Tuesday, 18 February 2025

TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2025

TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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

Obituaries

Jennifer Ng

SPEAKER: Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 13 February of Jennifer Anne Ng, a long-serving Chamber officer well known to many of us. Jenny served this House as a Chamber officer from July 2000 until her death last week. On behalf of this House, I want to express our sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of Jenny, and her colleagues who continue to support us today.

Urgent Debates Declined

Resignations—Director-General of Health

SPEAKER: I received a letter from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the resignation of the Director-General of Health. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. Last week, I allowed an urgent debate which ranged widely over the state of the public health system. I do not think a similar debate is warranted today, and that is what is likely to occur since the Minister of Health is not the employer of the director-general and her reasons for resigning are her own. The application is declined.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Melinda McGregor requesting that the House amend the Dog Control Act to require all councils to have clear guidelines to follow after a dog attack.

SPEAKER: This petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: 2023-24 annual report for the Local Government Commission.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Three select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Fired Up Stilettos: Strippers’ Rights are Workers’ Rights

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill

report of the Attorney-General on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the

petition of Aaron Hendry: Don’t criminalise our children - do not pass the Ram Raids Bill

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Shubham Sharma.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the reports of the Attorney-General are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 9 to Minister, 13 February

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.

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

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: On 13 February 2025, in response to the supplementary questions in oral question No. 9, I stated that “Evidence tells us that youth crime was at an all-time high,”. What I should have said is that in relation to serious and persistent youth offending—which I understood was the context of the questioning—the increase was at an all-time high. This is according to the Ministry of Justice’s latest youth justice indicators report, which has data back to 2013-14.

Personal Explanations

Oral Questions—Misattribution of Quotation in Supplementary Question

LAN PHAM (Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation correcting a quote in a question I asked last week.

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

LAN PHAM: Thank you. Last week, in the House, during oral questions on Thursday, in a supplementary question to question No. 8, I asked the Minister for the Environment: does she stand by her statement that “What we do know is that an environmental problem deferred today can be both an environmental liability and a fiscal risk that will have to be faced in the future.” This quote was mistakenly attributed to the Minister and it should have been attributed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and I apologise again to the Minister for the mistake.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, and especially our action to promote tourism. Tourism is an absolutely critical industry for this great country of ours. It drives almost $38 billion, employs almost 200,000 people up and down the country. And on this side of the House, we know that, actually, growing tourism is a good thing for economic growth, and a good thing for economic growth is more money in the back pockets of Kiwis. So we’re going all out on tourism: digital nomad visas, which the member supported then didn’t support. We’re going all out on a stronger presence in key markets like Australia, and a $30 million investment in conservation tourism. So we’re not stopping there; there’ll be more to say on tourism in the coming weeks, and I’m sure the member will look forward to supporting us and the work that we’re doing to drive the tourism sector. And we don’t want him saying no to tourism.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Government’s “Everyone must go!” strategy include driving highly qualified Kiwis to Australia, particularly in light of recent complaints from Engineering New Zealand that his Government’s delay to infrastructure projects are driving hundreds of engineers across the Tasman?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for his question, and I acknowledge that, under his last year in Government, there were 43,000 New Zealand citizens that left New Zealand. That number has crept up—up to 47,000 in the last year—and that is why this Government’s working incredibly hard on improving the economy so that there are opportunities for people here. But it is not helped—it is not helped—when you’ve got a Labour Government that bans industries and, actually, Kiwis are leaving New Zealand to go work in mining and oil and gas in Australia. That doesn’t work.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Engineering New Zealand chief executive, Dr Richard Templer, wrong when he said, “The shutdown of education rebuilds, the shutdown of hospital builds and upgrades, the slow down on roading, the changes in the Three Waters space has meant that … New Zealand constructors, the people who build the roads, waters network[s] and buildings have all had to look for work elsewhere and that has seen people heading overseas … in significant numbers.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Isn’t it ironic that the member that caused the grief in the New Zealand economy is now criticising us for trying to fix it? And what I’d say is that there are some good signs. There are no more phantom projects any more for engineers to work on. No more Auckland light rail, Let’s Get Wellington Moving—all those kinds of projects. There’s $33 billion in the national transport plan; there’s $148 billion in the Infrastructure Commission pipeline. There’s work coming and it’s starting to happen. We’re getting roads built: Brougham St’s starting, Hawke’s Bay’s started. That’s what’s going on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was his “Everyone must go!” strategy inspired by the fact that, under his Government’s leadership, the number of people leaving New Zealand has reached a record high, with 128,000 people giving up and simply leaving, last year alone.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I just explained in my first answer, net migration has moved from 43,000 to 47,000 for New Zealand citizens. That is why we are working so incredibly hard on building the economy. But I’ll tell you what it’s not helped by: it’s not helped by a Labour Party not supporting tax relief for working New Zealanders. It’s not supported by a Labour Party not supporting fast-track legislation to keep people in work. That’s what’s important.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the latest quarterly infrastructure pipeline report from the independent Infrastructure Commission confirms $108 billion of funded projects under way and in planning from central government, local government, and the private sector—up $8 billion in the last quarter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and what I can confirm is the $33 billion in the National Transport Plan as well. There is activity and things happening in this country. We’re not going to do phantom projects and Post-it notes and talk about mythical things.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his “Everyone must go!” strategy apply to the leadership of the New Zealand health system, and how does an exodus of that valuable expertise improve the health outcomes for Kiwis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you what this Government is doing: we’re embracing “Everything must go!”, like high inflation, like high interest rates, like wasteful spending, like cycle bridges, like Let’s Get Wellington Moving. We’re saying everything must go, including gang members going up, violent crime going up, retail crime going up. And who was the police Minister for five years?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his “Everyone must go!” strategy extend to those in emergency housing; and why can’t anyone in his Government explain where they’ve gone, given increasing reports of homelessness, with the Downtown Community Ministry reporting a 40 percent increase in homelessness under his watch?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is rich coming from that member, because that Government presided over an absolute shameful record on emergency housing. When we came to Government, there was 3,200 households living in motels—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right. Sorry, Prime Minister. That’s absolutely enough. I know that the Prime Minister’s questions generally elicit a lot more, you’d say, interjection, but not the constant barrage that’s going on. The Opposition wants answers—listen to them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does his “Everyone must go!” mantra seem to apply to everyone except for David Seymour, who referred a victim of sexual abuse by the ACT Party president to a lawyer rather than to the police, intervened in a police murder investigation, and drove a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament, and yet is being rewarded with a promotion to Deputy Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say we took the public approach to the Labour Party at the last election, where they said, “Everyone must go.”, and, actually, the member is the only member who hasn’t got anywhere else to go. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. Hey—listen. This is the week where someone, clearly, is going to go for not listening to the instruction to keep it seemly. Can I please have Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that Operation Trolley, executed in Rotorua, was a good use of taxpayer money?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Rawiri Waititi: How much did it cost?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I encourage the member to direct his question to the relevant Minister.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s on the record, the Prime Minister saying he absolutely believed it was a good use of taxpayer money, but he doesn’t know how much it cost.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that throughout the Budget documents there are lots of figures that are a good use of public money that are not at the immediate recall of the Prime Minister.

Rawiri Waititi: How can you say you support it if you don’t know how much it cost?

SPEAKER: It wasn’t a question on notice—it wasn’t a question on notice. You’ve got to be reasonable about that.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our $30 million investment in conservation, which is designed to boost biodiversity and also tourism across New Zealand. Our tourism industry thrives on our very strong natural assets, and it’s critical that we continue to invest in those assets. I thank Minister Potaka for doing exactly that. And that’s why it’s fantastic to see a range of investments being made up and down and across the country throughout the conservation estate. This is evidence that we can actually grow tourism, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he be proud of that $30 million funding announcement for conservation tourism when, in the past year alone, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has been forced to make $47.2 million in cuts, so that, overall, this announcement doesn’t even cover the hole that this Government created?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually incredibly proud of that investment, and I’d hope that the member would get behind it. Surely the member is saying yes to $30 million going in for this particular task.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to more funding for DOC in Budget 2025 in light of recent information concluding the department would need $2.3 billion annually to protect biodiversity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’ll have to wait till the Budget.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think a $30 million announcement is sufficient, considering that tourism on public conservation land alone is worth around $3.4 billion a year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m sure there is more we can do, but it’s a great start, and I’d hope the member would encourage it and be thankful for it.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with the member that spending more money is a goal in itself, or does he alternatively believe that the Government’s objective is to get greater value out of spending less money, just as every firm, farm, and family has had to for the last few years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s exactly right; it’s all about value for money, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is he comfortable with his Government only investing a mere 0.88 percent of the value of tourism on conservation land at the same time as it is enabling more mining in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject those two things, and those two legs to that question, but what I’d just say, in respect to the investment in the conservation area, is I’m proud of our investment. We’ve done a good job making sure we open up a new Great Walk, the Hump Ridge Track. That’s fantastic. We’ve got some protection cross-party around the Hauraki Gulf protection. We’ve reopened Cathedral Cove. That’s all good stuff.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he expect this loose-change announcement to distract the New Zealand public from the fact that his Government continues to put commercial interests over protecting te taiao for future generations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And in that question, you have it, don’t you? That’s exactly the mentality; it’s just loose change, $30 million! Well, actually, it’s the taxpayers’ money. We’re getting value for money. We want to grow our economy so we can invest more in the environment. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, you can carry on that conversation outside in a few minutes. I keep getting these letters saying, “You keep threatening to send people out but don’t do it.” It’s because of my good nature, but it’s really at its end.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen two recent releases from BNZ and Business New Zealand: the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index and the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index. In terms of manufacturing, the index lifted sharply in January to its highest level since September 2022. And while, of course, individual manufacturers will have their own sets of circumstances, manufacturing on the whole is now expanding after 22 months of contraction. The BNZ describes this as “a positive start to 2025, with the manufacturing sector shifting out of reverse and into first gear.”

Paulo Garcia: What did the Performance of Services Index show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Performance of Services Index also moved into expansionary territory after an extended period of contraction. That means the services sector, the largest part of our economy as a whole, is growing, although modestly. Both the manufacturing and services sector results are consistent with a pick-up in economic activity at the beginning of 2025, supporting Kiwi jobs and incomes.

Paulo Garcia: What other recent economic reports has she seen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve seen a report from Westpac that says that dairy incomes look set to hit record highs in nominal and, perhaps, real terms. This is good news for supporting New Zealanders’ jobs and incomes—go the farmers! Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand released its latest international travel stats, and this showed that there was a 12 percent increase in overseas visitors to New Zealand in the last year, the highest number since COVID. We want more tourists coming to New Zealand, opening their wallets, spending money in local businesses, supporting Kiwi jobs, and growing Kiwis’ incomes.

Paulo Garcia: When is the next major economic release?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Tomorrow, the Reserve Bank releases its quarterly Monetary Policy Statement (MPS). The MPS will include the bank’s view of the global and domestic economy, its latest forecasts, and the Monetary Policy Committee’s decision on the official cash rate (OCR). Decisions about the OCR are, of course, for the committee but the market and most economists are expecting a reduction in the OCR of 50 basis points. That would take the OCR down to 3.75 percent, supporting lower retail interest rates which, in turn, support a growing economy, jobs, and incomes for New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Workplace Relations and Safety

4. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What announcements has she made about restoring balance in employment relations?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ve announced a plan to reintroduce pay deductions for partial strikes. This will be discussed at select committee this week. This Government has committed to this change because we need to restore balance to the rights and consequences of collective bargaining. If workers are partially striking by refusing to do their normal work, why should they get paid a normal wage? I’m also restoring balance to personal grievances by removing entitlements to remedies in situations where the employee is found to have contributed to the personal grievance. For too long, employees have been able to claim compensation for hurt and humiliation even if they were dismissed for serious misconduct. It’s no wonder I’ve heard from so many employers who are concerned the personal grievance system is unbalanced in favour of workers.

SPEAKER: I’m sure the future supplementary answers will be slightly shorter.

Laura McClure: How will the changes you have announced to personal grievances benefit workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My changes will give employers confidence that they can act to remove workers in cases of serious misconduct in order to keep other workers safe, without fear that doing so will end up costing tens of thousands of dollars in personal grievance compensation. I’ve heard one case where a worker was intimidating and abusive towards another worker, yet the employer felt like they were between a rock and a hard place as they feared the intimidating worker might raise a personal grievance and be reinstated if they were dismissed.

Laura McClure: How will the changes you’ve announced to enable pay deductions for partial strikes benefit the community?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Many of the examples of partial strikes we’ve seen in the past were designed to intentionally cause disruption to the public. Often, it’s the community who loses out or are caught in the middle when partial strikes occur. When teachers refused to teach certain year groups on particular days, it was parents who paid the price by having to take unplanned leave from work in order to take care of their kids who were rostered home, not to mention the cost of lost learning for the students. When hospital-based nuclear medicine technologists limited the number of scans completed each day, it was patients waiting for their results who suffered. If communities and employers bear the negative consequences of partial strike action, it’s only fair that employees do too.

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): Yes, in the context in which they were given or made.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does announcing $19 million of additional spending for conservation make up for the $125 million that was cut from conservation in her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Did the member just say the $125 billion that was cut from conservation spending? Because that would be a ludicrous figure to use in this House.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does announcing $500,000 of additional spending for tourism marketing make up for the $20 million that was cut from the “marketing New Zealand as a tourist destination” fund at Budget 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Government stands by its decision to invest in effective marketing campaigns to bring tourists to New Zealand because that supports New Zealand jobs and incomes. On the other side of the House, they’ve got to make up their mind. Should we be investing more in attracting tourists, as these questions seem to suggest, or does she not think tourism is a good idea, as other of her members have suggested? I don’t know which way is up or down with you guys.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does cutting $24 million from the New Zealand Cycle Trails, Great Rides, and the tourism recovery fund help promote New Zealand as a tourism destination?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, investment in cycle trails continues. As a Government, we’ve made it very clear that where we make investments, we want to make sure they’re having the biggest impact for New Zealanders. Taxpayers deserve to know that when a dollar of theirs that’s been taken out of their household budget is being spent by Ministers, it is going to its absolute best value and impact.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she spending international visitor levy funding to attract tourists from Australia that do not pay the international visitor levy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we’ve been very clear that we want the international visitor levy to support the tourism sector growing in a way that supports New Zealanders and so it’s our view that, right now, getting tourism numbers up is important. It’s important for every New Zealand community who has restaurants, cafes, or tourism operators that need more people coming through their doors; it’s important for all those people who would like a job but can’t get one because those businesses haven’t got the tourism numbers coming through the door; and it’s important for businesses in the future, who we want to see investing in these industries and paying their employees more. We stand by our decision to support tourism growth.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does cutting major Government spending, then announcing new spending at a fraction of what was cut, count as new spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have outlined to the member, our focus is on ensuring that where we have dollars to invest, we are investing them for their highest impact. That means putting them into areas which will actually get tourism back to the levels it was before it was decimated after the COVID-19 border closures, and that means ensuring that we’re promoting our tourism sector effectively offshore.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance to please put the Labour Party at ease and let them know that “Everybody must go” is not our view of the Labour Party?

SPEAKER: Yeah, no—that’s not a question that will be answered in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a request.

SPEAKER: Well, no. Well, it might be a request, but—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s wrong with that?

SPEAKER: Because it’s question time and you ask Ministers about their responsibility, and I don’t think she’s got too much responsibility for that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She’s a nice person. She wants to help.

SPEAKER: Oh, she’s a lovely person, but I’m sure that the Opposition know what her sentiments are on all matters relating to them.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore stronger consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): It’s progressing very well. Having banned gang patches and restored three strikes, the next step is the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. This gives sweeping changes to put more serious offenders in prison for longer, and to prevent them from creating new victims, and is getting one step closer to becoming law, set down for second reading this afternoon. This Government promised to restore real consequences for crime, and that is what we are doing.

Tom Rutherford: What will the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill do to restore stronger consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill reduces the ability for judges to massively reduce sentences for convicted criminals. There’ll be a cap on total sentencing discounts of 40 percent, and there will no longer be repeated discounts for remorse. You can’t be remorseful repeatedly. The bill also makes a number of other changes, including the addition of a range of new aggravating factors, such as for adults who offend in crimes alongside young people, such as in ram raids.

Tom Rutherford: Why is it important to restore stronger consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, because New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities. The Government is concerned that in recent years, the courts have imposed fewer prison sentences while the prevalence of serious crime increased. That’s why the Government set an ambitious target of seeing a reduction of 20,000 fewer victims of assault, robbery, and sexual assault by 2029. The data has long lead times, but early results from our work have been encouraging. There have been 24,000 fewer victims over the year ending October 2024 compared to the year ending June 2024.

Tom Rutherford: What other actions is the Government taking to restore stronger consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ve introduced legislation to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence. New laws are providing police with additional tools to disrupt gangs, and we’re already making a mark on our communities through that. We’re currently considering proposals submitted by the excellent ministerial advisory group led by Sunny Kaushal to combat retail crime. Indeed, there’s much more work to be done.

Tākuta Ferris: Given the three CEOs in Justice don’t believe that they have the capacity to reduce overrepresentation of Māori in either Justice, Police, or Corrections, will the Minister commit to setting them targets that they must achieve?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, our primary target is to reduce the number of victims of crime, and that is what this Government is focused on. As that member is well aware, sadly, Māori are more likely to be victims of crime than the general public. That is why we are absolutely focused on reducing the number of victims of crime, and that is the best thing we can do for Māori in the criminal justice system.

Question No. 7—Children

7. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to serious youth offenders and the military-style academies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which they were made at the time. I especially stand by my actions to provide funding of $30.6 million over four years to continue the fast-track youth offending programme and extend the programme to 14- to 17-year-olds, which will contribute to Government Target 3, a 15 percent reduction in the total number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What are her measures of success for the entire 12-month military-style academy (MSA) pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: My measure of its success is around making sure that our communities are safe, and we are also putting in place opportunities for young people to be the best version of themselves. What they do with that is ultimately up to them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who said, in terms of what works, that it is not putting young people into youth justice institutions for longer periods of time, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think we have to take a reality check here. These young people right now, currently, under the current legislation, are ending up in youth justice facilities. They are repeat, serious youth offenders who to qualify to be part of the MSA programme must have committed two crimes with a sentence of 10 years or more. They will end up in a youth justice facility anyway. What I am doing is making sure that when that does happen, we’re asking the questions of what we can do better for these young people.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does the Government know already that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, having longer-length residential facility time would actually be more useful?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I can say is that from the first report back, it showed that there was a positive response of the in-residence, where young people were expressing that it was helpful for them. This may be an option moving forward. That’s why the legislation allows flexibility to be able to make this programme work for them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are she and the Prime Minister withholding information about their pilot until they have passed the legislation, and then it will be too late and it will already be in law to lock young people up for longer?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I refer back to a previous answer. These young people were going to end up in a youth justice facility anyway. What we are doing is making sure that we are asking the right questions and putting the right support in place, not only for those young people but for their whānau and in the community so that they can be the best versions of themselves.

Question No. 8—Regional Development

8. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding steps the Government is taking to support regional development?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): In line with the pro-growth agenda of our Government, I recently had the pleasure of opening a new motorway interchange, building on 20 years of long-term planning and infrastructure development. I want to acknowledge Quayside Holdings, and in particular Sir Paul Adams, who over 23 years ago had a vision to grow that part of New Zealand. And with the $18 million that was allocated several years ago, it was a pleasure—with Tapuika, the tangata whenua—to open the infrastructure.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, who did that? Which Government did that?

Jamie Arbuckle: Why was the Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no, just—hang on. Start again.

Jamie Arbuckle: Why was the Government’s funding to support this interchange so critical?

Hon SHANE JONES: Of course, this takes me back to the time when New Zealand First not only led the narrative, but it’s amazing to see the concrete evidence of historical decisions that are going to open up over 148 hectares of land for industrial development—land that will be freed up as a consequence of fast-track legislation; land that includes whenua Māori belonging to a tribe called Tapuika, who hail from Polynesia. Sadly, I won’t elaborate, because the leader of Māori Party is currently up there meddling in Polynesia.

Jamie Arbuckle: How will this project benefit the wider region?

Hon SHANE JONES: The number of people employed in this project was well over 200—delivered on time. But we have greater ambitions for the area, and it was a pleasure to share the speeches with the Hon Todd McClay from Rotorua, and that’s how things should happen. It shouldn’t be just the glory of the Matua, but spread around to the people who have actually supported my narrative day after day and not tried to shoot down fast track, not tried to shoot down the application of common sense in infrastructure development.

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Yes, we’ll have the question, but the answer might just dodge the protestations of humility, which the House already understands.

Jamie Arbuckle: What other steps is the Government taking to support regional economic development?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s important that the House note that the value of the fishing industry is well over $1.6 billion. A part of that broader marine industry is aquaculture that has been turbocharged as a consequence of extending marine farming permits in those parts of New Zealand where it’s a vital industry. So it comes to me as very bleak news—and I will look into it this afternoon—that the Marlborough District Council is meddling and trying to impose their view of the law on marine farming. Marine farming represents the interests of mothers and fathers and households, and we’re not going to tolerate bureaucrats and that particular council repeating the perfidy of what they did with seabed and foreshore.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Look, on this project, enabled by the Provincial Growth Fund, did he hear Chris Hipkins just shout across the House, “Which Government did that?”; and could he please, for the umpteenth time, remind them of who did what, where, and when?

SPEAKER: Well, OK, but make it brief because it’s a bit of—he can reflect on it, but it’s history.

Hon SHANE JONES: In line with my approach, I shall be succinct and pithy. Look no further than the coalition agreement of 2017, and I would direct similar attention to 2023.

Question No. 9—Tourism and Hospitality

9. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about increasing visitor numbers to New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): On Sunday, the Prime Minister and I announced a new campaign with Tourism New Zealand, encouraging Australians to pick New Zealand for their next holiday. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, and this campaign is the first investment in our tourism boost package to bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID numbers. More visitors mean more full tables in restaurants, more bookings for local accommodation, more jobs across the country, and an overall stronger economy. A Kiwi holiday isn’t just great for visitors; it’s great for New Zealand, and we’re letting our Aussie mates know that we’re ready and waiting to welcome them now.

Carl Bates: How will targeting Australians improve overall visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just this week, new stats show a 12 percent increase in international visitor arrivals compared to December 2023. That’s an 85 percent recovery of international visitor arrivals compared to 2019. Visitor numbers from Australia are currently at about 90 percent, compared to 2019, so we know there’s more room to grow. Around 4 million Australians are already actively considering a holiday in New Zealand, and this campaign will build on this momentum and encourage more of our Aussie neighbours to book now and come on over.

Carl Bates: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of this campaign?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The benefits of growing these visitor numbers will reach beyond our cities and into our regions: 93 percent of New Zealanders see benefits from increased tourism. And it isn’t just the tourism dollars; they know as soon as someone lands on our shores, they start paying GST. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, buys dinner at a local café, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families. When tourism grows, so does our economy.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback has been fantastic. Everybody is talking about it. Hospitality New Zealand is excited to get more people enjoying New Zealand hospitality, in the pivotal role that it plays in supporting the Government’s economic growth agenda. New Zealand Airports Association has said, “This is a critical first step in growing tourism and ensuring its benefits are distributed across the economy. Increased visitor numbers translate to more spending in hospitality, greater regional development, and stronger air cargo capacity,”. Australia is the focus of this campaign, and you can expect the same energy and enthusiasm as we announce the rest of our tourism boost.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: How does she address the concerns of the community of Tekapō, who are already facing infrastructure deficits and whose ratepayers will face an inequitable burden in covering the cost of this Government’s so-called growth agenda?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve said, there are a couple of areas—Tekapō is one—where I know the mayor is concerned about it. But the reality is the majority of New Zealand recognise that we want more visitors; 93 percent of New Zealanders realise how it’s good for New Zealand, and they know it’s a critical part of growing the wealth of New Zealand.

Question No. 10—Police

10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement that being involved in organised crime and peddling drugs is not going to be tolerated in this country, and it’s going to be much tougher to do any of those things; if so, why?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yeah, absolutely, I do. We’ve heard from political parties and commentators that the gang legislation wouldn’t work and that gangs were too strong and wouldn’t comply. Gang apologists came forward, wringing their hands over gang members’ rights. This Government is focused on victims’ rights. The gang legislation has been in force for nearly three months and has changed the way gangs are policed in New Zealand. Police now control our streets, not the gangs. We have seen entire chapters of gangs dismantled by police, public gatherings policed in a way where law-abiding members of the public have their rights protected, gang members blocked from entering our country, and record drug seizures through combined efforts across Government. There is more work to be done, but I was pleased to note in recent reporting late last year, or last year, that for the first time since 2018, we have seen an annual drop in violent crime.

SPEAKER: Good, OK. We’ll go for the concise answers—they’re generally the best—and similarly with the questions.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that gangs are controlling streets in Auckland, given there has been an increase of over 9,000 grams of methamphetamine consumed a week—a surge of 129 percent in just one year?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I’m not concerned at all about the gangs controlling the streets in Auckland, because the police are doing an outstanding job in policing the gangs in Auckland, and that’s certainly the feedback that I get. I want to acknowledge my Associate Minister of Police and the Minister of Customs. We’re working very closely together on a strategy around stopping and preventing the supply chain of methamphetamine coming into our country, through her transnational crime strategy, and I’d have to say that our commissioner is in Australia as I speak, working with the commissioners over there to make sure that we reinforce our borders even more.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he think it makes New Zealanders feel safer to know that the police’s national drug waste-water testing programme for quarter three in 2024 shows methamphetamine use skyrocketing to its highest recorded level in New Zealand’s history?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I don’t know whether that’s dealers dumping methamphetamine or not. We know that we have got a problem in this country with methamphetamine. We know that it’s a wrecking ball through people’s lives in every part of society, and we’re being very clear, as the incoming Government, that we are taking action on that, and we are taking action on that. The first part of that is rolling out tough laws to allow our police to get on top of the gangs. They’ve been in place for three months, and we’re already seeing outstanding results.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What action will he take to address the Salvation Army’s state of the nation finding that police waste-water testing shows that meth consumption surged to 32.4 kilos per week in quarter four of 2024, more than doubling the average of the previous four quarters, and incurring a weekly social harm of $34 million, while charges and convictions for illicit drugs have continued to plateau?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’ll tell the member what action we’ve taken. The Auckland CBD, when we came into Government, was an absolute shambles. People didn’t feel safe being out on the streets at night, there were drug deals happening on street corners, and it was the first place that businesses coming to New Zealand often touched our country. So I’ll tell you what I did: I brought together a stakeholders group, with everyone working together: residents and ratepayers groups, business associations, social service providers, Government agencies, and the police. We’re making big progress and we’ve made massive steps in terms of making sure that our CBD is now a safer place, that we’re getting drug dealers off the streets, and that we’re starting to deal with the exact issues that proliferated under that previous Government.

SPEAKER: Now, we’re just going to calm the farm, again—too much.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister by way of reflection and on his last answer: has he taken up from a former police Minister—namely, the Hon Stuart Nash, who was getting numbers up, and here we are again—rather than the previous Minister, who had big talk but no resources to help the police in the first place?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s a good question. I think the Hon Stuart Nash was the last police Minister they had who actually cared about front-line police officers, and I think the feedback from him is that he’s very supportive of the work we’ve been doing. And I would restate again for the House that when we came into Government 12 months ago, people that lived and worked in the Auckland CBD did not want to go out in the streets after nine. We have changed that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Shanan Halbert—when your colleagues are ready for you.

Shanan Halbert: Does he liken the actions of Destiny Church at Auckland Pride last weekend the same as those of organised crime groups such as gangs; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’ve been very clear: I condemn the actions of Destiny Church in interrupting the gay pride parade the other day. We’ve always got to protect the right to peaceful protest and speech in this country, but not when it overrides the rights of other people. So I’ve condemned that. Destiny Church is not above the law, and I expect the police to investigate and treat it that way.

Shanan Halbert: How many of the 119 hate-motivated incidents of offending against the rainbow community that were reported between 24 September and 30 November 2024 were carried out by organised crime groups such as gangs, and what has he done to stop them from happening again?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d ask the member to put that into a written question for me—I don’t have those numbers—but I’d say this: I’m extremely proud—

Shanan Halbert: You gave me those numbers.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, you’re asking me how many gangs were involved in those crimes. I don’t have the number in terms of how many gangs were involved in those crimes, but the one thing I can tell you is this: regardless of who the offending is against, I’m very proud of our police service and the fact that they take assaults seriously, and they will follow up and they will investigate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How proper is it for a member to ask a question and, when the question is being answered, shout out and hold up the paper to the Minister, “You gave us the numbers.”? So he’s asking a question about numbers he already had in his hand. How professional, in a political sense and a parliamentary sense, is that?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Measure twice, cut once.

SPEAKER: We’re on a point of order. I can’t be expected to make an assessment of any member’s ability to assess the information they’ve got and then make claims about it, and I know that the Hon Mark Mitchell made the point that the information that was asked for was not on those papers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he hope to make New Zealanders feel safer when it has become easier for gangs to peddle drugs on our streets and when communities in Auckland continue to be intimidated by people wearing patches?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, we’ve made sentencing tougher. We’ve returned the three-strikes legislation. We’ve just brought in very tough gang legislation to allow the police to be far more effective in dealing with the gangs, and the reality of it is that gangs are the driving force behind the organisation, the global networks, the importation, and the distribution of drugs.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to build the infrastructure that Kiwis need to get ahead. We know the big difference that our roads of national significance have made to communities up and down the country—whether it’s the Waikato Expressway or the Kāpiti Expressway. That’s why it’s so exciting to see that construction on Takitimu North Link stage one—a four-lane expressway between Tauranga and Te Puna—is now past the halfway point. So we know there’s $33 billion set aside in our National Land Transport Programme. The good news is more regions are going to get more roads that will benefit investment, drive growth, and keep money in Kiwis’ pockets. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before the member asks the question, both sides are going to calm down. The Government affirmations of the Prime Minister’s statements are not elucidating on the answer he’s actually given at all.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does extracting and burning coal make climate change better or worse?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say, having an oil and gas ban that that member signed up for, which has led us to import in huge amounts of Indonesian coal—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Oh, that’s rubbish!

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —to keep our lights on when we don’t have rain and wind in this economy isn’t good. We would like it to be gas—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Show some leadership.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —because that’s better than coal. But, actually, when you’ve got a renewable energy mix at 85 to 87 percent, you need to keep the lights on and we’re not going to have the situation we had last winter.

SPEAKER: The member over here needs to bid for a question if she wants to keep making those contributions, which are unhelpful to the actual questioner’s line of questioning.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is coal a mineral?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can tell you is coal, in the case of not having gas and not having renewables working, is an important aspect of our energy plan.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why has he added coal to the critical minerals list when coal is not a mineral but a fossil fuel?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I mean, I think the Minister’s done a very good job, actually, identifying 37 critical minerals, of which 21 of them we think are actually in this country. Importantly, coal and metallurgical coal and gold are actually really important for our mining industry.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he aware that the coal set to be mined by just one of his fast-track projects would increase emissions by 66.5 million tonnes, meanwhile his latest international commitment to reduce emissions is just 42 million tonnes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say to that member: the bumper sticker of the Labour-Greens Government of ending the oil and gas ban led to wholesale electricity prices of $1,500 last winter. That actually put huge pressure on businesses and people lost their jobs on the back of that. So, actually, a consistent, good energy policy that actually helps grow our economy, doubles the amount of renewables we have in it, but keeps our lights on with affordable, abundant electricity is exactly what we’re doing in this Government.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm, as a consequence of the cancellation of the oil and gas industry, that over $1 million worth of coal will be imported from Indonesia to enable people to actually enjoy energy security this year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. Again, it wouldn’t need to be that way if the previous Government had a proper energy policy instead of a bumper sticker.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister think that Rod Carr, former chair of the Climate Change Commission, in his final hearing before this Parliament, said that those who promote the combustion of fossil fuels are “committing crimes against humanity”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, this is an outrageous conversation we’re actually having here, because this country needs to grow. We need to have economic growth. Are the Greens not for economic growth? I mean, what’s the position? You have to grow an economy. You need to have energy to do it. And we need to make sure we make it affordable, abundant, and we’re not having $1,500 wholesale electricity prices next year—period. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I think the balance of this question is going to be heard—[Interruption] Sorry, there’s quite a bit of noise in the galleries. Could we just keep the conversations down up in the galleries. We’ll hear the rest of this question in total silence, apart from the person asking the question and the person answering.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that parliamentary activities, including the member for Auckland Central commuting to work by aeroplane every week, contributes to climate change?

SPEAKER: No, he has no responsibility for the travel plans of any other members of Parliament.

Question No. 12—Conservation

12. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about conservation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): E te Māngai o te Whare. [Member’s glass knocked over]

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, that wouldn’t have happened if the member wasn’t so intent on having a conversation across the House.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Inanahi—yesterday—I announced a $30 million investment from the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy to fund more than a dozen projects to boost biodiversity—kanorautanga—and manuhiri infrastructure in tourism. Tourism is a key critical economic driver, and nature, alongside culture, are our biggest drawcards for international tourists. Around 50 percent of tourists—manuhiri—cite it as their primary reason for coming here, and about 50 percent of international tourists visit our iconic national parks.

Katie Nimon: What are the benefits for biodiversity?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are investing $19 million into protecting biodiversity by reducing the spread of pests, predators, and weeds. This includes stopping the spread of wallabies in renowned and spectacular places like the Te Arawa Lakes district; managing deer and goat populations, especially nanny goats, in national parks and visitor areas like the Kaimanawa Range to allow nature to thrive; targeted predator control to protect native species, especially the critically endangered tuturuatu, or southern dotterel birds, in Rakiura National Park; and stopping and removing wilding pines from our majestic landscapes like the Mackenzie Country.

Katie Nimon: What are the benefits for tourism?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Tourism is a critical part of this Government’s focus on economic growth and supports nearly 200,000 jobs—and, might I say, 15,000 jobs in Māori tourism businesses. Improving tourism infrastructure is good for the economy, helping export receipts and mahi. To manage pressures at our most popular visitor sites, the Government is investing $11 million, including upgrades to huts in Aoraki / Mount Cook; Rangitoto Island, Ngā Pona-toru-a-Peretū; and Motutapu Island, Te Motutapu a Taikehu; safety upgrades to various cable structures including suspension and swing bridges—we’ll build those and get through them—and investment at Goat Island, Te Hāwere-a-Maki, to improve beach access, car-parking, and reflect the area’s significant cultural heritage. “Mook” Hohneck will be pleased. These investments will help a top-notch manuhiri experience at some of our most popular visitor sites.

Katie Nimon: What are the benefits for international visitors?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Our manuhiri infrastructure is not keeping pace with growing tourist numbers or providing the experiences expected at world-renowned sites like Aoraki and Tongariro. Investments in improving visitor or manuhiri experiences benefit international tourists and all New Zealanders now and into the future for their health and safety, their recreation, and their wairua. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister confirm that the conservation estate has a great role to play in our pro-growth agenda, including the accelerated pace at which concessions are going to be made available to private investors on the Department of Conservation estate, not blighted by troublemakers?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I look forward to engaging with nearly 30 percent of the entire whenua of Aotearoa to generate more revenue, and to do that in an appropriate manner with reference to iwi and hapū relationships, speeding up concessions and ensuring expedited, appropriate statutory planning.

Bills

Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill

Second Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I move, That the Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill be now read a second time.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedules 1 and 3. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Vesting of Ō-Rākau site and related matters

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 19, “Vesting of Ō-Rākau site and related matters”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Bills

e Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I present a legislative statement on T

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill be now read a third time.

E ua e te ua, e tāheke koe i runga rā

Ko au i raro nei, riringi ai

He ua kei aku kamo.

[Let the rain fall, you cascade above

While I am below, pouring out

Like rain from my eyes.]

E te hunga ngaro, koutou e moe mai rā ki tua o tinitini, ki tua o manomano. Ki a rātou katoa, Matua Harold mā, Matua Denny mā o te wā o te kaupeka o te marama, katoa atu rātou ngā tūpuna o te pō, haere oti atu rā.

Oti atu rā ki tō tātou Kiingi o te Kotahitanga, Kiingi Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII. Ka mate tētēkura, ka ara mai tētēkura, tō tātou kuīni, koutou e whakakanohi nei i te kahukiwi a tūpuna mātua. Koutou Ngā Ahi e Toru, koutou ngā mātua, ngā ruahine, ngā ruanuku, ngā ruruhi, ngā koroheke, ngā rangatakapū me ngā rangatahi kua haramai i ngā kura kāreti o Waikato, nau mai, nau piki mai, nau kake mai, nau ora mai, nau kawe mai, nau whanaunga mai.

[To those who have been lost, you who sleep beyond the multitudes, beyond the innumerable. To all of them, Matua Harold, Matua Denny, and others who passed recently, this season, this month, all of them, the ancestors of the night, go and take your final rest.

Take your final rest with our King of Unity, King Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII. As leaders pass on, new leadership arises, our Queen, you who represent the kiwi feather mantle of our ancestors and forebears. You, Ngā Ahi e Toru, you the parents, the lady and gentlemen experts, the matriarchs, the patriarchs, the knowledgeable young adults and youth that have come from the colleges of Waikato, welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome in good health, welcome with all you bring, welcome in kinship.]

In October 2023, the Crown, together with Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui, signed te Whakaaetanga Whakataunga mō Ō-Rākau, te Pae o Maumahara/the Deed of Agreement Relating to the Ō-Rākau Site, providing for the transfer of the Ō-Rākau Pā site, often referred to in my whānau as the Ō-Rākau Paewai site. Last April, the House held the first reading of this bill. To the many members and the many whānau, uncles, aunties, fathers-in-law—I was about to say sons-in-law; I’m not quite there yet—mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, and others who have worked tirelessly for many, many years on the backs of the aspirations of our tūpuna matua, who have worked closely to return the whenua at Ō-Rākau and honour our tūpuna with those connections to that whenua—it’s required an immense amount of work, and I acknowledge the contributions of various representatives of Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato-Tainui, and indeed all hapū, iwi, and whānau who have worked with Crown officials to make this happen.

I acknowledge the other iwi, and mihi out to Ngāti Manawa, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Te Kohera, Ngāti Whare, Te Arawa, the iwi and hapū of Te Wairoa and Te Tairāwhiti who are part of, and represented in, the battle with people such as Hine-i-turama and, of course, the whānau of Ahumai, Hone Teri, and Hitiri Te Paerata.

I wish to acknowledge the late Kiingi Tuheitia for his tireless leadership of this kaupapa and, indeed, many, many kaupapa. I’m reminded of his words last year:

Ia rā, ia wā, me Māori koe, e kore tātou e mate.

To Kuīni Nga wai hono i te Po, te kāhui ariki, te Tumuaki and others, nōku te ngākau iti rawa me te ngākau hūmārie ki te tuku i tēnei pire kia tae ki tōna whakarurunga i te taha o te tāmoko a te Kāwana-Tianara.

[Every day, all the time, you should be Māori, we will not die.  

To Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, the royal family, the Kingmaker and others, in diffidence and humility I present this bill for royal decree alongside the signature of the Governor-General.]  

Ō-Rākau on 31 March 1864 was one of the most significant events in history—and her-story—of Aotearoa New Zealand, Ō-Rākau being the last battle in the war in the campaign of the Crown in Waikato. Compounding the loss of life experienced by whānau, hapū, and iwi who fought there was the loss of whenua itself. The year after the battle, in this Whare, the Crown confiscated hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the Waikato—1.2-plus million acres—similar in nature to our whānau in Taranaki, including the site at Ō-Rākau.

The historical context for this legislation recognises a national turning point. The three-day battle that began at

This legislation seeks to return the whenua te whenua i rere ai te toto

[the land on which blood flowed] to those who were present, those that were there on the day, during the battle, or had traditional connections or hononga to that whenua.

As a country, we have not always recognised the complexity and significance of the New Zealand wars to our nation’s history, and for many years many of our communities forgot about those wars, but some of us always retained that memory. We have all these battle sites around the world that we commemorated, and it’s through the work of Leah, Marama, and others that ensured we now have a wreath that celebrates, commemorates, and acknowledges the New Zealand Wars.

E mihi ana ki ērā wāhine tokorua, engari Te Kāreti o Ōtorohanga me ngā kāreti tautoko. E kore e taea te whakapuaki i aku mihi.

[I acknowledge those two ladies, but also Ōtorohanga College and the other colleges in support. My thanks will never be able to fully flourish.]

Ō-Rākau site for themselves, ā-tinana, ā-kanohi [in person, with their own eyes], to see and feel for themselves the profound importance of this place. I acknowledge and thank the members of the committee for their diligence and for their mahi, and I thank the many who made submissions and brought forward the names of tūpuna to be recorded in the legislation. I mihi out to our uncles and aunties, Dr Robert Joseph, and others who have done that tireless work—and it hasn’t finished. I’m sure in the future we will also find other tūpuna who we forgot or who didn’t quite make it into this legislation, and we can add them.

The inclusion of the word “remembrance” in the title of this bill speaks to this legislation’s part, and growing commitment, in this country to acknowledging and remembering the past. The House first read this bill last April; since then, the Māori Affairs Committee has heard submissions at Pārāwera Marae and travelled to the

They heard, as many of you will know, those

whakataukī that are connected with the site.

Ki te mate ngā tāne, me mate anō ngā wāhine me ngā tamariki. Ka whawhai tonu mātou āke, āke, āke.

Kāore e mau te rongo āke, āke, āke.

[If the men are to die, the women and children should also die. We will continue to fight for ever and ever.

Peace will never last for ever and ever.]

And, in my reflection, ko te utu he toto, he whenua; ko te whakautu he tuohu, he whakapāha, he whenua. [the price is blood and land; the response is to bow, an apology and land.]

I thank those who hosted our committee members, our fellow MPs, those at Pārāwera and elsewhere.

The bill vests title to this 9.7 hectare site, 5 kilometres east of Kihikihi, in those tūpuna of Ō-Rākau, the ancestors of Ō-Rākau. This unique arrangement acknowledges those that fought and were present at the battle and have those hononga—connections—to the land, not only those tūpuna from Ngā Ahi e Toru but tūpuna from throughout various iwi, those who went in support, in tautoko, of mana motuhake and rangatiratanga.

Ō-Rākau.

The battle site will be managed by a body representing the descendants of those tūpuna as well as their whānau, hapū, and iwi. The Crown is also providing some pūtea to support groups and rōpū who have connections to this site and to tell their stories, share their experiences, convey their whakaaro on the history and her-story of

Alongside its national importance, there are many whānau, hapū, and iwi for whom this site carries a very deep personal significance, because they descend from the traditional owners of the land or from those that took part in defending Ō-Rākau. I know some of those descendants who are not here today—like Uncle Harold, Uncle Denny, and others—many of them have passed on and they are represented here today by many of you, all of you, actually, who are represented here today and the many descendants throughout Aotearoa and indeed throughout the world, including, might I add,

my three children, one of whom, Tiaria, is named after one of her tūpuna.

I sincerely hope that the management and ownership arrangements in this bill provide a model for those connections to be appropriately recognised and honoured, and, as I said in the pō’hiri earlier today, it provides an important and possibly exemplary example of other mahi that is to come.

The next steps: the site, once this bill is passed, will transfer 21 working days after the Royal assent by our Governor-General, Cindy Kiro, which will provide for it to be vested before the 161st anniversary of this battle.

Te matua, Tame, Tuku, koutou ngā kākahi whakairoiro, ngā kahikatea me ngā tōtara haemata o Ngā Ahi e Toru, koutou ngā kākā kura, ngā manu kārearea a ngā iwi katoa, a ngā whānau katoa i tautoko atu i ēnei mahi rangatira. E kore e taea te kawe i aku whakaaro katoa e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira, tēnei kaupapa whakaharahara.

Engari nāku te kōrero, nā ngā tūpuna hoki i whakamāunu te waka. Nā tō tātou kīngi, a Tuheitia, katoa me koutou, e te matua Muraahi, i whakaputa ki waho moana. I riro māku me ēnei nā kia kore ia e riro ki te korokoro o Te Parata, engari te whakahoki ki uta, ki uta, ki uta, ki reira whakatairanga ai.

Tēnā tātou katoa.

[The patriarch, Tame, Tuku, you the finely adorned leaders, the luminaries and eminent personages of Ngā Ahi e Toru, you the eloquent spokespeople, the fierce guardians of all iwi, of all whānau that supported this noble work. All my thoughts regarding this grand enterprise, this great initiative, cannot be conveyed.

However, as I have said, it was the ancestors that launched the canoe. It was our king, Tuheitia, alongside all of you, Mr Muraahi, that sailed it out to sea. And it has fallen to me and these here to not allow it to fall to calamity, but instead to return it to shore, inland, to its destination, there to be raised up.]

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tū ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i tāna pānuitanga tuatoru ki roto i te Whare i te rā nei. Ka whai atu anō au i ngā taumata kōrero i whakaritehia e tōku tupuna, ā, i tōku tuakana, a Tama Potaka, ko te whakaaro nui ki te hunga kua riro atu ki te pō. E tōku whaea, e te Makau Ariki, ka kite atu ahau i a koe, ka whai whakaaro tō tamaiti ki tōku matua, ki te Kīngi kua riro atu ki te pō. Ka tāpae ake ki runga i tana waka tīwaewae te tini me te mano kua riro atu ki roto i ngā marama tata kua pahure ake nei, tau iho mai nei ki te tau hou a te Pākehā, ana i te rironga o tō tātau whaea a Tariana, ana huri tū atu ki te tairāwhiti ki tō tātau whaea, ki a Iritana. Kāti, ko rātau katoa tēnā e kawea nei i ngā kaupapa Māori, ahakoa ka ahu mai te kaupapa i hea, ahakoa ka tau te kaupapa i hea, ka whai whakaaro ake te hunga ora ki te Wāhi Ngaro, anā ki te momo o ērā rangatira i riro atu ki tua o te ārai. Nō reira, e ngā mana nui, e ngā tapu nui, e ngā tini whanaunga huri noa i tō tātau whare, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. Whakatau mai rā koutou ki roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei kaupapa, me te mea anō hoki ka rongo atu ahau i ngā roimata kua māringi iho mai nei i ngā kamo o tōku tuakana, a Tama. Koinā te āhuatanga mehemea ka noho mai he Māori ki roto ki tēnei whare, te Whare i tāhae i tō tātau whenua, te Whare kua roa rawa e pēhi ana i ngā kōrero a ngā mātua tūpuna kia mate rā anō.

Nō reira ka rongo atu ahau i te kōrero a tōku tuakana, a Tama Potaka, me te tautoko ake i ngā kōrero e whakatau nei i a koutou, e ngā mana nui, e ngā tapu nui, e ngā hapū, ngā iwi maha kei roto i a koutou, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai. E tika ana ka tautoko ake i te kōrero a tōku tuakana, a Tama Potaka, mō te āhuatanga mō ā tātau rangatahi, nā rātau te petihana i kawea mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata e hia nei tau ki muri. Ki runga i te karanga o tōku tuakana, ka kite atu ahau i a Paraone, tōku matua nei a Kaawhia, hōmai he rā. Nā, ka tau mai te petihana ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare, e te Māngai o te Whare, ana i reira ahau me ētahi atu kei roto i te Whare nei. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ki ā tātau rangatahi e kowhita nei, e kowhita tonu nei i te ahi o maumahara ki roto i a tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to support this bill at its third reading in the House today. I follow the standards of speech set by my ancestor, oh, my elder brother, Tama Potaka, in terms of recognition of the people who have passed into the night. To my mother, Makau Ariki, I see you there and your child thinks of my parent, the late King. We load upon his mourning waka the multitudes who have departed over recent months, right through to the Pākehā new year, including the passing of our matriarch Tariana, and turning to the east coast, to our matriarch, Iritana. They were stalwarts within Māori affairs, regardless of where an issue arose and where it landed, the living turn our thoughts to the Afterworld, that is, to the calibre of the leaders who have passed beyond. Therefore, to the great authorities, to the sacred, to the many kinspeople around our House, welcome, welcome, welcome. Welcome to you within the nature of this matter, as I hear the tears that have fallen from the eyes of my elder brother, Tama. That is the nature of things. If Māori come into this House, the House that stole our land, the House that has suppressed the narratives of our parents and ancestors until they disappeared.

Thus, I hear the speech of my elder brother, Tama Potaka, and I endorse his comments of welcome to you, the great authorities, the sacred ones, the many hapū and tribes among you, welcome, welcome, welcome. It is appropriate to support the words of my elder brother Tama Potaka with regard to our young people, who brought the petition before the Parliament so many years before. Based on my elder brother’s call, I recognise Paraone, my parent Kaawhia, give a day. Now, when the petition was presented to this House, I was there together with some other members in the House. Thus, I acknowledge our young people who are continuing to ignite the fire of remembrance within us.]

I acknowledge the reference that the Minister made to our young people who carried the petition here to Parliament, which indeed paved the way for not just this bill but discussions around battle places, battle sites of significance, in Aotearoa from the top of the North to the bottom of the South. I can say that before coming in here, I was the chairperson of the Ruapekapeka Pā, or battle site, in the Far North and had the good fortune of meeting a number of people who were directly linked to this particular bill—namely my matua Kaawhia Muraahi and a few others who continue to drive a kaupapa.

In acknowledging those young New Zealanders—our young Māori, our young community leaders—I do want to acknowledge the likes of Kaawhia Muraahi; I do want to acknowledge the likes of Mr Tom Roa and so many others who, when it wasn’t in vogue to continue to teach the stories of our ancestors, continued to hold the mauri and the fire within not just them but so many others who are no longer with us here today. If it wasn’t for them, their stories, their knowledge, the words and deeds of our ancestors could have been forgotten to time. But we are lucky to have people like them who have continued to support the voices of our ancestors into today and, of course, into the future. So in acknowledging our young people, I want to acknowledge our old people too.

I too was here when we unveiled the memorial plaque in the House, here in the Chamber, and it was once again the likes of our strong iwi of Waikato, Maniapoto, and many others from right across the country who came here to unveil that, to acknowledge just how important it is to remember these stories. This bill does that, and I hope that it also proves itself to be a mechanism or at least a pathway to allow so many other important battle sites across the country to gain similar or same recognition.

I think of the many from where I come from in the Far North to the many across the Waikato and right across the country, Bay of Plenty, so many other places where we know that if actions weren’t taken—by, in particular, Māori ancestors but I will also say Pākehā farmers—to protect this land, it wouldn’t have happened. It just simply would not have happened. For the many people who drive on the roads around this country, they’ll drive past these places without giving it a second thought. But it was the deeds of so many that made sure that now not only is Ō-Rākau on the map, so too is Kihikihi. I’d never been to Kihikihi—ha, ha! In fact, I was talking to my tuakana Rawiri Waititi about Kihikihi and he thought it was at the back of the marae!

None the less, what it does, not just for Ō-Rākau, the site itself, but, more importantly, is ensure the stories and the rich tapestry of heritage that all of the tribes and all of those of our ancestors who participated at Ō-Rākau will be heard; will continue to be a part of a story that doesn’t limit itself to Ō-Rākau alone. In fact, it stretches to the many places that the Minister referred to in his contribution in the third reading here; from as far across to the East Coast to further north to further south, that entire story can now be spoken of, celebrated, and indeed acknowledged here by the passing of this bill.

I was fortunate to have been subbed on to the Māori Affairs Committee when the committee went to the marae at Pārāwera and also had the opportunity to walk across the hallowed lands at the battle site of Ō-Rākau, and I want to thank the people who hosted us humbly and with a great aroha to share their stories. I recall a number of the submissions where tears were flowing. It’s really hard as a committee member—whether you’re Māori or whether you’re Pākehā—to sit there and hear these stories. And I remember looking across members of the committee thinking, “Man, we’ve got an opportunity to do something really important.” That doesn’t always happen when you’re a member of Parliament. I can tell you that some of the members across the House sit on the committee and think, “By crikey, what is it we’re doing here again?” But this one was special.

Perhaps a word of advice to this Government, as we’ve seen a whole number of bills that impact on Māori and indeed this nation as they have been pushed through the submission process: perhaps we should take more to the marae, where our people can be heard; where the issues that they raise can be actually heard and felt, as it was for myself and the committee members on Pārāwera Marae that day. Not only was it confronting and it was passionate but it was also delivered with so much humility that for somebody like myself and my tūpuna who weren’t at the Battle of Ō-Rākau, I could feel it. So I leave that suggestion on the floor for this Government to consider as we look at so many other bills currently going through—and future bills. Let’s take them to the marae. Zoom committee meetings just aren’t good enough, and I think our people, and New Zealanders right across, deserve so much more.

In the final minute, I cast my mind back to that call for hōmai he rā. [give a day] The call that asked to give recognition and the day in this country to commemorate the many battles that took place. I attended a number of those wānanga—in fact, unwittingly, I must have popped out to go and make a phone call but when I came back in, I was the chairperson! It wasn’t for long as I had entered Parliament and then ended up having to step down and pass it on to others. But the importance for us to continue to remember and commemorate those battles—key battles, small battles, battles of large significance across the country—is really important. One of the key ways we can do that, in encouraging our young people to continue to carry on those stories in that rich tapestry of our heritage and our history, is we must continue to support local stories and local communities for local people. It starts there and then, once it grows, it’ll spread its aroha and its wisdom to everybody right across Aotearoa and across international shores. I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to support this bill in its third reading.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi to the descendants of the tūpuna o ŌRākau, who are here today in the House. As I scrambled my way to the House this morning in the rain, I was trying to think where I would find a peach. I didn’t have time to get one, and I showed up in the kitchen of the Green Party office and there was a bowl of heritage peaches—thank you to Celia Wade-Brown. These are an old variety of peaches. I have three here for Ngā Ahi e Toru Ō-Rākau: Maniapoto, Tainui, and Raukawa.

The Battle of Ō-Rākau was fought in a peach grove. The reason for it being fought in a peach grove planted by the iwi was because the land on which the peaches grew was the aim of the invaders of the Waikato. Also, when the munitions ran out in the pā at Ō-Rākau, where 300 defended—men, women, and children—they were forced to use peach stones to arm the muskets against Cameron’s army, which outnumbered them by five times and had rifles and had cannons.

Rewi Maniapoto was a reluctant battler. Waikato was the granary of the North Island. The wife of the Chief Justice—Mary Martin—observed, when she visited there in the 1840s, that the women sat under trees, sewing flour bags while healthy children and babies swarmed around. Governor Grey himself visited the district in 1849 and he said that he had never seen a more thriving or contented population in any part of the world—he had never seen a more thriving and contented population in any part of the world. There were wheat fields and peach groves as far as the eye could see. It is that very same Governor Grey who led the deliberate war of conquest of the Waikato to steal that abundance from tangata whenua Māori. That is the reason for the Waikato invasion, egged on by the entrepreneurs of Auckland.

I watched a movie last night that I have been wanting to watch for some time, and I could justify it on the basis of it being my job. The movie was Ka Whawhai Tonu. It is a very moving account of the Battle of Ō-Rākau. I recommend all members of the House and members of the country to go and see that movie. I understand that some of the actors in the movie were endorsed by the descendants of those who fought at Ō-Rākau, to represent their ancestors. It occurred to me that those actors who played the British soldiers on the other side are also potentially descendants of those who fought at Ō-Rākau, or perhaps they are descended from the settlers who were the beneficiaries of the spoils of war of the Waikato invasion. It occurs to me that we of British descent—we New Zealanders—must own our part in the Battle of Ō-Rākau and in the Waikato Wars. We cannot be responsible personally for the actions of our ancestors, but we must account for the consequences of those actions, and we must, for the good of our descendants, seek to dull the blood on our hands.

That may seem like strong words, but let us recall that the consequences of the Waikato invasion was the loss of land, a profound consequence for iwi Māori. And I just want to recount that there was little to be found—in fact I would say nothing to be found—of honour on the British side. The worst atrocities in the New Zealand Wars were committed in Waikato and Bay of Plenty in the 1860s. And if we are to account for those atrocities—even those at the time knew how bad it was. A correspondent for the New Zealander newspaper reported that at Ō-Rākau—and forgive me for recounting this story, because it is not words that we want to hear—many women were slaughtered and many children were slain. These were amongst the trophies, as he called it, of ŌRākau, and civilisation, as he called it, in pursuit, as it returned from the chase, amused itself by shooting the wounded as they lay upon the ground. It’s grisly stuff, it’s terrible stuff, but it is the truth of our history.

As a 55-year-old, I know that 55 years is a very short time, and 1864 is recent history. There’s a gentleman here today—a kaumātua—who was raised by his grandmother, who was a child at the Battle of Ō-Rākau, if I understand correctly. That’s how recent this history is.

For us to account for that history and make good on it—in the words of Vincent O’Malley, “acknowledging this difficult history is not a recipe for endless division and recrimination, as some critics like to allege, but rather a precondition for genuine reconciliation. Owning up to our troubled past requires guts and grit. … it is an essential step in the process of maturing as a society.”

If the objective of the invasion was land, then, surely, the recompense must be the return of land. Let’s recall that 10 days after, after the Rangiaowhia horrors, the surveyors were in Kihikihi, dividing up the land and giving it out to the soldiers who’d fought in the battle—10 days. It is 161 years since the Battle of Ō-Rākau, and finally, here today, we are returning a portion of that land. We must be bold as a nation and be willing to return more. This is for the good of all of us—for the good of justice for Māori, for the good of the cohesion of our nation. We as tangata Tiriti must be endorsing and supporting of hoki whenua mai, the return of land to tangata whenua Māori. Why are we so afraid of giving the land back? Maybe it would be planted in wheat fields and olive groves again, and for somebody who’s got a problem with too many dairy cows, I would be happy if the Waikato became wheat fields and olive groves again—olive groves, did I say? I meant peach groves.

“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” is the famous saying of Martin Luther King. I don’t think it is inevitable that it bends towards justice; I believe it is us who must bend that arc towards justice. We must take active actions to do that. On this day, some drop of justice is done—some small drop, which is like fresh water—to make amends for the unjust blood spilt at Ō-Rākau. May that drop of justice become a stream of justice; may it become a river of justice for Māori in this land. For the good of all of our sakes, hoki whenua mai. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in favour of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill.

It dawns on me quite strongly that my first name is shared with General Cameron, who was the General in charge of the Waikato War. This is something that I’ve been aware of my entire life, being from Tauranga, with Cameron Rd running down the middle. No doubt, many of us in this room right now also recognise that once the battles had ceased in Waikato, across the Kaimai, they went to Tauranga where we had Pukehinahina and Te Ranga battle sites. I’d like to start with that, just to get that out of the way, and then welcome Ngā Ahi e Toru—Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato—representatives to this room to receive this or to hear what is being given out and receive what we’re trying to say in this House, which I think is that we are, as a Crown, recognising the blood on our hands—perhaps, as the previous speaker, Steve Abel, would say; I am going to quibble and say I don’t want to hear someone say there’s blood on my children’s hands. I don’t think that’s going to help, so I repudiate that, but I do think the Crown has got a debt to pay and this is a very small part of paying it.

I’m quite honoured to follow the Hon Peeni Henare in his speech where he described going to Kihikihi and out to Ō-Rākau. I made an effort as a younger kid. I got a car when I was probably too young to have one and spent a lot of time not in school, and one of the things that I did was I took an interest in battle sites in New Zealand. I remember finding the Battle of Te Ranga, and I felt like I discovered something, because I had to find these old maps and things and then break through a hedgerow off the highway out the back of Pyes Pā, to find an overgrown cow paddock with some bumps in it, and a concrete plinth that marked that site. I’m glad to see that, today, that site is getting more recognition, and the Bay of Plenty councils and others are putting an effort into commemorating that site in a proper way.

I had the same experience at Ō-Rākau where, as a builder, I was working in Waitomo and driving that road quite a lot—this is pre-politics—and I took an effort to find sites and go and visit them. I remember Ō-Rākau, and I thought, “Is this really this massive battle, this important place, this place where so much history unfolded for two cultures and one country?”, because all I saw was a plinth in a car park and a few little plaques.

I went to Ō-Rākau. Actually, I’d recommend that anyone in this House—there’s a lot of members in this House who go to Fieldays every year; it’s not far out of the way. You should go and visit. I did that again this year at Fieldays, while I was over there. I thought how I hoped that this part of the House, the Crown giving this land, vesting it, as it were, in the rightful guardians, will mean that the site will get the—so it’s not just a young kid, wagging school, trying to learn about the history of New Zealand and probably getting a better job of it than I was at the time in school. I hope that this site will be brought up to a place where New Zealanders will learn and remember what happened in New Zealand’s history and start that path, which we are only just starting, on making sure that this country can be somewhere where people can look each other in the eye perhaps, and not feel ashamed of what has happened before.

It’s moving to have heard the stories of the select committee going to marae and seeing, face to face, the people who clearly feel the wounds of today that were inflicted on their tūpuna of the past. I wish I could have been there; I could only imagine what that would have felt like, but as the previous speakers have said, this is probably one step in recognising more of New Zealand’s history, in particular the Land Wars, and I think that, hopefully, I will have an opportunity to be at one of these events in the future.

I suppose I’ll just finish by saying that this is something that the ACT Party supports because it continues New Zealand on a path where we recognise our history and come together as a people for the betterment of the future, but recognising and acknowledging the past and the mamae, the pain, that is still with us to this day. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Te Reo Māori. E ngā mātāwaka, e ngā kahurangi, e ngā taiawatea, e ngā maiangi, e ngā kaihautū o tēnei kaupapa, tō koutou waka kua ū mai ki te ākau tōrangapū e kīia nei ko te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koutou ka tae mai kia tū tahi mō te whakatutukitanga o tēnei pire.

Tō mua, me mihi ki te kapa tamariki nā rātau te kaupapa nei i waha i roto i ngā tau pahemo tata ake nei. Nōku i te tamariki kāhore he tamariki pērā i roto i ngā kura i kurangia ai mātau. Tua atu i tēnā, me mihi atu ki te kapa o ngā ringa raupā i āta whakamākuku i te purapura i waenga tonu i ō koutou hapū, i waenga tonu i te hapori Pākehā, hapori Māori mēnā e taea rānei tēnei kaupapa kia ea ai. Arā noa atu a Kaawhia, arā noa atu a Tāme, a Kataraina, a Maniapoto i raro i te takinga a Te Matakaheru me tērā tuakana ōku, a Tuku. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

Nōku i te kura i Tipene, i tae atu tō mātau kura ā-kanohi, ā-tinana ki te wāhi e whakatairangatia ana i tēnei rā. Otirā e rua kē ngā wāhi i tae ai mātau: tō mua, ko Ō-Rākau, tō muri ko te rākau e kīia nei, ko Huipūtea. Nā te pōhauhau o te kamupene hiko te rākau tūturu i kīia ai ko Huipūtea i turakina. I reira tō koutou ruānuku, a Hēnare Tūwhāngai, tā te mea tāna mokopuna he mea kura tahi me mātau. Kātahi ka whakamāramatia mai e tērā tohunga, e tērā mārohirohi, te tātai o taua rākau. I waenga tonu i a Ngāpuhi, ko te kupu mō Te Wherowhero, ko Te Kiripakapaka. Hei āta panipani tana tinana ki te hinu, ki te uku, tāna rite he wherowhero. Ka hopukina engari horekau i mau. Ka arumia, horekau i mau. Ka puta, katahi ka tatū i a Ngapuhi, kua ngā te hiahia. Te mate kē o tōku tupuna, o Hongi Hika, e kore rawa atu e ngā. Kātahi ka kī atu a Te Kanawa ki te ariki o Hokianga, ki a Pōroa, me rapu me pēhea rānei tētahi hurumanu e ea ai. Ka kī atu a Pōroa ki a Hongi, hei a koe tēnei rā, hei ahau te pō me te rangi kei tua, ka houhia te rongo. He korenga nō taku tupuna, a Huipūtea, i whai, ka tūpono atu ki ngā wāhine ātaahua o roto i a Tainui. I roto i te pō, ka whakakoretakengia ngā toa o Ngāpuhi. Ka hokihoki mai ngā tama tāne i roto i a Waikato, ka pau katoa a Ngāpuhi i te patupatu, te hunga i poka noa ai ki te whakakāhore i te kupu i oti i tōku ariki, i a Pōroa e kīia nei ko te hurumanu. I muri mai, ka tonoa e Te Wherowhero te kōtiro a Kati kia whakamoea mārikatia ki te tamaiti a Rewa, te tuakana o Hongi Hika. Ka mau te rongo, ka mau te rongo, ka mau te rongo. Tēnā koutou, e Waikato, i haere mai ai, e kara, e Tame, i te wā i whakakaupapatia ai tēnā mahi ki Kerikeri nō roto i ngā tau pahure tata ake nei.

Pai kē me hakaputa e ahau ērā tātai kōrero, tā te mea me kaua te tangata e titiro ki Ō-Rākau ānakenake. Arā noa atu te ātaahua o ngā kōrero kei waenga tonu i a tātau, a Māori. Me ū unuki tātau ki aua kupu kia kaua rawa atu e waiho ko ēnei mahi ānakenake e kīia ai tātau he hunga taketake. Nā reira, mihi atu ki te hunga nā rātau te kaupapa nei i whakatairanga.

[In Māori. To the many people, the precious ones, the rising generations, the leaders of this initiative, your canoe has reached the political bay known as the Parliament House, greetings as we come together for the completion of this bill.

First, I should acknowledge the group of young people who carried this initiative over recent years. When I was a youngster, there were no young people like this at the schools that we attended. Further to that, I acknowledge the group of toilers who watered the seed within your hapū, within the Pākehā community and the Māori community to seek to carry this initiative to its conclusion. There is Kaawhia, there is Tāme, Kataraina, Maniapoto, under the tutelage of Te Matakaheru and my older brother, Tuku. Greetings to you and to us all.

When I was at school at St Stephens, our school visited the site we are celebrating today in person. That is, we went to two places: first was Ō-Rākau, after that was the tree known as Huipūtea. Through the thoughtlessness of an electricity company, the original tree known as Huipūtea was cut down. Your sage, Hēnare Tūwhāngai, was there at that time, because his grandson went to school with us. Thus, the expert tōhunga explained to us the history of the tree. Within Ngāpuhi, Te Wherowhero is known as Te Kiripakapaka. He covered his body in oil and clay and looked reddish. He was captured but not held. He was chased but not caught. He escaped and came upon Ngāpuhi, who had satisfied their desire. The problem with my ancestor, Hongi Hika, was that he was never satisfied. Thus, Te Kanawa said to the chief of Hokianga, to Pōroa, we should seek to establish a peace to satisfy matters. Pōroa said to Hongi, “You may have today; I shall have the night and the next day.”, and peace was made. My ancestor, Huipūtea, did not follow this. Rather, he came upon the beautiful women of Tainui. In the night, the warriors of Ngāpuhi were rendered useless. The young men returned to Waikato and Ngāpuhi were completely destroyed, the people who had dared to disobey the word of my chief, Pōrua, who declared peace. Following that, Te Wherowhero directed that the daughter of Kati should be married to the son of Rewa, the elder brother of Hongi Hika. Thus, peace was made and maintained. Greetings to you, Waikato, who came forth, my friend, Tāme, to commemorate this event at Kerikeri in recent years.

It is appropriate for me to recount these histories, because one should not look to Ō-Rākau alone. There are many more beautiful stories within us as Māori. We should hold fast to those narratives so we do not simply leave it for only these actions to be acknowledged as indigenous people. Thus, I acknowledge the people who have promoted this issue.]

During 2017 and 2020, my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, encouraged me to find some pūtea to address the outstanding matters of rehabilitating Ruapekapeka, Rangiriri Pā, and other places of such significance. And, of course, that may sound incongruous, given the ebb and flow of political rhetoric at the moment, but let it be known that any fair-minded New Zealander, once they are told the broad and factual story, has no hesitation in embracing the entirety of our history. As I’ve said in te reo, I acknowledge the efforts of the rangatahi with their petition. And, as I said, we never had kids like that in any school where I was educated, because we’re of the generation who either took things for granted or such history was regarded as the preserve of our kaumātua and it was not freely shared.

This bill, which is about to pass, ought to be seen as an opportunity for not only the broader Waikato community but for all Kiwis to acknowledge and to learn about the history as we march towards 2040, because there are no saints, purely; there are no sinners, solely, in our history. There are hoariri, friends in anger, who, if mistreated, if misunderstood, become foe in perpetuity. That’s not the vision of this Parliament.

As I’ve said, I acknowledge all of the leaders and I want to acknowledge them also in English: Kataraina, Kaawhia, the leadership from Te Arawa, the leadership including Tame Roa, Tuku, Te Matakaheru from Maniapoto. This is a significant day for you.

I just want to finish up by saying there is a rich array of history scattered throughout our landscape. History did not begin just when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed; the history goes well before the Treaty of Waitangi. Let’s not condemn or constrain ourselves only to talking about the history we may or may not have learnt through Waitangi Tribunal claims.

In the 1820s, the Ngāpuhi went to this area. There was a tree not far from the site called Huipūtea, named after my tūpuna from Mangakahia. As a consequence of not following the peace-making that had been entered into to end the hostilities of that time after Mātakitaki and the beauty and shrewdness of the Waikato women, he met a grisly end. That is the origin of the name of the Huipūtea tree. It does not mean where the treasures were lain. However, far be it for me to say that Waikato women aren’t treasures. Kia ora tātou.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, I just want to confirm—I want to say thank you; the Green Party has given your call to Te Pāti Māori. Is this intended to be two split calls or one call?

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: One 10-minute call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. E mihi ana ki te pīka kātahi anō ka kōrero i mua i a au. [Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the speaker who has just spoken before me.] If only we could have that Matua Shane every day.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

Ko ngā uri o te raupatu e ngunguru nei, i au au aue ha.

Kiingi Tuheitia ki te rangi; te tapu nui, te tapu roa, te tapu whakatiketike o tō tātou ariki nui, Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VIII, koe e noho mai nei i runga i tō torona. Tae noa ki tō tātou nei Makau Ariki, ka nui taku hari ki te kite i a koe kua tae ā-tinana mai ki te whakakanohi. Tēnā rawa atu koe.

Te Ariki Tapairu, a Hēni, te Tumuaki, rirerire hau, pai mārire.

E tū ana ahau i runga i te whakaiti. Kua mahea ngā taumahatanga o te wā i te whakaekenga mai o tōku iwi ake ki runga o Pāremata. Kua tae mai te waka o Tainui, Ngā Ahi e Toru, ngā uri o te raupatu.

Tēnei te mihi, te reo whakamiha ki te mana whenua, e Kura, mō tō koutou reo pōwhiri mai ki a tātou i te ata nei.

Ka hoki ake ki te kōrero a Tama Potaka i te ata nei, “nau mai ki te Whare o te raupatu”. Nau mai ki tō koutou Whare. Kawea mai ko ngā whakaahua hei iringa mahara. Kawea mai ko ngā taonga kātahi anō ka hoki mai, kawea mai. Mā ngēnei taonga ka tū hei tohu mō te whakahirahiratanga o te wairua o ngō mātou mātua tūpuna.

Te Korowai a Mangamanga-i-atua, te taiaha kātahi anō ka whakawhārikihia ki konei.

I mua rā anō i taku kauwhau, me mihi ka tika ki Te Pāti Kākāriki i tā koutou takoha mai.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, greetings to us of the House.

Hear the descendants of the conquest roar, au au aue ha.

King Tuheitia in the heavens; the great, eternal and elevated sanctity of our great monarch, Queen Nga wai hono i te po Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VIII, you who sits upon your throne. Also our Dowager Queen, I am very happy to see you come here in person to represent. Many thanks to you.

Princess Hēni, the Kingmaker, peace and goodwill.

I stand in humility. The stress of the time has cleared with the arrival of my very own iwi to Parliament. The ancestral canoe of Tainui, Ngā Ahi e Toru and the descendants of the conquest have arrived.

I acknowledge and thank the people of this region, Kura, for your voice of welcome to all of us this morning.

I return to the statement Tama Potaka made this morning, “welcome to the House of conquest”. Welcome to your House. Bring with you the images to serve as a memorial. Bring with you the treasures that have only recently been returned. Bring them. May these treasured items stand as testament to the significance of the spirit of our ancestors.

Te Korowai a Mangamanga-i-atua, the taiaha that has just been laid here.

Before my speech, it is most appropriate that I thank the Green Party for what you have gifted me.]

I’d like to thank the Green Party for giving me an extra five minutes in this slot.

A letter from the Crown to the people of Waikato: the warning reads, “To the Natives who reside in the Manukau District in the Waikato frontier, you are hereby required immediately to take your oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to give up your Arms to an Officer appointed by the Government for that purpose. Natives that comply with this order will be protected. However, Natives who refuse are hereby warned to leave the district aforementioned and retired beyond Waikato, past the Mangatāwhiri River or you will be ejected”—I repeat—“ejected.” This was the beginning of the biggest campaign of the New Zealand Wars in the invasions of Waikato.

Kotahi mano, waru rau, ono tekau mā whā te tau, Maehe te marama, i whakawhiti mai te ope taua o te Pākehā, a te Karauna i te ringa toto o Kāwana Kerei i Ōrākau, i te iwi o Rewi Manga Maniapoto. Ki te aha? Ki te muru, ki te raupatu i ōku whenua.

Ka tautokona te karanga a Rewi Manga Maniapoto e ngā iwi, waka maha o Tūwharetoa, Te Rautakitahi a Tūhoe, Kahungunu me Te Arawa. Taku whakapae, ka kore rawa ō mātou mātua tūpuna i matapoporetia 161 tau ka hipa, ka tū tonu ko ngā uri o Rewi Maniapoto ki roto ki te Whare o te Karauna ake ki te rongo ki te whakapāha a te ringa toto ki a mātou, ngā uri o te raupatu.

[It was in the year 1864, during the month of March, that the British forces, the Crown, the bloodied hands of Governor Grey crossed over at Ōrākau, from the people of Rewi Manga Maniapoto. For what purpose? To confiscate and conquer my lands.

The call of Rewi Manga Maniapoto was answered by the many iwi and waka of Tūwharetoa, Te Rautakitahi a Tūhoe, Kahungunu and Te Arawa. I would assert that our ancestors and forbears would never have foreseen that, 161 years later, the descendants of Rewi Maniapoto would still stand within the House of the Crown to hear the apology of the bloodied hands to us, the descendants of the conquest.]

Against all odds, the descendants of the Battle of Ō-Rākau, 161 years later, sit in this Chamber listening to the apologies for the heinous acts of the Crown. These were the Land Wars that were inflicted on our people of Waikato and Māori throughout the country—300 people to defend Ō-Rākau against 1,500 soldiers. This lasted over three days and 12,000 square kilometres of land.

There will be no hakas from me today. I will leave that to the professionals for next week in Taranaki.

He moumou wā taku haka i te rā nei. He aha ai? Nā runga anō i te mea kua haka kētia e ngā hōia ki te kauhanga riri. Kua haka kētia e Ahumai Te Paerata ki te mura o te ahi.

[It would be a waste of time for me to haka today. Why? Due to the fact that it has already been performed by the soldiers on the field of war. It has already been performed by Ahumai Te Paerata in the heat of battle.]

I was 11 years old, a part of Te Pūtake o Te Riri haka at Ō-Rākau Pā site when the then Prime Minister at the time, the Hon John Key, attended. Eleven years later, nōku te Hōnore ki te tuku kōrero mō te otinga ake o tēnei pire. [it is my honour to offer some statements regarding the resolution of this bill.]

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, we attended Pārāwera Marae last year, listening to the hearings of many, many whānau. There are a few submissions that I want to make a point of and relay in the House. First of all, the descendants of those who brought the many faces, names, photos, taonga, and stories who battled at Ō-Rākau pā.

To Chris Kay, who was a previous owner of the land and stated it wasn’t until after he had purchased the land that he found out that it was a pā site which holds huge significance and importance—this must be entrenched in our laws that any significant Land Wars pā site, wāhi tapu, or any place of significance should be at least outlined in the Ts and Cs before purchasing, or, furthermore, even returned back as there are many exact similar situations where this happens all across the country.

To Leah Bell, who visited the Ō-Rākau Pā site on a high school trip in 2014, which moved herself and her peers to action a petition to commemorate the Land Wars of Aotearoa, He Rā Maumahara, and the introduction of New Zealand’s history curriculum in schools. This brings me to stress to this coalition statement of “Rebalancing of the current history’s education curriculum to be less focused on te ao Māori.” We must keep the New Zealand history curriculum in schools.

To Linda Campbell, a tangata Tiriti teacher who I quote: “We cannot underestimate the broad benefits people stand to gain. The Education Review Office reports that nine out of 10 teachers enjoy teaching New Zealand histories in schools. They make the learning more meaningful and relevant to their students. There are now more meaningful and relevant contexts to Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the history’s curriculum.”

Today, I come with immense gratitude that this is the first completion of a settlement within my rohe of Hauraki-Waikato in my time here. I come today with the heart and call of unity, the call of kotahitanga from our late King, Kiingi Tuheitia. It still echoes even in this House today. It was in his reign where he welcomed Prime Minister John Key in 2014 to Ō-Rākau for this bill. Not often does this House come together—all six parties. I often say that the last time we were all on the same waka in this House was a tribute we had for Kiingi Tuheitia. Today, I’m heartened that the House unites again to pass this bill in honour of our late King, and all those who fought at Ō-Rākau. Although there are different views from all sides of Parliament, I must acknowledge every party for commending this bill to proceed to the Hon Tama Potaka and his team.

I recently asked our whānau who were only here last week on the return of Maunga Taranaki, and them expressing their feelings in the constant contradiction of one day turning up to Parliament to an important day like this, and then another day slamming that side of the Government in oral submissions for the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.

The 28th of October is held as a national day of significance for the Land Wars of Aotearoa. Te Pāti Māori states that this day should be held as a national public holiday, just as we commemorate Anzac. We must hold the same mana tauritetanga [equitable prominence] for the Land Wars that happened on this country’s very own soil. The Battle of Ō-Rākau heard the cries of Rewi Manga Maniapoto to his people: “Ka whawhai tonu mātou āke, āke, āke.” [“We will fight for ever and ever.”]

Only last year at the hīkoi of 100,000 people did I cry to my own “Ka ora tonu mātou āke, āke, āke.” [“We will live on for ever and ever.”]

What a privilege to say that, when I’ve never seen a barrel of a gun, when I’ve never been on a front line of a war site, when I’ve never seen bloodshed.

Ki te kore a Rewi i ngāna kupu “Ka whawhai.”, kua kore tēnei whakareanga e kōrero i te kupu o te ora. If it wasn’t for Rewi saying, “We must fight.”, this generation would never have been able to say we have survived.

E kore tēnei whakaoranga e huri ki tua o te mokopuna. Nō reira tēnā tātou e te Whare.

[This survival will never change beyond the grandchildren. And so greetings to us all of this House.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, can I just thank the member for mentioning Leah Bell, who was my first youth MP for Taranaki-King Country. I’d like to acknowledge her as well.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): E te Māngai, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, tēnā koutou katoa. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe, te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ka mihi ki te iwi kāinga, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui. Nau mai, haere mai. Ko Tainui te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Kakepuku te maunga, ko Ngāti Maniapoto te iwi, ko Ngāti Huia te hapū, ko Te Kawau te marae, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, to the authorities, to the voices, to the tribes, greetings to you all. The House standing here, greetings. The land lying here, greetings. Those who have passed away, depart. I acknowledge the home people, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui. Welcome. Tainui is the canoe, Waikato is the river, Kakepuku is the mountain, Ngāti Maniapoto is the tribe, Ngāti Huia is the hapū, Te Kawau is the marae. Greetings, greetings to you all.]

I’d like to begin by tautoko-ing the acknowledgments made in this House, particularly those made by Minister Potaka. I would like to acknowledge all who have travelled south today to be here. I see many familiar faces in the audience. Thank you very much for your presence. Also, thank you to those of you tuning in, including my many whanaunga at home and around the country.

This is a significant bill. It is a bill that is small in the size of redress but huge in significance. It is a bill that recognises the courage and bravery in the face of certain defeat, to defend people’s values, whenua, and lives. It honours ō tūpuna—men, women, children—who had died or had a connection to the whenua. It acknowledges the loss of land, life, mana, sustenance, livelihoods, and identity and connection that was suffered. It acknowledges the intergenerational mamae carried since the Battle of Ō-Rākau.

This is a major step in the Crown acknowledging the past so that we and iwi and the Crown can focus on the future. It was my privilege to help shepherd this bill through the House as part of the select committee process. I had the privilege to visit Ō-Rākau twice: once on the 160th commemoration, and second, as a select committee member visiting Pārāwera Marae and the Battle of Ō-Rākau site. I must say, as a proud Maniapoto person, I learnt a lot from that battle, and there’s a lot that I didn’t know growing up, like the speakers who have gone before me today. I agree with my whanaunga across the way that it is important that we learn and continue to remember the significance of the Battle of Ō-Rākau, to name just one.

I wish to make some acknowledgments: firstly, to the rangatahi of Otorohanga College for their mahi, well over a decade ago, to bring a petition forward and the life that they brought to this kaupapa. I would like to honour and acknowledge Christopher Finlayson, the previous Minister, who had the foresight to purchase the land, and it has been mentioned, but I will mention once again, to Chris Kay and his wife for acknowledging the significance of this land and being willing to put it up for sale.

Hon Willie Jackson: It would be nice if the current Minister was here.

DAN BIDOIS: I’d like to acknowledge the current Minister—Minister Potaka—who arranged for the site to be transferred and for this bill to be brought forward. I’d also like to acknowledge the Crown officials, James Mitchell and Cameron Evans, and my fellow members of the Māori Affairs Committee, for your patience and your commitment to hearing the submissions in this House.

The future of this land is really up to the entity and the three iwi and the post-settlement governance entities, but I see a future that has endless possibilities. I do hope, like what I heard at the select committee submissions, that it will be used as a way to educate those in future generations, plus all New Zealanders, on the significance of this battle and what it means to local iwi and the rest of our country. The process of healing begins anew. E hoa, ka whawhai tonu mātau, ake ake ake—friend, we will fight on for ever, for ever, and for ever. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe. Otirā ki a koutou katoa kua tae mai ki te Pāremata nei, koutou o Raukawa, Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, anei hoki au e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, tae atu ki Te Kāhui Ariki, tae atu anō ki a koe e te Makau Ariki. Tēnei te mihi ake ki a koutou, otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Thank you. Indeed, to all of you who have arrived here at Parliament, those of you of Raukawa, Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, here I stand to acknowledge all of you, including the royal family and also yourself, the Dowager Queen. I hereby greet you, indeed all of us.]

Being speaker number eight in this debate pretty much means everything has been said. I’ll make a promise; I’m not going to repeat what’s already been said, but I think it’s really important to acknowledge the significance of this day. I was sitting here thinking about all of those who have passed and all of the actions that have been taken over a number of years.

I come from a little place called Rātana Pā. Where I come from, if you have the likes of the Hon Shane Jones, the Hon Tama Potaka, the Hon Peeni Henare on your paepae, when it gets to you, you’re probably not going to say much. My elders will say, “Yeah, well, we’ve probably heard enough.”

However, because I’m from Rātana Pā, I’ll talk about Rātana—in particular, a visit by Tupu Taingākawa to Rātana Pā. He came there and said to Rātana, “I come not for the healing of the body but I come for the healing of the land.” It reminded me that today, even after 161 years, we can still heal the wrongs of the past.

This is not the end day, though. This is just the beginning of a new journey that starts with the passing of this legislation that enables the people who were most impacted, the descendants of those who were in that battle, to find a way forward and to commemorate what had happened there. Why? So that our future generations will know the truth about our own history. Growing up in Aotearoa New Zealand, I did not learn that at school, and so I wanted to briefly acknowledge the day, acknowledge the significance of it.

I agree with pretty much what everyone has said, but I wanted to, in particular, point out what Steve Abel said around the—well, these are my characterisations of what he said, that something that happened 161 years ago was not an honourable act and today we do an honourable thing so that in the future we might remember not to do this again. Every member in this House should remember that, in 161 years, they’re going to judge what we’re doing today. My message to everyone in this room: be on the right side of history.

Nō reira kāore e roa tēnei tū, otirā e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i runga i te tukunga iho a rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro. Mā te Māngai hei tautoko mai āianei, āke nei, āe.

[And so this will not be a lengthy speech, indeed it is appropriate to acknowledge you all with regard to the legacy of those in the unseen place. May the Holy Mouthpiece support us now and for ever, amen.]

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te tū au ki te kōrero mō te pire o Ō-Rākau. Ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa me Waikato-Tainui, e mihi ana ki a koutou.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak on the Ō-Rākau bill. To you, the descendants of Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Raukawa and Waikato-Tainui, I acknowledge you.]

It is an honour, as always, to take a call, but especially humbling, in this remembrance bill journey. It has absolute significance for the people who have made not just the long journey to Wellington today but the 161 years that it has taken for you to get to this day. The Battle of Ō-Rākau, to this day, holds immense significance for all of those who lost tūpuna there in 1864, and we welcome you all to this House. It’s also lovely to see all of the generations in the House today, for what is a historic day for you.

The legislation before us, Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, is required to effect the deed of agreement relating to the Ō-Rākau site between the Crown, Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui. This bill enables the record of title for the Ō-Rākau site to be held in the names of the ancestors who fought at the Battle of Ō-Rākau or had other connections with the land. It enables Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato to jointly have, and exercise, the rights and obligations of the registered owner of the site. The vesting and ownership arrangements in this bill are not redress provided in settlement of any historical claims under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but the Ō-Rākau deed and this bill instead reflect the desire of all parties to acknowledge the history associated with, and the national significance of, the Battle of Ō-Rākau and to enable the recognition of ngā tūpuna associated with the Ō-Rākau site.

I was lucky enough to be on the select committee that travelled to Ō-Rākau. Thank you to all who hosted us there. We came to hear the submitters and to visit the site, and it’s always humbling to be welcomed to a place of such significance, not only to the people who were there that day but to all of those other iwi who hold Ō-Rākau as a special place in their heart, from as far away as many other places—Tūhoe, Te Arawa, Ngāti Manawa, Tūwharetoa, iwi from Tairāwhiti and Wairoa, and others. On the day we visited, I can recall the effort that had been made at the site to show us exactly what had happened in the battle at Ō-Rākau, and where those hosting us had dug a hole in the ground—for a while there, I wondered what that was for! I was worried they were going to put us in it! They dug the hole in the ground, with a scale model of the site, which was absolutely fantastic and an inspiring way to show us the story of what had happened in the battle at Ō-Rākau. It was a very moving day. It actually did see some of us with the odd tear in our eye, and I thank you for the effort you went to, to make that come alive for us that day.

I want to acknowledge all of the submitters who came and told us their stories. They were compelling, they were passionate, and they were very clear that it was time to make sure the whenua was returned to the people and that there was an effort to tell the story. Your site is a taonga, and it is a privilege for our select committee to have played a tiny—tiny—part in the process of returning it to your iwi as kaitiaki. The bill itself has limited scope to address the trauma experienced by the descendants of those involved in the battle at Ō-Rākau and its surrounding history, as well as your whānau, iwi, and hapū, but the Crown contention is that, by returning the whenua to iwi, it provides autonomy to the descendants of ngā tūpuna o Ō-Rākau to decide its future and support all of you to tell the stories in the way that you deem appropriate, and that the bill is just the start of the reconciliation and healing for current and future generations.

I’m also pleased the land is going back to this entity, because we should note that, in the 1880s, the Crown explored acquiring the battle site to gift to Te Kooti to keep him from returning to the East Coast. Well, I’m not sure how that would have worked out for Te Kooti, but much to the relief of the tūpuna, that arrangement fell through and, eventually, it came into the hands of the Kay family. It wasn’t until the Treaty negotiations with Raukawa that former Minister for Treaty Negotiations the Hon Chris Finlayson learnt of the significance of the site and put some considerable effort into the Crown acquiring the land and beginning the kōrero between all of the iwi—Raukawa, Maniapoto, and Waikato-Tainui—on what a combined approach to the site, the story, and the legacy might look like. In his submission, former landowner Chris Kay said it wasn’t long after purchasing the site that he and his wife, Sue, realised how important it was and that it needed to be a public space where those who had fought there and died there could be acknowledged and remembered. Now the site will be managed by the kaitiaki Ngā Ahi e Toru, and it will be their vision that brings the story and remembrance to the forefront for the future of this site. I understand the narratives will record the different perspectives, as each iwi has a story to tell that is to be celebrated and acknowledged.

In closing, I acknowledge those who have been on this journey who have not lived to see this day. It’s always sad for those who have spent a lot of time fighting for this day, and now I know that you will honour them in the way that is right. I wish you all the very best. I cannot wait to see what you do, as I know from the depth of feeling we witnessed through our visit to Kihikihi that it will be incredible. Thank you, also, for the book you gave us when we visited with you. It has taken 161 years for this book, but I think that you will need many, many more chapters to complete the rest of the story as you go forward and honour the site and the Battle of Ō-Rākau. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to all of you for coming and for your patience in this journey. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. I call Shanan Halbert.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. Makau Ariki, tēnā koe. E te Kīngi, Pōtatau Te Wherowhero te tuawhitu, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Te hunga ora ki te hunga ora, Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato-Tainui me mihi ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā. He rā whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Seek the broad highway as a pathway to bind together the two peoples upon the one thought. Makau Ariki, greetings. To the King, Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII, go and depart. To the living, Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato-Tainui, it is appropriate indeed to acknowledge you today. It is a very special day. Greetings to you all.]

Today is one of those wonderous days for us in Parliament—for us as Māori, a Māori Affairs Committee, for all members who serve in this House—because we get to do something that’s right, to correct some of the challenges of our past, to apologise for the things that the Crown has done wrong, and most of all to make it right. Can I acknowledge each and every one of the whānau that are here today. Can I also acknowledge my friends from Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. Kei te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

The thing is, in part of that wonderous coming together today in the spirit of kotahitanga to support this kaupapa, this bill, Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, it’s nice because it’s been a chequered 18 months together. I look around this House today and in this spirit I ask all of us that we continue that mahi to do what’s right to create better outcomes for Māori and for all of Aotearoa.

When I think about that and doing what’s right, I look to our rangatahi. I think about how this bill came upon us, ensuring that our stories are learnt, and it was our rangatahi who championed that. We’ve heard in this House today the petition that was put forward to enable those stories. Without that petition, I wonder if the Aotearoa New Zealand Curriculum would have been put in place—learning our history. Might be something that, collectively, we still would be aiming for, but it is what is right, because those stories matter. They matter to all of our whānau and the communities where we live.

I have a special hononga when we went back to Pārāwera. I remember my friend Anzac Pīkia today in this House—a good friend of mine. When I went back to that marae to hear your stories, he was very much there. I thought of him, his characteristics, his wonderful mātauranga, his wonderful sense of waiata, and whoever in this House may know of Anzac, you could hear him from a mile away. Because those stories ring true, whether they’re in our pūrākau, whether they are in our waiata, they must be used for education for everyone. I acknowledge him today along with the rest of the whānau.

I also acknowledge Matua Kaawhia, who hosted us on the day—tēnā koe e te Matua—who laid out for us the geography of the whenua that we were talking about. I learnt more from this demonstration than I learnt from the movie, because the stories are real. They come from a different place. They come from our whānau and they come from lived history. I acknowledge that. Tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. [I particularly acknowledge you.]

As I finish my contribution today in my five minutes, I want to acknowledge the 300 Māori that did have to fight for their lives during these wars: the women, the children, the absolute devastation upon this community, but, most of all the, loss of whenua. Today, we take one step to make things right. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise and add my commendation to this bill, the Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. Before I embark on my kōrero and contribution, I’d like to acknowledge the presence of our Kuīni Mother in the House. Welcome, and thank you to you and your whānau for the warm manaakitanga that you’ve always extended to me, a Lebanese person originally from Bankstown. I’d like to also say may Kiingi Tuheitia’s precious soul rest in peace, and may he guide the kaupapa that we embark on today from across the veil.

This bill will, essentially, as we’ve heard, give effect to a deed of agreement between the Crown and Maniapoto, Raukawa, and Waikato-Tainui iwi, and this deed of agreement will, essentially, place a piece of land that’s almost about 10 hectares in size under a title with the names of people long gone, but whose memory will live on even more fervently. They’ll become the owners because of the kaupapa of today. This piece of land that I refer to is the guardian to the eternal cries which have become the whispers, the whispers of courage, of sacrifice, and of the ultimate price to pay to defend one’s land and one’s family—and that’s death.

This piece of land was the first and the last to witness, as Minister Potaka said—and he said this in his first reading speech. He coined it as the Ō-Rākau 300—New Zealand’s own Spartan story—because the story that my colleague before me spoke about saw 300 iwi defenders protecting this piece of land and all that dwelt on it, against all odds, against about 1,500 British troops. Brave men and women from all over the motu formed this mahi of defence, and, as Kataraina Hodge said during our visit to Ō-Rākau last year, Ō-Rākau is a thread that connects iwi from across the land.

Who I’d also like to acknowledge when we discuss this bill—and so many have been acknowledged. I think that a lot of times with this type of kaupapa, a lot goes on behind the scenes, and sometimes these behind-the-scenes people aren’t necessarily always acknowledged, but I’d like to do so today. The first one is someone who has already been acknowledged—despite what I just said—Dr Robert Joseph.

Dr Robert, you have contributed so much with respect to the history of what happened at Ō-Rākau. You continue to contribute, and I know that the advisers and everyone involved in putting this together were able to lean on your deep knowledge, so thank you very much for what you’ve done and what you continue to do to bring this extremely important history to the forefront of our minds.

I’d like to acknowledge also, if I may, the presence and the guidance of Matua Kaawhia Te Muraahi. You were part of the initiation of the Battle of Ō-Rākau Heritage Society, and you’ve done so much as well as guide us down that historic path when we were there at that pā on that beautiful day last year.

I’d also like to acknowledge—as has been acknowledged before me—Chris Kay. He was the gentleman who, with his wife, purchased this site back in 2006, and then realised the importance of it, only to sell it to the Crown. With what you’ve done, you’ve allowed all of this to take place.

I pray that the history of this last battle is enshrined in all of our memories for many years to come and never fades away. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, te Makau Ariki, te māmā, te Kuīni Māmā, pai tērā ingoa, e mihi ana. Pai tērā ingoa, mihi ana ki e koe, e te Whaea, koutou katoa i whakarangatira i a mātau i tēnei wā. He Hōnore nui ki te kōrero i tēnei wā, nō reira tēnā koutou, hara mai, hara mai, nau mai.

[Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Waikato-Tainui, the Makau Ariki, the mother, the Queen Mother—that’s a good name, I acknowledge you. It’s a good name, and I acknowledge you, Aunty, all of you who have graced us here today. It is a great honour to speak at this time, therefore, greetings and welcome.]

I always find this type of kōrero hard, because you have to be nice, and Rawiri Waititi asked me not to be too nice today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s another good day, remember.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, yes, yes. And I of course want to acknowledge the occasion and acknowledge the Ministers for their mahi, but there’s always a sense of frustration when you come to this point and all the good kōrero beforehand sort of ignores some of the kōrero that’s in front of us. Here we are settling this, and the Māori nation is sort of still under attack from certain groups in this Parliament, mainly the ACT Party. I find it hard to reconcile that. When we talk about how we must put the past behind us when the future’s not looking too good in terms of some of the plans and strategies for te ao Māori, it really does get on my nerves.

For instance, I was looking at the pūtea—you know, $1.7 million for the transfer of the Ō-Rākau site at no cost to iwi, $75,000 to fund the establishment of managing entity for the Ō-Rākau site, $306,000 to fund historical research. It’s chump change, really. Both Governments can take responsibility for that—I’m not just talking about National here. Both Governments can take some responsibility for that. When are we going to look at proper compensation for kaupapa like this? I’m not here to give Tama and Goldie over there a hard time; I’m here to say: when are we going to have a re-look at this situation where our people have to go through so much? Yes, they get the apology, and then they’re just about funding the whole thing themselves. Hōhā—hōhā.

One day I dream of a Crown that’ll say, “Well, actually, there’s $10 million. You don’t have to negotiate—you don’t have to negotiate.” I don’t know about Rawiri Waititi. We all watched him up there trying to sign up Māori Party members. He’s always up to something. You wonder why he wasn’t speaking today? Well, that’s because he was signing up members upstairs.

I dream of that day, I dream of a future where we actually celebrate the Treaty instead of attack the Treaty, as this party over here has been doing for the last few months, and our people are responding. Our people are responding. I’m so proud of our people at the moment—proud of our people. I say to our people who have come here, Ngāti Raukawa, Maniapoto, Tainui, me mihi ki a koutou, rawe ō koutou mahi. [We should acknowledge you; you have undertaken great work.]

No doubt about it. But there’s so much in front of us now, isn’t there? It’s great. This is fabulous but look at all the mahi that’s in front of us and the problems we have. We can whakakotahi for the kaupapa here, but let’s remember the challenges out there, particularly when we go down that track. It’s wonderful to talk about the 300 against 1,500, but right now we’ve got Māori who are feeling under threat and we’ve got 400,000 people who’ve been making submissions to a select committee.

Let’s not kid ourselves, people, in terms of where we are today. Let’s not kid ourselves that we as a Government put in history in schools. That’s a kaupapa that must stay. I see Vincent O’Malley in the audience here. Mihi ana ki a koe, e hoa. [I acknowledge you, friend.] We need people like yourself to push that type of kaupapa, because without that kaupapa, without an emphasis on kaupapa Māori, our history won’t get told. I mean, really, how many people in the country know about this kaupapa? We’re talking to the converted here. There’s got to be an investment and a pūtea put behind that kaupapa so all New Zealanders know about what happened there, the atrocities that happened there.

I’m worried. I’m worried about that type of kaupapa. I hear Cameron talking about names—so important to us, isn’t it? Names are everything to us. No doubt about that. There was a time when our kids were named Shane Jones and Willie Jackson, you know? That’s a fact. There’s a whole generation of Māori named along those lines, and then that changed with the kōhanga generation. Six weeks ago, when my seventh mokopuna was born, my boy gave our baby girl the name Ahumai, which of course has huge significance in terms of this kaupapa.

Names mean everything, but don’t just rattle on about Cameron and the bloody coloniser. Understand that for us, those names changed. We went from Shane Jones and Willie Jackson to Tama Potaka and Peeni Henare. That’s just a fact—that’s just a fact. And to Tuku Morgan up there. Our people changed because we politicised them, we put investment in them, and that investment, I say today, has to continue—has to continue.

That’s the challenge here today. This is a wonderful kaupapa to support and celebrate, but will we continue the support? Some of the iwi here are taking the Government to court, for goodness’ sake! “Thank you, thank you”, they said, and then they’re taking you to court the next day.

Let’s understand where te ao Māori is, and that is that we have to do the business and then we have to challenge and we have to continue doing things. There has to be a change, and the change has to come from the Government in terms of investment. I talked about the pūtea. There’s got to be a day, whether it’s National or Labour who are in, where we really understand the loss and stop giving crumbs to our people. Yes, we will take the crumbs. Yes, we will build. Tainui built, Ngāi Tahu built, off crumbs. Maybe one day the Government can show some aroha and generosity to our people.

I want to thank—and some of the names have been mentioned, but I do want to thank some of the people who’ve supported this kaupapa. From Ngāti Raukawa, I see Pakake up there, and Chris McKenzie. Ngā mihi ki a kōrua [I acknowledge you both] for your mahi in terms of what’s happened. Sometimes you get sidelined a bit by the sort of Tuku Morgans and whatnot who just love the TV and radio, but I want to say, mihi ana ki a koe, Tuku, [I acknowledge you, Tuku] for your work. Wonderful. You finally saw the light when you left the Māori Party. You did leave the Māori Party, didn’t you? I’m not sure, but I want to mihi to you and Tom Roa over there. Sadly, you heard old Shane Jones sounding fabulous today after they kicked you off the Tribunal, you know? “I just love you, Tom Roa, but see you later. Time for Richard Prebble.” You know this sort of nonsense, eh Tom? But I want to thank you, Tom, for your mahi.

To our Māori Queen, the Queen’s mother, lovely to see you here today. You whakamana our kaupapa here today. I was saying to Peeni, “What do you call the Queen’s mother?” He goes, “Auntie.” There you go. That’s your name there. Tika tana kōrero. [What he says is right.] Lovely to see you here today.

To Tumuaki, where is he? I saw him somewhere. Oh, good to see you there, chief. Come along and whakamana our kaupapa. We’ve got Kaawhia Muraahi here. He’s over there somewhere at the back there. Good to have you. I don’t want to miss anyone. I think I’ve got everybody.

Have I got everyone, Peeni? Have I missed anyone? I want to thank you all for your mahi in moving this kaupapa. It’s not easy. You’re not going to get paid anything. One or two of you might get paid, but I won’t get into that. But this is what it’s about, isn’t it? It’s about commitments. It’s about driving things forward. We’ve got a lot on our plates at the moment, you know? So thank you for that. We’ve got this Destiny lot going blinking nuts and all. Some of them are your relations, Tuku. You’ve got to do something about it. We’ve got them going blinking stupid in Auckland. We’ve got to work a strategy out. We can’t just say, “Oh, we love our gay community.” and do nothing to support them. They’re our whanaunga. They’re our family too, so bring that Brian Tamaki into Tainui and fix him up. Away you go.

I want to thank you all. Thank you for coming together for this kaupapa that is so important for all of us. I want to thank the other side, too, because it is a kaupapa that is meaningful, I know, to both these Ministers and former Ministers and it is a great day. Tēnā nō tātou katoa.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Te mutunga kē mai o te whānui o te kōrero. [What an expansive speech.]

I am the final speaker; this is my great honour. Nōku te māringanui kia tau ai te waka, te waka nei, nā reira, [It is my good fortune to land the canoe, this particular vessel. Therefore,] I will not speak for long because I am all that is standing between where we are now and this bill finally becoming legislation.

Kororia ki te Atua, maungarongo ki te whenua, whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Koinei ngā kupu i waiatatia e te ope o ngā anahera i te pō rā i whānau ai te tama o te Atua. Tērā kōrero, tērā harikoa, tērā oati i rongohia puta noa i ngā ao me ngā tau, ā, e pā ana tonu ki te ao i tēnei rā. Maungārongo ki te whenua, koirā ko tō tātau tino wawata, koirā te whāinga o tēnei pire i tēnei rā. Ka tīmata i te huarahi o te whakarauora, kāore anake ki te whenua tapu o Ō-Rākau, engari ki tō tātau whanaungatanga hoki. Nā reira, e mihi ana au ki ngā ahi e toru kua huihui mai i runga i tēnei rā. Nā rātau i kawe mai i a mātau ki tēnei wā. Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato, tēnā koutou i te whānui o tō koutou whakaaro nui, i te rahi o tō koutou manawanui, i te hōhonu o tō koutou aroha noa.

[Glory to God, peace on earth and goodwill to all people. These were the words sung by the host of angels on the night that the son of God was born. That statement, that joy, that promise has been heard throughout many worlds over many years, and still has relevance to the world today. Peace on earth, that is our great hope, that is the aim of this bill today. It starts the pathway to restoration, not just at the sacred land at Ō-Rākau, but in terms of our relationship as well. Thus, I acknowledge the three fires who have gathered here today. It is they who have carried us forth to this point. Maniapoto, Raukawa, Waikato, thank you for the breadth of your thoughtfulness, the length of your commitment, and the depth of your love.]

E te Māngai o te Whare, e rua wiki ki muri noa iho, i whakanuia e mātau te mana tangata ture o Taranaki Maunga. I tēnei rā, ka whakaturea te taitara o te whenua tapu o Ō-Rākau ki ngā tūpuna nā rātau i whakaritea he tapu tēnei whenua i runga i tō rātau toto. Just two weeks ago in this House, we acknowledged the legal personhood of Taranaki Maunga—it was an amazing day. Today, we vest the title of the sacred land of Ō-Rākau and those tūpuna whose blood has made the land sacred. While this House is all too often defined by its hōhā, by its mamae, this bill, this kōrero, is a moment defined by rangimārie, by āiotanga, by peace. Throughout the last year, as I have been privileged to be a part of this legislative process, that has been the overwhelming posture—te tino āhuatanga o ngā ahi e toru [the true nature of the three fires]—the desire to hohou i te rongo. [make peace.]

We heard it consistently in the submissions, from Craig Ahipene’s “You can’t hold on to anger for ever, it will eat you up.”, to Ainsleigh, who, as a psychologist, spoke about epigenetics, “The mamae passed between generations, and the ability”—she taught us—“of reconciliation to bring intergenerational healing, literal healing at the level of our bodily cells. Koirā te awenga o te tino maungārongo. [That is the power of true peace.]

There are two submissions, as I end, that I want to quote at length, for they spoke so fluently to this desire, and I believe that their kupu should land this waka. First of all, to Teaonui: I have listened to your submission so many times that I can hear your voice as I read these parts. “Ko tāku he ruirui i ētahi o ngā purapura o ngā uri o Ahumai rāua ko Matawaia tēnei te tū atu nei. Ko te taonga o taku ngākau, ko taku kuia, ko Tūmanako, nāna te aroha ki taku reo, ki taku ahurea i whakatō ki a mātau ko āku tēina.” [“My task is to sow some of the seeds of the descendants of Ahumai and Matawaia standing here. The treasure of my heart is my grandmother, Tumanako, who instilled the love of my language, of my culture, into me and my younger siblings.”]

Teaonui then spoke of the sacrifice that his nana had gone through and the beatings that she had received, and yet in spite of that pain, in spite of those scars, what she had passed to him and to his family. And then he carried on. He said, “This bill is a step towards our people reaching the ever-longing goal of ea: a craving for reciprocity, a yearning for peace, a desire to be free from the effects of 160 years of suffering, an end to the battle. My kuia always wore her scars—sometimes with pride, sometimes with shame—but all the time she taught me love, passion, pride, and humility. And when I learnt about my tūpuna who fought at Ō-Rākau, I saw them all in my nana.”

Teaonui then told us more about his tupuna Ahumai. “After the Battle of Ō-Rākau, a lone Pākehā soldier found himself wandering into our pā. He was restrained and a hui then ensued to decide what was to happen to this Pākehā. It was all but decided that he would be killed. How could an alternative resolution be reached after the multiple atrocities they had faced? Despite this, and despite her brother and father dying at Ō-Rākau, Ahumai wrapped her korowai around the soldier, ensuring that he be kept alive. Like my nana, Ahumai had scars. Despite this, she still saw the value of life and saw a way forward for her people. Recognising her in title won’t repair the severed ties that separate us, but it will begin the process of healing these deep scars that we hold.” Following the submission, Peeni Henare asked Teaonui to speak more to this concept of ea. Teaonui explained that it was for his children and their children that the process of healing begins now.

The final words must go to Kaawhia: Let us together give life to a legacy left in trust to this nation, a legacy of blood carved into the lands at Ō-Rākau, a legacy long denied, a legacy whose time has come. Let us establish te ara hohou rongo maungārongo ki Ō-Rākau—a transformational pathway toward an enduring hope, a pathway to healing, to peace, and to reconciliation.

Koirā te tūmanako hōhonu o te pire nei. Maungārongo ki te whenua. [That is the deep aspiration of this bill. Peace on earth.] Nā reira, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now welcome you to share your waiata with us, please.

Waiata—“He Aha Kei Taku Uma”

Haka—“He Aha Raa”

Karanga

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora. Thank you.

Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill continues to give effect to the coalition Government’s commitments to restore law and order and to ensure appropriate consequences for offenders. In recent years, we’ve seen the use of imprisonment go down despite more serious offending coming before the courts. For example, the imprisonment rate for burglary, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years, reduced from 50 percent in 2016-17 to 39 percent in 2022-23. The imprisonment rate for robbery, which has a 14-year maximum penalty, dropped from 74 percent to 58 percent in 2023.

We are aware of the public’s frustration that, all too often, penalties do not reflect the seriousness of the offending and the harm inflicted upon the victim of that crime and their communities. Submitters to the Justice Committee have expressed their concern about the risk of violent, aggravated robberies and ram raids that retail workers face daily. These crimes are just as traumatic whether the victim is working in a small store or a large retail sector business. We’ve heard victims’ frustrations with short prison sentences, or no prison sentences at all, for serious offences that leave their victims with irreparable damage. Submitters were also frustrated with offenders who received hefty sentence discounts based on their circumstances, freeing them to quickly reoffend.

The bill strengthens consequences for offenders by limiting sentence reductions for personal mitigating factors to 40 percent, establishing a sliding scale of sentence reductions for guilty pleas, preventing repeat sentence reductions for youth and remorse, and encouraging cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, custody, or parole.

The bill also adds new aggravating factors to denounce certain kinds of offending. The new aggravating factors are if an offender is convicted as a party to an offence committed by a child or a young person, that the offender live streamed or posted their offending online, that the victim was a public transport worker or passenger service worker, and if the victim was working alone or in a business that is joined or located to the victim’s home. We’re thinking in the context of people who own dairies and live upstairs and suffer violent attacks in the middle of the night, which have a horrendous impact on the wider family, not just the person involved.

Last, but by no means least, the bill puts victims at the heart of the justice system by strengthening the requirement for the courts to consider any information provided to them about the victim’s interests.

The bill has been reported back to the House from the Justice Committee. I want to thank the committee for their efforts. As is often the case in many submissions, it only further instilled why these changes were important.

The Louise Nicholas Trust—I want to just mention the campaigner for the rights of women who have been victims of sexual violence—told the committee that a 40 percent cap on sentence discounts would address the perception of leniency in our justice system, which can be distressing for survivors and can act as a disincentive to reporting. One other submitter spoke of the repeated use of discounts for youth and those who show remorse, something this bill will stop. They said, “You’re not remorseful if you carry on committing crimes and victimising more innocent people. People do make mistakes for which they are remorseful, but this should be a factor in sentencing. But many offenders have dozens of convictions, yet still argue that they are remorseful.”

The Justice Committee has made recommendations to clarify and refine the bill. I welcome their recommendations, which will assist the wider courts in understanding this. Let me come to the question of the 40 percent discount maximum cap. The Government’s long been concerned about offenders receiving heavily reduced sentences for personal mitigating factors. Accumulation of mitigation factors such as remorse and previous good character can result in significant discounts and the bill caps it at 40 percent. The committee recommends the bill make clear which factors are included in the cap through a new definition of personal mitigating factors that the cap applies to. Factors subject to the cap will include the age of offender, expressions of remorse, evidence of previous good character, and any guilty plea. The committee has recommended the bill specify that mitigating factors are not prescribed in the Act, and those that the court considers are personal to the offender are also included in the cap.

In some cases, an offender may provide substantial assistance to the authorities and to maintain the law. The courts may recognise assistance with a sentence reduction. Assisting the authorities has clear system and societal benefits, such as the quicker resolution of cases and intercepting crimes. Submitters have rightly pointed out that the cap should not disincentivise offenders from assisting the authorities. It’s not the intention of the policy to discourage such practices. The committee recommends that the bill specifically excluded from the cap reductions for assistance to authorities.

From the outset, the Government’s also made it clear that victims are central to these reforms and if any offender that can remedy some of the harm they have caused to the victim by making an offer to amend, such as payments or service, the courts can recognise the offender’s genuine and appropriate offer of amends or other measures under section 10 of the Sentencing Act with a sentencing reduction. These actions should be encouraged because of the direct benefit to the victims of the crime. As such, the committee recommends excluding section 10 matters, including offers to make amends from the cap, and we’re accepting that.

The bill clamps down on repeated use of discounts for youth and remorse of offending. Submitters have told us that remorse is meaningless, even if it is genuine, unless the remorse is followed by a changed behaviour. The new provision is intended to apply to offending that takes place after the commencement of the bill, and the limit on discounts will only apply to offending committed after the sentencing where the offender received the initial discount for youth or remorse. The committee recommended that we make that wording clear.

The bill, as reported back, also contains changes to address the consequences if the court omits to comply with the duties of the court to inform the offender of the consequences of receiving a youth or remorse discount and to record the discount in the court’s permanent record. If the court doesn’t inform the offender or record the discount, this should not invalidate the sentence or be grounds to appeal the sentence. These types of appeals would clog up the court system, and the committee also recommends making it clear that even when these duties aren’t complied with, the rules limiting repeat discounts should still apply.

The committee also considered whether the specific appeal provisions were needed if an earlier sentence that included a sentence discount for youthful remorse was overturned, and I’m satisfied that the standard appeal process is appropriate.

Continuing our commitment to fostering personal responsibility in the offender, the bill includes an aggravating factor where the offender was convicted as a party to an offence committed by a child or a young person. For the avoidance of doubt, the committee recommends that the bill clarify that this aggravating factor is intended to cover situations when an adult offender commits the offence and a child or young person is a party to the adult’s offending.

This Government wants a more efficient justice system. That means reducing unnecessary court hearings. The bill allows a person to be arrested without warrant if their home detention address becomes unavailable, no suitable alternative address can be approved, the court is closed, and there is a risk to public safety. The bill provides for the offender to be arrested without warrant in these circumstances and brought before the court as soon as possible. The committee recommends that the bill clarify that if an offender is arrested but an appropriate address is subsequently found, they can be released immediately without appearing in court. Again, this is about trying to speed up the processes of the court.

The bill’s got a three-month commencement period before the reforms come into force, to allow everyone to prepare for the changes. The changes in the bill will only apply to offending committed after commencement.

The bill builds on the Government’s ongoing effort to restore law and order, and we started off with passing legislation to tackle gangs and to reinstate the three-strikes regime. New Zealanders do deserve to feel safe in their community, and we are a Government that is committed to restoring real consequences for crime. This piece of legislation, which restricts the ability of judges to bring about massive discounts to sentencing, is designed to strengthen those real consequences for crime. On that basis, I 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. The Labour Party didn’t support this bill at first reading, and having gone through the select committee process and hearing from submitters and having the opportunity to ask questions, we remain resolute in the fact that this isn’t a good bill and we certainly won’t be supporting it.

The crux of the matter is that the legislation reduces, as has been said, the range of sentences that a judge may impose on an offender and is absolutely intended—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can’t hear the speaker at the moment, please. Interjections are fine, but not arguments across the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —that’s all right—specifically to simply reduce the discretion of judges in imposing sentences. Fundamental to the sentencing process is the fact that in every situation, the circumstance of the victim—which is important—the circumstance of the offender, and the offending are unique. The task of the judge is to impose a sentence which is appropriate and takes into consideration all of those circumstances.

Because this legislation, we think, is a departure from that, it will make it harder for judges to actually achieve the objective of the Sentencing Act. And we’re not alone. The reduction of judicial discretion was a key concern for many of the submitters, including the New Zealand Law Society, the Defence Lawyers Association, the Māori Law Society, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, and the Law Association of New Zealand—to name just a sample. What this shows, we believe, on this side of the House, is that this is a Government not interested in reforms that are based on evidence or expert advice; they are simply signalling in a ham-fisted way that they’re trying to be tough on crime.

On top of that, the Ministry of Justice had made a number—you know, a number—of warnings about what these changes could mean in its regulatory impact statement, including that there was advice that these changes were likely to result in increased legal challenges about how the exceptions were being played out and the unintended consequences of disincentivising offenders from taking steps that will actually benefit victims. Let’s not forget here, the central component of all of the discourse around this should be about the rights of victims. If we’re doing something to sound tough on crime that actually disadvantages victims, then you know you’re on the wrong path.

Importantly, the planned changes will also make sentencing significantly more complex, which is also likely to result in delays to court. We’ve just heard the Minister in charge of the bill talk about efficiencies in the court process, which is completely juxtapositioned against a bill like this.

The regulatory impact statement was also very critical of the process adopted, which I think is also important, noting that there was insufficient time given to address wider issues that had been raised or to allow for detailed and peer-reviewed modelling of impacts. The ministry was not able to explore all of the other options that were available but was instructed only to look at the narrow options in this Government’s coalition agreement, meaning that, by definition, better options could have been out there, but we didn’t get to see those because this Government was determined to chug ahead with their coalition agreement direction.

The ministry was not able to consult broadly, meaning that there was no engagement and dialogue with Treaty partners; there was no strategic partners or stakeholders or practitioners included in the design of this. All of these constraints mean that the ministry couldn’t adequately test the implications or the unintended consequences, which is really important, and it could undermine the stated objectives of this legislative change. I think if the Government is going to go hell for leather in terms of signalling in a pretty vacuous and simple way their intentions, the least they could do is put a little bit of work into getting it right.

As we said, central to this reform is limiting the reductions in sentence that judges can grant, and one such measure in the provision of a reduction of a sentence is the youth and remorse, as was mentioned by the Minister, being a one-time reduction only. In respect to youth offending, we agree that a judge can probably give it less weight as a mitigating factor in subsequent offending, but the thing is, that is already the case under current law. We consider it to be quite irrational and at odds with good sentencing practice to require a judge to simply carte blanche disregard the factor when it still remains relevant to sentencing. A person doesn’t cease to be affected by their decision making simply because they’ve had it taken into account on one previous occasion. I think the Minister having to rely on the example of it happening dozens and dozens of times and resorting to hyperbole probably illustrates that point.

We also agree that a judge can be rightly sceptical of claims of remorse in respect to repeat offending, and this, again, is also the case with the current law, but we’re very mindful that the removal of remorse as a mitigating factor in a subsequent offending may have some perverse consequences. Namely, what we were concerned about was that there would be no incentive for offenders to make amends to their offending by way of things like genuine apologies or meeting with the victims, because there is no incentive for them to do so, and we know what a healing process that can be for people that choose to go down that path.

Having that removed isn’t keeping victims at the centre of the conversation, and this risks leading into worse, worse outcomes for the very people that the Government is talking about protecting. They talk a big talk—talk a big talk—about supporting victims and reducing the number of victims, but each time they’ve had an opportunity to do something practical and pragmatic about actually making that happen, they’ve instead chosen to take the option that is the most vacuous; which the least amount of work has gone into; and which we know through the regulatory impact statement, we know through the evidence of plenty of people who are experts in this area who do not agree, that it will have potentially the opposite effect.

In light of this, as the Minister said, the Justice Committee made some recommendations about tweaks, and we were pleased with that process, and we’d like to acknowledge all of the submitters that did participate in the select committee process. We recognise that particular circumstances such as the vulnerability of victims who are working alone should be taken into account as an aggravating factor, but it’s also the case that the law again already enables this. Adding this to a list of aggravating factors again increases that complexity.

There were lots of components to this bill that, on the surface, might sound like they’re doing something to reduce victims and to be tough on crime but actually could have the opposite effect, and there were plenty of warnings which the Government has chosen not to heed. The unintended consequences of disincentivising offenders from taking steps is something that’s already been discussed and the regulatory impact statement, we just believe, was full of information that it would have been good for the Government to take account of. The ministry was not, as I said, able to explore all of these options, so we find ourselves here today at the second reading being able to give scant airing to those really, really important pieces of information that the Government should have taken into account.

In short, this reform essentially is the Government just grasping in the dark. Central to this reform is limiting the reductions in sentencing that a judge can grant, and one such measure of the provision to make it somehow more palatable is that it cannot be manifestly unjust, which by definition therefore means that the Government is purposely and willing to introduce a bill and introduce a piece of legislation that by definition is unjust, but just not manifestly so, which we think is pretty backwards. The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): What we have here is another bill that is antiquated and weak, and it’s nothing more than this Government’s soundbite and fearmongering of an election promise with no evidence that is trying to address something as a patch, as a band-aid, of a much broader societal issue. This is not something that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will be supporting.

Let’s put it into context; let’s start with the select committee process. First of all, one of the things that we have heard consistently during the select committee process is that the limited nature of this bill means that it is hard to consult, but it’s also hard to expand or make any changes that will potentially be beneficial to our communities. We have heard from experts in the field such as the Defence Lawyers Association, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa - the Māori Law Society, and Law Association of New Zealand, who have expressed serious concerns with this bill.

I think let’s just unpack some of these concerns. From a fundamental constitutional range perspective, we have talked in this House over and over again about the importance of the principle of comity and of the importance of judicial independence, but what we have seen here is an overreach by the executive, and the legislature is complacent in that, in the executive overreach of judicial discretion, which undermines our constitutional arrangements. Again, this is something we have heard from experts in the field. This cannot be understated in terms of that violation of the separation of powers.

That is just the start of the broader concerns. If we are looking at it from an international perspective, we have seen that a number of our obligations on the international agreement and covenant are under threat, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And what does that actually mean in context?

Firstly, what we have seen is that this is a bill that is going to continuously punish our young people, and particularly our young Māori. We do see that there is an overrepresentation in our criminal court and justice system, and also in our corrections system of youth, and I think particularly when we’re looking at experts in the international and child forensic psychology, which shows that part of the brain in governing risk-taking behaviour, impulse control, and the ability to evaluate consequences continue to evolve until a person’s mid-20s, which is exacerbated by the experience of trauma, abuse, poor mental health, and social disadvantage. Yet this bill continues to punch down on our Māori youth.

I think one of the most concerning elements of this is that during the select committee process we only got clarification during the select committee after we heard from the submitters that this bill, and the lack of recognition of the youth mitigating factor in certain circumstances, is applicable to current sentences. That is not only not giving submitters the chance to submit on that; it also means that the Attorney-General, in their consistency on the report against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), could not have evaluated this. It’s invisible when it comes to the violation of section 26 of BORA. It also means that any of this particular risk does not manifest, and I think this is something that we really need to investigate and dig further into during the committee of the whole House stage, in terms of this BORA violation.

On another element of this, we are also going to need to be addressing Te Tiriti concern when it comes to something like this. We have heard over and over again. In fact, we have just heard, as part of Te Pire mō Ō Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill, that governing parties like to do this feel-good thing—like, “We are doing everything we can”. Yet we see through this bill, through the Gangs Act, through the reintroduction of the three-strikes legislation, that the only housing policy that this Government has for Māori is in the form of prison beds. That is what is going to happen when we are consistently using bills like this to say that we are there for victims, when in fact we are there to punish and discriminate against specific communities and specific parts of our population.

There are broader concerns with this bill that I would like to address as well. Let’s talk about victims. The Minister would love to talk about victims, but victims actually don’t feature all that prominently in this bill. The key area that the victim features in this bill is in clause 5, which is a rewording of clause 8 of the Sentencing Act. It is not anything new; it is something that is already currently in the legislation. It is simply a soundbite. It is virtue signalling that this bill is there for victims; it is not.

One of the things we have heard from submitters, particularly when we’re looking at community law—there were a number of concerns that were raised—is the fact that there is lack of clarity between what is considered victims’ needs and victims’ interests. There is a lack of consideration and also a concern around, potentially as a response to the offending, the vengeful and the psychological impact this will have from a victim’s perspective. But, most importantly, here is the crux of the issue. The report and the departmental report itself says that “The scope of the bill is limited in giving greater prominence to victims”. That is what is in the official report when we are looking at this bill. If you are really there for the victims, that phrase should never have occurred, but it does.

Therefore, what is about victims in here? I will admit that it was really important to hear from people who have been affected by crime, as part of the select committee process, and I think the select committee has improved or has made clarifications on certain elements of that, but, let us be clear, this bill is not about victims. It is about punishing people further; it is not about addressing the causes and the triggers of crime.

Another thing I think that is also of concern that should also be mentioned in this context is the concern that whoever has the money and pays can also get away with a higher proportion of discount. One of the things that is central to this bill is this so-called 40 percent cap. One of the things about this 40 percent cap, and this is something that is expressed in section 7 of this bill, is the fact that in the introduction—in the newly rewritten section 9F under section 7 of this bill—it mentions that section 10 of the Sentencing Act is not factored into this limitation around a 40 percent cap, particularly when it comes to the offer of making amends.

One of the things that we questioned during the select committee stage is if someone is in a position and has the privilege of making amends financially, does that mean that those people will be able to get greater than 40 percent discount and go beyond that 40 percent cap? That was something that was also not clarified as part of the select committee stage. Again, during the committee of the whole House stage, we would like to really ask the Minister, and if the Minister is happy to kind of prepare this ahead of time, has there been any work that’s been done on how many—how would this disproportionately benefit or disproportionately disadvantage people who could not make those kinds of financial amends under section 10 of the Sentencing Act?

To prevent crime, inequality must be addressed with the urgency that it requires. Governments should prioritise livable income, stable housing, and accessible education, healthcare, and addiction treatment. Longer prison sentences do not work and it’s a bottom-of-the-cliff approach to a much bigger solution that needs greater investment. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of ACT on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. We have heard all kinds of claptrap from across the House tonight. New Zealanders saw an abhorrent situation in our country, where crime was rising; it was all over the show. We all saw it. To keep your head in the sand and pretend like it wasn’t happening is just outrageous. That is why the good people of this country saw fit to unceremoniously turf out the last lot.

To have a victim, you have to have a perpetrator, and what we found was that cuddles for criminals was not ending the amount of perpetrators we had; what we got were more victims. I, along with my ACT colleagues and colleagues across this coalition, have been to the scenes of ram raids. We have seen what has eventuated 12 months later for families who have had their providers victimised in assaults on retail crime. That is why this Government has taken the steps that we have in this bill to put victims back not just at the centre but even in the picture of what is going on with our criminal justice system.

Long-term damage to families has been a shocker, and that, as I say, is why, in the ACT-National coalition, we put in things like an aggravating factor can be an attack on a sole trader—someone who’s operating in their business, someone who lives above their business, someone who’s working alone. These things need to be protected, and given the amount of victimisation that someone who is working late in a place that’s connected to their home can experience, it has just got to stop. We’ve got the capping of sentences, and we heard the 40 percent; well, I can remember hearing someone say to me that some of the people who had victimised them were getting bigger discounts than they could get at Briscoes! I think, when that sort of comment is happening in the country, that just shows the laughable aspect that had happened under the reign of the last lot.

This Government is increasing police numbers—500 more by the end of 2025. We are also introducing an aggravating factor, in this bill, of an attack on public transport service workers being another aggravating factor, because, even as we continue to move this country towards a place where order is returning to our streets, still people see fit to do things like attack good, honest, hard-working, public transport sector workers as they go about their daily business. This, as I say, is another step that this Government is taking on behalf of the commitments that we made to the people who elected us and saw fit to create this Government.

We are getting in there and we’re sorting out gangs. We should not have seen the rise that we did in gang numbers. People who decide that they’re choosing a life of crime associated with a gang do it for many reasons, but it cannot be overlooked how much it felt like gangs were getting a walk-around in this country, without having the strong arm of the law come down on them. That is what this Government is trying to do. We want New Zealanders to be able to feel safe in their country, so they can see somewhere not just to invest their capital in their businesses and see fit to buy and do things in the economy that provide for others but also invest their life. So many New Zealanders have taken a look at this country over the last five years and said, “I can’t deal with that direction.”, and so they have gone and packed up and gone overseas.

This Government is doing its damnedest to make sure that New Zealanders can see a future in this country, and that New Zealanders who have taken their skills overseas can come back bloody promptly—sorry, I’m not allowed to say that, am I? Apologies, Madam Speaker, for that word—come back extremely promptly, because if we don’t—

Grant McCallum: Just say it.

CAMERON LUXTON: Just say it, he reckons. Well, that’s how fired up I am on this, because this Government is delivering on what all three coalition parties promised to do.

What I think is that we need to make a country where people see fit to raise their children, to let them walk down the road without fearing. It’s not that kids were being attacked on the road; it’s that, when you have a feeling in a country where crime is pervasive, when the Papamoa Plaza is being ram-raided and people see fit to post it on social media—another thing that this bill is dealing with, an aggravating factor of having social media posts be a part of it—when people see that in their communities, like I saw in my community, I think that just leads to a mistrust in the entire society, and this Government is returning trust to this country, to our society, and it’s going to get our country back where we should be. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. I would like to pause first to reflect on restoring law and order. It is a priority. Restoring law and order requires enforcement, it requires detection, it requires better legislation, but also it requires a return of faith in the justice system itself. We’ve heard in this House just recently about the disillusionment that exists among victims around even bothering to go towards the court system because of the weak sentencing. Because of the fact that all the trauma and challenges they go through, they end up with laughable sentences to the offender where they feel no safer, they feel not protected, they feel not validated, and they, most importantly, feel unsafe.

This is about returning a level of expectation that this Parliament rightly should have in the justice system to say: “Enough is enough.” We owe it to victims to send a clear message that continually discounting sentences is unacceptable. In the narrative in this House today, it is astounding that we have missed the point that these are the sentences; these are at the point a person has been found guilty by a jury of their peers of committing the offence. This isn’t imposing a sentence before you’ve gone through the justice system; this is restoring faith in the justice system once you’ve gone through this arduous process. You have been convicted, you have been found guilty, and now we’re saying that this society deserves some level of assurance that these crimes will be taken seriously.

When you have gone through the court system, when you have gone through the jury system, when you have sat next to a victim and gone through this incredibly arduous process, through adjournment, through delays, through all of these challenges and still fought the system, and when you finally get your conviction and you think, “I’ve done my duty. I have found someone accountable.”, and when the system kicks you in the teeth and says, “Well, we’ll discount for this and we’ll discount for that—and, oh, he has said he’s sorry eventually after the 15th time.”—this is not acceptable. This is when we talk about how we will stand up for our victims and we will make sure that there is a clear message that this is about accountability.

Yes, we have said repeatedly in this Government: “We will deal with the social housing issues.”, and we are dealing with education and we are dealing with the drivers that force people into bad circumstances. We’re not getting rid of those initiatives; we are actually doubling down. We are delivering more than the previous Government was able to deliver, because we’re serious and because the grown-ups are in the room. But this part here relates to the fact that you have committed a crime and you will be held accountable. This is about restoring faith so that our victims don’t feel “Why bother?” We see it too much: “Why should I bother because he will be back out on the street before I have even finished paying all the losses that I have for the crime that’s been committed against me?”

This is why we’re taking it seriously. I would have to take a couple of points about what was said across the House. This idea that we are punching down on our rangatahi, we are punching down on our youth—no. We are protecting them. We are protecting them from being manipulated by serious criminals who are using our young people to be the face of their crimes. They are using our young people. They are victimising our young people and we’re going to say, “You’re party to it. We will take it seriously. We will not allow you to punch down on our rangatahi.” We will stand up for them and we will deliver accountability in our sentencing.

We have, for too long, allowed the system to erode. We’ve allowed the cuddling of our criminals. We have allowed this to occur because our victims lost their voice. Our victims lost their ability to be heard because we heard all the excuses about what was driving the criminal. Now we are going to talk about the victim being first. We’re going to talk about the fact that our victims deserve better. They deserve to know that if you report a crime—and remembering we are talking about these serious criminal offenders who are destroying people’s lives. We now have to advocate for a degree of personal responsibility. You will be informed, you will be warned, you will be told of the consequences of repeated offending. You will be told—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker won’t be.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, I’m meaning the offenders. The person responsible will be told that they are going to be held accountable. If they continue down this pathway, you have an opportunity to change your trajectory, but if you do not change your trajectory, the system will ensure that our victims will be protected.

This is about real consequences. This is about accepting that, in amongst all of these challenging circumstances that exist, there’s a person at the centre of it. There is a person who has had their lives irreversibly damaged and someone has to be made to account for that. That is why this bill is important. That is why it’s sending a clear message from this Government that these are the expectations in our justice system that we want to see more. Most importantly, we want to see our victims have faith in the justice system that’s supposed to protect them. For that reason, New Zealand First commends this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātau. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō te iwi Māori, ā, kōkiritia e te Pāti Māori i roto i tēnei Whare mō te anga o te tahua, te tāhuhu ture o te Whare Pāremata. Kua oti i a te Kāwanatanga te kotahi tau kia āta waihanga mai i ngā ture, ā, me te whai i āna i whakarautaki ai hei whai māna. Ā, ka mutu, i roto i te tau kua taha ake nei, i riro i a au tētahi wā te āta patapatai ki ngā kaihautū o ngā tahua o te tāhuhu ture, arā ko Corrections, ana hoki ko te Police, tae atu ki te whare whānui o te ture. Ā, me tā rātau whaiwhai atu i te whakaheketanga iho o Ngāi Māori e pākinotia, ā, e whakamaua tonutia i roto i ngā kawenga o te tāhuhu ture. Ana, ko tāku ki a rātau, ngā hautū o ērā whare e toru, pēhea rā tō koutou manaaki i te iwi Māori, i te mea kei te mōhio rātau tokotoru ngā taumahatanga i runga i te iwi Māori, kāore e tika ana, kāore e taurite ana, nō reira koinā tonu ko te ito o te pātai matua, hāngai pū ana ki tēnei o ngā ture. Ā, ko tā rātau whakahoki kōrero mai ki a au, e kore e taea e rātau tokotoru, tēnā, tēnā, tēnā, i kōrero mai ki a au e kore e taea e au, e kore e taea e au, e kore e taea e au. Ahakoa kei ō rātau rautaki ēnei mea e takoto ana.

Nō reira, ki roto i te kotahi tau kua kite atu i ngā ture e haere mai ana i te Kāwanatanga, ā, tērā tōna āhuatanga ko te patu i ngā kēngi tētahi, tērā anō ahakoa kua turaki ināianei ko te ram raids bill tētahi, anei tētahi ko te strengthening sentencing, arā tētahi, arā noa atu ngā ture kua taetae ki mua ki te komiti whiriwhiri o justice. Ko te utu o ērā ture katoa, e ai ki ngā mātanga ture o te motu, ka piki ake te tokomaha o te iwi Māori e mau nei i roto i ngā kawenga o te tāhuhu o te ture. Piki ake! Āhea te Kāwanatanga whakaaro nui nei ki te iwi Māori me tana mōhio ko te tāhuhu o te ture he kupenga ka haoa nuitia te iwi Māori. Kua oti kē i ngā whare o te tāhuhu o te ture ēnei āhuatanga te rangahau. Kei te mōhio kē rātau, kāore e tika te taurite o te pānga o te ture ki te Māori, ki te pānga o te ture ki ētahi atu. Kei te mōhio kē. Nō reira, inā tāku pātai ki te Minita, mā hea ia whakatau tika, whakatau toka ai i ngā tatauranga hei whai mā ngā kaihautū o tēnā whare, o tēnā whare, o tēnā whare o te tāhuhu o te ture. Kāore ōna whakautu. Nō reira e tukua tonutia te iwi Māori ki te kūpenga o te ture kei reira whakamaua atu ai he mataika nō te pakanga, te pakanga e rū tonu nei, e haere tonu nei.

Nō reira mēnā e tika ana ngā kōrero o tēnei Whare mō te pire katahi anō ka whakamanahia me te manako nui, te ngākau nui o tēnei Whare ki tōna taha iwi Māori, mō te whakatika i ngā hē o mua, tōia mai tērā wairua ki ngā hē o te nāianei. Ā, ko ngā ture kua oti i te Kāwanatanga te whakarite i roto i te tau kotahi ko aua hē ka tōaitia haere ake nei ki te anamata. Koia te urupounamu e tukua atu ana ki ngā mokopuna o te āpōpō, tekau tau, rua tekau tau, hoki mai a Ngāi Māori ki konei me te wero i ngā whakataunga ture o tēnei Kāwanatanga i roto i tēnei tau, anei tētahi ko te Sentencing Reform nei. Nō reira, kāore mātau e paku whakaae, tautoko, aha atu rānei i tēnei pire. Otirā, e tautoko ana mātau i ngā mātanga rōia, ā, kāhui ture o te motu nā rātau anō tēnei pire i whakahē. Nō reira, tēnā tātau. Kei raro.

[I greet you and I greet us all. I stand to present the views of the Māori people, as advanced by Te Pāti Māori in this House, about the framework of this vote, for the justice system of this Parliament. The Government has spent one year designing legislation, pursuing its outcomes that it strategised. Within the year that has passed, I secured time to examine the leaders of the votes within the justice system, that is Corrections, Police, and the Ministry of Justice, and their collective pursuit to reduce the number of Māori people who are impacted and held within the machinery of the justice system. My question to them, the leaders of these three agencies, was: how do you care for Māori people? Because the three of them know the burden on Māori people that is not fair or equitable, hence that was the heart of my main question, with specific reference to this piece of legislation. Their response to me was, they are not able, each one, they said to me, I can’t do it, I can’t do it, I can’t do it, despite the fact that these commitments are set out in their strategies.

Thus, within one year we have seen the legislation being advanced by the Government, including one to beat gangs, another one that has now been discharged, being the ram raids bill, and this is another one, strengthening sentencing, and there are others which have come before the Justice Committee. The impact of all these laws, according to the legal experts of the country, is that the number of Māori incarcerated within the justice system will increase—increase! When will the Government have consideration for Māori people, knowing that the justice system is a net that entraps Māori people. The departments within the justice system have already researched these phenomena. They already know: the impact of the law on Māori is not the same as the impact of the law on other people. They already know. Hence my question to the Minister: how will he set fair and meaningful targets for the leaders of each department within the justice system? He had no reply. So, Māori people continue to be sent into the net of the law there to remain victims in the ongoing battle.

Therefore, if the commentary of this House about the bill that has just been enacted is correct, about the aspirations and goodwill of this House towards Māori people, in terms of addressing historic grievances, draw forth that spirit to encompass the grievances of the present day—that is, the laws that have been enacted by the Government in the year gone by will reiterate those grievances into the future. This is the legacy that will be bequeathed to future generations. In 10 years, 20 years, Māori will come back here to challenge the legislative decisions of this Government over the last year, including this sentencing reform. Therefore, we do not agree, support, or do anything else to this bill. However, we do support the legal experts and law associations who have rejected this bill. Thus, greetings to us all. I sit.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Kahurangi Carter.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Ko Huhana Lyndon tēnei. [I am Huhana Lyndon.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, I did it again. I’m so sorry.

HŪHANA LYNDON: That’s all right. Kia ora tātou. E te Pīka, e mihi atu ana ki a tātou i tēnei ahiahipō, me te taimaha o tēnei kaupapa kua tau mai ki roto i tō tātou Whare Pāremata i muri atu i te pānuitanga o tēnā pire e pā ana ki te whenua riri nei, o Ōrākau.

Nō reira, ka tū ahau hei waha kōrero, hei waha tautoko i taku hoa ki roto i te Rōpū Kākāriki.

Tēnei taimahatanga nā te mea ko te iwi Māori, ko te iwi Māori e hamahama ana i te Kāwanatanga, ko te iwi Māori e hamahama ana i te Pirihimana ki runga i ngā rori, ki roto i ngā tāone, ki roto i ngā rohe.

Nō reira ka waha kōrero ahau e pā ana ki ēnei āwangawanga. E tautoko ana au i ngā kōrero a taku hoa, a taku tūngāne, a Tākuta, me taku mihi i te mea ko te Māori e taka mai ana ki roto i te hē.

[Madam Speaker, I greet us all this evening and acknowledge the difficulty of this topic that has landed in our Parliament House following the reading of that bill regarding the battleground Ōrākau.

And so, I stand as a spokesperson, as a support person for my colleague within the Green Party.

This is difficult because it is the Māori people, it is the Māori people that are hammering the Government, it is the Māori people that are hammering the Police on the roads, in the urban centres, and in the regions.

And so I will speak about these concerns. I support the statements made by my colleague, my brother, Tākuta, and I make acknowledgement because it is the Māori who are falling into trouble.]

This bill is about mass incarceration. I’ve spoken in this Whare before about MMP meaning “More Māori in Prison”, and that’s what this bill is going to do to us. We are going to see double the prison population. You know, the mega-prison that’s being built in Waikeria—nau mai e te iwi Māori, nau mai. That’s the solution of this Government to the housing crisis for te iwi Māori—load up our prisons.

Prisons don’t work. Prisons don’t rehabilitate, prisons don’t provide a huarahi to prevent the reoffending of Māori—no, not at all. Māori are going to be the ones locked up, and that’s really clear. In fact, the officials gave the advice to the Justice Committee. They said there would be a doubling of the prison population. There will be additional people in prison, having committed only minor offences—and this is what the officials told our committee. That’s one of the problems. It’s that we’re only looking to lock people up; we’re not looking at the drivers of crime in the first place.

As iwi Māori know, we know it’s complex. We know that we have tamariki who are impacted by, yes, colonisation; by, yes, drugs and alcohol; and by, yes, mental health issues and addictions—by all of those things that see their parents in prison. Then they come out, and what? What are they coming out to?

We need to really look at how prisons don’t work, and, actually, all we’re doing is just appeasing one part of the population without thinking about those who have been impacted on both sides of the coin—and, largely, that is Māori. We cannot say that it’s not a Māori issue. This is a Māori issue, and more Māori in prison will be a result.

The rehabilitation success rates show for themselves that putting people into prison does not work: only 7 to 15 percent of those in prison—well, you know, where’s the success rate? I just can’t see it, and that’s, I guess, what my issue is with the bill. It doesn’t provide enough breadth for the judiciary to have flexibility, because it’s becoming more and more rigid in terms of the direction that our judges have to be able to make decisions.

We have to look at the background of the individual; we have to look at those things which have impacted upon them; and if we think about our youth who get into trouble—sometimes it’s a split-second decision, or something that was very impulsive—and kore e tino whai whakaaro ki te utu. [and they don’t really consider the price.] Then they’re in prison and then they’re in the cycle. Our people get into the cycle, and then what is the outcome? It’s reoffending.

If you look at the rates of people who do have a neurological or intellectual disability, fetal alcohol syndrome, mental health issues and addiction, and illiteracy, they’re all sitting in our prisons. When you lock them up, are you really preparing them to go back out into the world and be productive members of society? I argue no. Because, actually, you’re wanting to load up the prison system with more of our people, and you’re not looking at the drivers of crime being poverty, the drivers of crime being the education system, and the drivers of crime being the fact that they don’t have a safe roof over their heads or that they even have a legal vehicle to drive on the roads. Yeah, they might get in trouble, and then—boom! “Oh, three strikes and you’re out. Oh, yep, lock them up.”—lock them up—and it’s not our people here, in this House; it’s actually the people in the kāinga.

When I went to Whakatāne on the weekend and I was speaking to people in Ōpōtiki, the community was really clear about the regional issues. It is about jobs and it is about seeking for something positive for the future, and that doesn’t come at the end of being put in prison when you stuff up, because “three strikes and you’re out”.

What is it—cuddles for criminals? Come on, we’re not asking for cuddles for criminals; we’re asking for a system that does not seek to lock our people up in the first place, and we look to rehabilitate for real. Kia ora.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The difference between the Government and the Opposition on this piece of legislation, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, could not be starker. It could not be starker. On this side, we are relentlessly focused on restoring law and order and putting victims at the heart of our justice system; on that side, they are soft on crime and they do not support this legislation. The only thing they want to do is reduce the prison population.

Credit to the previous Government; it was the only thing they were good at. The only target they could actually achieve was to reduce the prison population, but what did it do? It drove up violent crime and increased the number of victims in New Zealand. What a shameful day to see members opposite voting against legislation which will protect New Zealanders—which will protect Kiwis in this country, who want to feel safe in their communities. Let’s be very, very clear—the contrast is crystal clear: tough on crime on this side; soft on crime on that side. You’ve made it clear to the New Zealand public. They know who they will be voting for in 2026.

One of the key points I want to make crystal clear—and I know other members will talk about it in the legislation, too—is that you can only be remorseful once. It’s shameful that people can continue to receive discounts based on remorse when they’ve already had it previously. That ends now. Remorse can only be given as a discount once, through this legislation, and it is a good thing. We’ve made it clear: there will be real consequences for crime. We are clamping down on lenient sentence discounts, particularly for youth and for remorse. Simply saying sorry does not cut it any more.

We are also introducing several aggravating factors, and the last major change is around cumulative sentencing. We’ve seen a growing rise of concurrent sentences, as well. That will be changing, and that’s why this legislation will set clear expectations that offenders should be held to account for the crimes they commit, to ensure that we can protect the people of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thought we would have nearly got 10 minutes out of the Government if they had all the answers to fixing law and order! That one made about 2½.

The problem we’ve got here is that we want to keep our communities safe now but we also want to break the cycle of crime. This Government quite clearly has no plan to break the cycle of crime. The crux of the matter is that the legislation reduces the range of sentences that a judge may impose on an offender and is intended to reduce the discretion of a judge in imposing a sentence.

Fundamental to the sentencing process is the fact that every situation—the circumstances of the victim, the offender, the offending—is different, and the job of the judge is to impose a sentence which is appropriate to all of those circumstances. But those members over there know better! They think they can map out the future for every single human and how it’s going to work, and they think they know better than judges. That’s why they’ve introduced legislation that overrules the discretion of the judiciary in New Zealand.

This legislation, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, is a departure from that and will make it harder for judges to achieve the objectives under the Act. That’s exactly what we heard in the select committee. We heard that from the New Zealand Law Society. We heard that from the Defence Lawyers Association. We heard it from the Māori Law Society. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said the same thing. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that as well. The Law Association of New Zealand also said that.

What it shows is that this Government is simply uninterested in evidence. They don’t want reforms based on expert evidence or actual proof of what works, and the one measure they’ve done in the law and order space already, which is boot camps, is another example: a blatant failure of trying to get on top of youth crime, but they won’t even talk about or admit to where it’s failing. This is the second cab off the rank in terms of how we fix making New Zealanders feel safer and breaking the cycle of crime.

On top of that, the Ministry of Justice made a number of warnings about these changes, in their own regulatory impact statement, but, again, that would be evidence and proof, and we’re not interested in that if you’re the Government! The unintended consequence is, they stated in the regulatory impact statement—which is worth a read if you ever took the time to do that—of disincentivising offenders from taking steps that will benefit victims.

So, after we’ve heard speech after speech on how this bill is victim-centric, the regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice states that it will have detrimental impacts on victims and outcomes for victims. This Government—

Hon Member: How?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Read the regulatory impact statement. One of the reasons that concerns me about this, particularly for victims, is we’ve heard it’s victim-centric but there is no additional support for victims, for their ability to have a voice in this justice system, for their support through the judicial process, or even for counselling or additional services that victims are crying out for. We put huge extra support in for victims going through the system, and all that the Government thinks it’s going to do for victims is simply remove the discretion of judges, and somehow that’s victim-centric. Well, I’m not buying it.

The other point I would like to get to, before wrapping up, is one of the areas that they’re not focusing on, in terms of what’s causing the cycle of crime to repeat. We’ve seen this with the huge increase in methamphetamine in New Zealand. How is restricting the choices or the ability of a judge to make a decision impacting on the fact that New Zealanders are seeing a 129 percent increase in methamphetamine? If you’re going to get tough on crime and tough on organised crime, where is this Government’s plan to reduce the increasing rate of methamphetamine and cocaine that’s finding its way into New Zealand? That is a real concern—that the plan is boot camps, and restricting judges’ ability to make sentences is the plan to stop the cycle of crime. I can’t see how that’s going to work.

The amendments also include provisions that a judge can depart from the rules in the case of manifestly unjust. Implicit in this is a recognition that the application of these new sentencing standards will lead to injustice in varying degrees. Manifestly unjust is a high threshold. It’s more than just an unfair or inappropriate sentence; it must be a sentence that is so clearly wrong that no reasonable person would consider it appropriate.

In short, we know this will incarcerate more Māori, this doesn’t seem to show how it’s even going to help victims, but it gets to tick a box on your sheet of how you’ve tried to deliver restoring law and order. I think it’s a sad failure and an indictment on this Government’s inability to understand a problem and come out with real solutions.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I want to speak to victims out there this evening. If they’re watching and listening to this this evening, I want them to know that we have their back, that this Government is here to ensure that victims are at the centre of our justice system. I heard the member opposite earlier, Dr Tracey McLellan, say that this would make sentencing more complex. Well, let me make it simple for that member and for everyone watching this this evening, wanting to see the Government deliver on its promise of restoring law and order in this country.

Number one: victims’ interests are important. That’s the first thing this bill will deliver.

Secondly, there will be new aggregating factors, particularly for crimes against public transport passenger services. You know, if you are a worker in passenger services right now, as a side note, we have your back—not the so-called party for the workers, but this Government has your backs. If you’re working in a sole charge position or you’re working where your home and business is connected, this Government has your back.

Number three: we’re limiting reductions in sentences to 40 percent.

Number four: we’re implementing a sliding scale, setting out a maximum sentence for guilty pleas that decreases—pretty simple; pretty logical—in terms of reductions the further into the sentence that the criminal—because that’s what they are—

Rima Nakhle: Are we allowed to say that?

CARL BATES: —or defendant, at that stage, but, you know, ultimately in this context they are a criminal—pleads guilty.

Number five: it prevents the repeat use of sentence reductions for youth and remorse. My colleague Tom Rutherford made that very clear earlier and explained that point. You know, you just can’t keep saying sorry.

And number six: it encourages the use of cumulative sentences for offences while on bail, in custody, or on parole.

Members opposite need to understand that this is pretty simple and it’s what New Zealand wants. I commend it to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): This is a bill that’s really hard to hear the Government talk about, because they are extremely pompous in the way they’re talking about it and they’re extremely out of touch. Everybody in this House cares about victims, and a melodramatic appeal to them by somebody who barely understands what it is to be one is actually really offensive.

When we look at issues like this, we have a duty to look at them in the reality that they are, which is a complex one. It is complex because our victims actually tend to also be our perpetrators, because there are mental health issues, because there are issues of youth, because we had a long time in this country where we let people go into State care, we kicked them out of the system at 16, and they have alcohol issues and we’ve had methamphetamine.

All these reasons mean that we end up with a complex situation before a judge. And what do we do? We make sure that we look good by taking away their discretion to do their job well. That’s what we are doing today in this court. We are making ourselves look good and doing very little to address the problem.

Now, I have got an area in my electorate where I am worried about retail crime. I am worried about the safety of workers. [Interruption] I would not like one of the members of—please listen to me—the Government to tell me I do not care about those workers, because that’s what I did with my life: I spent 25 years caring about those workers and looking after them.

Carl Bates: You got paid by them!

HELEN WHITE: And I’m looking at a member who has, in fact, not necessarily done that, who is telling me he’s looking after victims. Those people are victims, and we need to make sure that our system actually addresses those issues in my community that are there right now, that are still there despite the promises of Mark Mitchell—that are still there. When you move police into the city, you take them away from other areas. When you don’t fund your rehabilitation centres, you have more drug crime on the street.

These are all important things that come from our taxes, which we need to pay if we’re going to have a society that functions, but, no, what we’re going to do is take the discretion away from our judges to deal with situations which are hard—they are hard. Why would we have an issue like youth taken into account? We have youth taken into account—and I’m sure there were submissions on this—because, actually, children’s brains are plastic. They are changing. Men don’t actually have a fully set brain until their mid-20s. They are still developing their brain. If they are actually coming on a second offence and they are remorseful, it may well actually make more sense as they reach maturity.

There are two of these things I have dealt with. I have dealt with youth and I have dealt with remorse in a very small way. I have given it more thought and attention than was allowed to the people giving the advice to this committee, who could not bring the evidence before the committee. What did the committee do? It added a little thing at the end of all of this that said, “If it’s manifestly unjust, we’ll change our mind.” Manifestly unjust? What about if it’s just unjust? What about if it’s really hurting people?

We pay judges a lot of money after they’ve spent their entire life doing this work, and often they really care. They’ve worked with families. They’ve seen families in cyclical violence. They have been there through thick and thin, and we pay them a lot of money because we respect them. What have we done today? What are we going to do? We’re going to take away the discretion from the people who are in that position.

Do you know what I call that? I call it arrogance. I call it arrogance and I call it pontificating, and I call it actually something less than the duty we have in here, because we are in a trusted position here. We should be putting up good and robust law that doesn’t have unintended consequences and doesn’t lead to things that are unjust, not just things that are manifestly unjust, because real people will become victims again if we allow laws like this to rule us because it happens to make us a little bit more popular when we’re down in the polls. Kia ora.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Madam Speaker, it really is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call Greg Fleming.

GREG FLEMING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can see my excitement. I was not anticipating to speak on this bill, but I’m delighted that I have the chance. I have actually spent the last 25 years of my career working on the front line. I was on the founding board of Rethinking Crime and Punishment in New Zealand and I, like my Government and like my party, are huge believers in the need to prioritise the restoration of people to society. We also believe that we must—and this is not compatible with our first priority—protect people from crime.

I had a, some would call it, Damascus road experience; I’m going to call it a Campbell Road experience. Not long after I became a candidate—this was the year before last—I was walking along the road in Campbell Road in my electorate of Maungakiekie when I came across a person that I had not seen for many years. She was clearly visibly shaken. It was because she had just come back from a counselling appointment. I inquired with her as to what had happened.

She went on to explain to me that earlier that week she’d come in from her back garden there on Campbell Road to be confronted with two masked gentlemen—interestingly, I call them gentlemen; I still want to believe absolutely their humanity and the point that we can restore them, but at this particular moment they weren’t particularly gentlemanly—in her kitchen. They threatened her, they made her lie on the ground. Thankfully, they did her no bodily harm, but they took her car, they went away, and by the time the police caught these two guys, they were in East Auckland repeating their home invasion on another two victims. When the police did finally apprehend them, they discovered both of them were wearing monitoring bracelets.

When you unpack their case, it is sadly the result of a very well-meaning but misguided sentencing system that wanted to believe that these guys were ready for release. They weren’t. They needed to spend some time inside our prison, going through our rehabilitation services, and that is what we as a Government are absolutely committed to seeing: more investment and better programmes in there to restore these people to the people that they should be and can be. That will happen when they are under those programmes. It’s not going to happen when they are wandering Campbell Road invading neighbours because they shouldn’t have been there in the first place. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which has been a debate that has focused on politicians talking about being tough on crime and not on being tough on the causes of crime.

It’s difficult to listen to, as the MP for Manurewa, where we have significant issues with youth offending in the area, where we have gang activity back on our main streets, and where we have young people who see a life in the gangs as a possibility. None of us wants that. None of us wants the kind of community that feels like people don’t have an alternative to crime and that only punishments are the way to get young people on a track to success, where our principals are dealing daily with a rise in violent crime and knife crime in our schools. That has never been a feature of our South Auckland schools, and it is something that is happening now.

We need real solutions for this, and it is sobering to think that we as elected representatives are presiding over a situation in New Zealand which is completely unacceptable and should never have been a part of growing up as a young person in our communities, but bills like this do not do the hard job of addressing the causes of crime in our communities. They do the job of signalling, and I agree that signalling to judges is sometimes required, but it is also really important to give judges the role that they do in our justice system, which is to assess the appropriate sentencing and the appropriate conditions in each case.

That is why Parliament doesn’t set compulsory sentences for every type of crime and every type of offending. There is a reason why this House is not the court that decides every sentence for every person in every case, and especially in those circumstances like the member who has just resumed his seat, Greg Fleming, has described. There is a need for harsh punishments for people who reoffend on parole or when they are in home detention, but those circumstances are always some of the most complex. These are people who have been engaged in rehabilitative systems and, as the member acknowledged, in a system that is trying to get them on a better path. For these harsh punishments that politicians like to talk about to actually have an effect, we need a justice system which is geared up and built around getting people on a better path and into something that is more useful for them to be engaged in.

None of the victims of violent crime that I have spoken with in my electorate, after really horrific events like jewellery store owners being bashed, like store owners who have been the target of ram raids, have spoken first about the need for sentencing reform. They’ve said that it is the role of their elected representatives to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen. These are people in our communities—the store owners, the jewellery shop owner—who know the people who are committing crimes against them. They will often know the kids’ names who come into the store and steal from them.

What they want for those young people is for them to be off the street and in work or, if it’s not work, in programmes that make sure that they’re not loitering around the shops and that they actually can get in front of the people that they have been committing the crimes against and apologise to them and figure out something that is better to be able to do. Those shop owners are also the biggest supporters of programmes like Clendon Pride’s Mangōpare, that operates out of the Clendon shops in my electorate of Manurewa, where they’re getting kids into something better and having them go and apologise and speak with the people who their crimes affect.

Those are useful solutions. They are solutions that people support, when it is community based and when it is well understood. There is a lot of goodwill for that kind of programme, and we need to be listening to the victims of violent crime, who do want something more from not only the Government but both major parties in power. Now, I can hear some heckling on the other side, and I would just say that these sorts of debates about sentencing are for—

Grant McCallum: We’re not heckling. Do you want heckling? Do you want some heckling? You sure?

ARENA WILLIAMS: I do want some action—I do, Grant McCallum. These sorts of debates call for some soberness and some dignity—

Grant McCallum: Don’t be serious! Don’t laugh!

ARENA WILLIAMS: —around sentencing and around how our justice system should operate, because—and I’m not laughing, Grant McCallum; it’s the National members who are doing so. We all know that there is political hay to be made out of looking tough in sentencing reform.

Rima Nakhle: There’s looking after the victims.

ARENA WILLIAMS: It is certainly not looking after the victims when the Minister of Justice’s own advice says that this is not something that will help victims, that victims will actually be negatively affected by these reforms. When the member Carl Bates said that he wants to talk directly to victims, he’s actually ignoring the fact that all of the research, all of best practice in our lawmaking in this country and in other jurisdictions that have tried reforms like this, show that this kind of reform doesn’t have a positive outcome for victims, because it disincentivises people to come forward and to admit their offending and to begin a process where they can make good on the harm that they have done. This further pushes people in the system into a position where they are entrenched and where they cannot come to the table and actually admit their offending, which is exactly what those, say, shop owners actually want. They want to deal with this. They want to move past this. They want to see that there is a path for these young people that is an alternative.

Now, it’s been useful for us to contribute to this debate. This is not something the Labour Party supports. It is something that we want to see action on. It’s on this Government to see how this bears out, but if there is a negative impact on victims, then we should be back in this House repealing this law.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, this debate is interrupted for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, when we broke for the dinner break, we were up to the second reading of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 12, the National Party call.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in absolute, vehement, 100 percent support of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill in its second reading, that our Government is progressing without shame throughout the House. The reason why I say “without shame” is because I sat here in absolute—I was—

Tom Rutherford: Disgust.

RIMA NAKHLE: Well, I was flabbergasted with what I was hearing from the other side of the House. It flabbergasted me because—I say this often—I truly believe people on the other side of the House are good people, decent people, but I can’t believe, sometimes, the world view that is shared with us. One of these world views is that this bill, what it does is it’s not about victims, as one of our Green members said—“This bill is not about victims”—he said—“it is about punishing people further.” Really? Does the speaker think that’s what it’s about? Absolutely we want to punish people further. There’s a reason why we want to punish people further, because my neighbours in Takanini were telling me over and over and over again that there seem to be no more consequences for violent crime, for all types of crime. I said to them, “We will bring back consequences when we get back in there.”, and this bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, is one of the ways that we are bringing back consequences for crime, holding people accountable.

If I reflect on some of the submissions that were given during the submission stage, another point of horror and almost disgust for me was when I asked a solicitor that is the co-chair of the Defence Lawyers Association of New Zealand, “What do we say”—and she was speaking against the bill—“to an 11-year-old girl that was very violently sexually abused and the perpetrator was given home detention?”—home detention. Do you know what this person answered, Ms Elizabeth Hall? She said, “We say that the justice system is designed to look at the interests of all parties and that the harm that has been suffered to you”—the young girl—“is recognised.” Do you think the mother wants to know that the harm is recognised, or to have something done about it, or the perpetrator being given something more than home detention? He was given 75 percent discount because of this reason and this reason and this reason. It is shameful. It’s shameful what we’ve done to this young girl, this 11-year-old girl whose life is, effectively, ruined because of that perpetrator. He has home detention. It’s shameful and it’s disgusting, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1 debate on clauses 4 to 7, “Amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just some brief questions for the Minister. I’m sure he’s aware of the views that have been expressed by the New Zealand Labour Party—that would have been touched on, obviously, at second reading—but given that the proposed changes in the amendments are relatively minor in terms of quantum, but the impact will be quite different, I’m just wondering whether the Minister was seeking to introduce any additional Amendment Papers to address some of the concerns that had been identified in the Labour Party’s differing view; in particular, the inability of the bill, as we see it at the moment, to explore alternative options around what are minimum unit settings. Perhaps we’ll start there for the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to engage on this. Just as a prefatory remark, the bill, as I think members will acknowledge, is a relatively small and narrow change to make it easier to introduce liquidity into the build-to-rent market, which in and of itself is a small part of the housing market in New Zealand. As I said, I think, in the first reading and publicly, no one pretends that this is the sole answer to New Zealand’s housing woes—I think everyone would acknowledge that—but it’s one of those things you can chip away at to make a difference. Build-to-rent has got a role to play, there’s quite a bit of active interest in the sector, and so we are advancing this bill to do that.

In response to Mr Utikere’s points and also the Hon Kieran McAnulty, who raised some issues in the second reading debate—and I welcome the engagement on this issue—I undertook to go away, a couple of weeks ago now, and seek some advice in relation to those issues. I did that, and I’m happy to make that available to the member. If someone sends me an Official Information Act (OIA) request, I’m sure we can—

Tangi Utikere: Come on—be proactive.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK, if you send me an email, it’s technically an OIA request anyway. I can make it available to you.

I sought some advice on it. In relation to the “20 dwellings” issue, which is the threshold for defining build-to-rent—that is, I’m advised, the threshold used in the Act and the definition of build-to-rent land in the Income Tax Act 2007. Reasonable people can disagree about whether 20 is the right number or not, but, at the time that was set, the Government sought to balance competing aims. A higher limit restricts access to capital for large housing developments, which discourages investment, but a lower limits exempts small overseas property developers from the on-sale requirements, which, people would argue, is inconsistent with the foreign-buyers ban. A core element of the changes we’re making in this bill are not to alter the fundamentals of the so-called foreign-buyers ban. We’re not proposing to amend that.

Mr McAnulty has previously been interested in a two-tier approach for the regions, and the advice I have had, which I agree with, is that that would introduce complexity into the Act. You’d have to define the geographic boundaries; you’d have to figure out the dwelling thresholds. It would increase the complexity of—let’s face it, the Overseas Investment Act is an already extremely complex Act. In fact, one of the Government’s key aims is to simplify the complexity of the Overseas Investment Act. The aim of this bill is to better support large-scale, professionally run housing. I’m also advised that build-to-rent is less likely to be viable in smaller regions, given the market conditions, to make it profitable and that smaller developments are also more likely to find finance in the domestic market. For example, it would be relatively easy to find finance for a four-bedroom unit development in, I don’t know, Waipukurau or Napier—pick a medium size town or city. The Overseas Investment Act is less of a barrier.

I’ve gone away, I’ve taken some advice on it, I appreciate that members are raising these issues in good faith, I’m happy to make it available, but, in answer to Mr Utikere’s question, I’m not proposing to advance any amendments.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his response. I know he’d indicated that he had sought and received advice. It would be helpful if the Minister was prepared to perhaps make that available, rather than have us rely on the Official Information Act for it, given that it was raised by members opposite—the Hon Kieran McAnulty, in particular. I invite the Minister to maybe think about proactively releasing that information.

I thank him for his comments around the 20-unit setting being the appropriate setting or not, and the indication from the Minister is that there’s no intention to perhaps change that. One final point from me for him will be whether in smaller areas—and I know he has identified and touched on Waipukurau, for example, and I know that Mr McAnulty is very familiar with that part of the country, indeed.

Hon Chris Bishop: That was accidental—

TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, but welcome.

Hon Chris Bishop: —but, yes, you’re right.

TANGI UTIKERE: But welcome—but welcome. I wonder whether there are other opportunities to address some of what I guess is applicable or more appropriate in rural and regional settings. Whilst the 20 units might be an appropriate threshold, as such, or trigger point for urban areas or cities or larger towns, just some understanding of how this might be approached in those regional—I take the Minister’s point that these numbers might not be at a huge level of scale, but having a bill that makes some fundamental change to thresholds is, obviously, important, and making sure that it’s like for like is not always necessarily the right thing in terms of it turning out in that particular way.

I appreciate that the Minister has responded alongside the Overseas Investment Act, but this is also about what could be constrained or otherwise permitted within regional centres and perhaps those places that are cities but that are outside of the sort of urban/metro areas.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I mean, I don’t have a lot more to add to what I’ve already said, which is that smaller-scale build-to-rent is likely to be able to attract domestic capital in the regions—to the extent that it’s economically viable in the regions, too. I mean, what is more likely to happen, let’s face it, with rental properties in the regions is someone just builds a smaller-scale development. It’s not necessarily going to be a kind of professionally run corporate-type structure. I’m not disparaging the regions in any sense, but I’m reflecting on the fundamental economics of where this stuff makes sense. If you look at where it’s happening, it’s Mount Wellington by Sylvia Park; there’ll be a bit of stuff in Wellington and Christchurch. We’re talking about the major metros here. It’s not to say that we discourage it in the regions. It’s just a fact about the economics of this sort of development.

As I was saying to your colleague Mr McAnulty, we’ve taken advice on it—happy to make it available—but we’re not proposing to amend it. We think we’ve got the balance about right and, as I said before, the 20-dwelling threshold reflects the Income Tax Act, which reflects policy decisions made by successive Governments, actually, around the right threshold for build-to-rent.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for the explanation previously on the two points that my colleague Tangi Utikere raised.

I kind of wanted to check in terms of some of the broader context around this in relation to the regulatory impact statement, and I think particularly when we’re looking at some of the limitations to this bill. I think the first question is, if the Minister wouldn’t mind elaborating on: because of the scope of this particular bill, it says that the changes that would require first-principles review or substantial reform were not considered. Part of that is, you know, including some of the changes around the impact to other legislations, and particularly around investment of the build-to-rent sector, and also in terms of some of the residential land restrictions—i.e., the foreign-buyers ban. I guess I want some clarifications from the Minister on what the rationale is behind limiting the scope of the bill in the first place to consider some of these, and particularly when we’re looking at the first-principles review.

I also do have quite a specific question, and this is in reference to new clause 11A of Schedule 2, inserted by clause 6, and subclauses (1)(a) and (1)(b). I just want to check in terms of the reading, because in *new clause 11A(1)(a) it says, “with 1 or more buildings that, taken together, consist of 20 or more dwellings”, but then in subclause (1)(b) it says, “at least 20…dwellings”. With subclause (1)(a), 20 is included as part of “20 or more”, but in subclause (1)(b), 20 is not, because “at least 20” would imply 21. If we’re taking the two of them together, with subclauses (1)(a) and (1)(b) using the conjunction “and”, it means that both must be met in order for the large rental developer test to be met. I want to ask the Minister for clarification: if subclause (1)(a) is 20, but subclause (1)(b) requires 21, how should that be read? Thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Two points there from the member. In relation to the first, I think the question was: why did the Government not do a first-principles review of the Overseas Investment Act in relation to housing? There’s a couple of answers. The first is that we do have an intention to reform the Overseas Investment Act, which is being advanced by the Hon David Seymour, who’s the Associate Minister of Finance in charge of that.

We’ve been working our way through that over the last 15 or so months of the Government’s time in office. I think all members will appreciate the Act is extremely complex. It has been amended—I don’t know the exact number off the top of my head, but it’s 2005, so I don’t know, roughly probably 20 times. This is partly contributed by court cases which have had somewhat unusual interpretations of various parts of the Act over the years, but Parliament has now created a real monster when it comes to overseas investment law. There are reasons for that, but I think everyone should agree it can be simpler. Mr Seymour is advancing some of that work.

The second point in response to that is: why was the analysis constrained at the start? It’s because we campaigned on this very specific extension of the law around overseas investment into build-to-rent because it was manageable, digestible, relatively simple. Members will see the bill is quite technical, but it’s a relatively simple—on its face—change. That’s why the analysis was constrained: because the Government sought a mandate for it and then put it as part of the 100-day plan, and here we are 15 months later, finally working its way through the committee stage. But good things take time. That’ll be why the regulatory impact statement is constrained, but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. Not every piece of legislation has to be a fundamental rewrite of every Act under the sun, otherwise we won’t make a lot of progress. That answers that.

In relation to Part 1 clause 6, “Schedule 2 amended”—new clause 11A—which I think the member was referring to, I mean it is relatively self-explanatory. As the member says, it’s a conjunctive test, if that’s a legal term of art. It has to be “the residential land is a single site, … adjacent sites separated by infrastructure”, etc., etc., which “consist of 20 or more dwellings suitable for use as, or conversion to, residential dwellings; and (b) at least 20 … [have to be] or are likely to be, available for use, within a time frame” acceptable, which, essentially, the Residential Tenancy Act applies. I mean it’s written there relatively clearly. Both limbs of the legal test must be met, and, obviously, Ministers will take advice or the Overseas Investment Office would take advice about that, whether or not that test had been met.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess I just want to be perfectly clear in terms of the new clause 11A.

Let’s say, hypothetically speaking, we have residential land—let’s say it’s a single site—and it consists of 20 dwellings suitable for use or conversion to residential dwellings, that’s 20, which means it meets the test under subclause (1)(a), but then, because there are only 20, it wouldn’t meet the test for subclause (1)(b), but both tests must be met.

The reason for that is because, for you to meet the test of subclause (1)(b), you need at least 20, which means that you need a minimum of 21—so it’s “21 or more” is how you would read “at least”. If the context is that there are only 20 dwellings, it will meet test (1)(a) but not (1)(b). Am I correct, or is there an alternative reading of “at least”? Thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Well, maybe I’m missing something. I mean, I did pretty well at School C English, so I don’t quite understand what the member’s saying. It’s “20 or more”, which is the same as “at least 20”. So, yeah, I think that deals with that, right?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. Now, while the Minister of Housing’s cracking himself up at his own jokes, I’ll ask a few more questions. The fact of the matter is we support this bill and actually don’t intend to take too much time up in this committee stage, but the point that was raised by Tangi Utikere, my friend and colleague, is one that we do wish to explore, and I hope the Chair allows us to do so in detail because it’s unlikely we will touch on many issues outside of that.

I heard the Minister’s response to Mr Utikere’s questions and his brief summary subsequent to that, but I’m not sure that that actually touches on the core issue there. We were given two explanations there; we were told that there’s been advice. It’d be useful to have that here so that we could actually understand it—this is the stage at which Parliament actually gets the opportunity to dive into something. Given the Minister indicated that he would go and look at this issue—he indicated that it was a fair point that we raised at the second reading—if we really want to understand the reasons why it’s not being explored by the Government, it would be useful to actually have that advice available now rather than seek it out through an Official Information Act request, which I think was the response.

The key thing here is that we don’t want to have a missed opportunity and we don’t want to have to come back and amend this later because we find out that in the areas outside the large centres, they can’t take advantage of the provisions in this bill because they struggle to meet the minimum criteria. Now, what was disappointing through the Finance and Expenditure Committee stage was that the officials didn’t seem all that willing to actually explore this. They’d found a solution as per the instructions from the Government, and actually, to be honest, they weren’t that keen to look into it, despite the fact that members of the committee on both sides could see what it was that we were trying to explore.

Here it is in a nutshell: meeting the 20-unit minimum in the cities is probably not going to be an option—in fact, in places like Auckland, 20 units will probably be a proportion of the total number of units, so that just won’t be a problem—but where I live, any developer that comes along and proposes 12 units is a big developer, but they don’t meet this. If the logic behind this change is that—through feedback from the sector—they will struggle to on-sell their development unless overseas investment is utilised, and therefore without doing so, they would be less keen to put money and invest in the development or indeed build these units in the first place, surely that logic would apply in the cities as much as elsewhere. Is this Government really telling Parliament that it wants build-to-rents to become a significant part of our housing portfolio in this country, but only in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch?

Now, I just don’t accept that, because if build-to-rent is going to be a part of this country’s attempt to solve the housing crisis, surely that’s as relevant elsewhere. At the moment, I am not convinced that areas outside the large cities would benefit from what the Government is proposing in this bill. Frankly, I thought the response from the Minister—although good on him for addressing it—was a little bit dismissive: “We don’t get into details. We should understand this.” Like, I get it—this is consistent with what previous Governments have done. But the reason we’ve got an amendment bill is because what previous Governments have done in trying to establish build-to-rent as a separately recognised asset class—it wasn’t there before; it was brought in. Now we’re amending it because it didn’t quite touch the mark. Why are we saying that, because it’s done previously, therefore we’re content? I just struggle to understand the logic.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I mean, we’ve canvassed this before, and I don’t have a huge amount more to add. I mean, I suppose the point I’d make is this, which is that I think everyone in the House agrees—well, it at least is an accepted premise of the law that the foreign-buyers ban should stay in place, which provides a pathway for foreign investment into new housing. The Labour Party’s been particularly vociferous about this in the past. People dislike overseas investment into existing housing. Now, this bill preserves that but makes it clear that investment into existing housing like build-to-rent or large rental developments akin to build-to-rent over 20 or more units is acceptable in order to provide greater liquidity and make sure that domestic investors can invest in build-to-rent, knowing that they could potentially sell it later. The outcome sought is to increase liquidity in the sector and, essentially, incentivise investment on the margins.

Now, it’s interesting: I mean, the member is, essentially, arguing for something that brings it closer to running into problems with the foreign-buyers ban, because if you have a lower threshold in the regions—which is, as I understand it, what the member is arguing for—the closer you get to kind of one, by definition the closer you get to allowing overseas investment into existing homes. So we’ve made a policy call to keep it at 20. There are other reasons. As I said before, there’d be increased complexity for, the official’s advice is, relatively limited benefit. You’d have to do geographic boundaries, sort all that out. I’m essentially recapping the advice. I’m happy to make it available to the member as well, but I’m not saying anything that’s not written down.

The other point I make in response to Mr Utikere is that for smaller-scale developments—and the example I used before you arrived, Mr McAnulty, was one of Waipukurau, which I’m sure you’re very familiar with. It was actually chosen at random, but I realise now you’d be very familiar with it. The developments there, to the extent they are sort of large, are highly likely to be able to attract domestic capital for investment, such that lessening the build-to-rent strictures are not necessary.

So, look, I’ve not got a closed mind to it. In three or four years’ time, if we wake up and it turns out there’s a proliferation of foreign money that wants to enter into the regions and buy 10- or 12-bedroom units, OK, let’s have a look at it, but the advice is that that’s not necessary.

Hon Phil Twyford: You’ll be the Opposition spokesperson then.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Phil Twyford: You’ll be the Opposition spokesperson then.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, ha, ha! Ah well, we’ll see, Phil. We’ll see. I’m trying to be congenial and engaged on this.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, we want to help you too, Bish.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, OK—OK. You could be the Opposition leader by then! Mr Twyford could be the Opposition leader by then. Who knows. Helen White could be the—oh, Helen White’s not here.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m looking closely, but I’m not sure I can see this in Part 1, Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK. Well, we’ve now well canvassed the particular issue. I’ll sit down.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. At no point have we advocated for the threshold to be one, and at no point have we advocated for the rules to be loosened. What we have advocated for is a recognition that the minimum threshold that’s outlined in this bill would be hard to meet for many areas of the country.

During the second reading, what I asked you to explore and what you agreed to do was to look at a two-tier system where the current threshold, as proposed, remains in designated large urban centres—cities, basically—and outside of that, you have a requirement that’s a very high percentage of a development, probably 100 percent. Essentially, Minister, the question I have for you is: if someone wants to invest in build-to-rent outside of the cities, in order to benefit from what’s proposed in this bill, they will need to build 20, and realistically that won’t happen. What I’m suggesting is that, if they wanted to build a development of 10 or 12 and they are all build-to-rents, why would this Parliament overlook that opportunity?

The fact is—and we’ve tried to be constructive throughout this—that the housing crisis in many areas of this country is getting worse. Surely we need to look at—you’ve mentioned Waipukurau, places like Wairarapa, but in any regional areas, homelessness is growing and people are struggling to find affordable rents. Both sides of the House recognise that this is one part of the solution, and yet we’re not willing to entertain a change in the threshold to recognise that in areas that are struggling with housing affordability and availability, the threshold would be difficult to meet.

Actually, in fairness, Minister, you did say you would look into it. I’m not convinced that it actually has been, because the answers that you’ve given to our questions haven’t actually addressed the original proposal: keep the threshold as it is for the cities and look at the requirement that if, say, 100 percent of the development—let’s say it’s above eight. So you’ve got eight to 20—nine, 10, 11, 12, etc.; all of those options. If all of them were build-to-rent—a recognised asset class now—I guarantee that there would be more build-to-rent developments built because they would benefit from this.

We accept the rationale. We accept that it doesn’t extend or loosen the ban on foreign investment and that this is a specific, niche change, if you like, to encourage this particular asset class to be built, and yet we’re not willing to go the whole way. We were dismissed at select committee stage by the officials. I genuinely expected to come here and be able to thrash that out, and I’m a bit disappointed that it isn’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I could have just turned up here and ignored your second reading speech, not sought any advice, not turned up here willing to engage on the issue. I’ve done that in good faith. Most Ministers don’t actually go away and listen to the Opposition and seek further advice on something, by the way.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Don’t be rude to your colleagues. They do their best.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s true, and you know it. I’m happy to table the advice, which has now become available—so that deals with the Official Information Act. At the end of my remarks, I will seek leave to table it, so the member can have a copy of it, but as I say, it largely reflects all the stuff I’ve already said in the last 20 minutes or so.

The member makes a not unreasonable point, but the advice I’ve had, which I agree with, is that the additional complexity that the member’s proposed amendment would introduce into the Act would outweigh the benefits gained from it. People are entitled to disagree with advice. Reasonable people can disagree. The Government’s not proposing to make the change. As I say, I haven’t got a closed mind to it. As I said before, in a few years’ time, if it looks like it’s a sensible change to make, I’m very happy to make it, but that’s not our position at the moment.

Mr Chair, I seek leave to table the Treasury report dated 5 February 2025 titled Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill Minimum Dwelling Threshold.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first thank the Minister of Housing for entertaining me with my previous question—that was my mistake, thank you. I fully acknowledge that.

I actually have a question regarding some of the risks, and I would really like to hear of this proposal and exemption, and I really want to hear the Minister’s, I guess, clarifications on how to mitigate some of that risk. I’m looking at the regulatory impact statement, starting with paragraph 58. I guess the first risk that we’re seeing is the exemption must be provided prior to, for example, if the investment’s likely to meet the criteria before it goes ahead. I guess, in the case of being able to monitor and being able to track when the exemption was placed and that the investor is using the exemption or the investor is truly investing what they said they would invest, how is the Minister planning on monitoring that? Again, presumably, once you give an exemption, you can’t really take it back.

The second part of the question is, again, in terms of some of our international obligations with the exemption, and particularly when we’re looking at some of the obligations under our free-trade agreements and when we’re looking at the context of a ratchet clause within our existing free-trade agreements, where, basically, you can’t reinstate a requirement after you have provided an exemption, because once you’ve provided the exemption, it becomes locked in. How, then, would the Minister mitigate the risk that we cannot remove the exemption in the future without breaching the ratchet clause in our free-trade agreements?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I think the member is confusing what was recommended by the Treasury, or at least considered by the Treasury, as part of the policy development process with what actually is in the amendment bill. All of the things the member is talking about were discussed as part of the policy development process, but they were rejected by Cabinet, and we ended up going for a very narrow extension, or a very narrow change, to the overseas investment regime when it comes to build-to-rent housing. All of the existing things that the Overseas Investment Office does around checking apply, but the things around ratchet clauses and stuff like that were ruled out and are not part of this consideration.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh, just in time. The Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually had a couple of questions for the Minister of Housing, and, hopefully, he’ll indulge me.

I wondered if he could tell us how many applications there have been under the “benefit to New Zealand test” for the sale of large-scale rental developments to overseas investors, and how many of those, if any, were declined. The question is: have there been any applications under the “benefit to New Zealand test” for the sale of large-scale rental developments to overseas investors, and if so how many were declined?

I guess, following on from that question, it would just be good to understand why the illiquidity of assets in the criteria for the “benefit to New Zealand test” is not enough. That is my question. I can keep going.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): In relation to the first question, we’re doing some digging, but I don’t have the numbers to hand. “I don’t know right now” is the short answer.

In relation to the second point, there are reasonable disagreements about this, but there is enough feedback from the market that the test is too constrained at the moment—hence why we’re proposing to change it. Essentially, the amendment we are putting through has been narrowly scoped and actually put forward. There was consultation with the sector around this in order to try and get the right outcome. I’m no legal expert when it comes to the Overseas Investment Act. I don’t think many New Zealanders are, other than highly paid lawyers. The Act is extremely complex, and the advice we’ve received is that this simplifies the Act when it comes to large-scale overseas investment into existing build-to-rent such that it increases liquidity.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much for that. Following on from that, was any modelling undertaken or do you have any expectation of what this change might result in, in terms of additional supply of build-to-rent dwellings and what sort of impact that might have on the overall housing supply? Like, what percentage of the unmet housing supply need could be met by making this change? Do we have any reason to believe that making this change will result in a sudden increase in the number of build-to-rent dwellings?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I mean, it’s a reasonable point. The answer is we don’t have any—[Interruption] Yeah, we don’t have any Treasury modelling, but I’m advised that there is some Property Council modelling which shows—this is back in 2021, under the previous Government when they were also pushing for this change—if there were favourable policy settings, the number of build-to-rent dwellings could expand to 25,000 within a decade. By way of comparison, I think we have around 2,000 build-to-rent units at present in the country. That’s a sizeable increase.

As I said at the start of my remarks, is it going to solve the housing crisis in New Zealand? No. Will it put downward pressure on rents on the margins? Yes. I don’t pretend this is a silver bullet, but it’s a useful change. There are some people out there quite bullish about build-to-rent and you’ll also find people who are pretty downbeat about it—as you would in any market. Ultimately, people will take a punt. If it works, they’ll make a quid; and if it doesn’t, then they bear the consequences of that. This is about freeing it up and making it easier to do that. I don’t have anything more to add to it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Chair. Obviously the policy intent of this is to ensure that the exemption for foreign investment into new housing for build-to-rent purposes is sufficient, but is there a possibility that—and did officials consider whether—domestic build-to-rent developers might end up just selling existing supply to overseas investors and that, ultimately, it doesn’t really have a big impact on new housing, I guess? How will that be monitored? Will these changes be monitored? Is there an ability to look at it and make sure that it’s having the intended outcomes after the change has been made and make amendments in the future?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yeah, I mean that is one of the aims of the bill, is making it clear that domestic developers can sell later to overseas buyers, but it doesn’t affect—as I engaged with Mr McAnulty about it—and it doesn’t engage with the foreign buyers bank which are dealing with large-scale housing developments. That is one of the aims: to bring greater liquidity into the sector.

There’s nothing to stop overseas investment into new housing now, for example. There’s the increased housing test, which—you can’t come along and buy a house, but you can come along and buy land to build some new houses, and everyone sort of seems OK with that. What this does is, essentially, allow buying existing housing as long as it’s build-to-rent, such that it increases liquidity and it will incentivise domestic investment into build-to-rent on the margins. That’s sort of the aim of it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11;

New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to regulations

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 10, “Amendments to regulations”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is debate on clauses 1 to 3 “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, sorry—just in time. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Mr Chair, I just have a really short question for the Minister. Minister, you mentioned something before about something being implemented in three months—I didn’t quite catch that. I’m just referring to the commencement date. When this comes into effect, after Royal assent, does the Minister already have people expressing interest in this and able to then apply for this immediately, or is there going to be a period of transition?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I think I might have said in relation to three, four years, maybe in relation to Mr McAnulty’s point about coming back to it if we needed to. I don’t think I said three months. I stand corrected if I’m wrong. No. I mean there’s quite a bit of interest from the build-to-rent sector out there about this—quite a bit of support for it. But there has to be a commencement date and the bill was first introduced in, from memory, December 2023—it might have ended up in February. It’s been through quite a long process. People know it’s coming. The Act’s got to come into effect at some point, and the day after it receives Royal assent’s as good as any, so that’s what it is.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 February.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when we were last on the bill, we were up to call No. 7. It’s a National Party call.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill this evening. I thought it might be valuable just to reset where we are in this debate. There is a difference between pistol ranges and non - pistol ranges. We hear a lot of hyperbole about this piece of legislation from the Opposition through the discussion, and I think that that understanding of the difference between the two types of ranges is critical to the changes that are being put forward in the House today—and I think that the clock just needs to kick off as well there, Mr Speaker. I wouldn’t want to take more time than required in this discussion.

The Justice Committee heard from a range of submitters, who were all focused on safety, and I think that when we talk about this change in legislation, often safety is thrown in as a massive statement that seems to capture or imply that you can’t change legislation for the better and still keep safety at the centre of it. These changes will make it easier for firearms owners and shooters to participate in their sport in a safe and regulated environment, and I think that is key—a safe and regulated environment. It makes sense to have stricter rules for pistols because they’re a smaller type of gun.

Hunting is also an important recreational and social pastime in this country. It’s important that those who wish to go and hunt and bring home their own meals or who use guns for pest control are able to do that in a safe and appropriately regulated environment. It is better to have a safe and regulated place for them to sight their guns versus, for example, them going out and doing that on farm or down by the river. Because of that and because this is a bill that will ensure safety at the heart of it while making these appropriate changes, I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Look, this is a really important matter, and it’s important not just because of the material that’s before us today but because this is one part of a programme of review of the Arms Act that the Associate Minister of Justice is engaged in. It concerns me that there’s a sense of polarisation here: that if you think that these reforms are bad, you in some way vilify gun owners, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I don’t. In fact, until recently, I was a gun owner myself and have been hunting on a number of occasions. In my view, most people who are firearms owners absolutely want good, safe regulation, and they want to ensure that the public knows that and they have a social licence to engage in shooting and hunting activities and what have you.

One of my real concerns about this legislation is the process by which it’s been passed through this House and by which the policy has been developed. The Minister has come to this Parliament quite openly—and good on her—with a programme of reform. She is quite open about the fact that she was a spokesperson for the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners, and she was elected, in part at least, on that platform. That’s fine, but when she now holds a ministerial portfolio, she has a lot more to do than look after the interests of a lobby group of which she was a former chief member.

When she came to consult on this legislation, she did that very narrowly, and that became clear as we progressed through the Justice Committee. Even the regulatory impact statement notes that the consultation prior to the drafting of this legislation was primarily with gun clubs. That’s deeply problematic, because if we’re going to come to this House with legislation, we have to come to this House with legislation that has been consulted or socialised or discussed—call it what you will—with all of our community, not just with some of our community. That’s deeply problematic. I mean, it was a real concern that at select committee. Sure, we had a number of operators of gun ranges and so on and sporting gun enthusiasts who vehemently promoted and supported the bill, and good on them—I can understand; most people want less rules rather than more—but critical submitters were deeply concerned with the bill, and I’m deeply concerned when the Police Association comes along and says they do not support the bill and there’s, essentially, a ministerial shrug of the shoulders. We need to discuss this. We need to think carefully about this.

I heard the member who spoke previously saying, “Well, pistols, you know, they’re way more dangerous.” Now, true, they can be concealed, and TV tells us that they’re the weapon of choice for gangsters. Well, it’s not actually true. The weapon of choice for most criminals in New Zealand is an ordinary rifle that you can buy with a standard licence at any firearms store. Of course, a pistol is dangerous at about the distance across this House, but if you’re at a thousand metres, then a rifle is much more lethal, and we need to remember that. This idea that rifles and shotguns aren’t dangerous or are in some ways less dangerous—they’re differently dangerous. The idea that we don’t need to regulate—because that’s fundamentally what this bill does—rifle and shotgun ranges, that they can have rules of their own that are inspected only once every five years, is deeply concerning, because it is a really significant backward step.

We want gun ranges. Let’s get this right. Absolutely, we need gun ranges. They serve multiple good purposes, one of which is as places where people can learn in a responsible manner and a controlled environment how to use firearms. That’s an absolutely good idea. But we also want gun ranges and rifle ranges which have uniform rules, where how we use a firearm and what a safe gun range looks like is actually understood—but we don’t have that. We’ve got some rules around pistol ranges, but every single rifle range can set its own standards. Sure, there’s five-yearly oversight, but why is there no uniform set of expectations? Now, I’m no ballistics expert, but I’m pretty sure about the length of the range or the arc of fire—they’re going to be things for which there could be some universal standards.

That’s all we want. We just want a situation where we have widely understood and consistent rules for ranges and where there can be inspections by the appropriate authorities, not in some invasive way, but let’s remember: firearms are dangerous. They’ve got perfectly useful uses, but they’re dangerous. This is not a country where you have a constitutional right to bear a firearm. This is a country where you have a right to bear a firearm because you meet the requirements set out by this House, and one of those requirements should be that if at any time there’s a concern or inquiry by the police or whoever ends up administering this Act, they should be able to go in and check—not some sort of area free of supervision, a blank zone for regulation. It’s a real concern.

This is part of a programme of reform, and this isn’t the most concerning thing we’re likely to see in this Parliament—I get that—but I’m also concerned that it does shift the authority for firearms across Ministers. The police have built up expertise in this area. The Minister of Police has been the Minister in charge, the Minister who can categorise different firearms and can grant exemptions, make regulations, consult on these things, and so on and so forth, and they’ve been well advised. There’s a reasonable discussion to be had about exactly how that should be framed, but why we are moving the administration of the Arms Act from an operational entity—the police, who deal with firearms every day, who have tangible expertise in this area—to the Ministry of Justice, which is a policy ministry, essentially moving it from experts in firearms to a Government-run thinktank on justice, is beyond me.

I’m deeply concerned that the real reason that that’s happening is because the Associate Minister of Justice has a single track of reform, that where we’re going with this is predetermined. Don’t get me wrong: I’m really happy for a review of the Arms Act. I am sure we can improve it, but if that is no more than cover for a liberalisation of gun laws and a retreat, a rolling back, to where we were before March 15 in Christchurch, I find that deeply, deeply concerning.

I think it’s very important that when we come to this next reform, that is being consulted on as we speak, we consult widely and we approach the question with an open mind. I want to engage with this not in a party political way, because we’ve come across this in a bipartisan way before and we need to do it again, but let’s remember what’s at stake, because guns in the wrong hands can cause immense harm. They can be tools for good, but in the wrong place at the wrong time they can cause immense harm, so let’s get this right.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll be adding my kōrero to the second reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. After the member opposite, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, just finished his contribution, I’m still wondering when we’re going to be seeing the opening of “Webb’s Wine Bar.”

Just to reiterate, because we did start the contributions on this bill last week, the purpose of the bill is in essence to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on shooting clubs and ranges. And why are we doing this? We’re doing it because back in 2020, legislative changes took place and they added significant regulatory burdens on clubs and ranges. These are just people that just want to practise their sport and have a good time in a safe and not too burdensome environment.

I understand we have to take care and have measures in place for safety. What I really appreciate about the Hon James Meager, our current chair of the Justice Committee—one of the busiest committees in the House as we speak—is the fact that when he spoke on this bill last week, he recognised that he really thinks that a lot of the members haven’t even read through the bill. He emphasised how new section 38X, inserted by clause 5, when it talks about inspections of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, there’s also another subsection (2), in new section 38XJ, which says, “Yes, OK. It’s once every five years unless there is a change of circumstances that may affect its safety.”

We really need to read through the whole bill before we open up our wine bar, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, I’m sure any wine bar opened by Mr Webb would have some very good reds in it.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and I stand to oppose the bill, and to strongly oppose this bill, because next month it will be six years since the tragic events of 2019 in Christchurch. I and everybody in Christchurch and across Aotearoa can never forget how we felt, what we learnt, and what we did in response to those actions, and what we did right here in this House, because we recognised that we should be here to make communities safer.

This bill takes steps to undo that. It takes steps to remove the safeguards put in place to make communities safer, and it threatens the respect that was shown by the then Government to the families and communities who suffered such unimaginable loss almost six years ago in Christchurch.

Now, we should be here to make communities safer, but this bill does the opposite, because it takes us backwards. Other members have referenced and spoken to the term “self-regulation”, which seems pretty strange. It’s a very difficult concept to give communities safety and assurance and, at the same time, to talk about this notion of self-regulation for shooting clubs and shooting ranges in New Zealand.

This bill has multiple loopholes that will endanger communities and also place at risk law-abiding gun users. There’s nothing in this bill that sets out to stop a club or a range opening in a community next door to your home or in an area where it’s simply not appropriate. If we’re here to make communities safer, then these are not the actions of a responsible Government that cares about keeping people safe.

There are a number of other issues with the process associated with this bill. If we’re here to make communities safer, then the rushed consultation that went with this bill does not do that. The number of submissions received was not that high, but the skew of submissions was immensely high; 91 percent of submissions were skewed towards firearm users, as opposed to the communities and the individuals that could be affected by the very actions that will come about as a result of this bill.

The QA panel stated that the process of consultation only partially met the criteria—partially met the criteria. And the Police Association, on behalf of 98 percent of sworn police officers in New Zealand, said that this was politics over safety—politics over safety.

If we’re here to make communities safer and the very people who spend their days and their nights on the front line—making sure New Zealanders can be safe and working with Governments to make sure that we have legislation in place to keep our police force safe, our communities safe, and people safe across New Zealand—say that this is politics over safety, I don’t think that that’s a message that should go unheard or unchecked. It certainly shouldn’t be unheard by a responsible Government.

We’re here to make communities safer. That’s not what this bill does. I cannot and I will not commend it to the House.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill tonight. I just want to talk a bit about the number of firearms licence holders in New Zealand. There are around 200,000 licensed people in New Zealand, which means that there are 5 million that don’t have a licence. The debate around this issue has been dominated by people who really don’t understand, and have a total anathema, I guess, to firearms at all. Unfortunately, firearms owners have been demonised a little bit.

I’d like to go through a statement from Gwyn Thurlow, who is the CEO of New Zealand Deerstalkers Association. Now, Gwyn Thurlow addressed concerns over parliamentary rhetoric, which he described as “occasionally misguided”. “Debate is an essential pillar of democracy, but it must be grounded in fact. Some of the views expressed recently risk misrepresenting the safety records of our ranges and the responsible nature of our members and the licensed firearms community who use shooting ranges.”, he added. Thurlow emphasised the need for decisions to be grounded in solid evidence and factual data. As the bill progresses, we urge lawmakers to rely on facts and the demonstrably low risk profile of New Zealand shooting clubs and their members.

One of the critical aspects highlighted by supporters of the bill is the role of clubs and ranges as venues that significantly contribute to public safety. These spaces provide structured environments where individuals can learn and practise shooting under the supervision of experienced professionals. The changes proposed in this bill will make it easier for these clubs and ranges to operate and thus continue to promote safe firearms practices. As the MP for Waitaki and someone who lives rurally, I know for many in our rural community shooting is an integral part of the rural way of life, and the first thing we learn—and, might I say, have drummed into us—is safety.

Shooting is more than just a sport. For many of us, it represents a tradition passed down through generations as a means of sustenance, a tool for pest control, and a form of recreation, and it brings families and communities together. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. The overall substantive point, I think, from our perspective on this side of the House, is that the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill fundamentally just undermines public safety, and we’re not a fan of that. It does so by rolling back essential firearms regulations, which we believe are essential, and it does so in three main ways. That’s by weakening the police oversight, by creating loopholes that either criminals or extremists can take advantage of, and, essentially, by ending up with an inconsistent and unsafe standard for rifle and shotgun ranges.

If we look at each of those points, with regard to weakening the police oversight of shooting clubs and ranges, the reduced inspection frequency was the first point that came to mind. As others have said, the bill limits police inspections of shooting clubs and ranges to once every five years, which we believe makes it much harder to monitor ongoing safety compliance. Without regular inspection, there’s really no way that you can depend on ensuring that safety standards are being upheld. We’ve heard from other members across the House talking about, essentially, personal responsibility and a trust system. That’s all very well and good, but apply that to almost everything. There are some things that warrant suitable and risk-appropriate regulation, and we think that this leaves room for negligence and misuse.

With regard to self-regulation instead of independent enforcement, the bill, essentially, shifts that responsibility for safety from law enforcement, where it rightly belongs, to shooting clubs themselves; so, effectively, creating a voluntary compliance system. Again, other people have talked about that at length tonight. I just don’t think that that is the appropriate way to go. There’s no guarantee that clubs will implement proper safety measures, as self-regulation has historically led to inconsistencies and weak enforcement. And speaking of enforcement—that lack of enforcement tool—police, essentially, have no authority. They don’t have any authority to impose penalty or to conduct surprise inspections if they suspect violations, making that oversight, essentially, virtually meaningless. Without the power to enforce those safety rules, without the independence, and without the frequency of inspection, law-abiding users as well certainly don’t have any assurance that ranges are opening in a safe and responsible manner.

The second point was that it creates loopholes that could be exploited by criminals and extremists. I don’t think that many of us need to use our imagination too deeply to see how that could manifest. Easier access to shooting ranges for unlicensed and dangerous individuals—the bill certainly reduces those restrictions on who can access shooting ranges, and it creates opportunities for gang members, for instance, or extremists to train without that police oversight. We have had indications and feedback and evidence of that happening. Certainly, the Christchurch terrorist was able to practise rapid-fire techniques in an unregulated range, and this bill risks repeating that scenario and that situation. There are also weakened ammunition controls—so the bill reduces record-keeping requirements for ammunition sales—making it easier for criminals to obtain that ammunition without detection and being able to stockpile it and being able to traffic it, and all sorts.

Unregulated pop-up shooting ranges was another point that came up and, I think, was relatively well traversed in previous contributions, but the bill, essentially, allows temporary shooting ranges to operate without certification as long as only two events are held per year. That doesn’t necessarily, I don’t think, within the confines of a regulatory framework, provide much safety and much strength of conviction, I suppose, for lack of a better term, that within those provisos of those two events everything is running according to plan.

The third point is the inconsistent, unsafe standards. The lack of a national safety standard for rifle and shotgun ranges—the bill removes the requirement for non-pistol ranges to follow national ballistic safety guidelines, making those standards, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, really inconsistent between those types of activities. Rifles and shotguns have long-range firing capabilities, so weak regulations—or any type of weak regulation—increases the risk of accidents and increases the risk of stray bullets causing harm. Also, it undermines the firearms registry. The bill weakens those record-keeping requirements, which could be used as a stepping stone—and I don’t think that it’s inconceivable that that could happen—to removing certain firearms from the firearms registry altogether. And that is actually something that we should all be relatively mindful of.

Police have stated that 70 percent of firearms seized from criminals are standard hunting rifles and shotguns, meaning reducing oversight of those. Whilst the vast majority of times they may be used by law-abiding people who are responsible, that nevertheless is the case and reducing oversight of these weapons is, by definition, absolutely dangerous. Ignoring expert advice on safety data—I think the regulatory impact statement found no evidence that the current regulations are causing problems at all or forcing shooting clubs to close. That is often stated as the impetus for these measures, but that just simply doesn’t stack up. Consultation on the bill was heavily biased towards firearms users, ignoring broader public safety concerns and the recommendations from various other experts.

In conclusion, we think, on this side of the House, that the bill prioritises the interests of gun owners over public safety, and we’re not a fan of that. We think it undermines police enforcement, which is rightly where that should sit, creating loopholes, or potentially creating loopholes, for people who seek to exploit those loopholes by the very definition of their existence, and the Government should focus on strengthening, not dismantling, firearms regulations to ensure that we’re all protected from gun violence. Just good old-fashioned preventable harm—why would we not be seeking to do that where possible?

Certainly over the last few months, at the market stalls and the like that I’ve been attending where we’ve had our petitions out, this is the one where people will come over; this is the one that catches their eye, that will bring them to the table and have those conversations. It may be particularly salient in Christchurch, but, certainly, of all the conversations I’ve had, which are many in the Christchurch region, people are really keen not to go backwards with regard to firearms safety and firearms regulation. Rolling back these protections in the way that this bill does certainly does that, and it hasn’t gone down well in my neck of the woods.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The second reading’s a really good opportunity to reflect on the work that was undertaken by the Justice Committee in this case and the work that they did hearing the public submissions and then making the amendments that they have made to the legislation. I’ve had a read through the departmental report, and it said the committee on this piece of legislation received 558 submissions, 39 people supported their submissions through making oral submissions to the select committee. Overall, 304 people submitted in support of the legislation and 86 were opposed.

One of the things that really caught my eye was, as my colleague Miles Anderson said in his contribution before, there is a small amount of people in New Zealand who are registered gun and firearm owners. Many who supported the bill were from that community—those that actually are directly impacted by this legislation and the impact it has on them. They submitted that clubs and ranges are venues which support public safety and they welcome changes that would make it easier for these places to operate. There’s a number of fantastic amendments proposed by the select committee, supported by the member in charge of the legislation, and I look forward to those being enacted and for us to have a further discussion on this in the third reading. I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill

Referral to Education and Workforce Committee

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Madam Speaker, point of order. Following discussion at the Business Committee, I seek leave of the House to change the nomination to a different select committee for one of the bills currently under debate.

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

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to clarify the situation, we won’t vote now, but after we get to the end, there have been some particular votes put in place to separate out some of those. We’ll do it at the end, but thank you.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill

Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill

Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill

First Readings

Debate resumed from 13 February.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We were up to call No. 4—a National Party call.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I would like to add my contribution to these bills that we have before us—the regulatory systems courts, tribunals, and occupational regulation amendment bills—and we’re still on the first readings as it was interrupted recently.

I reflected as I was preparing my thoughts to convey right now that over the summer, we all went to our family and friends at different barbecues, and they were talking about how they feel and how they feel the country’s going, and, of course, with me being a member of Parliament, this conversation was even more prominent. It’s so interesting how many people I spoke to that are involved in businesses where they just shared with me how difficult it is having so many burdensome regulations just weighing them down and preventing them from getting to that next step where they just want to continue and go on and just build their business, do what they need to do, and provide the services that they love to provide.

What I’m looking forward to with these various variegated bills are the amendments that we’re going to make in this one piece of legislation. Essentially, we’re going to be improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of a number of areas when it comes to regulation, and we’re going to the Justice Committee—and I’m so glad to have my colleagues on the committee sitting here around me as well; a wonderful team, an excellent team, and very hard working, as well. I look forward to hearing and reading and learning more about two of the bills. As we’ve just learnt, one of them is going to go to the Education and Workforce Committee.

With that, I’ll leave it at that. I can’t wait to listen to more, and I commend these bills to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill.

As has been stated in this House, there are 63 substantive amendments for over 24 pieces of legislation, so trying to summarise all of these points into one summation in the few minutes I have would be difficult. I think that the strong theme—and it has been mentioned—is about the strengthening of the quality of our regulation, improving court timeliness, and enhancing our access to the judicial system.

I think, in summary—[Member trips in Chamber]—we talked, generally, in the occupational regulation about conveyancing regimes—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, just a moment. We’ll just check and make sure—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: I’m fine, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, thank you. Carry on.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The occupational regulation is about conveyancing regimes, the real estate regimes, and even the Prostitution Reform Act. Again, within the tribunals legislation, it’s the access to justice, simplifying the appointment process for tribunals, and resolving inconsistencies through this process. Finally, within the court systems, we are looking at efficiencies and operational impact to the courts.

Collectively, we are talking in this legislation about improving efficiencies and about creating some better outcomes for the public, and when we talk about anything to do with improving access to justice, I think it is an important priority for this House. Generally, if we are going to get things moving as an economy, we also have to get things moving in all of our system processes, and this is an important piece of legislation that will look at all of the things that slow us down and all of the things where we can create better outcomes for the public, particularly when we’re talking about access to regulations and access to justice, and the timeliness of court access is of course a key factor in this discussion.

We learnt some things during the period of COVID, and this legislation will also look at making permanent some of the measures we’ve put in place, proving that we do learn as we go along and we make opportunities to put things in place that make things better. Within the court system, whether it’s criminal, civil, employment, family, or even the coronial court, we know there is a great deal of efficiency we can achieve, and this substantive piece of work will ensure that all of these aspects are being addressed. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. E mihi ana ki a koutou i tēnei pō. Ka tū ake au hei māngai mō te rohe o Tāmaki Makaurau me Te Pāti Māori ki te whakamana i ngā āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi, ā, ki te whakahē i tēnei pire.

[Greetings to us of the House. I greet you this night. I stand as a representative for the Auckland region and the Māori Party to honour the components of the Treaty of Waitangi and to oppose this bill.]

It’s great to be back in the House for my first week, and what bills to stand and kōrero to on behalf of Te Pāti Māori. We stand in staunch opposition to the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill. While the Government frames this as a technical and procedural package of so-called non-contentious bills, we know that hiding within this legislation is a calculated political decision, one that directly undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the education required to uphold its principles.

The removal of sanctions for failing to complete a compulsory professional development course, and specifically those addressing Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is nothing short of a politically motivated act. We know why this is happening. Certain sectors—particularly real estate agents—have resisted engaging in these essential training programmes. Rather than standing firm and requiring professionals to deepen their understanding of Te Tiriti and its relevance to their industries, this Government has chosen to reward ignorance. It is the type of ignorance being enabled that results in only 13 percent of New Zealanders having read the Māori text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, according to a 2023 Horizon Research poll.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not optional. It is not a box to be ticked, nor an inconvenience to be negotiated away. It is the foundation of our nation’s constitutional framework, and any erosion in education around it is a direct attack on the principles of mana ōrite: true partnership and equity between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.

Te Pāti Māori stands on the kaupapa of mana motuhake. We oppose this bill because it strips away yet another mechanism that upholds mana and our Māori rights, and ensures that those in positions of power and influence are held accountable to our foundational document. We will not allow this Government to quietly undermine Te Tiriti while pretending that this is merely a tidy up of regulations. We see this for what it is.

Ka tū tahi mātou, ka tū pakari mātou ki te tiaki i te mana motuhake o tō tātou Tiriti. Huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[We will stand together; we will stand strong to support the distinctive authority of our Treaty. All across the House, thanks and greetings to us all.]

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There are three simple changes with the regulatory systems courts, tribunals, and occupational regulation amendment bills. These bills, as my colleague Rima Nakhle said earlier, will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the courts and tribunals, occupational regulation, and criminal law, particularly focusing on anti - money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism.

I wanted to talk on one point on each of the three bills. Firstly, the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill will streamline court processes, reducing delays and improving the overall efficiency of the judicial system; the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill will remove barriers to accessing justice, making it easier for individuals to bring their cases before tribunals; and the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill will strengthen the ability of occupational regulators to protect consumers, ensuring their services are performed with reasonable care and skill.

I’m looking forward, as a member of the Justice Committee, to considering two out of these three bills, and I commend them to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am rising to speak about legislation that’s actually three bills, for the general public. They’ve been clustered together because they’re relatively non-controversial. One improves our law courts; another, our tribunals; and another, the regulations that govern our occupations.

The one with the law courts is one which looks at issues around access to information. It does things like look at Family Court Associates. We’ve had a problem—and a lot of ordinary people will have been engaged in a Family Court proceeding—of a simple issue of delay. By bringing in Family Court Associates, we’ve been able to make sure that we have enough people to do that work and that they’re doing the work that’s appropriate. This allows people like a Family Court Associate to make a decision about something that might affect an ordinary person, like a permanent parenting order. Before that, that had to go to a judge, but now it can come to a Family Court Associate.

I think that it’s also interesting in terms of the Coroners Act, because it allows our coroners to do some things which I would have thought they could already do. It really makes sure that they can close a file that it’s appropriate for them to close without going through it in detail which is inappropriate in circumstances—so if there is someone who has died and they know why that person has died and there’s no suspicious circumstances or they haven’t taken their own life, then in those circumstances, they can close a file.

It’s a process, I think, that demonstrates what these bills do well. They make a whole lot of little changes, and I would bore the New Zealand public if I went through all of them, but they really sweep up a whole lot of changes that really oil the wheels of our system.

Another one that I thought was interesting was the issue over bail for family violence, and making sure that the appropriate decisions are going to the right people with regard to that. The Employment Court was something that I was involved with for a long time, and I always thought that it would be able to get compensation for remuneration. Someone has, clearly, had a look at that situation and decided that it’s not as clear as it should be that it can do that, and they’ve added that into the law so that it now can award compensation for remuneration. It can also get wage and time records. These are the kinds of things that just make our system much more reliable and make it more understandable and fair to the people involved.

There is a bill on tribunals, and one of the areas that that looks at is private security guards and investigators. It lets those people who are involved in the complaints and prosecutions unit actually get the documentation that is relevant to the investigation they’re doing, and if somebody doesn’t provide the information they need to do their job—which is in the public interest—then the person who doesn’t provide that can be fined $10,000 if they’re an individual, or $20,000 if they refuse to provide and they’re a company. It’s just a way of making sure that the right teeth are in the right mouths, really, in that situation.

With regard to the occupational regulation, this is something where there’s a huge amount of little bodies that actually self-regulate. We have people like real estate agents, and they’re one of the groups that are affected by this bill. It makes sure, again, that they’re able to do the right things—and I’m running out of time, so I won’t go through too many more.

I think the last one I’ll just go through is the one about prostitution. It makes sure that people can’t run brothels who have actually been involved in offending, which may not have been in the original Act, but, actually, you can see why you wouldn’t want somebody running a brothel who has been involved and convicted of burglary, robbery, blackmail, or money-laundering. That seems a really obvious change to be made. It clearly got left out of the first piece of legislation, and now it’s in this legislation.

All and all, we’ve gone through and thoroughly looked at this law. Everyone on this side of the House has agreed that this is a law that should be recommended and it should go through. Thank you.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. These bills are regulatory systems bills that come before the House from time to time. We’re looking to streamline the process for these bills, remove redundant clauses, and make the carrying out of the legislation that these bills cover a lot easier for those that are required to do so. With that, I’ll be really interested to see this legislation when the various select committees report back, and I commend it to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you, and, as Miles Anderson, the previous contributor, takes his seat, I think I will take his starting point about this streamlining and just give a few more details. The Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, and Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill, as has been said, are those three aspects and are going to different select committees, I hear.

With regard to the first one—the occupational regulation amendment part—it does streamline, as the previous contributor said. In particular, it streamlines the Law Society’s complaints process by allowing discretion in referring complaints and introducing a triage system for handling them, and that sounds like a wise thing to do. It updates the real estate licensing regulations, including extending and renewing the period for expired licences, and renaming the real estate agents authority, which also sounds relatively straightforward, and it is strengthening consumer protections by clarifying those legal provisions related to professional misconduct. Those are three examples that you can find, or the select committee will traverse during its work, in relation to the occupational regulations.

Also in that particular amendment is the clarification of disqualifying criminal offences, and I think that someone said earlier that a good example of it is amending the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 to ensure that individuals convicted of a violent offence, a serious offence, or a sexual offence are ineligible for brothel operator certificates. The legislation updates references to the relevant offences in the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act to maintain the original policy intent.

There is also a reduction of regulatory burdens and redundant provisions, as was also mentioned by the previous contributor. The legislation removes outdated or inconsistent provisions across those multiple Acts—which is a good idea—and adjusts the level of regulation to better match risk levels. It is reducing unnecessary compliance costs for those professionals and it introduces a much more flexible licensing system for real estate agents, which would allow them to renew licences within 12 months of expiry—so, not necessarily straight away—without a full reapplication.

If we turn our mind to the tribunals part of it, improving access to justice and tribunal efficiency is, obviously, the main aim and the impetus behind these changes, and removing the barriers to justice by allowing disputes tribunal referees to order a respondent to repay a filing fee to a successful applicant is merely one example of the suite of things that changes there. There also are some changes to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and the Tenancy Tribunal, and updates to the ACC status of referees, which also, therefore, simplifies that particular appointment process.

What also happens by virtue of these changes is that there is some enhancement of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act—the PSPPI Act—which clarifies that the PSPPI Act can accept complaints about unlicensed security workers, which is something that we’ve heard about from the industry over the last wee while, and it strengthens the complaints investigation and prosecution unit, as well.

The last one, as alluded to, is the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill. This seeks to, essentially, just increase the court’s timeliness and its efficiency, which is always a good thing. There’s certainly a lot more work that is required in that area to bring that up to scratch, but this is a piece of work that will make a start. It makes procedural improvements to reduce delays in those court processes and it aligns various laws to increase the consistency in how court-related matters are handled throughout.

Without going through the full list of all of the different things that are in this legislation, I recommend it to the House and I look forward to hearing back from the select committees about any things that they find through their process and any recommendations or changes that are made. Thank you.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thanks for the opportunity to close out this debate, Madam Speaker. Often we hear from the Opposition that they just want us to spend more money, but often being in Government is about taking lots of actions that together enable this country to get back on track, and there are a couple in these bills that I thought I’d touch on. By clarifying the roles and jurisdiction of judicial officers, the legislation ensures that court proceedings are more straightforward and less prone to administrative errors—a positive improvement in the way we spend taxpayers’ money. By making the court system more efficient, the legislation helps to improve access to justice for all New Zealanders.

It’s legislation like this that, while maybe being slightly mundane, does things in the way we spend money to deliver on what this Government promises, which is getting this country back on track. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so I would advise the House to listen carefully because the voting on this bill is going to work a little differently and we have six votes that we need to take. A party has indicated that they do not wish to vote the same way on the first reading for all three of the associated bills, so I will put the question on each separately.

The question is that the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary No. Then the question is—[Interruption] Are you calling for a party vote?

Hon Member: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I’ll allow you this time, but be a little quicker next time, thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you to the Clerks for your help in working through this.

Bills

Privacy Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 January.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were last on the bill, we were at call No. 10. It was a second split call, from the National Party—a five-minute call.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As you’ve just mentioned, we are continuing our conversation on the Privacy Amendment Bill. We’re on the second reading, and I’d like to acknowledge the 16 submissions that were made with respect to this bill. In light of the number of submissions on other bills, yes, it may be a small number, but it was quite impactful, and we made some really significant changes after listening to the submissions. I acknowledge those submitters, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to say a few words on the Privacy Amendment Bill—maybe just a few more. Labour supports this bill, and as has just been noted by my colleague Rima Nakhle from the opposite side of the House, there were 16 submitters. They were all very interesting. They were all subject matter experts and it was quite technical, and I’m sure that we all learnt a lot.

The Privacy Amendment Bill intends, essentially, to improve transparency when it comes to collecting personal information, both when collecting personal information from individuals and strengthening that individual right to privacy. Currently, there’s actually no requirement for an agency, whether it be a public agency or a private agency, to notify an individual when it collects personal information about the individual indirectly—and you can imagine various scenarios when that would apply and when that happens—and this means that an individual may not necessarily know that an agency holds that information and holds their personal information. I think that’s important because an individual does need to know who has their information and who has collected it, even when it is indirect, in order to make any corrections that may need to be made.

This is a really important bill. It goes a long way towards strengthening our privacy framework, which is always an important thing to do. It enables people to just, essentially, be well informed about who has their information, when they have it, and in what circumstances it has been collected.

As has been said, there were a few amendments made during the select committee process. I won’t go through them all, but there’s a couple that caught my eye in particular, by way of reminder, and the first one was an exemption for archiving in the public interest. As I’ve said, several of the submitters who made really, really informative submissions were professionals. This is what they do, and so they know this area inside and out, they know the loopholes, and they know all of the means by which things could be inadvertently caught up.

There were some exceptions. There is an exception for archiving in the public interest. As introduced in new section 22(2), inserted by clause 4, the bill includes an exception to information privacy principle 3A. For example, it is not necessary for an agency to comply with the requirement if the agency believes on reasonable grounds that non-compliance would, in fact, not prejudice the interests of the individuals concerned, the information is publicly available—or, actually, even if compliance is not reasonably practical in that circumstance, and there were several examples that we were certainly regaled with that made that quite clear.

There were also exceptions relating to national security, defence, and anything to do with trade secrets, which I think speaks for itself. There was a host of—well, there were certainly some more exceptions that were made, and it’s an interesting read for someone that wants to look in a little bit more deeply at that.

One thing I would just like to say before I finish my contribution is that it was a timely reminder that it’s back-office staff who almost always keep these robust public institutions functioning and ensure that we do have good transparency when it comes to compliance with the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. This is a good bill. We need back-office staff to administer this bill, and so, again, it’s a timely reminder of the excellent work of the unseen people behind the scenes, who are often disregarded and maligned somewhat as being part of bureaucracy. This is the type of work that they do and it is most indeed very, very worthy, and I commend the bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to stand as the final speaker on this bill.

The Privacy Amendment Bill, as we’ve heard from contributions tonight and on previous nights, is making a minor tweak but a really important one for the privacy of New Zealanders and the collection of their information.

I support the legislation and I commend it to the House, and I’m looking forward to hearing the contribution coming up from my colleague the Hon Andrew Bayly.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Customer and Product Data Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Customer and Product Data Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I move, That the Customer and Product Data Bill be now read a second time.

It is with great pleasure I stand tonight. I had my fourth meeting with approximately 60 fintechs—those are financial technology companies—who are keenly following the progress of this bill. I met them last Friday, and, no doubt, they’re watching this. I said that, hopefully, we were going to get to this bill this week, and what a pleasure to be standing tonight to present this bill for the second reading.

First of all, I’d like to thank members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their hard work in considering this bill. I would particularly like to acknowledge the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, for her oversight throughout the process. The committee has reported the bill back to the House recommending some amendments, which I support and will speak to shortly.

I’d also like to thank all the submitters who took the time to provide comments to the committee, especially alongside the consultations around the banking and electricity sectors that will be under the supervision of this bill. The committee received 40 written submissions and heard oral evidence from 15 submitters. Many of these submitters were in support, and there were no submitters who were clearly opposed to the bill. It is clear that many are eager about the wide-ranging benefits of unlocking consumer and product data, and, of course, that is one of the key recommendations put forward by the Commerce Commission.

I’m excited about the role that this bill can play in our economic growth. This bill will unlock the untapped potential of customer and product data, boosting innovation and driving competition in certain sectors.

Since the bill was introduced, the Commerce Commission has completed its retail banking study. It has made a number of recommendations to the Government to accelerate and coordinate progress on open banking. There were three key areas of the recommendation from the Commerce Commission: one was around potential changes that the Reserve Bank could do, the second big chunk was around unleashing the opportunities from open banking, and then there were, third, a number of other specific recommendations, totalling 14, which the Government is committed to doing. Open banking is seen as being critical to improving competition in retail banking, giving consumers better and cheaper options. Progressing this bill is the first step in satisfying this recommendation.

Right now, businesses that hold customer and product data don’t have an incentive to invest in better sharing data, and this means it’s difficult for fintechs—financial technology companies—to negotiate contracts with those businesses that hold the data, limiting innovation and growth in our economy. There are also inefficiencies and security issues with some current methods for sharing customer and product data. An example which many people won’t realise is the risk that comes from what is called screen scraping, where customers are required to provide their login details to a third party, which is risky to those customers. Without legislative change, the use of data-sharing arrangements will continue to be limited, and security and privacy concerns are likely to grow.

Unlocking data means unlocking the potential for accurate, personalised services to be tailored to your needs, and puts you in the driver’s seat and lets you share data in a useful way with businesses that you trust. You have the choice, but it means that you can share that data for good purposes. This doesn’t just benefit everyday Kiwis; it also benefits businesses, who will be able to gain access to new products and services to help them to increase productivity and concentrate on growing their businesses. As a way of example, specifically in the banking sector, open data arrangements in Australia mean that you can get access to a loan within 10 minutes because a competing bank can go and access all your data and use systems to interrogate that and already know all the details they need to know about your income, your rent payments, your expenses—they can automatically download that and instantly be able to offer you a deal. That’s the type of stuff we’re wanting to see come into New Zealand.

This bill strikes a careful balance, limiting regulatory intervention to what is necessary. Government is involved in setting the rules for exchanging the data, but is not involved in the actual data exchange or storage. As I’ve said to the fintech industry and the banks, we want to create an environment where the system is run for industry and managed by the industry, but with an overall context of rules set by the Government. I’m excited to see the bill break down barriers for innovation, particularly for fintechs, enabling them to deliver new data-driven products and services to New Zealanders.

So what does the bill do? The bill provides a framework that can be applied to different sectors such as banking and electricity. It will be rolled out on a sector-by-sector basis through regulations and it is likely in time to also include telcos and the insurance sectors. Once applied to a sector, consumers will be able to unlock a range of products and services. Customers will no longer need to wade through months’ worth of statements when shopping around for a cheaper electricity plan or a mortgage. For example, you will no longer need to give away your online banking details to use more affordable payment options or to be able to use budgeting and saving apps to make the most of your hard-earned money. The bill provides a safe environment in which customers—including both individuals and businesses—can get the most out of their data.

I would now like to speak to some of the key changes. The first one relates to the adequacy of privacy protections. The committee heard various views from the submitters regarding privacy protections in the bill. Fintechs have said that the bill should not impose any additional restrictions for sharing customer data, both within the original form and in a modified form. They told the committee this would add legal and practical complexities and costs and would discourage take-up. Similar concerns have been raised in Australia, where they applied strict requirements which have reduced benefits and low uptake. The committee has unanimously recommended the removal of regulation-making powers restricting accredited requestors’ use, modification, or disclosure of customer data and derived data. I support this change.

Second, the protection from liability: the committee has unanimously recommended the addition of a new defence of providing data in good faith upon request. This change addresses possible scenarios where by complying with their obligations of the bill, data holders become inadvertently exposed to liability—for example, where an accredited requester is hacked and the person who has done the hacking requests customer data. I agree with this recommendation. I consider that data holders who are complying or purporting to comply with their obligations in good faith should not be held liable.

Another area the committee has unanimously recommended is a new power that enables the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to delegate certain regulatory responsibilities such as the development of standards. This clarifies the intention to continue an industry-led approach—particularly in banking—so that the organisation with the right capacity can drive this work forward. I fully endorse this recommendation by the committee, and I would like to acknowledge that the banking sector has made significant progress in developing standards for open banking. This change to the bill provides the opportunity to continue this momentum for banking and other sectors.

Another area is the accreditation criteria. I support the committee’s changes to the accreditation criteria. Accredited requestors should be required to meet minimum criteria for security, regardless of the sector. More detailed requirements for each sector can be prescribed through regulations. An important part of promoting trust is ensuring that those receiving data have appropriate security systems in place and can handle data appropriately. This is what this change does. I expect this will build trust in the regime.

In conclusion, the committee has recommended some excellent improvements to the bill, and I thank the committee for their efforts. I believe the bill will be more effective for all participants. Progressing this bill is important and it shows how serious the Government is in driving open banking and, ultimately, competition, and unlocking the benefit for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this great piece of legislation. Before I begin, I have a round of thanks. A round of thanks to the select committee that has really put in the work to understand the technical changes which were required of it, and a thankyou to the submitters, who really took the time to prepare—often assisted by external counsel and external advisers—to produce a very helpful and useful submission to the committee on those technical aspects, and to the Minister and his officials for taking on board the feedback that came through from not only the fintech industry but also privacy advocates and digital and data experts. These are really good changes that the Minister has committed to tonight, and I want to thank everyone involved in this piece of work.

I also want to thank the version of this bill which came to the House first. It was developed by the Hon Dr David Clark, who is very passionate about customer data and putting consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to the use of their data. Thanks also to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who first developed the penalties regimes and the regime around protection of data within the bill, and then it was submitted by me in this Parliament as a member’s bill. It has passed through many hands, but it is in a better place because of it because there have been many people who have worked on it to make this legislation the best it can be.

Open data systems are at the heart of digitising our economy. This is something we can all get excited about because the productivity gains that something like this promises are huge. The UK regime has been incredibly successful. It now has more than 7 million users, with 750,000 of them being small businesses using that to access a new customer base that was not getting these services before, and those are small businesses that are often developing up a service that larger organisations can then either buy up or build some capacity for—like banks in an open banking regime, which are now working with the fintechs to deliver better customer services to a whole group of users who have never had these systems before. This is great and this is something we need, but we need to learn the lessons from overseas jurisdictions.

Now, let me just quickly touch on the changes which the Minister has considered too, so that I can also flag for him some of the issues we need to traverse later in the process as this legislation works its way through. The Minister has said that he’ll be supporting the changes that the committee has made around the privacy protections. That is great. It’s great, and the Labour Party supports it, because while we have a real need for privacy protections around people’s data, where people are choosing to give over their data in exchange for a valuable service to them, that is something that the Government should facilitate.

As the Minister rightly pointed out, often they’re going through a regime which was quite unsafe, where they were, say, giving out their credit card details to the local gym because they needed to sign up and that was the most efficient way to do it, or they were using with Air New Zealand the POLi scraping app, which goes into their bank account and gets all of the details but it actually uses their password to get in. Those regimes are not as safe as something where the data is managed in a secure application programming interface in a way that, end to end, has a verification system for the users who have access to that information, and then ways to dispose of that information when it’s no longer relevant to the organisations.

This is much safer and it’s an improvement, and the benefit that New Zealand has is that we have a great privacy regime already. We have great law around the privacy that New Zealanders can expect, which some of the regimes around the world didn’t have. The Australians could not build on that good law that New Zealand has, and so we should be using it as an advantage to us to then digitise and to modernise the way that we can do business here. Build on the things we do well, don’t break it if it’s not fixed—that is the right approach.

The second change that the Minister alluded to was the addition of a new defence of providing data on good faith through an accredited requester. That, again, is a good change, because in a system where we’re relying on trust—and all of these systems rely on trust, especially the old system where you might have been giving over your credit card to your gym via your email—this kind of system should rely on those people who have in place the right kind of systems and professional people handling information to be able to act in good faith as good-faith actors, and the law should back them up to do that.

Government is saying here to industry, “We back you to get the right systems in place, and then to trade in a way where you can believe that other people are good actors, and to put in protections so that bad actors cannot access the information in a way. But if there is some small chance that they will get through the barriers that you have created—the sensible cyber-protections that you have in place—then we will back you to make right, but we will not create sanctions which punish you and disincentivise good innovation in this area.” That’s a good change.

The third change we need to understand a little bit more, and we just need to reassure New Zealanders on, is that there are the right kind of incentives in our broader network of decision makers here so that everyone is getting a fair crack at this good go. I’m thinking here about how, in the situation where the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has the power to delegate decision-making power and standard-setting power, the administration and the governance arrangements around that need to be robust so that big players and little players have faith in the system.

I don’t want to see our small fintechs feeling like the rules are rigged against them, and that the rules are being set by the big banks and that the small fintechs don’t get a fair shot at really disrupting that sector. I think that’s what we all want. We just need to make sure that the small guys in this world, the Doshes, the Akahus—I don’t actually know how small Dosh is. But, look, the people who are really giving it a good go and sticking it to the Aussie-owned banks can really be certain that behind the scenes, they don’t have an ability to screw the scrum—that the rules aren’t being set by people whose incentive it is to make sure that the big banks are really entrenching their power in this scenario.

We want open banking to be disruptive. The Labour Party believes that the small guys in this field should be getting the best go that they can. We need to make sure that that’s the case later in this process, and we certainly wouldn’t be agreeing to anything where the little guy wasn’t getting stuck up for.

I also wanted to just touch on some of the concerns that we raised in our differing view. There is something that didn’t go far enough and we would love to see an improvement in this area, or at least a commitment to review it later, and that is around derived data.

New Zealand company Xero is one of our huge success stories on the world stage. We are incredibly proud of the work that Xero does, not only in our domestic market, and the productivity gains that their business has been able to realise for small businesses, but also on the world stage. This is one of our biggest, most successful businesses, and they came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and they said, “Look, derived data—it’s not the way to go. That was a mistake that the Australian regime made and it had a chilling effect on the small players in the Australian market, and we do not see a place for derived data in this legislation.”

The committee made some amendments around that and tried to respond to the critique there, but it’s really important that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs can also give us some assurances that derived data is not going to be a concept which is showing up in the policy making and the secondary legislation, because I don’t think it’s a concept that belongs in the New Zealand framework.

Derived data, essentially, will mean, as a right, that secondary players who accept that data—like Xero or any sort of accounting software—will need to owe duties to the person giving over that data when they’ve already given the primary data holder the ability to use that data in the way that they have agreed to. We think that that’s a step too far. We think it would have a chilling effect, and we don’t think that that’s the right approach. When you’ve got big businesses like Xero coming in and saying, “Look, this is going to have a big effect, and in Australia it hasn’t worked.”, we need to listen to that.

Very briefly, I also wanted to touch on the potential of this for more sectors. We’re thinking about this in banking, and, yes, we really want this to be revolutionary in New Zealand’s banking sector, but the Minister talked about telcos and insurance. Those are certainly industries that we want to see some movement in, but there’s also a real question around how effective this might be in the electricity industry, where we have technology improving rapidly in terms of the kind of information that householders can have about their electricity use and the technology that meters will provide to the lines company and to the electricity provider.

There’s a real need here to move with the times and say that if the data that is collected not only by smart appliances but also by smart meters could be available to the consumer—and that would be a consumer data piece of information that they might have rights over—then what are the gains that consumers can feel? How do we make sure that consumers aren’t paying too much for their electricity and that they’re getting the best deal but also that New Zealand’s grid is as efficient as it possibly could be—because we can use that data in a way to maximise efficiency over the use in households and in businesses?

There’s a huge benefit here for New Zealand to use consumer data rights and to enable consumers to choose to use it for the benefit of not only their own family and their own households but of their community, as well. This is so exciting for the way that our economy is going. We are going to be a world leader in this, following on from a few jurisdictions—but there are not many with these kinds of rights—and we need to really build this out into as many sectors as we possibly can and create the right incentives for small businesses to innovate in this space. I’m really excited about it. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We also support the Customer and Product Data Bill. Like the previous speakers, I want to start by acknowledging, first and foremost, everyone who submitted on this bill, and, in fact, everyone who has been campaigning on changes in this space for actually quite some time, and I’ll get to that in a moment. I also wanted to reflect on the speech of Arena Williams, the member prior to me, because, to me, I think this is one of those bills where we do have an opportunity to build cross-party consensus on achieving outcomes that are good for people, and I do think it’s a shame to have a speech that I think is inviting the Government to be constructive still be met with barracking and, actually, heckles.

At the end of the day, I think what we can do here in this space is get the best outcome for consumers, and in this case, it’s people who require the services of, for example, the banking industry, an industry that has been under the spotlight for quite some time. If you look at the history of this bill, we can note that this bill started, basically, in 2020, and I also do want to acknowledge the Hon David Clark and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for the work that they’ve done since then to get a draft ready. I also commend the member who spoke prior to me, Arena Williams, for taking this on as a member’s bill.

I do think members’ bills are opportunities to pick up work that previous Governments could have undertaken, but I remember last term, actually, the fact was that we had quite a few events that were attended to in a cross-party way, with people calling for things like open banking—right? This is one of those issues that actually has had longstanding campaigning and support for it. What this bill will do, in many ways, is it will set up a regime to ensure that—well, the intention is that consumers’ data will be adequately protected, but then the regime will ensure that consumers can understand and people across our communities can understand which entity is offering them a better deal, whether it’s a gym, whether it’s a bank, or whether it’s in the electricity sector. I think this will be important to continue putting scrutiny in some of the industries that I do think have not actually given a fair deal to many members of our communities.

When this bill was initially being discussed, we were discussing issues around the profits that the banking sector was making, and many people at the time were talking about the difficulties of understanding which banks would offer them a deal that would enable them to actually have more money in their pockets. For families that are struggling to get by on a week-to-week basis, being able to have a regime that allows them to, basically, share their data with another provider and then to understand in a much more crystal-clear way how much they will gain from another provider will incentivise some of those companies to actually up their game, and rather than raking in massive profits, potentially reinvest some of that into offering better deals to our communities.

I do commend the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for addressing also some of the concerns that arose at the select committee stage. We all support the comments from the Minister in relationship to what he’s indicated in regards to privacy protection, but the comments around derived data do leave us concerned as well, because, at the end of the day, particularly when we’re aligning ourselves with other regimes, like in Australia, for example, or the UK, I think we should learn from what didn’t work so well in other regimes. In many ways, in my time here, what I have noticed is that we’re more prone to aligning ourselves with, say, for example, what Australia and the UK are doing. Sometimes we do choose to innovate, but when it comes to the provisions in regards to derived data, there are some really good examples in Australia as to why, actually, we need to look at what hasn’t worked in Australia to ensure that we don’t end up setting people back in that regard.

I also want to sort of touch on the fact that the submitters who presented on this bill also came with incredible technical knowledge, and I know that many of them would have been drawing on international comparisons, which is why I think those additional provisions that were recommended by previous speakers still stand. At the end of the day, this is actually honouring particularly the smaller players, but it has sent a message that while the regime is welcome—and I know that Consumer New Zealand, for example, has been quite welcoming of this regime—we still note that the balance isn’t 100 percent struck there yet. We do look forward to the committee of the whole House stage, to support amendments that look to address some of the concerns raised at the select committee stage.

I also finally want to touch on the fact that when it comes to the way that we’ll engage for consumer data, I do encourage the Government to continue doing work, and, no doubt, I hope this will be in the Minister’s agenda to also look in a future-looking kind of way at what kind of new scams could arise as a result of this regime. We know that the way that our different demographics engage with these kinds of regimes will change, and, therefore, I do think communications campaigns that help reach to, for example, our senior citizens and ethnically diverse communities will be really important to the success of this bill, because at the end of the day, when we set up new regimes like this one, the communication to our communities of how they work is what helps pin the success of this kind of consumer product data bill.

For example, I note that a lot of the time, when our English as a second language communities are engaging with services to get a good deal, they may struggle to actually understand how it is that they can engage with a regime that allows for data sharing. This is why I hope there is some cross-ministerial work—particularly for the agencies that help deal with our ethnic communities—to ensure that the information that is contained in this bill is communicated to the public more broadly. That is something that we hope to impact around how the Minister foresees the implementation of this bill at a community level, because otherwise we’ll see disparities around who is actually reaping the rewards of something that we do think has merit.

We have supported this bill at first reading, and so far we feel comfortable supporting this, even though we do think it could be strengthened, but I think, at the end of the day, how the Government thinks this could be implemented—I don’t support simply leaving it to the market and assuming that the companies themselves will end up communicating to our broad range of demographics what this actually means for consumers. We have seen already in the past feedback, particularly in the banking sector, that for different demographics, part of the issues that have arisen from not having an open banking regime also come with the fact that for many communities—and I include disabled people here—engaging with many industries to get a good deal is really, really challenging and the information that can be accessed by them isn’t readily available. Particularly, for example, when we think about the privacy provisions and data-protection provisions, this is where those additional implementation tools will be critical to ensure that there aren’t inequities created as a result of this bill.

From an economic inequities point of view, we do recognise the benefits that this bill will bring. At the end of the day, having a regime that will allow people to understand, for example, whether the bank that they’re with is actually giving them the best deal possible will reap economic and equities rewards. In saying that, I do encourage the Government to look beyond this bill about what else they can do to ensure that people are getting a good deal when it comes to banking and when it comes to other types of services, including in the electricity sector, because I think while the bill does modernise and digitise our economy, it cannot be treated as a silver bullet to a cost of living crisis, and I would go even broader to say an inequality crisis.

We look forward to what the comprehensive reforms will be in relationship to the sectors that we have outlined. But, other than that, we hope to be able to continue supporting this bill and we look forward to the Minister presenting changes that will further strengthen this bill. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Obituaries

Jennifer Anne Ng

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before the House adjourns this evening, I think it’s very appropriate that—we’ve lost this week a wonderful woman called Jenny Ng. She has given service to this House for 25 years. Many of us knew her, many of the people before us would have known her, and I also want to pass our condolences on to the House team and all those people who work in here. I’d ask everyone, please, to stand for a minute’s silence.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.