privileges of being a member of Parliament: the ability to actually submit legislation under one’s name into the biscuit tin, into the members’ ballot, and then for it to be drawn out—a fantastic way for Rima Nakhle to finish up this year, particularly when you consider, I think, the first day of this year, she gave a fabulous maiden speech.

On 1 February, her member’s bill, this member’s bill, was drawn from the ballot—and so a great year for the member, and good news for the victims has just been added again today. The first reading was on 20 March. Just to go back on some of the process here: drawn on 1 February; first reading, 20 March; submissions between 6 April and 6 May. Twelve submissions were made.

Rima Nakhle has also noted that she would have liked the restrictions around contact and protecting victims to have applied to people who are under the care of Corrections out in the community. I note that the Department of Corrections controls or supervises, looking at our committee report-back, 26,000 people in the community—26,000 people in the community that Corrections controls or supervises—as well as approximately 9,500 prisoners serving sentences inside prisons.

Now, while this legislation doesn’t extend directly to those who are serving their community sentences or under the supervision of Corrections, Ms Nakhle none the less made sure that the expectation was in the commentary of the select committee. I put it out—page 2 of the select committee’s report back—the commentary: “We request that the relevant agencies continue to monitor the safeguards available to serve the protection of victims where offenders are serving community-based sentences, orders, and parole.”

That message has been sent to Corrections. They have willingly listened and heard, and they will subsequently continue to monitor and to report back on the safeguards available to protect those victims where their offenders are serving community-based sentences. That is now in the select committee report. It hasn’t quite been put into the statute, but what that means is that there is an expectation that, when Corrections comes through—whether it’s for Estimates or annual reviews, or for any presentations to the likes of the Justice Committee—we can raise legitimately, and future Parliaments can raise, “What are you doing to ensure that the safeguards available are protecting the victims of those offenders who remain in the community?” That was a win—that was definitely a win.

I think Ms Nakhle—why don’t we call her “Mrs Nakhle”, because we’ve got Mr Nakhle here, as has been noted: Roger Nakhle. I actually want just to digress a little bit, Mr Speaker, with your indulgence on the eve of the break-up for Christmas, that the Nakhle family understands the needs of the community, particularly pertaining to South Auckland, more than most. I want to acknowledge Rima and Roger’s work in emergency and transitional housing. I also want to acknowledge Roger’s family, Roger’s parents, for the contribution that they have made—and I’m almost getting old enough to look back on last century—

James Meager: No!

CAMERON BREWER: —despite appearances, Mr Meager; I know that’s what you’re saying—the contribution that they have made to the creation of Manukau City, now part of the Auckland Council area, that proud part of South Auckland, in building and creating that city and working alongside some greats, including Sir Barry Curtis. I want to acknowledge the Nakhle family, and to have that Nakhle name on this piece of legislation is very meaningful and very fitting. Congratulations.

Another win that we mustn’t overlook—we’ve got Corrections pinned down as far as ensuring the safeguards are available and monitored for those who are serving sentences outside of prison—inside, as the statute now prescribes, Mrs Nakhle has ensured that “must” has replaced “may”. As we know in legislation, words count. “Must” now replaces “may”, which is a major, major victory for victims across New Zealand going forward.

In saying that, if we look at new section 77(5A)—“In deciding what conditions (if any) to impose, the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of victims”—Rima Nakhle has managed to get that word in. That’s no easy task, to change statute from “may” to “must”—the word “must”, “must take into account”, as opposed to “may take into account the interests of victims”. Subsequently, victims, their lawyers, their families, their friends, their loved ones, their supporters, and their whānau can say, “They have to do this. They must do this. It’s in the law of the land.” Congratulations to Rima Nakhle on that.

Again, for those that might have tuned in latterly and wondered what we’re talking about, this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, aims to protect victims of crime and people under a protection order from unwanted contact from prisons. It amends the 2004 Corrections Act by creating an obligation. It’s a “must” obligation; it’s not a “may” obligation. We know that, in the Public Service, words count as to how they interpret legislation, too. “May” is a lot different than “must”, and so “must” is now in the statute. That is a huge advancement for victims nationwide.

I just wind up on a sobering note: there are a lot of incidents that we can point to where victims have been terrorised by their offenders. I go back to one victim, that the New Zealand Herald repeated a few years ago, of an unprovoked, gratuitous, and prolonged severe beating, and their offender made 102 phone calls from prison to that victim—to that victim—in a desperate bid to prevent that victim from testifying against him. The victim’s number was on an approved call list of recipients. In July of that year, the offender urged the victim repeatedly to evade police and to not testify. The victim subsequently started not turning up for trials and not turning up to court. It just prolonged it. He also got another inmate to call and terrorise the victim.

There are some shocking, shocking cases of victims that have been traumatised by unwanted contact and calls from offenders from prison. This puts an obligation on the chief executives to do a lot better. They must now ensure protections are in place for victims. I commend the bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While not being on the Justice Committee and not having been directly involved, I have, as the previous Minister of Corrections, some awareness of the situation. We are all in this House, of course, mindful of the need to protect victims across this country, and they come in many shapes and sizes and forms. In this bill, of course, they are obvious: they are people who do not want to be contacted.

I’d like to congratulate the member Rima Nakhle. Luck is useful in the biscuit tin, but it’s good to have a bill pulled out that will make a difference. The effect of the bill and the changes made in the select committee have been well canvassed here.

I’d just like to add in another obligation that, as Minister, I had to remind the chief executive of at the time, and that is that of course the Department of Corrections have an obligation to protect society from people who might want to do us harm or who have caused harm to others, but there is also an obligation to have rehabilitation—that is, to reduce reoffending. What we do know is that, without proper opportunities for rehabilitation while under the control of Corrections, the chances of reoffending and victimisation will continue, and while this order here in this piece of legislation clearly ups the obligation, I’m not sure that we could say that it will prevent it without those offenders actually understanding why they shouldn’t do this.

I know that that might sound a little idealistic, but Corrections will have control over the prisoners, over people who are serving sentences, for only so long. Beyond that, ultimately, it’s our ability to turn around the minds of those offenders, to have them understand how the offences occurred, and why they must change their ways. That is possible through proper sentencing and through proper custodial protection and oversight that prevents them, through this bill, contacting victims—and we know that that’s the right thing to do—but, ultimately, long-term protection for those victims will only occur when rehabilitation has taken place or those offenders have understood the error of their ways.

I’ll just say congratulations to the member for her bill. As was said before by a previous speaker, changing “may” to “must” might seem like a somewhat insignificant change, but we know, as lawmakers in this House, that it does change the way that the law is implemented.

Look, it’s a good step forward. It will better protect those victims who don’t want contact from the offender and they feel threatened by that for whatever reason, but also it is a reminder to the police and others who are implementing protection orders that they have to follow through on those things, as well. Victims won’t be secure by this piece of legislation alone; it will require a cross-agency focus to protect the victims. I’ll repeat once more that, actually, rehabilitation is ultimately the only long-term way of securing victims’ rights, their security, and their peace of mind. I support—as the Labour Party does, of course—the passage of this bill through the House. Kia ora.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this great bill—of course, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill—in the third reading. Like many other speakers, I would like to acknowledge my great colleague Rima Nakhle for all her work in shepherding this bill through the House. It has already been talked about how wonderful a local MP she is with really great connections with the community and really understanding the needs of her community. I do want not just to acknowledge her work in the House but also acknowledge her work in her local electorate as well.

Rima talked to me and some of my colleagues last night about the purpose of this bill, and I think it really is very clear that this bill aims to protect the victims of crime and people under a protection order from unwanted contact from prisoners. It will amend the Corrections Act 2004 by creating an obligation on the chief executive to implement processes to protect victims from unwanted contact. Really, what I’d add to that is I think this bill is really just a common-sense process for victims, because no one chooses to be a victim. A victim has no choice in that at all, and this bill, of course, seeks to prevent that repeated victimisation from perpetrators. I think we can all imagine the mental health effects that unwanted contact would have in retraumatising some of these victims.

We make no apologies about focusing on victims and their safety. Victims should be able to feel safe when the offenders are in prison. I do just want to kind of touch on some of the stories that we’ve heard and that have been in the media. The New Zealand Herald, in the start of 2018, reported on a prisoner who contacted his victims 93 times to get her to change her stories. He was a paedophile who wrote to a victim, who was then in her 20s, from prison. The victim had just made the comment that that made her feel unsafe and dirty. I just want to acknowledge the effect that these sorts of events have. Of course, the National Party MP Louise Upston, at the time, said that it was sickening that the prisoner would be able to contact the victim, who would have been retraumatised. I think we can all imagine what impact that would have.

A victim advocate Ruth Money said that, when victims are first contacted by prisoners, they were often shocked, then scared. I think the general public would probably be quite surprised that this bill isn’t already part of our rules and regulations. I think probably most of the general public would think that, once someone’s in prison, they wouldn’t be able to contact their victims, but, unfortunately, that’s not the case. We’re lucky to have Rima to actually kind of fix that problem.

Of course, one of the previous speakers spoke about a man that was contacted from jail more than 100 times to try and get the victim to not give evidence at his trial. That victim had been severely beaten. The beating had gone on for about 15 minutes in a whole series of punches and kicks that led to quite considerable damage and physical injury. Of course, that perpetrator was busy trying to really harass this victim to get them to not go to court. That ended up dragging that process out. Of course, we know that court proceedings, hopefully, can bring closure to some of these victims so they can move on with their lives, and if we don’t have this measure in place, that will just drag that out. It’s really just a basic intimidation tactic which we need to stamp out.

I would also like to actually, just in the closing time that I have, reference our further proposed legislation changes to the crime legislation around stalking and harassment. That’s gone through its first reading, and it’s with the hard-working Justice Committee. I do believe this is one of 28 bills that they have considered this term—the chairperson is indicating even higher—and I just want to acknowledge all the hard work they do. Time’s up, but I do just want to commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): As has been said by earlier speakers on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, we are supporting this bill. I congratulate Rima Nakhle for her work on it, and I have nothing further to add.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you to Mr Parker for paving the way for a slightly long contribution towards the end of this debate. Look, Mr Speaker, with your indulgences, I’d just like to start with a short public service announcement. I’d just like to wish a big congratulations to a Miss Sophie Wedd for winning the Hawke’s Bay tennis open under-16s competition. I’m aware a relative of Miss Wedd is in the House today, but I don’t want to have her have to ad hoc amend her potential speech in the next bill and put her under a bit of pressure, so I just wanted to wish Sophie a big congratulations from everyone in the House, I’m sure.

Well, back to the bill at hand. It’s been said many times today, and I’ll say it again: a huge congratulations to, and I’m very proud to support the bill in the name of, Mrs Rima Nakhle. Rima—Mrs Nakhle; I can’t refer to you by your first name. Mrs Nakhle is, I think, undoubtedly one of the strongest—if not the strongest—supporters and advocates of victims in this House. There was a comment mentioned before by Mrs Nakhle that the chair of the Justice Committee may have had a significant amount of patience with her queries throughout this process. I can reassure the member that her queries, compared to some other queries we receive on the Justice Committee, were incredibly polite and very straightforward to handle. I welcome those queries because they ended up producing a bill that’s come to us now actually much stronger than what it was when it went into the select committee process.

I’ll traverse some of the reasons why some people may think that the bill didn’t achieve what it originally intended to set out to achieve in terms of protecting all victims of offences from all potential offenders in prison and in our community, but, actually, what’s happened through Mrs Nakhle’s dogged determination and advocacy is that we have a bill which has been significantly strengthened through three key provisions, which I’ll touch on later on.

I want to move to the change from the bill as introduced to where we are now in terms of what we’re going to be passing in the House over the next few minutes. The main change has been, of course, and members have touched on it, that the bill as introduced purported to try and prevent or place an obligation on Corrections to protect all victims of offences from any unwanted contacts from all individuals under the control or supervision of Corrections. We heard from Corrections throughout the process that, as much as they would be keen to do this and as much as they try to protect victims to the extent that they can, given that they monitor and supervise over 26,000 individuals in our community and over 9,000 inside the prison system, it is just the sad, sad reality of the state of our nation that we are not able to do that; we are not able to offer that protection.

What we can do through this bill, and one of the changes that has been made to this bill and advocated for by Mrs Nakhle, is to provide an obligation on Corrections to inform recipients of contact, or recipients of communication, from prisoners inside the prison system of their rights, of their ability to prevent unwanted contact. Actually, that change is going to make a significant difference. It provides the impetus for Corrections to do more of what they already do. Corrections already have the ability to limit contact—unwanted contact—by prisoners to victims, or to anyone, actually, whether that’s mandated through the court or whether that is contacted to Corrections through non-contact orders. They have the ability, at the moment, to mark on outgoing mail some of the options for victims, in terms of, “If you do not wish to receive mail from this prisoner, please contact Corrections. We can place you on a non-contact list.”

What they don’t do at the moment is do this through the telephone service. One of the changes that this bill will hopefully introduce, and one of the reasons why there needs to be some time for it to come into force, is that Corrections can look at what automated messages they can put in the telephone system so that, before calls are made, victims are made aware, or recipients of contact—because it’s not necessarily just the victims of offences; it may well be their relatives, it may well be people associated with those victims that prisoners are trying to reach. They will be made aware of the options that are available to them to prevent any future contact. That is a significant step and a significant improvement and enhancement to the legislation as introduced.

The second thing that the legislation has done to strengthen it is to actually create a new offence of undertaking unwanted contact. Essentially, where a prisoner attempts to make contact or solicits contact with an individual who they know, or ought reasonably to know, does not wish to be contacted or has a non-contact order in place, that will be an offence under this Act. That is a significant step as well, because that creates, or that provides, some of the teeth, some of the muscle behind the bill so that Corrections actually has some way of enforcing some of these actions. We heard before of examples from many members in the House of hundreds and hundreds of communications by prisoners towards people who did not want them. Corrections, try as they may to put the systems and filters in place, had no ability to deter individuals inside the prison system from doing so.

In fact, the departmental report is a very helpful read and is full of a very significant amount of information provided by Corrections as to the limits that they have on their ability to stop this kind of stuff from happening. I draw the House’s attention to paragraphs 40 and 41 and 42 of the report, where Corrections themselves admit there are still instances where contact is occurring where it should not be, and where prisoners are able to bypass non-contact orders and use others outside of the system to have contact with their victims or with associates of victims. This new offence provision will not only put an obligation on Corrections to prevent that or create an offence for the individuals themselves, but to create that, too, for others who are being solicited to contact.

The third thing the bill does to significantly strengthen it is it creates an obligation on Corrections to take into account the interests of victims when placing conditions on outgoing calls and outgoing communication. I think that’s an important step to take.

As we know, Mrs Nakhle is a strong advocate for victims. In fact, throughout the select committee process, it may—if any member or any member of the public ever tuned into the public hearings part of our deliberations in our consideration of bills and you see Mrs Nakhle take a question, often those questions will be to challenge some of the assertions made by academics or made by experts or even made by community organisations about the impact of legislation on the justice system. Without a doubt, the vast majority, if not all, of those interjections are often focused, or indeed always focused, on considering whether or not that individual submitter had considered the rights of the victims and the interests of the victims when making those submissions. That may be uncomfortable for some people to see when submitters are challenged on some of their assertions, but I think Mrs Nakhle takes no trouble at all, and it does not bother her at all, to put her views forward and to make sure that the rights of victims are placed on the record as well.

Placing this obligation to take victims interests into account will mean that when Corrections are placing conditions on outgoing communications and outgoing calls, they will be able to put the victims’ interests into that. It may mean that they are a bit tougher and they are a bit stricter on what does leave the prison system.

I want to acknowledge the work of Corrections. When they worked through this bill with us, they were very upfront and very open about what they could or could not do. Again, I refer back to the departmental report. If members go towards the sort of question and answer section of the departmental report, you can see, in paragraph 106, that Corrections estimate they receive or process around about 400,000 pieces of mail every year. That’s just physical mail. That indicates the type of challenges that they are undertaking.

Now, they open and screen every single piece of mail, and they do their best to make sure that that mail is appropriate and there is nothing in there which should be prevented from going through, in or out, but they do acknowledge that not all pieces of mail are actually counted in that figure, so the figure could indeed be higher. In terms of what Corrections can do at the moment, there are systems in place, but this bill will certainly go some way to providing extra impetus and extra encouragement and actual obligations on the corrections system to do so.

Finally, I will draw the House’s attention, and the attention of all members of the public, to looking forward to what we can do to continue to improve how we approach the justice sector. We’ve got a hearing, I think later on in March, with heads of departments of the justice sector in terms of the pipeline approach to the criminal justice system. Some of the problematic examples or issues we heard from Corrections as to why they may not be able to implement the full force of the bill have to do with simple things such as victims of protection orders. It turns out that there is no good system in place for Corrections to know who is or is not subject to a protection order. There were questions raised about whether or not the Government’s digitisation process Te Au Reka would improve that. At the moment, there is a limited ability for that process to improve these issues.

Throughout that, I think there is something for all members of the House to turn their minds to as to how do we continue to improve the criminal justice system to make sure that there are fewer victims of crime. Of course, it’s one thing for Corrections to be dealing with prisoners and offenders and the rights of victims in the prison system, but we’ve got to look at what happens when those offenders are released in to the public, and of course the pipeline coming in.

With that, I’m very proud of my big sister Mrs Nakhle. She should be very proud of her support in the room. I know we won’t be getting any texts from Mr Nakhle today because he’s in the gallery—he won’t be able to. I commend Rima, I congratulate her, and I commend the bill to the House.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just rise to take the last and final call on this auspicious day in the third reading of the bill for my colleague, the wonderful MP for Takanini, Rima Nakhle. It’s a great day for victims of crime in New Zealand, thanks to the admirable and hard work that the member has done to bring this bill through the very long and enduring committee of the whole House stage and through the three readings and the Justice Committee.

If there’s anything we can do in New Zealand to protect and support our victims, we should do that. The work that Rima has done, or that the member for Takanini has done, with the support, of course, of her greatest supporter, Roger, in the gallery, is to be a loud voice and advocate for victims in New Zealand. We are absolutely proud of our colleague. We 100 percent support her and the work that she has done in this space, and I congratulate the member for her hard work and her admirable dedication to the cause.

It is my absolute pleasure to be the last and final in this debate to commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move that the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill be now read for a first time. I—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Catherine Wedd.

CATHERINE WEDD: Ha!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): There’s a reason why—the call is to alert those in the communications to who is speaking. That is why that’s done.

CATHERINE WEDD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill is about providing mums with greater protection and support after having a baby. This bill will enable them to receive a minimum of three days’ post-natal care if they need it. It also requires the lead maternity carer to let the mother know that she is eligible to stay for 72 hours.

In this first reading of the bill, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston, who put this bill into the members’ tin five years ago, following a petition and the advocacy of Chloe Wright, who worked hard to put the spotlight on post-natal care and highlight the insufficiencies with post-natal care in New Zealand. She was a fierce warrior advocate for post-natal care. The three-day post-natal stay bill happened with Chloe’s advocacy. Chloe Wright stood up and said, “Mothers matter.” She didn’t just stand up and say, “Mothers matter.”; she shouted it. Today, we stand up in this House and say, “Mothers matter.”

I am proud to stand up for this bill, because it will positively impact mothers and families across New Zealand. It will support and protect mums and families by helping us provide better post-natal support. One of the most stressful experiences for a new mum is making sure that you can care for your newborn baby while also processing all the information being given to you by your midwife and by your nurses. This bill will give mums more time to bond with their babies in those crucial first days. Women are currently not making informed choices about post-natal care, which is critical to ensure that mothers can form a loving attachment with their newborn baby. Women are currently entitled to up to 48 hours of funded in-patient post-natal care, but many don’t realise this and are pressured to leave early. Giving mothers this extra time and extra flexibility will result in positive outcomes for mum, baby, and their family, with three days in a supportive environment and a dedicated facility, if they wish, to have this post-natal care provided.

As a mother of four children myself, and having experienced a traumatic first birth, I understand how important those first few days are after having a baby. I want to make sure that all new mothers can have access to the post-natal support that they need. The bill gives more choice. Every situation is different. Every birth is different, and the level of protection and support will differ in individual cases. As mums will know, it’s so unpredictable what your experience is going to be like. This bill is about ensuring women have the access to essential post-natal care whatever their situation. Those first hours and days with your newborn baby are critical for the ongoing bond that you form with your baby. Mums should have that time if they need it. Having a newborn baby is the most special moment of your life. A new mum will go through so much emotion as well as having to learn so much about everything, when you know nothing, from breastfeeding, sleeping, changing nappies, wrapping babies, sterilising bottles, dealing with fatigue, expressing milk, bathing—the list is endless; it can be so overwhelming.

On this day exactly 14 years ago, I was about to give birth to my first child—an anxious but exciting time for any new mum. The journey of having your first baby should be incredibly special and something you remember for ever. I remember finding out I was having a baby. We were just so thrilled and excited. I booked into the antenatal classes, and my husband and I planned our birth. We had our birth plan sorted with our midwife—dim lights, a water bath, soothing music, and then the magical skin to skin. This was the plan, so we certainly were not prepared for the reality of what actually happened. The pain of those contractions, our baby getting stuck; doctors, specialists, nurses, all in the room; the horror, the emotion of not knowing whether you were going to survive or your baby was going to survive; the pain of waiting for your baby’s first cry, the pain of having your baby whisked away off to SCBU, the special care baby unit; the emptiness you felt as a new mum—exhausted, emotional, and without your baby. Then, not knowing our rights, we felt vulnerable and scared.

You shouldn’t have to fight the system. If it wasn’t for our amazing midwife, our story could have been different. Thank you to our midwife for fighting in our corner. We stayed, we were cared for, and my baby girl turns 14 tomorrow, but the end story is not always a happy one. Thank you to all the amazing midwives who bring so many precious lives into our world every day. This bill is about providing a tool and legal rights for mums, midwives, and our families. A birth may have gone really well and a mum may be ready to leave hospital straight away, and that’s their choice, but for many mums, they need extra support, especially those first-time mums who don’t know any better. This bill requires the lead maternity carer to let the mother know what she is eligible for, because mums need to know that there is care available. Giving mums this extra time and extra flexibility will result in positive outcomes for mother, baby, and families.

This bill is about standing up for parents who should have a right to enjoy one of the most special moments of their life. This bill will give many mums better protection and support. I acknowledge that our health system is under pressure. I visited our maternity units, our midwives, and experts in the area of post-natal care, and I have listened: we need to improve. Workforce is also a big part of this: to provide this extra resourcing. It’s pleasing to see our midwife shortage improving, with the most recent statistics from Health New Zealand showing we have an increase of 97 fulltime-equivalent midwives compared to this time last year. It’s improved, but we acknowledge there is still a lot of work to do.

This bill is about prioritising post-natal care and the funding available for it. Mums will never get that time back, and there is ongoing risk if we don’t give new mums the support that they need. Already I’ve been connecting with various women’s, family, and birthing groups, as well as midwives and maternity units across the country. The bill is receiving a lot of support from many people across the motu who know we must do better in post-natal care. We must provide our mums and babies with better post-natal care.

Having public select committee hearings will enable us to put the spotlight on post-natal care in New Zealand, it will enable us to raise any concerns, and it will provide the opportunity for those who want to share their stories. I encourage people to submit to the Health Committee, and I look forward to these submissions as we work to improve post-natal care in New Zealand.

We owe all mothers and babies across our country this opportunity. The first 1,000 days of a baby’s life are critical; the first three days of a baby’s life are fundamental. Today is about standing up for mothers and families across New Zealand and protecting and supporting our most vulnerable newborn babies. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill has been born from the ballot. Congratulations to the member. After a long gestation of five years, as has been noted, we get to debate this bill. Just like we happily greet any new arrival to the world with congratulations, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill. After all, who would not agree to care for new mothers?

I’m lucky to have my remarks on this bill grounded in my experience delivering babies. I think I’ve probably delivered about a hundred babies, most of them in my mother’s country, the Maldives, where I entertained an early career ambition of being an obstetrician, but that was not to be and I became an infectious diseases doctor instead. It was certainly a privilege to see new people come into the world, many of them, as it happens in the Maldives, called Ayesha, but other wonderful babies who weren’t called Ayesha as well.

I do think that while we all want to do our best for mothers and babies and families across New Zealand—all of us from all sides of the House want to achieve that—there are ways in which this bill might be described by a midwife as light for its gestational age, because our worry on this side of the House is that it does not go far enough to achieve its stated aim. As the member Catherine Wedd has already stated, this bill changes the 48-hour entitlement to a 72-hour entitlement. In a sense, we might ask: what is the problem we are trying to fix with this bill and is the fix achieved by changing the entitlement from 48 hours to 72? I would argue that it is not, because that entitlement is not being particularly effective in making sure that people receive the care they need as it is.

The fact is that there is a wide range of care that people need. Some people do not want to stay in hospital for longer. Others need to stay for a very long time—say, if they are recovering from a particularly traumatic birth, and, in that case, these entitlements are not actually helping them. The underlying issue is the resourcing of our hospitals. Some need three days, four days, five days, and some people need two weeks because of their particular circumstances.

I want to draw members’ attention to section 93D, in clause 5, which says that Health New Zealand must resource this commitment. This seems to me to be the biggest problem with this bill and one that we intend to return to both at the select committee and should this bill pass. As members already noted, the existing commitment is not adequately resourced, and that creates a worry for us on this side of the House that passing this bill is a hollow gesture, intended to signal commitment to the issues that mothers and their babies face but not actually changing the reality for them.

Earlier this year, it was reported that there was a national shortage of 330 hospital midwives. Addressing that would be a way in which we could materially impact the situation for mothers and babies. There have been delays to midwife exams, which means that midwives’ passage into the workforce has been delayed, and there’s been no sign of the improvements to midwife bonding that has been promised by the Government.

I’m particularly disappointed that the efforts many women’s health advocates made in the last term of Government to submit to the Women’s Health Strategy appear to have been papered over by this Government. The last answer I received from the Minister responsible for women’s health, Casey Costello, in relation to a question on what is being done to implement the Women’s Health Strategy, said, “Well, now we have a Government policy statement.” Members may not know that the Government policy statement mostly relates to five targets that the Government has set, none of which cover maternity. That is troubling in terms of the Government’s commitment to wider women’s health initiatives.

With respect to this bill and my concern that this does not make a material commitment to improving care for women, I want to illustrate that those sorts of changes are possible. Under Labour, we passed historic pay equity settlements that raised wages for midwives to improve their retention in the hospital workforce. We had graduate midwives starting on $76,000, and senior midwives on $153,000. We had a programme for improving retention in midwifery training, because midwives often have to be able to, during their training, attend at all hours, meaning they face additional costs. The Te Ara ō Hine programme was intended to reduce attrition by 30 percent. Sadly, there is no mention it of it in the workforce plan released by this Government last week.

I was proud of my colleague Carmel Sepuloni who, as the Minister for ACC, passed legislation to make sure women suffering birth injuries were able to have those injuries covered by ACC. What a practical way to improve the care that women can receive. We also funded maternal mental health initiatives, which I’m sure many of us recognise is an under-recognised area where we could do a lot more.

There are meaningful things that can be done to make sure that new mothers and their babies get the care they need, but, sadly, that is not achieved through this bill. Were we to look to the future I think we could come up with better plans than what’s contained in this bill. We could look at other ways of achieving post-natal care. We could think about innovative service provision, because women have commitments outside of hospital as well that they want to return to, which drives them to leave hospital while they still need support. And we could implement the recommendations of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee, which, for a number of years, has pointed to gaps in the safety systems in the maternity care system. Sadly, all of those issues are unaddressed by this bill.

I want to just point to the importance of some of these practical issues in achieving care for women with a report just out today about changes at Whakatāne Hospital. There’s an obstetric unit there that cares for 650 mothers a year, and that unit is staffed by an obstetrician, so it provides specialist care. That unit is being downgraded to a primary maternity service, which is valuable but, clearly, would not be suitable for those requiring specialist care, so 650 women each year are losing access to specialist care. This is part of the cuts that this Government has put on the health system where we’ve seen hiring freezes and staffing being scaled back, and many clinicians tell us that in peripheral hospitals they’re not even allowed to escalate their vacancies to the regional chief executives in order to get them addressed.

There are a number of ways in which the care for mothers could be improved, but it seems very difficult in a context of cuts and austerity in our health system, and I fear that this bill will not do enough to make a difference. It’s all very easy to say we want to pass a bill supporting mothers, but then to not be able to deliver the resources to do that fundamentally undermines the effort the House is making.

I just want to reflect that when we make these sorts of gestures when the reality of what’s happening in our health system is so different, it does seem to undermine the commitment. Think about the fact that, in this city, women giving birth were told that they weren’t even allowed toast after giving birth because of cost cutting at Health New Zealand. It is not possible to put a band-aid over—[Interruption] Yeah, get upset. Get upset, because it’s wrong. You may not like it but that is what’s happening under your Government. That is what’s happening.

It’s all very easy to posture and pass a bill, but we need to have the resources so that women get what they need, whether it’s toast or a smile, or, actually, care from a midwife who’s qualified. Those things take resourcing, and this Government has cut, cut, cut in our health system. We will happily hold that Government to account for their kind words towards mothers today.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I want to mihi to Catherine Wedd for bringing this bill to the House today—and the work of many before her, who have been acknowledged. I want to acknowledge them too. This is a bill that Te Pāti Kākāriki will be supporting through to select committee.

Now, some of us have challenging but overall positive birthing experiences and post-natal experiences and are so grateful for those, but, unfortunately, Australian research tells us that one in three mothers report their birth as being traumatic. In Aotearoa, this equates to 50 people per day, leaving birth traumatised: 4 to 6 percent of them meet clinical criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a consequence of their birth experience, and many more have symptoms of PTSD rather than a diagnosis. Koi Tū research in Aotearoa highlights that this kind of perinatal distress impacts not only the birthing parent but the wider whānau, including the baby. We know that suicide is, very sadly, the leading cause of maternal death in Aotearoa, and our Māori wāhine are over-represented in these deaths.

We’ve heard from my colleague Ayesha Verrall how our support services and how our health system for parents and for whānau are chronically strained. Often, it’s only those with particularly high needs that actually gain the support that they need, meaning many, many miss out. And those who can afford private care might gain access to that care, but this, just simply, increases the inequities in our health system.

When we proceed with this bill to select committee, we want to make sure that it is truly fit for purpose. It was great to hear Catherine Wedd acknowledge the importance of actual funding and investment in this space, because we want to make it as comprehensive as possible in keeping all of our very damning statistics and realities at the forefront of our minds. We really don’t want to see this three-day post-natal stay being seen as, basically, this hollow, purported silver bullet to real investment and improvement in maternal health and wellbeing. Likely a lot of pressure will already be put on our already strained healthcare system to enable this three-day stay. We’ve heard these horror stories about women not being able to gain access to a Milo and a cup of tea after giving birth, so we don’t want to basically put them in this system if they’re not going to have a truly well-supported experience.

What we know as well, from the support that parents and whānau need after their birthing experiences, is that it’s so much more than just that first one to three days; it needs to be spread out from birth to five years, because, particularly if these parents are experiencing traumatic birthing incidences, they want to get out of there, they want to get out of hospital, and they want to get out of that system and back home, and it’s really important that those follow-up services are there.

We would also like to see, really specifically, a focus on the need for trauma-informed care, and this is particularly relevant in Aotearoa when we have really high rates of domestic violence and intimate-partner violence, as well as this ongoing trauma that we see in so many ways throughout our healthcare system as a result of colonisation and everything that’s happened from that point.

Ultimately, we know the best cure for something is prevention, and I want to shout out to Kate from Birth Trauma Aotearoa for consistently reminding us of this. We know this bill won’t have scope to fix everything, but, wherever possible, at every connection with the birthing parent and their wider whānau, we want to focus on birth trauma prevention in the first instance. So, yes, we will be supporting this bill and look forward to genuine listening and adopting the needs of our whānau. Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill—I think I’ll preface with that. ACT will be supporting this bill through to the select committee. We do have a couple of concerns, which I’ll talk about in a minute.

Firstly, I just want to thank the member Catherine Wedd and those that have come before her and all of the brave mothers out there that have been advocating for change in this space; not just for the change in their rights to stay in postnatal care if they want it but also the way in which that they’re actually treated during their whole birth process and their time within the following period.

As a few of the others have spoken a little bit about their personal experiences, I thought I’d cover off my own. I’ve had two beautiful children. My first child was born after almost 48 hours of labour, thrown into an emergency C-section at 3 a.m. in the morning. When he was born, I remember they held him up and I thought, “Oh my goodness, who are you? I don’t even recognise you.” It was actually quite a terrifying feeling because everybody tells you, “You’ll see your baby, you’ll meet your baby, and you’ll feel that love and warmth, and you’ll bond with them instantly”. That was not true for me. I was exhausted. I was probably sick. I was tired and needed a good sleep. Then, the next day, all of those things started happening. Complete opposite with my daughter: when she was born, it was a planned C-section, so everything went hunky-dory. When they handed her to me, I got those initial feelings—everything was fantastic.

I think what that highlights is that there are varying different levels of experiences. Everybody’s birth is different. As Catherine mentioned, you can plan for all kinds of wonderful, excellent things and they may not go down that track at all. I think there is a really true reality in that, and our system has to be able to adapt. I know that it’s challenging because it’s really hard for a health system to know what a woman’s needs will be at the actual time. I do want to say that I think that we do have a health system that is trying, but, of course, it’s not adequate and it’s not enough.

Those first few days with your baby, if you’re a new mum, you need to know what to do and you need to feel comfortable and you need to have that care. I was talking with my colleague Cam Luxton, who said that, after quite a traumatic birth, his wife left the hospital after two hours and they were on their way. That is actually what they wanted to do. There are a lot of people that are out there that do feel like they want to be getting back into their home and they might have those supports in place. But what if you don’t have those supports in place? Those are the people that I’m really thinking about, or I’m thinking about myself as a first-time mum with a baby that I hadn’t bonded with. What if I had been put out after a few hours of giving birth? I mean, that is quite a horrifying thought. And the thing is, it actually happens.

There are real stories of this happening; I’ve got friends, I’ve got whānau in my family that have all experienced something along these lines. I wonder whether it’s the fact that they didn’t know they were eligible for those 48 hours of care or whether it’s the overburdened health system just not having a bed or having a space at some of the post-natal care facilities. I think there’s probably a bit of a combination of both of that. As a woman, you don’t often know your rights. Like I said, after a long, extreme birth potentially, the last thing you’re going to be thinking about is having a battle with a bunch of midwives or nurses in a hospital around whether you can stay or leave. I think making sure, with the 72 hours, that that is actually straight up given as an opportunity to families to take that up—I think that will be a really important part of this legislation, just actually knowing your rights in the first place.

Like I mentioned before, we do have some concerns around the resourcing of this. How will we make sure we still have this care available? Maybe it actually could look like for the ones that want to go home, it could be something more like frequent visits in the home or something that’s actually—doesn’t have to be within a facility as such. There could be other ideas and things that we can consider with this, but, in essence, we support this. I wish the member well on her journey through the rest of the House. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is truly a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution today by acknowledging the member in charge of this bill, Catherine Wedd. Congratulations to you. I’m also acknowledging Louise Upston as well, and noting that you have begun your contribution today in the first reading talking about prioritising natal care and the funding for it. To the member in charge, it is good to hear that acknowledgment.

I’d also like to just point out that when there is a new baby, many of the women in this House who have given birth acknowledge there can be this afterglow that happens upon the arrival of the beautiful baby. Unfortunately, today that afterglow in this House was popped by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall bringing down the mood and the tone of the House with some negative comments. I’m going to lift that back up as we celebrate what is a small but significant amendment bill.

This bill will increase, as the member outlined—we’ve already noticed an increase in the midwifery workforce. That is a very important step because it is those midwives who are critical to ensuring that the information about the extended stay from 48 to 72 hours—they’re the ones that will be helping to ensure women are informed that that will be their right. As the lead maternity carers, those women will be required to inform mothers of their eligibility to allow for the longer stays, if medically required.

Now, it would be remiss of me not to share my own personal birth story. However, I would like to avoid giving you any gory gynaecological details. Mark Patterson is clearly quivering at the potential of that, even though he is a farmer.

SPEAKER: You’re very civil.

JENNY MARCROFT: One of the really amazing things that I experienced when I had my daughter was at the North Shore Hospital, as an older mum having that care, because I was totally unprepared. Did I have a maternity plan? No. Did I go to pre-natal classes, antenatal classes? No. I was far too busy working, holding down multiple jobs.

Actually, when I had a code red emergency caesarean, I was totally unprepared. However, it all worked well because of the care that I was given by those at the North Shore maternity wing. Maybe I’ve never even had the opportunity to publicly acknowledge them, but today I’m able to do that 23 years later. The way that I was treated on that day—incredible care. There were 13 other mothers giving birth on that day.

When my child was born, obviously, I had a caesarean. My daughter’s father texted everybody. We’d already agreed on the name. This is the only plan we had, what we were going to call our baby. We’d agreed on a name. Next minute, he texts everybody, “Lily has arrived.” However, that wasn’t the name that we’d agreed on, but Lily’s stuck. So Lily she is, and Trinity, which was the name we agreed on, became her middle name.

While it’s lovely to talk about our personal stories, and I look forward to hearing many more across the House as we continue through this reading, I would like to just note a couple of points about the bill, what it will amend. Clause 4 inserts a definition for in-patient post-natal care. New section 93A, inserted by clause 5, will establish the purpose of ensuring a minimum of 72 hours of in-patient post-natal care. New section 93B, inserted by clause 5, guarantees every mother and newborn a publicly funded 72-hour post-natal stay starting after delivery or on admission.

I would like to finish just on something a little poetical, because I think babies inspire that from us. It’s part of the creativity that comes with a new life being born into the world. From one of my favourite authors, Khalil Gibran, just a small quote here, and it’s been truncated: “Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really delighted to stand in support of the first reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill, which is in the name of my parliamentary colleague Catherine Wedd.

I wanted to just traverse the birth of this piece of policy, which we announced, as the National Party, on Mother’s Day in 2019. It was a group of people called Mothers Matter who visited Parliament in 2018, and this group was meeting with every parliamentary caucus to talk about the importance of the first 48 hours. The founder of Mothers Matter was, of course, the late Chloe Wright of the Wright Family Foundation. There were also Dame Lesley Max, Nathan Wallis, Dr Anil Sharma, and Tracy O’Sullivan.

I remember sitting in the National Party caucus room as this group came and spoke to us about how important the first 48 hours are for post-natal care. They spoke about their very deep concerns about the fact that too many mothers were missing out because of the pressures that were applied and they felt they needed to leave early, and the group spoke about the dire impacts that that was having on mothers and babies. I remember reflecting in that discussion, and I came away thinking that if there was one thing the New Zealand health system should provide, it is care in that first 48 hours. If we are serious about the lives of our children, we should be investing in those first precious hours and days, so it was somewhat disturbing when they came to see us in 2018 that they said they had seen a deterioration in the access that new mothers had in those first 48 hours of care.

I know that there have been conversations about resourcing, but the thing that is really not OK is that with regard to the funding that was available for women who were entitled to—and who are entitled to, to this very day—48 hours of post-natal care, decisions were being made so that that resource was taken away from them, and it’s still happening today. That was the birth of this member’s bill to increase it from 48 hours to 72 hours. I know that some will say that, “Well, it’s still not enough.” but it is a very important signal that the National Party sees as critical that investment in the first three days of a child’s life and the mother having given birth as being critical.

There are a couple of comments that I want to put on record, because there are a couple of things. When Mothers Matter came to us originally, too many women didn’t understand that they were entitled to 48 hours. So, deliberately in this bill, there is a clear direction that mothers must know what they are entitled to. The second thing is that the funding must be ring-fenced so that those in charge in health resources in a hospital, in a DHB, or in Health New Zealand can’t deprioritise mothers and babies, because that’s exactly what’s been happening. The ring-fencing of the funding for 72 hours then allows for mothers to know that they are ensured of having access to support. It is, of course, up to every mother and their family to make decisions and choices about what it is that works for them. If one mother chooses to go home after a day, that’s fantastic, but the funding would be ring-fenced so that another mother who may need more support can get it, and those are the fundamentals of this piece of legislation. It is about mothers.

I’m proud to lead a child and youth strategy where one of the three priorities is the first 2,000 days. This is a really important start, but it is definitely not the end of what we must do. In closing my address in support of this, I just want to put on the House’s notice my recognition of the late Chloe Wright and the important work that she led.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too would like to congratulate the member for having her bill drawn from the ballot and for what seems to be a well-intentioned bill, which, unfortunately, in the absence of proper resourcing will be window dressing. The reason I say that is we cannot look at something like new section 93D, which does enshrine women’s entitlement to have the care resourced, when what we are seeing on the ground means that it is just very unlikely to happen in the current environment. I say that with the backdrop of what is happening in Whakatāne. My colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall referred to the story, today, about Whakatāne Hospital shortages meaning some mothers will have to give birth in Tauranga.

I would like to extrapolate on that because that is the situation that is being faced through midwifery shortages, which relate very directly to this bill. I have some more information because actually this crisis was known earlier in December, and it’s a two-fold crisis. The first is that the availability of an obstetric and gynaecologist (O and G) specialist was dwindling to literally nothing most days, but probably more problematic for me is that the Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand team knew about this and have not advised mothers. What was happening with rosters was there was no obstetric specialist on call as early as the first week of December. All that could be offered was primary maternity birth by midwives for low-risk babies and mothers. The last O and G locum finished that week in the week of 7 December. For the week of Christmas, coming up, which is next week, there is an O and G specialist on call only for Christmas Day and Boxing Day but no other days that week. Women were not informed, and there have been no advertisements for those positions.

I note that Dr Reti has not responded to questions from the media about it. We’ve got Health New Zealand and the media saying that Whakatāne is committed to resuming secondary maternity services at the hospital as soon as possible, and then we’ve got Dr Reti not responding. The reason it’s related very directly to this bill is because it’s all very well for Government members to make promises like new section 93D saying that women are entitled to resourcing, when the fact is that they are not even resourcing things properly now. It’s important for the public to see the realities of the bill, a well-intentioned bill that intends to give women extended cover but that cannot happen, in fact, in the current climate, because of the front-line cuts that this Government is making. It is so poignant, so sadly poignant, that this bill has come to the House the same day that expectant mothers in Whakatāne are getting the news that they may have to go to Tauranga over Christmas—

Carl Bates: What did you do about it? Six years.

INGRID LEARY: —and into the New Year because there is no resourcing. One of the members opposite has said, “What are we going to do about it?”—

Carl Bates: No, I said, “What did you do about it?”

INGRID LEARY: Well, the Government promised, on the campaign trail, to allow qualified midwives to enter the country on a six-month temporary visa without a job offer to look for work and bring their immediate families with them. The policy included a relocation support scheme offering, to up to 1,000 qualified overseas nurses and midwives, relocation grants worth up to $10,000 each to support their move. That has not happened, and the Minister of Health, Dr Reti, is not answering those questions.

To respond to the member opposite who asked, “What has Labour done?”, Labour introduced pay equity for midwives. That was a major move to incentivise people to stay in the sector. We had programmes for retaining midwives, and we also, as my colleague pointed out, made a really significant change to the ACC rules, which meant that women who suffered birth injuries as a result of giving birth were entitled to ACC. That is world-leading legislation.

I do offer the member my congratulations, because I can see she’s well intentioned. She’s done a lot of work on this, and it’s unfortunate for her that the Government members of her team, who are making front-line cuts and who are not providing adequate resource to Health New Zealand, are stymieing the potential impacts of this bill, which won’t be realised until we see a health workforce that has more funding than just keeping the lights on.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, firstly, want to commend Catherine Wedd for bringing this to the House, for the work that she has put in during this year of Parliament to ensure that we have this bill here today and that it is supported by the Government benches. I also want to thank Catherine for her personal story, because I think it’s stories that bring the value of these bills in this House alive. I’m disappointed, though, that the kōrero today, the conversation around this first reading, has dropped to the level of being about political points-winning. I do intend on coming back to that and making sure that mums, expectant mums, and parents thinking about having a child in the years to come know that they have this Government’s back.

This bill moves that 48-hour allowance, if you like, to 72 hours with a key part of this being informing mothers that they have this right. There’s been a lot of conversation during the course of this first reading about first-time mums and I suppose Catherine asked me to speak on the bill today to bring a dad’s perspective to the conversation. I recently had the opportunity to visit Plunket Whanganui as part of their immunisation roll-out that is coming in the new year, and I had this bill and this speaking slot, so to speak, on my mind.

Every birth for mothers and parents is different. In our household, when our first son was born in South Africa, Candice ended up in ICU, in high care, and then in bed rest for a number of weeks, indeed a couple of months. I took on dad duties from day one. When our second son was born here in New Zealand, it all went pretty quickly, and I remember Candice saying to me that the nurse had just said, “OK, this is your second; you know what to do, you’ll be right, and you can go home today.” But, really, it wasn’t Candice’s second. She hadn’t been in a position to have any of those first-time experiences that a first mum has in hospital, nor actually in the initial couple of weeks after the birth of our baby, and for a period of time there, she wasn’t even allowed to see Angus when she was in ICU. If it hadn’t been for my mum—I suggest to all members of the House, if you ever come across her, do not enter a debate with her—if she hadn’t got up and had a bit of a fight with the medical staff, I think the story around Angus’s birth would have been slightly different.

Anyhow, the point I’m looking to make here is that only Candice knew in that moment what she needed and what was right for her. I think that having a nurse point out to her very clearly that she could have stayed in the hospital for 48 hours if she chose, indeed 72 hours under this new bill, would have made her much more comfortable and not feel like an imposition on the hospital in that moment. I’m looking forward, under this bill, for that to be the case and for mums to know that they have the support of the healthcare system in that really important time should they need it.

There’s been some conversation this morning about the fact that this isn’t funded, that the Government is cutting healthcare. That’s just a complete misnomer. It’s really important for every New Zealander to know that in this year’s Budget, this Government put $16 billion into healthcare over the next three years. That’s not a myth, that’s not a dream, that’s not some hairy idea; that is fact, and it’s about time that the Labour Party, the Green Party, and Te Pāti Māori recognise that the Government has put money into healthcare and not send scaremongering down the spines of these expectant mums and parents that are looking forward to having their child in a hospital in this country. They should know, going into Christmas, that they have a Government that supports them. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly support the intent of this bill—I don’t think anyone denies that. My eldest daughter was born in Adelaide after a long and difficult labour. My daughter was what’s called a “posterior presentation”, which means a long and difficult labour. The nice thing about it, the baby comes out facing up instead of facing down. It means all the pressure is wrong, so it creates a long and difficult labour. It’s sometimes called a “back labour” because of the back pain. My brother, who’s an anaesthetist, put it right for me. He said, “Oh, we have a name for babies like that; they’re called ‘stargazers’.” My eldest was born as a little stargazer, but because of that long and difficult labour, I spent, I think, four days in hospital, and it was much needed.

My younger two daughters were born here in New Zealand, in Palmerston North Hospital—a twin delivery. They too were both little stargazers—bless them—so another long and difficult delivery. Again, because it was a twin delivery, I had four days in the hospital with them, which I needed. There’s an advantage to that, not just for women and babies who have had long and difficult labours, but, actually, for uncomplicated labours and deliveries as well. I don’t know if anyone spoke on it, but that window of time in the hospital allows time for milk to come in, for a woman to be able to start towards establishing breastfeeding, to enable her to get assistance with it from lactation consultants and the like. Those 72 hours can make a real difference, I think, not just in terms of recovery from birth but also in terms of establishing breastfeeding and establishing an ongoing bonding between mother and tiny new baby. It is really important.

On those grounds, we do support the intent of this bill—who could not? It would be churlish to do so. What is difficult is the promise without the funding and the promise being made when we know that there is a shortage of midwives. The promise being made when we know that the health budget is under pressure. Contra to the previous speaker, Carl Bates, I want to direct his attention to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. It’s sitting on the Table in the House, so the member can consult it himself if he likes. I want to direct him to page 67, when it talks about specific risks, and it talks about the risks of the health system running a deficit—a significant deficit.

Now, it’s a bit odd to talk about a deficit in healthcare when what it is caused by is Government choosing not to fund it. What I am seeking from the Government benches is any indication that the Government will choose to fund this promise—this promise that we all agree with the intent of—but a promise without any substance behind it is just fine words: lovely words, words that we all support, words that do support women and their babies, that do support new families, but hollow words, unless there is a commitment to funding as well. The Government are the people who sit on the Treasury benches—the Government. They are the ones who can say whether or not something will be funded. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is on this one. Will they actually fund this fine promise?

SPEAKER: Catherine Wedd—five minutes in reply.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, it’s wonderful to speak in reply to the debate that we’ve just had on the first reading of this bill and it’s wonderful to see cross-party support on this really important issue—obviously, everyone recognising that mothers matter and how important the issue is of post-natal care in New Zealand. I want to thank all parties for their support today and their commitment to post-natal care in New Zealand. It does need improvement and this is critical to giving mums and families the protection and support that they need. It’s not often that we all agree on an issue. I’m very humbled and proud to see everyone agreeing today that post-natal care needs the spotlight, it needs to be fleshed out through the select committee process, and we need to ensure that we are protecting our mums, babies, and families.

Thank you also to those around the House who have shared their personal stories today. We can all resonate with post-natal care. Whether we’ve had a baby or whether we know someone who’s had a baby, it really does impact us all. It’s also good to recognise that some mums will not always have a good birth and that it is different in many situations for all. Just listening, obviously, to Deborah, then with obviously having twins; to Carl Bates, who also spoke about our other children—the first birth, as Laura McClure also mentioned, can be very traumatic, but the next births that you have may go brilliantly.

I spoke, obviously, about my first very traumatic birth, but for numbers two, three, and four, they whizzed out very, very quickly and I almost actually had one of them in the car park of the hospital. That was certainly an interesting experience! Thankfully, I was able to make it into the hospital and have number three in the hospital just in the nick of time—a 10-pound baby, I might add. Actually, all four of them were very healthy, large babies. I thank you for sharing all your personal stories from around the House today, because that certainly makes it real for us all.

I also want to just acknowledge some of the points that were raised around funding and resourcing. Of course, funding is very important and, as the Hon Louise Upston spoke about—72 hours and this being ring-fenced and ensuring that we have that set aside for those first three days for mums after they have had their babies.

I also just want to acknowledge that it’s also about our midwifery workforce and this really does play a critical role. It was lovely to hear Jenny Marcroft acknowledge the North Shore Hospital and all the wonderful midwives that played a huge role in her journey in having her lovely Lily. I think, for all of us, our midwives out there just do an incredible, incredible job bringing joy into our world and helping us navigate that really challenging journey sometimes of having our children. It is a really, really special time and that bond that we form in those first few hours and those first few days with our babies is really, really critical. It’s really fundamental. But, of course, we understand that there are pressures out there at the moment in the health system and with our midwives.

This select committee process is also an opportunity where we can hear the stories; we can hear stories from mums, from fathers, from families, from midwives, from advocacy groups, and we certainly encourage these groups and people to come forward through this process, because it is an opportunity for us to put the spotlight on post-natal care in New Zealand. This is our chance to have better post-natal care in New Zealand. This bill is about protecting mums and families, because mothers matter. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill

First Reading

SPEAKER: Members, the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill will be the subject of a personal vote at the end of the debate. [Interruption] Is there a problem going on over there? Members are welcome to seek the call to speak in favour of or against the bill. I’ll aim to allocate the calls as closely as possible to the proportionality of membership of the House, but also to ensure that different sides of the debate receive a fair hearing. Members may wish to come to the Chair to indicate to the presiding officer that they’ll be seeking a call.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

Can I first take the opportunity to thank all members from across the House who have engaged with me on this bill—those who immediately saw this as a pro-customer, pro-worker, and pro-business policy, but also those members who have brought legitimate concerns and have been part of the discussion over the last year. I hope you find that I address some of those concerns in this speech. Can I also thank Chris Baillie, who brought this bill to a previous Parliament, and the stakeholders and staff who have been getting the word out about what we are trying to do here.

This bill seeks to enhance the enjoyment for all New Zealanders over the Easter weekend through a mix of simplification and choice. My bill does what it says on the tin: remove the provisions in the Shop Trading Hours Act and Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act which restrict trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. There are four days making up our Easter weekend: Good Friday, Saturday, Easter Sunday, and Easter Monday. New Zealand has 12 public holidays: secular days, the hararei Matariki, and, importantly for those of us who are grateful to our heritage, Christian holidays, two of which fall, obviously, on Easter. To be clear to the House, my bill does not change a single one of these days from their position as public holidays in New Zealand. What it does seek to change are the restrictions on how New Zealanders choose to spend these days.

I’d like to briefly traverse the lay of the land for the different days of the Easter weekend. Good Friday is a public holiday and a restricted trading day. Saturday is just a normal Saturday. Easter Sunday is not just a public holiday but it is a restricted trading day. It is also a special day in our calendar, not just because of the Christian celebration of this Day of Resurrection but, in the law, it is also the only day of the year when a shop employee may use their discretion and refuse to work without having to provide a reason—a discretion day. Easter Monday is a public holiday, with a long history dating back to before Mondayisation, to allow for an extended Easter holiday weekend. It is not a restricted trading day. In 2016, there was a change to the rules which allowed local councils to liberalise their trading policies. This has led to a hodgepodge of confusing rules throughout the country, which every year befuddle tourists and locals alike. With four days, with four different sets of rules, it is no wonder that this is a perennial issue and one which in a recent poll showed a majority of New Zealanders from all sides of this House support to see changed.

I’m incredibly grateful that this bill was drawn so early in my first term. In the months since, I have been around the country, as many in this House do, to different towns, and I’ve heard different experiences. Some business owners have told me that, even though their local area has a liberalised trading policy, they find the prescribed rules so cumbersome that, despite being allowed to trade, they choose to remain closed rather than attempting to comply. These rules include having to supply a substantial meal if one wishes to enjoy a beverage, the definition of which is up for debate, or restrictions on the amount of time that friends and family can spend together at a venue before being moved on. I’ve met restaurant and bar workers who say that, despite wanting to work on restricted days, they “don’t like having to treat my customers like children and tell them what they can and can’t eat and drink and how long they can stay before they must leave”. People are just trying to enjoy their Easter and, if our alcohol laws work the other 361½ days of the year, why do we need a special rule on these days?

I’ve met employees who say that, because of the disjointed structure of the Easter holidays, rather than enjoying a four-day weekend with their family they were rostered to work on the Saturday, meaning this messes up the whole weekend for one day’s pay, when it would be better to work the Friday or the Sunday and use a day in lieu to spend on extending other times of the year with their family in a way which is important to them. Many Kiwis have other days of the year which hold significance to them, when using a day in lieu would mean so much to them—days like Diwali, Eid, or dates of importance to religious groups that have grown in these lands, like Ringatū, Rātana, or Pai Mārire.

Retail businesses tell me they would like the opportunity of a level playing field with online retailers, because online stores don’t face the restrictions that brick and mortar ones do, who must also pay leases and rates for their stores. Warbirds Over Wanaka is an infamous example of a town whose rules were not aligned with the needs of the community and tourists who visited in the 2024 Warbirds Over Wanaka. Two New World supermarkets decided to open and cop the fine rather than leave the bulging tourist population unserved—which brings me to the punishment. If a business owner was to trade on a restricted day, the law states that, upon conviction, they shall be liable for up to a $2,000 fine. I’ve met business owners who have received this conviction and subsequent fine but felt that it was capriciously applied, as a business just up the road was able to trade without enforcement action taken.

Central government has meddled in this space. Government created a framework for local Easter trading policies which means businesses could make their case to the council to be allowed to trade in a specific area. The law requires councils to review these policies after five years. Now, when I went out and asked how many councils in New Zealand have these policies, I found out that last year five councils had their policy lapse without realising. This meant they allowed Easter trading in their area, which was not within the law. I don’t blame these councils. Central government, rather than allowing Kiwis to make their own choices, created a halfway house. Central government should take this burden off councils and say, “We live in a default permissive country”, and if you would like to restrict trade on your neighbours, this is where the philosophy of localism should live.

I’d like to clarify the worker protection in my bill, because it is an extremely important and core part of it. As I’ve said, currently a worker may refuse to work on Easter Sunday. Their employer, if they would like them to work, must give written notice letting their employee know that they have the right to refuse to work, and that notice must be given no less than four weeks before Easter Sunday. I’ve asked the Library, I’ve asked people in the industry, I’ve asked my fellow MPs: “Have there been any cases or complaints where an employee feels they have been adversely treated because of exercising their right?” Yet I have yet to hear back on any such case. I am confident that, by extending this provision—their right to refuse to work—to Good Friday we will create two discretion days in our calendar where all Kiwis can choose how they spend their time and in what way they would like to spend it.

There are legitimate concerns about alcohol. We know that many New Zealanders have a negative relationship with alcohol. It’s been hard to find data on the following claim, but I’ve been told that the average sale volume of alcohol doesn’t change over Easter week. The restriction on the sale of alcohol over Easter weekend means that people who feel or are dependent on alcohol may, out of a sense of nervous preparation, over purchase and therefore have more alcohol in their homes, the most harmful place for it to be.

From talking to people about my bill over the last nine months, I’ve realised that there is a view which comes from a warm place in New Zealand history, one that remembers how we spent our holidays in the garden or at the beach or at the park or the lake—somewhere wholesome in nature, akin to the quarter-acre paradise vision of New Zealand. New Zealand has changed a lot in recent decades. Along with the rest of the world, the quarter acre with a garden has become a subdivided section or a townhouse. We have seen screens become a ubiquitous part of our lives. I think the vision that if we close all shops and forms of commercial entertainment, Kiwis will be seen in their gardens or in their droves at the lakeshore is not necessarily the case. It may be true for some sectors of New Zealand, but many others, I fear, will see more children and even adults with their faces glued to screens. Because we have changed in the way Kiwis value and spend their time, I say a restaurant, a shop, an ice cream stand, a go-kart track, or a bit of mini putt is a legitimate way to get Kiwis out and enjoying themselves.

In closing, I’d like to say that this bill does not remove anybody’s rights. If you are a worker, your rights are extended. If you’re a business owner, no one will be able to force you to open. If you enjoy a day off as a day off, you don’t have to shop. If you want to visit a beach or a park, you can. If you want to spend your days in religious observance or attitude and by going to church, your rights are protected and enhanced. I ask my fellow members to use your conscience to vote this bill to select committee so that the views of New Zealanders can be heard. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the ability to be able to take a call on what is a conscience issue, and I do so in my capacity as the Labour Party spokesperson on workplace relations and safety, as this bill falls into this general area.

I want to start by respectfully saying to the member Cameron Luxton, who brought this bill in, that I thank him for the engagement that he has had around this bill, the passionate way he has advocated for this particular bill, and the respectful way he has engaged with certainly myself but, I’m sure, with other members of the House as well. It’s not easy to get a member’s bill drawn from the ballot, and especially not one that you feel so passionately about as Cameron Luxton does, so thank you for your engagement on this. When we did engage on it, I did indicate to Cameron Luxton that I would seriously take his advocacy into account, and I have done. Unfortunately for the member, it’s not a bill that we will be supporting in this instance, and I want to take the time, out of respect, to go through some of the reasons why that is.

I think that it’s very important to see the rights that people have in New Zealand in respect of work and the time that they have with their families in the context of an existing ability to spend that time together and to enjoy their life. I very much believe that people should have fair working conditions, but they should also be allowed the time for rest and relaxation as well, and although I appreciate this is a very small part of what forms holidays under this Act, I do think it’s worth protecting in this instance—not for the religious reasons that may cause some other members to oppose this bill; this is very much on the basis of protecting the rights of workers to be able to enjoy that time off and to not put additional pressure on them to work. I appreciate that the member did engage specifically with me on that issue, and my colleague Rachel Boyack has worked extensively in unions that work with supermarkets and has experience of that, so we’ll be talking to that specific point. I appreciate that those examples were specifically sought, and Rachel Boyack will be able to speak to that.

This is not, from our perspective, to do with the religious nature of Easter. We do note that Easter goes over four days, and we are talking about two of those days of restrictions, so in terms of the balance of being able to trade, on an objective basis that seems, from our perspective, to be about right. Personally, I come from a family that has been religious in the past. I’m not religious myself; my objection to this is not on the basis of wanting to practise my own religion on those days, although I would note that many secular families do celebrate Easter and do celebrate other religious holidays as a tradition as well, and those traditions can be held very dear, despite the lack of religious adherence to it.

I’m sorry to the member that our party will not be able to support his bill, in the sense that I do believe that, for him, it’s a genuinely passionately held belief that this law should be changed. For us, also, it was in the context of looking at the other measures that have been brought in—not by the member himself but by members of his party that, in our view, do take away from the rights of workers. Quite ironically, I suppose, in the very week or fortnight that this bill was coming up for hearing, we have heard the Minister from the member’s party talk about a review of the Holidays Act. I have not heard, and I would like to hear, assurances from the Minister that that won’t result in a loss of entitlements for people. I think that’s, essentially, the main grain of our opposition to this bill: we don’t want to see further rights of workers go backwards. We do know that this is a small, discrete area, but we do not think the flexibility of businesses are so significantly curtailed by these existing restrictions that this needs to be changed at this stage.

It is, I think, relevant to look at the wider context of what is happening at the moment. We have even seen, yesterday, the minimum wage be set at the smallest amount since the 1990s, so this is not a Government that is, in our view, delivering for workers. It’s in that context that we also don’t want to see any roll back further of the rights that workers enjoy to their time off with their family, and I think we’re all thinking about time off with our families as we get ready for the holiday break now, and how precious that is to us. Although this is a small part of that, for us it is something small that we’re willing to fight for, and that is the basis of the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take another call, for those who weren’t in the House at the beginning, the Speaker in the Chair indicated that he was going to prepare a list, and he invited people to come to the Chair to, I suppose, argue for a place on that list. I do have a list in front of me. If anyone wants a call, feel free to approach me and I’ll give you the name of a member of your party you may wish to negotiate with for that slot. Other than that, I currently have a list before me, so for those who have come to the House with other expectations, I’m sorry; that’s the way that it will now stand.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ultimately, today, I am going to vote in favour of this bill. I don’t know that I naturally feel in support of it, but I do think there are some genuine questions to be answered, and I want to see the bill go to select committee so these can be teased out and to give a broader number of people the opportunity to appear before the select committee to make submissions. I want to see people with the opportunity to come and appear before them and actually present their case.

Look, my starting point is I like what the current rules achieve. I like that we have just a couple of days in New Zealand where families have an almost unobstructed opportunity to get together. It might not be the right mechanism that Government has to tell you that today you can’t go to work and today you should spend time with your family, but I do think it’s the right outcome, particularly because I feel like we’ve seen a gradual breakdown of community and in some levels of family in New Zealand. I’d like to see more of that.

I do like what these rules achieve, but I do think there are questions that we need to answer—for example, the tension between the public holiday being on the Monday and the no-trading day being on the Sunday. What this means is even if workers—yes, it is true, they have their rights protected and under this member’s bill that would also apply to Good Friday, but they don’t have the backup of it being a public holiday. If they do work, they get time and a half or they get a day in lieu—they have those other provisions in place. It does feel a little bit messy to me to have a public holiday Monday but the trading days on other days. I do hear the call from the other side that they want to ensure people have the freedom not to work. I know it’s never quite that simple that everyone feels they’re in a position to say no, but I do think this is an issue worth teasing out.

Now, of course, one of the questions is: well, what’s left? That leaves us with Anzac Day morning, that leaves us with Christmas Day—and no one’s suggesting we should touch Christmas—but the question might be, “Well, why not? What is the difference between Christmas and Easter?” They both come from a faith perspective. They have both traditionally been days on which, if you look at the tikanga on which this modern New Zealand was founded, they were important days in the calendar, days where families came together, days where we didn’t trade. When we went to Sunday trading some decades ago, obviously the protections for Sundays remained in place, and no one said we would take on Christmas, but if the position of those in favour of the bill is, “Well, everyone should be free to choose whatever day they want.”, why wouldn’t the same apply to Christmas?

Not for one minute am I advocating that this should apply to Christmas, but why are we drawing a line there? The argument there would fall flat on itself. On the one hand, we’re saying, “Well, everyone should be free to choose, and if you want to work, if you want to open your business, you can”, but then we’re also saying, at the same time, “But not on Christmas, because we’ve decided that day is too important.” Actually, we do think it’s OK that Governments sometimes will say, “Well, there are days that are so important we’re not going to touch them. We’re not going to touch the morning of Anzac Day; we’re not going to touch Christmas Day.” But why Easter? I think there is a genuine question here, and I’m sure the member in his reply will do it. I’m happy to see this bill go to the select committee to tease out some of these questions. I don’t think in its current form the bill answers all of these, but I do think it’s a question that more New Zealanders should be able to comment on as we ultimately decide the kind of country that we want to be living in.

Look, from where I sit, it seems madness that when I went out with my family for dinner on Good Friday this year and we said, “Well, let’s go to this one place, let’s get some garlic bread and have a drink.”—“Sorry, garlic bread is not enough to get a drink.” “Well, what if we have two garlic breads? Is that OK?”—“Oh, not quite. Maybe if you had some fries as well.” OK, so we went to the other place, and we just had an earlier dinner. Now, I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think that can be the answer that we want to end up on. If the bar is open, then let them do what they do. If people want to have a meal, let them have a meal; if they want to have a drink, let them have a drink. If you really are worried about the length of that, you can look at earlier closing rates, but that should be determined at a local level.

I do think there are some issues with the way it sits now, but I also want to see those couple of rare days we have in this country that are protected, that kind of drive to a great outcome of families together—and I hold Christmas Day and Easter Sunday as being two really special days along with Anzac Day for me—that I would like to see some protection around. But I think the alignment of the rules on trading, the rules on alcohol sale, on public holidays, needs to be looked at. No one is saying, “Well, let’s have an extra public holiday”, because they don’t want to suddenly take away the Monday day off. And why not? Well, because we want a day off. But, actually, that’s what we’re getting rid of here. I think there are some questions. I’m going to support this bill to select committee to give people a chance to comment on those, and then I’ll reassess from there.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by acknowledging the member in charge of the bill, Cameron Luxton, who has been engaging right across the House and, of course, with different members of Parliament within the Green Party, and that that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing for members to be engaging on things that they are passionate about, and that certainly has resonated in the interactions that the member has had with people that I have talked to as well. I hope that that can continue, whether people agree or disagree.

Unfortunately, in this case, I disagree. The reason for that is we need to really focus on getting that work-life balance right. It is important for us to uphold workers’ rights—that’s important—to secure an adequate income, to fair treatment and safety at work, and to be involved in workplace decision-making via workplace democracy and collective organising—that stuff is important—but, at the same time, we foster a working culture which recognises the fullness of people’s lives and restores balance between paid work, voluntary and care work, and leisure time. We don’t have that balance within our society. Too much of our time, as the member said previously, is being spent on devices and other issues as well—that we actually need to carve out that time. I take a different view because—and this is not for religious reasons—there are so few days that it should be about family, where it should be about community, and which should be about society that it would be unfortunate if this Parliament were to roll those back.

I note that in the discussions that we’ve had so far, the member talked about there being the right for workers to refuse to work on that day, and he went to some lengths to explain the extension of those rights within his member’s bill. However, anybody that’s worked, anybody that’s had particularly low-paid jobs, will know that you don’t want to get on the wrong side of the boss. There are these other pressures that play into place. Yes, you might have the ability to do something, to tell your boss, but who in reality would do that? There is a power imbalance which is not addressed in this bill, so I have concerns about that.

The issues that the member raises about extensions into other religious holidays or other cultural events of significance are important conversations to have. I hope that we will continue to have those conversations, because it’s important to be able to have those conversations, but I can’t see how that is addressed with this bill. I also agree with the point around the seeming advantages that online businesses have compared to brick and mortar businesses. I think that is also an important issue that needs to be addressed by the Parliament, but I also can’t see that being addressed in particular with this bill. I do want to encourage the member to continue to engage in good faith. I think he has done that.

I also see all of this within the context of what’s been happening in the realm of workers’ rights. There’s been attempts to rein back the ability to strike. At the beginning of this Parliament, we had the 90-day trials come back and fair pay agreements were rolled back as well. Workers are under attack. Workers are feeling that this Government doesn’t care about them. If we talk about the freedom to choose in terms of how you will work or not work within a particular workplace, it is also important to think about the freedom to organise, the freedom to not just choose who will have power over you—because that’s the problem—but also the freedom to actually own and organise our own lives. This is a bill which is happening in the context where workers’ rights are being rolled back. That context is why I cannot support this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I won’t be supporting this bill today, but I do want to acknowledge the member for having his bill pulled and for the engagement he’s undertaken. I did just want to respond to some of the comments he made around pressure being placed on workers to work on Easter Sunday. I understand he did ask that question of my colleague Camilla Belich, but not directly of me and I do want to bring some of my experience to the House today. I worked as a retail union organiser for six years. I represented workers at Countdown, now Woolworths; New World; Pak ’N Save; Farmers; Bunnings; Mitre 10; Kmart; and Cotton On—large retailers—and some small retailers in New Zealand.

I was representing those workers when the law changed in 2016. What happened was that, in Tasman, they originally voted No but have changed that to Yes; in Nelson, they have kept with no trading; and in Marlborough, they did make an immediate move to trade. One of the things that happened was the supermarkets in particular were particularly bad at following the law, which required a written notice to employees, which the Countdown supermarket in the heart of Blenheim did not do. They were required to have a process for employees to say they wanted to opt out, and, again, they didn’t do that. As the organiser, I actually had to take it upon myself to set that system up. I had to create an opt-out form and give it all of my members, and they then provided it to the employer.

There was a lot of subtle pressure placed on employees—some of whom, like myself, have a Christian faith—to work on Easter Sunday. I would say to fellow Christians—and that’s not the main reason I’m opposing this bill—that, arguably, for us Easter Sunday is far more important than Christmas Day in terms of our religious calendar. I do want to note that—and I’ve had representation made to me from Christians—while, culturally in New Zealand, the practice is to spend engagement around Christmas, for those of us practising the Christian faith, Easter Sunday is a more significant day. That is not the main reason I’m opposing this bill, though; it is based on my experience of that subtle pressure that’s put on workers.

The other thing is the member was incorrect in his first speech. Easter Sunday isn’t a public holiday, and so workers are required to work on Easter Sunday—they may make the choice to work on Easter Sunday—unless they’re covered by an agreement. Now, many retail workers are covered by a collective agreement that does put in place a time-and-a-half provision, but there are a lot of workers who work on that day and don’t receive time and a half and don’t receive a day in lieu and don’t get those extra provisions that you would get for a public holiday—so there is an anomaly in the law—and without that, I absolutely could not support this. For workers to be working on a day that is of such significance in terms of being both a family day and a religious day and not receiving that extra support is something that I just personally could not support.

I want to talk a little bit about that subtle pressure. Absolutely you can write into the law that there are workers’ protections. You can write that on a piece of paper, but how does it work in practice? Things are said like, “Thanks to all the team players who worked today.”—and guess who gets the promotion! It’s probably the person who’s willing to work the extra hours or work the days that people don’t want.

What you end up having is subtle discrimination against people. We have a lot of Pasifika people, for example, who work in supermarkets. A number of them are of the Christian faith, and so they feel that pressure to go to work on a day that is of significance to them. I do take the point that there are people of other faiths in this country that don’t get that same protection. I’m really happy to have a conversation about what that could look like—that’s something that is of interest to me—but this bill does not cover any of that. It does not put any of those conversations in place. It doesn’t put any extra protections in place. I have seen in practice, over six years of working, people feeling pressured to work because someone’s called in sick and they’re short-staffed that day. It happens all the time.

Workers don’t want to let their team mates down, they don’t want to let their boss down, so they will often make those decisions when they would rather be spending time with their family, and for some of them, it will be going to church on that day. For me, this is an absolute no-go area, and I cannot support this bill.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Mr Speaker, with your leave, I would like to make a very short contribution and split my time with Te Pāti Māori, in order that they can speak—having not been at the beginning of the debate, but wishing to speak, if that’s OK with you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That’s fine and very magnanimous. Thank you, Mr Seymour.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it is Christmas, Mr Speaker, and all people, in the spirit of Christ, deserve forgiveness from time to time. Can I begin my speech time from now?

I rise on behalf of myself, the people of Epsom, and the ACT Party, in support of this bill. The one thing I wanted to say to people of a Christian faith is that this is in no way an offence, an insult, or a slight. I myself am a baptised Presbyterian and someone who believes deeply in the roots of imago Dei, because they tell us that each person has an inherent dignity, being made in the image of God. That is the foundation of my beliefs and it is the foundation of our Western society based on liberalism and each person having equal rights. It also applies to each person who may not have faith and may have different views from yours. It applies to people who have a whole range of aspirations. Sometimes those aspirations are grand and profound, like becoming an astronaut or bringing about world peace. Other times the things that people really want are just to be able to conveniently buy what they need or want at the time that is convenient for them. I actually don’t think that, if you believe in freedom and the dignity and rights of people to choose for themselves, you should discriminate between those large and small wants.

The next question you should ask is: regardless, what harm does it do to allow a person to go to a shop, which is allowed to be open anyway? We hear that it’s terrible for the employees—to go to a shop that’s allowed to be open anyway, such as a supermarket, and often is open anyway, and be able to buy a bottle of wine to share with their loved ones. People say, “Oh, you should just get organised earlier.” But why? There is no justification for restricting another person’s freedom to transact with someone else that wants to be there, that wants to do it. They still get time and a half, because it doesn’t change the Holidays Act. They still don’t have to work, because of the Shop Trading Hours Act, but they can work—they can choose to if they want to.

Really, I find it astonishing that we’re even debating something as simple and straightforward as this. Should we allow another person to pursue their dreams and hopes if it does not affect ours? The answer is we should send this bill to select committee so people can do precisely that.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I just want to mihi to the member and also his party in reaching out with their different staff on this certain bill, the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill. I also just want to provide a bit of clarification that with only five members in our party, it’s pretty hard to get over the select committee process and this at the same time. That’s why we’re running around.

This bill would allow businesses to sell alcohol on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. It would also allow workers to refuse to work without justification on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. There are some good reasons to support this bill. Firstly, this would remove privilege that one religion has over other religions in Aotearoa. Currently, a Christian holiday can dictate a restriction on selling alcohol, but other cultures and belief systems are not afforded that same opportunity—Matariki, for example.

The penalty for not complying with restricted-trading laws is a fine of $1,000. This means that some large businesses are able to pay the fine and sell alcohol anyway. This is unfair to small businesses. I also agree that people should be allowed to refuse to work without justification on Good Friday, but I also think that this right should be extended to all religions and cultural holidays.

While I support certain aspects of this bill, in our Te Pāti Māori value system, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favour of increasing access to alcohol while it continues to harm our people. Māori suffer disproportionately from alcohol-related harm. Over one-third, 37 percent, of Māori men were classified as hazardous drinkers compared to 29 percent of European men. Between 2012 and 2016, the percentage of Māori women who were considered hazardous drinkers increased from 21 percent to 29 percent.

Allowing the sale of alcohol on Good Friday and Easter Sunday will encourage drinking and worsen alcohol-related harm. The Government needs to restrict alcohol advertising and increase funding for alcohol harm reduction strategies before I can support a bill that increases to alcohol. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this conscience vote. I will be personally not supporting it. I do want to thank the member Cameron Luxton for all of the work he has done, and he has done a lot of work in bringing this bill to the House. However, I would like to make some comments on why I personally will not be supporting this bill.

I would like to read a quote, if I may: “Public parks make no economic sense at all. We leave a whole lot of space unbuilt on and not capitalised in any way, but that is not the reason we have them. We have parks because they do us good. … They do not make economic sense but they do us good.”

The point I want to make is families—family togetherness, being connected with one another—does us good. It does the family good, it does the community good, and when communities are united, then a country will be united, and at a time when New Zealand needs to be united, I can’t think of a better time for us to encourage togetherness, family, and being together. That is one of the main reasons why I do not support this bill—because I want to encourage family; I want to encourage people coming together again. I know the value of doing that.

There are so many areas that I would like to speak on here, and many have already been mentioned, so I’ll only speak on the ones that I feel are quite important. In one of the documents, the explanatory note starts by saying, “The bill seeks to remove an extra burden on businesses.” I want to focus on the “burden” that this might put on family; I want to focus on the burden that it might put on the entrepreneur who desperately wants a break. So many entrepreneurs, solopreneurs, have difficulty in giving themselves permission to have a rest, and they love the opportunity to just do nothing. I know that for many of the people I have spoken to in my previous career, that is one of the things that they find hardest to do—to give themselves permission to stop. I want to think about the children—the partners at home who would rather have their loved one at home on these special days.

As a House, we often talk about mental health and the declining mental health in New Zealand. One of the big contributors to that is loneliness, alcohol. I have spoken to many non-governmental organisations who all say that the last thing they need is another day where someone who is suffering from mental illness can go out and easily get their fix—“That is the last thing we need. We are struggling. We are at our wit’s end trying to help people” with what they called a “pandemic of loneliness.” These holidays, Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, those long periods of time when one is struggling with their mental health, it is even harder during these times, because it is a reminder that they are alone, it is a reminder that they aren’t part of a family unit any more, and it is so easy for them to go out there and run away from that.

I would also like to, in my time available, speak about the pressure that some workers do have. New Zealand First will always support the workers. I’ve had many communications from families, many of them Christian, reminding me that, actually, 30 percent of the population in our last census were Christians. One father said that his two sons asked their employer, “There is just one day of the week we don’t want to be rostered on please, and it’s a Sunday.” However, they were told that if they didn’t work on a Boxing Day, which was a Sunday, then they would lose their jobs. It does exist—not all employers do that, but it does exist that some take advantage of that power over relationships.

I really have spoken on most of the things that I would like to speak about, but, really, I think the big one is that I want to focus on family. This is one way that we can focus on family, by ensuring that we give them the permission to be together instead of giving them another reason to not be together and remain busy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge on behalf of the National Party that this is a conscience vote. There will be people in this party voting for; there will be people in this party voting against. I think that one of the great things about the National Party is that we allow our members to be able to exercise their conscience and have their say. I will be using my conscience vote and voting against this bill for a number of reasons, but that represents, I think, a significant part of New Zealand which does support the National Party and the values that they hold, and they are representative of a huge number of New Zealanders.

Firstly, Easter is an incredibly important time in our calendar. Yes, I know that our country is changing, but, ultimately, we also have a history and a heritage of Christian values where we recognise Easter as being an incredibly important part of the calendar, and the rules and regulations around this day have come out of that history and heritage. Not only is that important to recognise but the important time that this provides for people to spend as a family has, I think, actually become how this day has become recognised, how Easter has become recognised, how Christmas has become recognised—as important parts and foundational building blocks of what we have as a country. From my perspective, that is important. It’s worth preserving. I’m a conservative; we preserve things. That’s, ultimately, one of the reasons why I’m voting against this piece of legislation.

Now, I’ve heard the arguments in favour around supporting choice and supporting businesses to be able to make choices and also individuals being able to make choices, and I appreciate those arguments, but I also would like to point out that there are many businesses, particularly small businesses in New Zealand, who ultimately have very limited choices. I consider a small business in my own electorate, which is a fruit and vegetable shop. It’s a family run business. They open every single day that the supermarket is open, because they, ultimately, don’t have a choice but to compete when they’re in a small business, there are tight margins, and it’s the family running the show. At the moment, they have 3½ days of the year where they don’t open their shop doors. Now, the issue here is we’ve heard about workers’ rights. Businesses like that will, ultimately, be forced into a position where they will be left with only 1½ days of the year where they are able to actually have that time as a family. When we’re talking about a family business, it’s the parents and it’s the children. Ultimately, that choice will be taken away from them if this legislation is able to be passed. Those are small businesses. Many thousands of small businesses, up and down the country, will be put in that position.

The second point I’d like to make is that councils do have discretion when it comes to the law already. Different communities have, for a long time, called for the ability to have that flexibility. The 2016 law changes have given councils the opportunity to be able to make different decisions in their communities around how they need to respond. We’ve seen those areas in the country where there is high tourism respond in a way which supports them to be able to meet that need in their community. That allows local communities, through their council, to be able to make those decisions which best reflect the needs of their local community.

The final point I want to make is just around the point of consistency, and this point was touched on by my colleague Tim Costley a little bit earlier in the debate. I put it to those who are supporting this bill: if you truly are going to support this bill, why is this not also the “Repeal of Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day Restriction on Trade Bill”? If you’re going to be consistent and say, “We’re going to actually repeal the sales on those days.”, you should be prepared to turn up to your electorate or to your community and say you’re also prepared to take Christmas Day and Anzac Day away as well, because all of the same arguments which we’ve heard from the speaker who spoke first—all of those same arguments—can be applied to those other two days too. He hasn’t been prepared to come here and actually put a consistent argument to this House, which is what he should have done if that’s actually what he believes. If that’s what he actually believes, that’s what he should have brought to this House. I say to those members who are considering voting in support of it: that is the consistent position. It’s not a position I support, but that is a position that they should be considering.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in quite an astonished state that I’m going to be agreeing with Simeon Brown, and I do it because—

Hon Simeon Brown: First time.

HELEN WHITE: There really is a first time for everything, and maybe it’s a Christmas spirit issue. I wanted to take the tack, really, to emphasise the issue over the coercive power in this situation, which actually impacts not only on workers but also on business owners, as has been mentioned.

I was interested to hear so many people comment on the nature of the statutory list of holidays as if they were bound to those very holidays and that there was no movement in those holidays for workers and employers. There is. If you look at section 44 of the Holidays Act, you’ll find that workers can agree with their employers to move to holidays that are, in fact, more conducive to their own religion, etc. I have never seen that happen, and I was doing the job of employment law for a very long time. It doesn’t happen, because people do not negotiate such things. The reality is that most workers are given a set of rules and they agree to them without question, and those rules tend to be the statutory list that we have. That’s a really good demonstration of the lack of bargaining power that is in the average employment relationship.

These days that we have set are so minimal when you think about it. Yes, they’re better than America—there, they have 12 days—but, actually, America has all these other different holidays. We get better annual leave than America, but we have actually very little rest time in this country, and employers too are dancing to the tune of the demand of consumers by having to open on those days because their competitors do. In a way, having these days that are a little bit sacred and where we close down our materialism actually protects everybody, and everybody gets a day off consumerism, which doesn’t do them a scrap of harm.

Now, I want to talk about the alcohol issue, because, again, the member bringing in this bill—and I congratulate him for getting it to us in the ballot. He talked about the issue of the possibility that people who had a negative relationship—I think he called it—with alcohol would go and hoard alcohol. The research suggests that that’s not actually the case, sir. What happens, when there is an issue with alcohol, is that an alcoholic will buy more alcohol if there is availability. If you have shop hours extended for alcohol sales, they will actually go and buy more alcohol at that time. It’s a strangely opportunistic relationship that they have with alcohol.

By closing alcohol sales off in time, you actually do affect the ability of people to drink, and it doesn’t affect just the person drinking; it affects their whānau. These are days when things shut down and people have a day without the constant tapping in to alcohol as a solution to a problem and doing harm to their families. Now, it’s not all over—obviously, it’s an extremely serious issue in this country. It’s not all over for that family. They still have an alcoholic in their midst, and probably causing havoc, but it’s a damned good start that we signal that it isn’t constantly on tap. It isn’t constantly the crutch to the way that we operate in our families.

I, for one, am going to vote against this bill because I think it’s incredibly important that we start to rebalance our lives, we start to take seriously our religions and respect the religions in our culture, we take seriously the power dynamic between workers and employers, and we take seriously the need for our smaller businesses to have a day off, too. Actually, they do not have to compete with others who are out there using labour which they have managed to persuade to stay in employment on those days—they’re not using them to undermine competitors who have shut up shop for the day and who want to spend it at the beach with their kids or in their churches. I will not be supporting this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a 2½-minute split call.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): For most of my life, I’ve supported restricted trading hours on public holidays. I’ve also implicitly supported restrictions on alcohol sales. I’ve never really been pressed on my reasons, so a default “Well, I think it’s good to have a few days where we all unplugged from consumerism” has sufficed. However, now I’m a lawmaker and my opinions have real consequences. Hence, for several months, I’ve been thinking deeply about this issue and I’ve changed my mind. Here’s why.

There are two essential critiques of the proposed changes, and we’ve heard them both repeatedly here. The first one is about the protection for employees. To my mind, that has been well canvassed. The reality of it is that Easter Sunday is already unique in legislation in New Zealand. It’s great for all people who consider that as an incredibly special day, like myself, and this bill extends that to Good Friday. These two days will literally be unique in employment law. For those people who say that we can’t trust the law, then, as lawmakers, we have a deeper issue than the one before us. We need to trust the enforcement of our laws.

The second critique is a version of the one I long held—i.e., it’s healthy to have a few days each year where the shops are closed and alcohol is less available. Others also add that it’s important to honour Easter. As I tested my opinion, I reminded myself that law restricts human freedoms. This is a serious matter and thus must be well justified. To my understanding, those two justifications are: to protect people and our world from exploitation or harm, and to, secondly, maximise participation or access. I do not consider the Easter restrictions on trading and liquor meet either of those tests, particularly given the clear protection of employees as discussed. Enforcing rest time does not meet those tests.

For many, shopping, or indeed working, is their fulfilling activity. On what basis should a Government tell them otherwise? Some argue that for people to have the right to shop, others must work, but as already explained, the protected choice of those workers is guaranteed. I am also mindful that while we forbid service workers to labour, there’s no such prohibition for those in offices, including political. Others argue that people don’t need to shop and or buy alcohol every day. That may be true, but, again, it’s insufficient justification for Government restricting freedom of activity. We wouldn’t stop trading and alcohol sales on every Sunday, nor would we legislate for Dry July.

I have the rest of my speech here; I’m not going to get to it. I’m very happy to send it out to any members who’d be interested in reading it—it’s obviously going to be after the fact. I commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge the work of Cameron in this process. As the member knows, I rise to speak in opposition to the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill. Very quickly, there are a few things I wish to touch on. Firstly, localism: if this House truly believes in the concept of localism, what is the problem we’re trying to solve? Forty-three of our local and regional councils currently have policies to localise their trading rules. The fact that some of those lapsed maybe indicates the underlying real view of New Zealand when it comes to this policy.

Secondly: employee rights. I acknowledge this bill could address the fact that employees are required to work on Easter Friday. This bill would mean that they could choose not to work on Easter Friday and Easter Sunday. However, the cost of that is removing the significance of these two days. I feel that this is then, simply, a slippery slope to Christmas and Easter. I remain very sceptical that employee protections provide real-world protection. They are good in theory, but, in this case, questionable in practice. The inconsistency of the argument related to Anzac and Christmas Day by allowing this bill to proceed, in my view, is a step towards those two things happening. Whether you are of the Christian faith or not, Easter has a special place in New Zealand’s history, and this should be maintained. The online argument is also just not solid. Taking this to conclusion would require every retail store to open 24/7, 365 days a year. It’s an abolitionist argument that does not hold.

My colleague Carlos Cheung asked me to mention the concern regarding alcohol harm. Ultimately, the underlying intent is the recognition of these two days in our national calendar and the history that this has can’t be ignored when considering alcohol sales on Easter Friday and Easter Sunday. I do not commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): In reply, Cameron Luxton. Can I indicate there will be a vote at the conclusion of this speech.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m going to try and make my reply brief so that members can get their conscience recorded and get off and enjoy the summer holidays.

Briefly going quickly through it, Camilla Belich—I deeply appreciated being able to engage with Camilla in the process. I did actually make a lot of overtures to the Labour Party as a whole, and specific members in the Labour Party, so it’s unfortunate that Rachel Boyack either didn’t receive that message or didn’t reach back out with her concerns, because I would have liked to engage with her. Showing that the rules weren’t followed, I think my colleague over here—Greg Fleming, who gave a great speech about the way he’s changed and evolved his thinking on this—shows that as lawmakers we should be respecting the law, not just saying, “OK, someone’s ignored the law, therefore the entire concept of governing through law is void.”

The question about not having time and a half on Saturday that Rachel Boyack also brought up, that is something that can be negotiated, but there will be time and a half pay on Good Friday, which is what my bill is seeking to change. It doesn’t change Easter Sunday, which is currently the case.

Going through it—Te Pāti Māori, I’m glad to hear that you’ve thought deeply about this, and I appreciate that you have been engaging with me on this.

I think that the idea that restricting the sale of alcohol, as the member from the Labour Party Helen White said, increases the harm works if you think about it as in just a quick grab off the shelf, but if you’re thinking about it in a way that someone who has got alcohol-dependency issues may feel rather nervous that they’re not going to have access to that and stock up, maybe by three dozen instead of two dozen for the weekend, the worst thing we can be doing is locking people in their homes with the alcohol which is causing them so much harm.

There were a couple of members who raised the slippery-slope argument that this is going to lead to the removal of Christmas and Anzac Day. The reason for bringing this bill isn’t because of an attack of we just want to get rid of religious—as I gave in my speech, I deeply hold respect for the founding religion of our country. This hasn’t been a debate to try and extend the slippery slope out to include Anzac and Christmas; what it is doing is addressing the concerns that address the confusion throughout the country that New Zealanders experience every year. Nobody is confused about Christmas. No one is confused about Anzac Day. These are religious and secular days, and they should be treated with the respect that they deserve, in the same way that New Zealanders should be treated with the respect that they deserve and treated like adults over the Easter weekend.

The Greens—we often hear that the Greens want a conscience vote in this House. Well, here’s a chance to use it. It’ll be interesting to see if, as the polling shows that 62 percent of their supporters, as with the Labour Party, support this change—we’ll be interested to see if 62 percent of their members exercise their conscience vote and represent their voters. I commend this bill to the House, and I thank you very much for the opportunity.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I’ve determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know that there are members who want a personal vote, and I am prepared to accept one.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 49

Noes 74

Motion not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. Thank you, members.

The House adjourned at 1.21 p.m.