Wednesday, 19 February 2025

WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2025

WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for the Clerk to present. No papers have been presented. No select committee reports have been presented. No bills are to be introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I understand that a short time ago, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee announced a 50 basis-point reduction—[Interruption]—in the official cash rate (OCR)—

SPEAKER: I might just suggest that applauding that sort of activity is not wise.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —taking the official cash rate to 3.75 percent. For context, members, just over five months ago, the OCR was at 5.5 percent. Official cash rate reductions, and expectations about future changes, affect market interest rates and therefore have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses, providing a boost to the economy.

Grant McCallum: What did the Reserve Bank say about future OCR changes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is where it gets interesting, because today’s 50-point reduction was widely anticipated. Probably of more interest to economists and financial markets is the bank’s revised track for the official cash rate going forward. In today’s release, the bank is signalling faster reductions than it has previously—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Because she’s tanking the economy.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and its forward track for the official cash rate is consistent with further reductions of up to 50 basis points by the middle of this year, and for the official cash rate to be at 3 percent by the end of the year. And just in case you’re wondering, Mr Hipkins, this is good news for every family with a mortgage, and the fact that you’re interjecting about it tells me you’re out of touch with that.

Grant McCallum: What does this mean for ordinary New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Falling mortgage rates boost household budgets when borrowers are on floating rates or when they come to refinance a fixed mortgage. Currently, 55 percent of mortgage lending is either floating or is fixed for six months or less, so that means that many people are set to benefit when the official cash rate falls. Infometrics has previously estimated that by the end of this year, as a result of lower mortgage rates, households will have another $45 million to spend every week. That is, of course, good news for families who, in recent years, have suffered a protracted cost of living crisis.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: There are near-term risks to the economic outlook.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Labour Opposition acting finance spokesperson, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, to ask that as a question.

SPEAKER: No, we’ve had enough of that.

Grant McCallum: What do the Reserve Bank’s latest economic forecasts show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Obviously, that was an extremely astute interjection, because, yes, there are always risks to the economic outlook—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She’s one of them.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But the forecasts—well, Mr Hipkins, it would pay you to listen because the forecasts tell a positive story. They show economic growth returning in the last quarter of 2024 and picking up this year. The bank expects unemployment to peak at 5.2 percent, which is, of course, just a shade above where it is now—but very importantly, members, lower than what it was forecast to reach when the last people were in charge. And members, there is also a forecast for employment to increase over the course of this year. I note that in the August 2023 Monetary Policy Statement, when another group of people were leading the country, the Reserve Bank was expecting unemployment to peak at 5.3 percent. So today’s forecast is a modest improvement on that and, clearly, the bank considers inflation’s under control, creating space for further interest rate reductions.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to take pressure off inflation and interest rates and to support working Kiwis with the cost of living. The last few years have been incredibly tough with all the wasteful spending, the high inflation, the high interest rates, the low economic growth and the rising unemployment—thanks to the last Labour Government. We are working hard to take sensible economic action, sensible spending, personal tax relief—which Labour never supported—inflation relief, interest rate relief, and I just wish the Leader of the Opposition would celebrate with us the great news for working New Zealanders today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We’ve got to get the right leaders into these big agencies and big departments. They’re big organisations and when you get the right leader at the top, it makes all the difference through the organisation.”; if so, is he confident that the Health Commissioner he appointed is the right person at the top of the health system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his decision to appoint Health Commissioner Lester Levy, given that, only six months later, a task force has reportedly been established to rewrite the turn-around plan that the commissioner himself was appointed to come up with?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say this Government inherited a botched merger of the healthcare system. Health outcomes went backwards under the last Government and we are doing everything we can to turn it around. You know, Labour voted against us putting $17 billion more—a record investment—into healthcare. Are you saying you don’t want us to tackle the bureaucracy so that we can get better outcomes for New Zealanders? We do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s tirade about the previous Government or what the Labour Party has decided didn’t actually address the question, which is whether or not he stands by the decision to appoint Lester Levy as commissioner, given that there is now supposedly a task force rewriting the plan that the commissioner was appointed to come up with.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for informing the House what the question was. The Prime Minister might like to respond very, very briefly to that question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can anyone in a leadership role in our health system have confidence that he’ll back them, after Shane Reti was sacked as Minister of Health, the chief executive of Health New Zealand went, the director-general of our health system went, the Director of Public Health went, Health New Zealand’s entire health board went, and most of the remaining senior leadership in the health system have all fallen victim to his culture of deflection and blame?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, New Zealanders can have confidence that we actually are here to improve the healthcare system with a record investment of $17 billion; dealing with a $2 billion fiscal cliff under Pharmac; by funding $604 million for cancer drugs; putting more money into the healthcare system than has ever happened in the history of New Zealand; and being determined to fix the bureaucracy so that we improve health outcomes for New Zealanders, which went backwards under that last Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he indicate he didn’t have confidence in the Director-General of Health prior to her resignation; if so, to whom did he express that lack of confidence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, those are issues for Health New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Lester Levy has been struggling with a health framework that the last Labour Government was advised not to adopt?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can. What I can also confirm is that this is a Labour Government that added thousands of extra management into the system, created massive layers between chairmen and patients, and built a massive bureaucracy that failed to deliver for New Zealanders. We are spending more, we are fixing the bureaucracy, and we will get better health outcomes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How frequently has he met with—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just—no. Everyone will be quiet while the question is asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How frequently has he met with or communicated with the Health Commissioner?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Probably—I’ll go back to my diary and tell you, but several times last year. Several times last year.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that the latest turn-around plan for the turn-around plan will work, given so far all his Government has delivered is chaos in health system leadership, a hiring freeze on front-line roles, hospital rebuild delays and cutbacks, and worsening health outcomes for New Zealand patients?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Labour Party used to say that health was one of their core equities, and they ended up running the healthcare system into the ground. How do you botch a merger of 20 DHBs for a whole bunch of management on top? We’re putting more money in, we’re fixing the system, and we will deliver health outcomes that you failed to do in six years, including three years with an absolute majority.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to deliver affordable housing to help Kiwis with the cost of living. For many, the cost of housing is incredibly difficult; it’s their biggest expense—whether it’s their mortgage payments each week or whether it’s their weekly rent. The good news is: whichever way you look at housing, we’re actually making sure we’re bringing interest rates down so that Kiwis have more money in their pockets, we have stable rents, we have a reduction in people on the social housing wait-list, and, most importantly, we have 2,000 kids out of emergency housing in good, safe, dry homes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How, if at all, will the Prime Minister ensure that this growth that his Government is chasing will be fairly distributed among New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re not going to do is run the economy into the ground like the Labour-Greens Government did in the last administration. That’s why we are working hard to give tax relief to everyday working New Zealanders. But I don’t remember the Labour and Green Government supporting that. I don’t remember the Labour-Green Opposition supporting an increase of $17 billion into our healthcare system. I don’t remember the Labour-Greens Government fixing emergency housing, and saying it’s OK to have 3,200 households raising their kids in motels. We find that unacceptable.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll put it simply: does the Prime Minister think that it is the job of Government to reduce inequality?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It is the job of Government to lift incomes for every New Zealander, and that’s what we are doing. We are offering them tax relief, inflation relief, and interest rate relief. We are managing the books well because if you care about vulnerable people, if you care about low and middle income, working New Zealanders, you run the economy well—not into the ground like you lot did.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister telling Chlöe Swarbrick that we will not be following the Marxist model of wealth redistribution that she advocates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m just saying that we are not going to make the great leap backwards to socialism.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, after years of increases in economic growth, do the top 10 percent in this country hold almost 60 percent of the wealth?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean, again in that question, what you see is not celebrating people who have been successful, you know? That is good. We want more ambition in this country. We want more aspiration. We want people to be successful; we want to celebrate that. That is a good thing. We have a fair tax system, as has been said before. But I’m telling you, what’s interesting is: what’s the one policy idea we’ve had from the Opposition? We actually haven’t had one. What we’ve got is a conversation about a capital gains tax or a wealth tax, and Chris Hipkins won’t make a decision on it, but that’s all that they want to talk about. I tell you, that’s not going to work for New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, in the face of the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on—hang on. It’s your own side—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’m in the Greens, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, you are quite right, too. But none the less, some of your members are noisy, as well. So, please, wait for quiet and then ask your question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, in the face of the OECD stating—and I quote—“Focusing exclusively on growth and assuming that its benefits will automatically trickle down, may undermine growth in the long run.”, is the Prime Minister convinced, somehow, that, this time, it will all just trickle down?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m convinced of is that running the economy like Labour-Greens did over six years, into the ground—we need growth in this economy. That is not a conversation point any more. We need to grow so that we can actually create higher-income jobs, more jobs, put more money into people’s pockets so they can deal with the cost of living. That’s what we’re focused on each and every day in this Government. That member may not believe in growth, but growth is actually what helps low and middle income vulnerable New Zealanders get ahead.

Chlöe Swarbrick: By going for growth, does the Prime Minister mean growing inequality, growing poverty, growing homelessness, growing climate-changing emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It means lifting incomes for New Zealanders, which is what they care most about so they can get ahead, they can work hard in a country, get ahead, they can actually feel safe in a country, they see great education, great healthcare. That’s what we want for New Zealanders.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What were the departmental resourcing and clinical capacity factors that Health New Zealand said led to delays in the assessment of Daniel Walker’s cancerous lump on his testis, and what, if anything, was being done to address these factors at the time of Mr Walker’s referral to Nelson Hospital’s urology service in June 2024?

SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, the answers to this question will be heard in silence.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): This case is deeply regrettable, and I acknowledge the significant distress it has caused Mr Walker and his family. I’m advised that the delay in treatment resulted from a combination of factors. Initially, the referral was triaged as urgent, but a human coding error led to it being downgraded, causing a delay. I’m also advised that Health New Zealand is investigating this incident to prevent this error from happening again. Additionally, I’m advised that Health New Zealand has identified that operational pressures in the system played a role in this situation because of the unexpected extended absence of a key clinician. As this case is currently before the Health and Disability Commissioner, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the specifics.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Nelson Hospital was trying to source a locum urologist in June 2024, when Mr Walker was referred, and, if so, had approval been given for the vacancy to be recruited into?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that’s a specific question. I’d invite the member to put that in writing, and I’ll come back to her in regard to the specifics of that question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did Health New Zealand, in its response to Mr Walker’s ACC claim, say that the delay was due to resourcing factors if they are now saying that it is due to an administrative error?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I repeat what I said in my primary answer, which was there were two particular factors at play here. The first was a human coding error; the second was an operational pressure in relation to the unexpected extended absence of a key clinician, so there were two factors. As I’ve also said, Health New Zealand is investigating this incident to prevent this error from happening again, and it is also before the Health and Disability Commissioner, as well.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can the administrative error be involved in the delay when the fact is that it was on 19 July that the recoding of Mr Walker’s clinical condition occurred, when he was already beyond the limit for the clinically acceptable time for his condition to be seen by a specialist?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary answer, the case is deeply regrettable. I’m advised that one of the reasons for the delay was the fact that the referral was triaged as urgent, but then a human coding error led to it being downgraded, and, of course, that took time until that was then noticed. That is deeply regrettable and I acknowledge that it is, and that is why I’ve also been advised that Health New Zealand is investigating this incident to prevent this error from happening again. There are investigations also under way by the Health and Disability Commissioner.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that while Mr Walker’s cancer care was delayed for lack of a surgeon and the lump in his testis grew and spread, the Government removed the power for Nelson Hospital to approve its own recruitment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry, can you repeat that question, please?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that while Mr Walker’s cancer care was delayed for lack of a surgeon, the lump on his testis grew and spread, and the Government removed the power for Nelson Hospital staff to approve recruitment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, what I would say is that this situation is deeply regrettable and the delays did cause a significant impact on Mr Walker, and that is why there is now an investigation under way by Health New Zealand into this incident.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding vintage vehicles and motorhomes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Earlier this month, I announced at the British and European Car Day in Trentham, the Government will soon consult on reducing the frequency of warrant of fitness (WoF), and certificate of fitness (CoF) inspections for vintage light vehicles, and private heavy motorhomes. There are 128,000 vintage vehicles in New Zealand and about 40,000 private motorhomes. They have to spend time and money getting a WoF or a CoF every six months. That is despite the fact that they travel less compared to modern cars. Evidence shows faults in these vehicles are half as likely to contribute to serious crashes. So we’re consulting on changing the rules to make it annually rather than every six months.

Stuart Smith: What specific changes are the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) consulting on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: NZTA will soon begin consultation on reducing the WoF check frequency for vehicles over 40 years old, including both cars and motorcycles—I received quite a bit of correspondence about motorcycles—and they’re reducing the CoF check frequency for privately owned motorhomes from six months to one year. Our view is this is a sensible approach to making sure that vehicles continue to be safe while not going overboard on compliance.

Stuart Smith: What feedback has the Minister received on the proposal?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The feedback has been quite extraordinary. Let me quote Antonio, “Bloody brilliant. Thanks for the common sense.” Selwyn: “It’s a no-brainer.” The New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, Bruce Lochore: “It’s never made sense…these vehicles do a fraction of the mileage of normal vehicles, they have a fraction of the serious accident[s] … it’s an over-exaggeration of compliance”. Garry Jackson, president of the New Zealand Federation of Motoring Clubs, said, “We’re just delighted.”

Stuart Smith: When can Kiwis expect these changes to come into effect?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve got good news for Greg O’Connor and all other owners of vintage motor vehicles. Public consultation will begin next Monday. I encourage people to have their say. I know that the member of Parliament for the West Coast with their vintage hot rod will be submitting. Please go to nzta.govt.nz; the last day is 4 April. Once consultation has gone through and Government has made a decision, it will take place soon after that.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has a taskforce been established to review and potentially replace the health system reset plan put forward by Health New Zealand Commissioner Lester Levy; if so, when will it complete its work?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): This Government is focused on delivering a health system that prioritises timely and quality healthcare for patients. The Public Service Commission has established the Health Assurance Unit to provide advice to me and to ensure performance across the health sector so that it can deliver upon the Government’s health priorities. The task force is established for three months. Unlike the previous Government, which prioritises restructuring during a pandemic, we’re focused on delivering better healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Hon Peeni Henare: Will Health New Zealand’s reset plan be publicly available, and, if so, on which date?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is a matter for the commissioner, but I understand the commissioner is continuing to work with Health New Zealand to finalise the reset plan.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister be more specific about the difference between the Health Assurance Unit he just spoke of that has been set up by the Public Service Commission and the task force that he spoke of?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Health Assurance Unit is what the Public Service Commission has set up.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by his statement, “What I won’t stand by is bureaucracy, bureaucratic processes, and constant centralisation”, and, if so, why are people being appointed to a new task force to fix the Government’s failing plan when this money could have been better spent hiring doctors and nurses to staff New Zealand’s struggling emergency departments (EDs)?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Public Service Commission has set the health assurance team up to provide advice to me over three months. I would also note that in 2020, the last Government established the health transition unit housed within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to design and advise on the health system reforms. What I would say is we’re focused on getting results and performance out of the system after years of decay by the last Government and, for example, ED wait times, which declined from 89.2 percent of people being seen within six hours when National left office to 67.5 percent when Labour left office. We’re focused on outcomes.

SPEAKER: Well wide of the question—well wide of the question.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can his Government finally admit that after firing the Health New Zealand board, overseeing a health leadership exodus, and appointing one man who has delivered nothing but cuts, running the health system is not as simple as running an aeroplane?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What a cynical question from the Opposition. What I would say is we are focused on outcomes and delivery and results after six years of reorganising the bureaucracy and seeing decline, decline, decline. ED wait times: declined. First specialist assessments: declined. Elective surgeries: declined. Children’s immunisations declined under their watch. We’re focused on results; we increased the funding for Health New Zealand. That’s what this Government is focused on doing.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: What is the Government doing to restore confidence and drive growth in the primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): We’re turbo-charging growth to return confidence to the primary sector through common-sense policies that are driving up productivity and driving up farm-gate returns. The latest Federated Famers confidence survey has seen rural confidence rise to the highest level in over a decade, with one of the largest one-off improvements of 68 points since the question was introduced in that survey in 2016. The Government has been reducing wasteful spending to bring down inflation, which in turn means lower interest rates for our farmers and every New Zealander.

Miles Anderson: What has the Government done to improve farmer confidence?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Farmers and growers are the backbone of the New Zealand economy, contributing over $10 billion in export revenue for New Zealand. This is why we are laser focused on better rules and getting the cost of these rules down. Already, the Government, in slightly more than 12 months, has taken over 20 actions to slash red tape and get Wellington out of farming. This includes restricting full farm-to-forest conversions, taking agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme, working to replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and a commitment to not close down farms or send jobs and production overseas.

Miles Anderson: What is the Government doing to further support farmers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: This year, we are going for growth in the rural sector by further slashing regulatory burden and reducing on-farm costs, boosting productivity by improving water storage and irrigation, we’re improving trade access, rebalancing the hierarchy of the obligations of Te Mana o te Wai, and strengthening support for our rural communities, because we back rural New Zealand.

Miles Anderson: How is supporting farmers key to economic growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, looking ahead, we’re focused on leveraging trade opportunities, including the recently concluded United Arab Emirates and Gulf Cooperation Council agreement, and delivering more permissive regulatory conditions for farmers to be able to meet their obligations whilst growing their businesses. The primary sector generates more than 80 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports and directly employs almost 360,000 people in New Zealand. Ensuring its continued success is crucial to every Kiwi’s economic future. The positive momentum we are seeing now is just the beginning; when rural New Zealand is confident, all of New Zealand can be confident.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does standing by her statement that “I agree with everything the Deputy Prime Minister says.” mean that she agrees with her statement to Kinleith Mill workers that “Mills are closing rapidly in New Zealand and if there is not the right reaction from central government then there are many more closures to come”, and, if so, which town is next?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, it’s a very tough time for the Kinleith community, as the member well knows—very difficult time. The Ministry of Social Development is supporting the affected staff and contractors in the area to help them find employment. They are working hard alongside local employers and they will continue to do that, but it is a tough time economically and the Kinleith closure reflects that.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her statement that this Government is focused on going for growth when the only thing that has grown under her leadership is more unemployment than this time last year, which continues to rise, and all she can say is she made a few phone calls to the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and she’s letting him do all the talking on a portfolio that she’s responsible for, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the single best thing we can do for jobs and growth in this country is to go for growth. It is to say yes to our economic opportunities. It means saying yes to investment. It means saying yes to tourism. The Minister is also working hard on her other portfolio. It means saying yes to innovation. It means saying yes to infrastructure and housing investment. It means all of the things that the Government is doing, because—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Trickle down.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: More lectures from the degrowth Marxists over on the Opposition benches. If the Green Party want to have a fight about whether or not economic growth is a good thing or not, we are up for that debate and that battle, because, let there be no doubt: growth is good.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her response to my question to her last week on 13 February: “And I know very well how important Kinleith employment is in that community, and that is why, as a Government, we are looking at options.”, and, if so, can I ask what meaningful options, other than closing the mill, did she consider?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, as the member knows from his time in Government, the Government is not responsible for mill closures. Ultimately, those are economic decisions made by the owners of particular businesses. The Government cannot—I hope the member is not suggesting that the Government can go around and make business decisions on behalf of every business. What the Government can do is affect the broader macro economy such that businesses want to invest and grow jobs here. And the single best thing we can do is the Government’s Going for Growth agenda, but also allow a situation where inflation can return to band and you have price stability and interest rates can come down. That is why the official cash rate cuts from the Reserve Bank today are so good, not just for mortgage holders but also for businesses as well, so that it makes it easier for them to invest.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the party that is uniquely able to claim to have saved Tiwai Point against a $100 million buy-off by the then Labour Party finance Minister is still trying to save Kinleith?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, it’s definitely true to say that there are some people with a close familiarity with Tiwai in this House, and they have a very proud record in relation to the Tiwai Aluminium Smelter, certainly more than other parties.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister planning to go to Tokoroa, like she did last year, to explain to workers, some who’ve been employed at that mill for 20 years, why this Government’s growth agenda doesn’t include the workers of Tokoroa and the 33,000 other workers who’ve lost their jobs in the last 12 months?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister cares about all workers in this country. That is why she is focused so much on working as part of a team to grow jobs and increase economic growth and productivity in this economy. And I’m sure she will be in the particular area that the member is talking about.

Hon Shane Jones: Has the Minister seen reports that one of the reasons why Tokoroa’s Kinleith is facing adversity is because of the closure of the gas and oil industry and the escalation of power prices?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the member makes a good point, which is that challenging energy prices have put pressure on some industrial businesses, including Kinleith and others, and that energy security is a key component of economic growth, and that is why the Government is very focused on improving that.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Does she stand by her statement that “We know the importance of family reunification in this Government”; if so, does she think it’s fair to deport people who have been born in Aotearoa, separating them from their communities and families?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, this is a very serious point of order. Why is someone who applied to come to this country in 2006 allowed to ask a question of this Parliament to change this country’s name without the referendum and sanction of the New Zealand people?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I couldn’t quite follow that entire—[Interruption] Listen to points of order in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is someone who applied to come to this country as an immigrant in 2006, when it was called New Zealand, allowed to, in this Parliament, change—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re going to listen in silence or those people who are currently talking will be leaving. Start again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My question is a serious one. Why is someone who applied to come to a country called New Zealand as an immigrant in 2006 allowed, in this House, to change the country’s name without the mandate, the approval, or referendum of the New Zealand people?

SPEAKER: Well—sort of working through a little bit. Can I just say that the person asking the question is an elected member in this House. If he is using a name that’s not acceptable to others listening, then I can’t do much about that other than to say the point is acknowledged and, Ricardo Menéndez March, please carry on with your question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said that “It’s just not right that people who have no connection to New Zealand are deported to New Zealand.”; and, if so, how is it right for their Government to deport people from New Zealand who only have connections to New Zealand?

Hon Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t get to answer the primary. That was—should I answer the primary and then move on?

SPEAKER: Well, to be honest with you, if I look at it, the primary was adapted to accommodate the point made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think answer that question—he’ll have another supp.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): OK, so I’m answering the primary. OK. In response to the first part of the primary question: yes. I made that statement in relation to the parent boost visa that we have been working on all year to provide another pathway for New Zealand citizens and residents to have their parents visit them. In response to the second part of the question, there are always really difficult and complex individual cases within the immigration system and that is why there are a range of mechanisms through which these cases can be fairly considered, including through the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, delegated decision makers within Immigration New Zealand, and ministerial intervention. I have confidence in these avenues to appropriately consider these cases on their individual circumstances as they arise.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said that “It’s just not right that people who have no connection to New Zealand are deported to New Zealand.” and, if so, how is it right for their Government to deport people from New Zealand who only have connections to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I always agree with the Prime Minister.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she support regularising the immigration status of people who were born and have grown up in Aotearoa, and, if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary answer, as individual circumstances arise, they are able to be looked at by either Immigration and Protection Tribunal or the Minister or delegated decision makers. Each of those cases are able to be seen and assessed on their individual merits. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. I think it’s probably not an unreasonable thing to perhaps use, if you want to, the two names Aotearoa New Zealand, but not just the one. Quite clearly the Minister is sworn as a Minister of a Government in New Zealand—simple as that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. I actually think this is quite significant, what you’ve just said now.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know it is.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In any other instance, a direct translation from English to te reo in this House is permissible because te reo Māori is an official language of this country. Are you saying that in any other instance, a word could be used—te reo instead of the English version—and ever since it’s been official and able to be used in this House, that’s OK, but now all of a sudden, members cannot use the term “Aotearoa” unless they follow it up with “New Zealand”?

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, a key part of the contribution from the honourable member was a direct translation. Go to the Treaty: New Zealand is transliterated as “Niu Tīreni”. Pember Reeves popularised the word “Aotearoa”.

Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, can I just clarify: Niu Tīreni New Zealand was a name given by a Dutch person on their arrival on these shores. Aotearoa is a widely accepted name that originates from the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, in the 1880s and 1890s, a white colonist popularised that name. Before that, no Māori ever thought that was the name for this country, because it comes from French Polynesia.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He was there!

SPEAKER: All right, so that’s the—[Interruption] And any more comments like that while I—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, no, no, I’m dealing with a point of order; I’ll come back to you. Just making the point: any more interruptions like that will ensure that someone is not here much further. Look, I was trying to make it clear that for the order of question time, it might be helpful if a person was to refer to Aotearoa New Zealand. In this case, I notice both words are used at different parts of the primary question, which I think is also kind of interesting. But Standing Order 109 does make it clear that you can address the House in either te reo or English. The issue around the geographic naming of New Zealand is a slightly different thing, and I’ll take some time to think about that and come back to the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m not going to make too big a point of this, but he made a very ageist comment saying, “He was there.” Now, sir, I’m not going to take too much offence about that, other than to tell him that, like so many Labour leaders, I’ll be around long after he’s gone.

SPEAKER: Not a legitimate point, but fair.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept she’s setting a different standard—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just start again.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept she’s setting a different standard when it comes to people deported to New Zealand and people deported from New Zealand when it comes to communities that have no connection to any other country than the one they’re being deported from?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Then why does she agree with the Prime Minister when it comes to his statement that people should not be deported to New Zealand when they only have connections to those other countries, and not in the case of people who were born here, raised here, and yet are facing deportation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s because the member is conflating two different things. It is very important in this country that we look after and maintain the integrity of our borders, and if we were in this country to change our Citizenship Act—which, by the way, does not fall under my delegation, but if we were to do that, it would mean that people who had no other pathway to residence would potentially be incentivised to have children in order to stay here. We have a reasonable balance in this country where we maintain the integrity of our borders and do not provide those incentives. However, on the other hand, when individual circumstances arise that may have circumstances of that case that require an extra look by either a delegated decision maker or the Minister of Immigration or the Associate Minister or the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, then those avenues are available to those people.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is her message to other people like Daman Kumar, who have no immigration status but have only known life in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My message to those people is the same as I’ve already said: that the avenues to have their individual cases looked at by a delegated decision maker, an Associate Minister of Immigration, or the Immigration and Protection Tribunal are open to them to have a look at the individual circumstances of their case to make individual decisions.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. How was that last supplementary question in any way within Standing Order 390(1)(a)?

SPEAKER: I’ll have to come back to you on that. Have you got a point of order?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I do, sir, please—point of order. Thank you very much for agreeing to go away and consider the matter that was discussed through a series of points of order earlier. I think it’ll be useful for the order of the House and the functioning of Parliament to have clarity on that. Would you also be willing to consider whether it is appropriate for any member of this House to openly question the legitimacy of the presence of another member in order to make a political point?

SPEAKER: OK, I’ll think about that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Because it’s quite serious.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I agree.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order, I do think that is worthwhile considering, for two different reasons: (a) I’m not the only person in this House who actually was born overseas; secondly, those comments actually reflect outside of the chambers of this place into broader communities, disincentivising people who may have been born overseas from participating in our democracy.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, can you also contemplate the appropriateness of recent immigrants telling Māoris what the name of our country should be?

SPEAKER: OK, well, we’re not going to take this any further today. I’m certainly not ruling on it right now. We’ll move to question No. 10, Rima Nakhle, who will ask the question when the House is quiet.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent announcements has he made about Māori development?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Last Friday, it was my pleasure to attend the launch on Tumunui land, south of Rotorua, at Te Pā Tū, the launch of the Business and Economic Research Ltd report on the value of Māori tourism. This report provides a fact-based and data-driven analysis of the economic contribution of Māori tourism to the New Zealand economy while also highlighting the unique aspects that define Māori tourism experiences. As you know, nature and culture are major drawcards for international tourists, and the report observes that Māori tourism emphasises the relationships between Māori; whenua, or land; and manuhiri, visitors.

Rima Nakhle: Why is Māori tourism so important?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Prime Minister is clear that our Government’s focus is on economic growth, and tourism makes an important contribution as New Zealand’s second-largest export earner. The Government is firmly focused on creating the right conditions for businesses, organisations to grow, to create jobs, and to lift incomes. The report identifies that, in 2023, Māori tourism contributed $1.2 billion of productive GDP to the New Zealand economy, an increase from $975 million in 2018. That 23 percent growth is a clear indicator of the great value-add of Māori tourism to the tourism sector and the wider economy.

Rima Nakhle: What is the value-add of Māori tourism?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Māori tourism boasts a rich herstory and history. Before the word “tourism” was coined, our tūpuna deployed manaakitanga, and a profound connection to the whenua—land; thank guides Sophia Hinerangi and others in Te Arawa. Māori tourism continues to thrive on manaakitanga and whenua. Māori collectors, in particular, offer a diverse range of accommodation, experiences, and events that are prominent on our tourism must-do lists and are not replicated elsewhere, like the greatest Māori show on earth Te Matatini next week in Taranaki, where I hope to see as many members of this House as possible supporting the Waikato kapa haka teams!

Rima Nakhle: How productive are Māori tourism enterprises?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Between 2010 and 2020, Māori tourism businesses generally performed better than non-Māori tourism businesses in terms of labour productivity, GDP per worker, and relevant industry groups. Contributing factors could include the higher-average salaries of employees for Māori tourism businesses and operational efficiencies in these businesses. The economic impact of Māori tourism extends beyond revenue and pax numbers. They have 15,000 jobs, often in regions where job prospects may be limited. Māori businesses often prioritise local businesses and suppliers, creating a multiply effect that directly benefits the local and regional economies.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: How many social houses were funded through Budget 2024?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): 1,500.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: In what years will that funding for those 1,500 houses be allocated in?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In terms of allocation, the funding is being allocated now and they are for delivery from 1 July 2025 through to 30 June 2027.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many of the social houses built between the 2023 general election and today were funded by this Government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, none, because, as the member knows, funding is allocated two or three years out from when the funding starts, and the Government took office on 27 November 2023, so it’s a little bit difficult to allocate funding and have a house built the day or the month afterwards. I invite the member to look at a calendar.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If that is the case, why did he stand in this House and say to members here and the country that he takes credit for the 2,000 houses that have been built up to now?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member asked me how many houses had been built since this Government came to office, and the answer is what I gave, which is over 2,000. The member might not like the fact that they lost the election and we won, but that’s what happened.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it the position of this Government that anything that happens after the 2023 election is its doing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The simple reality is that stuff that happens in one Government often comes to fruition in another Government. For example, the National Government in 2014 started the funding for the Transmission Gully motorway. It finished in 2022, but I noticed that didn’t stop Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson riding out in the Crown limos to spend up roughly $400,000 opening Transmission Gully, even though they campaigned against it in the first place. The City Rail Link project was funded in 2014 and has taken so long we have had an entire new Government from National come around, so the fifth National Government when it started life under the fourth National Government. Another example is the SkyCity convention centre, which was funded back in 2013 and 13 years later will open. Things take a while. House building takes a while as well.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, the allocation from the party has run out, so nice try.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I know, but I thought I’d give it a crack.

SPEAKER: It’s well worthwhile. There’s nothing like an enterprising young man having a go.

Question No. 12—Education

12. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, and, in particular, my actions to deliver excellent and equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori. I was really proud to launch our first nationally consistent, high-quality structured literacy and numeracy resources in te reo Māori, benefiting 27,000 ākonga across the country. I’m advised that the kura umbrella group Ngā Kura ā Iwi, at their recent hui, made comment on the high quality of the resources, the comprehensive nature of the content, and the clear link to language acquisition. Finally, I’m further advised that teachers from outstanding kura, including seven from the member’s electorate—including that member’s own former wharekura—were involved in the development of this curriculum and supporting resources.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Can the Minister explain why she believes that Māori-medium education and mainstream education should or should not receive equal treatment?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I think that the answer in the primary question answered the member’s question. There should be equitable resources and outcomes for both Māori-medium kura kaupapa and tamariki Māori in the mainstream, which is why every single thing that I have done in the English medium, we have mirrored in the Māori medium, as well. For the first time, we have nationally consistent pāngarau—or maths—resources available to every child learning in te reo Māori, no matter where they are learning, because we have a bilingual education system and we are committed to fully funding that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: The normal practice is—oh, a point of order, sorry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. When that question was asked, surely it occurred that if the question was why someone, as a Minister, should explain why something should or should not be happening with respect to funding, that was so incoherent that you can’t possibly answer it, because if you were saying why something should happen, how can you then explain why something should not happen—which was the framework, if I follow the dialogue of what she said, in her question. Did you not get that?

SPEAKER: Yes, I got it, but I’m not responsible for the way in which people construct questions in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, amateur hour.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you can use the term, if you like, but I would imagine you’re not applying it to me.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How does the Minister justify the allocation of $100 million to one mainstream school when the entire budget for all kura kaupapa projects is $100 million?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The member is referring to Wellington Girls’ College, and an explanation of the $100 million is that that is over a long period of time; in fact, much of that money pre-dates this Government—investment that was required for buildings that were earthquake-prone and, in fact, were rather dangerous, and that work needed to happen. Further work needs to happen in order to make that school—

Rawiri Waititi: A hundred million dollars to one school—kura kaupapa have $100 million for the nation.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If the member thinks that I am the type of Minister that is going to stand by a school that has earthquake-prone buildings and do nothing, then he underestimates my commitment to the students of this country.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does the Minister agree with her previous statement that kura kaupapa buildings “are in an extremely dilapidated state”; if so, why have kura kaupapa buildings not been prioritised for repairs?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, kura kaupapa buildings are being prioritised. We have set aside $100 million that we are continuing to top up, and—

Rawiri Waititi: Which one is getting $100 million?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, if the members would like to hear my answer, I’d suggest that they stop barracking across the House, because this is actually quite important. The answer to her question is that we are prioritising kura kaupapa buildings because they are in a dilapidated state, which is why we are continuing to top up the $100 million fund, and I would note that, actually, of all of the kura kaupapa that we have been dealing with, we haven’t even been able to spend the money yet because we haven’t had agreement in many of those cases as to exactly what’s going to happen. But I have said to those kura kaupapa to let’s get together and make sure that we spend that money as quickly as we can, so that in every single Budget, I can continue to top it up so that we can continue to build more classrooms and fix up more classrooms.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If the Minister agrees that kura kaupapa need to be prioritised, can she explain why 20 kura kaupapa projects were deprioritised or cancelled last year?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can exactly tell that member why things had to be put on a different train, and that is because when we turned up in Government, we had 250 projects that were unfunded—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—hang on. I can’t hear a word that’s coming from the Minister due to the loud interjections coming from both sides of the—all parts of the House. Yeah, you may well look behind you; I would, if I were you. Please answer the question from the start, again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we turned up in Government, we were surprised to find that we had 250 unfunded projects that had been promised by the previous Government, but had not been funded. The reason for that, as I’ve explained many times, is that so many projects were bespoke buildings that were very expensive, at the expense of building lots and lots of modular builds that cost far less to deliver. We have turned that around in 12 months. Over 80 percent of what we do are offsite-manufactured builds. We are saving money, and the Opposition would be pleased to know that in the next few weeks, we will have some announcements to make on many of the projects that we’re now able to undertake because of the savings we’ve made. And the last point I would make is that we built more classrooms last year than the Labour Government did in the year before that, despite what Mr Hipkins continues to say.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short pause while those who have to leave the House do so quickly and quietly, and then I’ll call on a member to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Today, New Zealanders got some good news, and because I know that “Chicken Little” and his friends over there will only ever tell New Zealanders that things are getting worse, I want to take this opportunity to tell them about a few things that are getting better.

It has been tough, Mr Speaker—it has been tough, my fellow colleagues. New Zealanders have been through the wringer. They endured a prolonged cost of living crisis, in which they watched while inflation went sky high—intergenerational highs—prices got away from them at the supermarket, with their electricity bills, and with their bills. They watched as their interest rates flew ever higher, and they watched the outlook get ever darker.

Today, it is good news to have confirmed inflation is under control, and it is set to remain under control. This is important—you can take it for granted—but opposite us are members who allowed inflation to get to 7.3 percent. Well, not on our watch; we will not countenance those sorts of price increases for New Zealanders.

More good news: since this Government was elected, we have now had 175 basis points of interest rate reductions for New Zealanders. And what does that mean? That means literally hundreds of dollars more in the bank accounts of people with mortgages. It means that businesses wishing to borrow face far lower costs. It means more cash flowing into our economy—literally tens of millions of dollars more each week.

More good news: the growth outlook is forecast to accelerate this year. With that—here’s the piece of news that I was delighted to see—unemployment is forecast not to get as high as it was when they left office. All in all, today is a day in which we can confirm that the direction this Government is taking New Zealand in has good signs ahead.

What I want you to do now, members, is imagine the alternative that that lot are painting you. I want you to think about this: first of all, I want you to imagine “Mr Slow” at the helm—Kieran McAnulty. Now, the first thing he’s done, of course, is say, “Slow down those roads in the Wairarapa. We don’t like that, it’s too unsafe.” Then his next job has been to sit down with his leadership council of the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori.

He sits down with them all and he says to Chlöe Swarbrick, “Now, what should we do to help working New Zealanders?” She says, “Well, actually Kieran, I think it’s time for some degrowth Marxism, because, actually, this whole idea that we will create a productive economy is wrong, bunkum. Let’s give socialism a go.”

Kieran looks a little bit disturbed, so then he turns around and he says, “Well, what do you think, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer? What should we do?” She says, “No, no, no, no, no—a $200 billion capital gains tax, that’s what we need. We need to confiscate half of GDP to make working people better.”

Kieran’s confused at this point and he’s saying, “I’m not sure she’s got her numbers quite right. So what do you think, Rawiri? Rawiri Waititi, what’s your prescription for making New Zealand better?” And Rawiri says, “Look, to heck with this Parliament business, let’s put a dictator in charge and call him the Treaty Commissioner, and somehow that’s going to make it all better.”

Of course, you know, this is a cloistered little group, this group of Kieran and his friends from Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party. So along the corridor walks Helen White. Helen White says, “I’ve got a copy of Capital—I’ve got a copy of Capital—it’s by Thomas Piketty. David Parker gave it to me, and he said that this whole idea of a capital gains tax is wrong. What we need is a wealth tax.” And Ingrid Leary wanders along and she says, “Yes, I think so too. I think that’s a very good idea.”

Then what do we have? I think probably Duncan Webb—you’d turn up in support of that too, wouldn’t you?

So there’s a little fight breaking out in the corridor between the capital gains tax folk and the wealth tax folk, but the one thing they can all agree on is this: Labour’s prescription for the economy is tax some more, borrow more, hire more public servants in Wellington, and somehow that will all trickle down to working New Zealanders being better off.

Well, I tell you this, Labour used to be the party for working people; it is now the party for taxing everything working people have worked for. New Zealanders who’ve done it tough can know things are getting better, and they—the Opposition—would put it all to waste and wreckage.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): It appears the National Party have now given up on getting “back on track” and they’ve adopted a new slogan: “Everyone must go!” And it seems that Nicola Willis has led the charge, because before she stood up to speak the National Party backbench adopted that slogan and every one of them went. They weren’t that interested in hearing what she has to say.

When it came to promoting tourism, they’ve adopted the slogan “Everyone must go!” They clearly didn’t think that through. At a time when record numbers of New Zealanders are simply giving up and leaving the country, the Government adopting the slogan “Everyone must go!” is totally ham-fisted.

When the engineers are complaining that because the Government have stopped school rebuilding projects, they’ve stopped State house builds, they’ve stopped hospital upgrades, they’ve slowed down roading projects, they’ve scrapped water infrastructure upgrades, their compatriots are all leaving and going to Australia, what does the Government say to that? “Everyone must go!” That seems to be the answer.

When the health system is in crisis, the Government slogan seems to be: “Everyone must go!” The health leadership has to go: the board of Health New Zealand, the Chief Executive of Health New Zealand, the Director-General of Health, the Director of Public Health—now even the commissioner that they appointed seems to have a dagger hanging over his head. Everybody must go.

They make it sound like New Zealand is in the clearance bin, as my colleague Cushla pointed out the other day, but what they have proven since they became the Government is that stringing together a bunch of slogans will not make up for the fact that they simply don’t have a plan. They don’t have any idea how they’re actually going to turn around the fortunes of the country.

New Zealanders know that, while this Government are patting themselves on the back saying how wonderful everything suddenly is, Kiwi families are still going backwards. Life is still actually getting harder for New Zealand families. There are more Kiwi families with a parent who’s unemployed today than there were at the last election, and that has happened under this Government.

Families still see their grocery bills going up each week under this Government. And let’s not forget power prices going up every month under this Government. People are still suffering under this Government. Things are getting harder for New Zealand families, and instead all they’re getting from this Government is “Isn’t it great? Isn’t everything so much better?” It isn’t better for New Zealand families. This Government pat themselves on the back while things get worse.

What is their solution to the big challenges facing the country? Well, they talk a big game on things like power prices, and yet they have done nothing. What has actually caused the growth in power prices? Well, hocking off half the power companies actually contributed to the current power crisis that we’re seeing at the moment, because those power companies decided to gouge more profits out of consumers rather than actually invest in new power generation. And what’s their solution? Sell more! Everything must go! Everyone must go! Everything must go! That seems to be their new slogan.

More tough talk on supermarkets, but no real action. More tough talk on banks, but no real action. No actual solutions. Oh, and when it comes to people who are homeless living in emergency accommodation, it seems they’ve adopted the slogan “Everyone must go!” They don’t seem to mind where they go as long as they leave emergency accommodation. If they’re going to a car, that’s OK. If they’re going to sleep under a bridge, that’s OK, as long as they’re not in emergency accommodation. Emergency accommodation is not a solution, it is a stopgap measure while we build more houses, but they’re not doing that any more either. They cancelled the new State house build programme when they became the Government, and all New Zealanders will pay the price for that.

I’ll tell you who’s not going, though, and that is the Ministers who aren’t living up to the standards that New Zealanders should be able to expect of their Government. We now have a future Deputy Prime Minister, someone surely to become Deputy Prime Minister, who thinks it’s OK for members of Parliament to interfere in murder investigations, who thinks it’s OK to drive a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament, who thinks it’s OK to refer a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of that member’s party president to a lawyer supplied by the party rather than to Victim Support or the Police. And that’s OK under this Government.

New Zealanders already have seen enough of this Government to know that it’s not getting any better. It’s no wonder that more than half the country thinks things are going backwards.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): There you have it, what happens in the first year of Opposition when a former Prime Minister loses an election: you end up living in a twilight world where “New Zealand was perfect, but we lost the election because New Zealanders didn’t realise”. You know, if you listen to Chris Hipkins, everything they did was perfect, the country was wonderful, but Kiwis just didn’t realise it when Labour lost the election. I’ve got to say, Chris Hipkins can’t see what we see on this side of the House, which is the people sitting behind him, hollowly clapping from time to time, but waiting and biding their time.

He is right—he is right—that it is hard for New Zealanders; it’s tough for New Zealanders at the moment and the reason that it is tough for New Zealanders is six years of economic vandalism and mismanagement and creating rules and costs on New Zealanders to control every single part of their lives, because that’s a Labour Party and a Government that thinks they know best. If only New Zealanders had realised it when they voted them out of office when Chris Hipkins was Prime Minister.

I want to thank wholeheartedly, on behalf of every single member of this coalition Government, every single man and woman in rural New Zealand who works hard every single day to help us fix the mess that we inherited from six years of economic vandalism and mismanagement from that Labour Government Chris Hipkins was a member of. The reason I want to thank them is they work hard every day, and they are the fabric of the good things that we know New Zealand is. It’s good to see that actually they have their heads up because they recognise that through hard work you can get ahead in New Zealand.

I want to mention the Federated Farmers annual survey this week released the result that shows the highest result of confidence in a decade, and the greatest single increase in confidence—of 68 points in the last 12 months—in the history of their survey. The reason our farmers are happy: not what Chris Hipkins said, not because the Government is patting ourselves on the back, but because we are recognising farmers work hard, we are recognising they’re important, and we are helping and working with them to fix the rules that were holding them back, that were costing them, and that were putting them out of business and sending jobs and production overseas.

It’s a long list of areas where farmers are feeling better, but they’re feeling better because they’re recognised for their hard work and they are producing the highest quality, the safest food, that’s environmentally friendly as they look to meet and work to meet their emissions obligations. And they are selling it to the world—consumers recognise that it’s safe and that it’s high quality and that they want to buy it.

In that they have a Government, three parties in coalition, that 100 percent backs them and is working hard to get dumb Government rules off their back—not something Chris Hipkins talked about; farming was perfect under what Labour did over that six years—getting that regulatory burden off their back so they can do what they do best: care about their animals, care about their land, innovate, be more productive, meet their obligations, and sell to the world. We will see over the next 12 months and next year that New Zealand farmers, with the Government, are working hard to restore the economy and provide greater income, more jobs, and a better standard and quality of life for every New Zealander, because of the hard work that they do.

Over the last 12 months, we’ve undone more than 20 rules and regulations holding rural New Zealand back that were just the cost. A huge number of those were done when Chris Hipkins—actually the whole time—was a Minister, and a lot of the time when he was the Prime Minister. We are looking for solutions and outcomes, not process and just costly mechanisms that make it harder to farm. We want them to produce more, and they should be proud of what they do, because we, as a Government, are proud of farmers. We’re working with them, we trust them; they will meet their obligations in partnership with us. It does not have to be a fight, it does not have to be a war, because the war against farmers from Wellington is over, and we’re working hard to make sure we get Wellington out of farming.

The final thing I want to do is recognise the hard work of our lamb and wool farmers. They’re doing it harder than most at the moment. They have a very important future. Actually, this country’s economy grew on the back of our lamb farmers. We’ve done a couple of trade deals in the Middle East where they will want this lamb because it’s high quality, it tastes good, and as I said last week, if you want to feel good, eat lamb. In fact, everybody—everybody—should be eating more lamb.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): I rise to talk about an issue that is on every Kiwi’s mind: making our energy system actually work for Kiwis. First, I really want to congratulate the Minister Simon Watts for his elevation to energy Minister, because it is a positive sign that the Minister, in his new role, has made it clear that we need a market that works in the interests of New Zealanders. Kiwis have been taken for a ride for far too long. They want to see their electricity bills come down. It’s the same story, whether it’s your home, your businesses, or regional manufacturing. We can begin the job by enabling innovation and competition in both generation and retail markets.

Last week, the Energy Competition Task Force, which is a task force that’s jointly between the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority, made recommendations to support security of supply and affordability. Every home has energy assets that could be valued as a value stack—energy stacked up that we can use creatively. They could be used to buy and sell their own electricity and in a market that enables participation and builds community resilience as climate change impacts become more extreme—think solar panels and batteries on your homes; think fridges and freezers; think heat pumps, hot water, electric vehicles. We can harness all of those assets for effectively building resilience. There’s a wealth of potential to create an energy system fit for the 21st century. This tremendous opportunity exists right now.

It’s in this House, with my Labour colleagues, my Te Pāti Māori colleagues, and I know even across the House with National, with New Zealand First, and possibly even ACT, people understand that we’ve got a broken electricity system and we need action. Step one is the Minister removing the unnecessary barrier that means our electricity system—both technology and markets—won’t let Kiwis participate or make full use of distributed energy resources and intelligence. We’ve got a golden opportunity to fix things together. My bill, the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill, is prepared and is in the ballot and can be acted on now by the Government if the Government wishes, and everyone seems to agree this is necessary.

We know the least-cost solutions to meet new demand are offshore wind and solar, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. With new wind and solar, along with geothermal, as increased supplies of baseload, we can use hydro power more effectively for peaking and for firming, removing thermal generation entirely.

Alongside a more intelligent use of our renewable assets, we can increase the warmth and benefit for Kiwi homes and families and whānau through an enriched Warmer Kiwi Homes programme while we replace fossil fuel transport to increase demand of the new renewables.

I pay attention to energy experts, as well as our Minister and our community, and what I hear is a desire for certainty and clarity in the decarbonisation journey. We need a delivery of the national energy strategy—and it would be good if it was bipartisan. It was supposed to be delivered last December. It would be good if it can be delivered in 2025. I’ll reach across the House to ask the Government to work on that together. We need delivery of a national policy statement for renewable electricity generation. It was supposed to be delivered in June 2024. Again, we have some expertise—we’ll reach across the House and help deliver it—but it needs to be resourced. And we need delivery of an industrial strategy.

We can become an energy-sovereign nation with our wealth of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal. We can power our homes, our transport, and our industry without emissions. We can enable iwi and communities to own their own energy assets and keep that energy dollar local—local circulation. We can have cleaner, cheaper, and smarter power for everyone; we just need the political will.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been looking forward to standing and speaking on some topics that New Zealand First are very strong on and are very committed to: fairness, safety, democracy, equality, and also freedom. Now, we have listened to the people, and we are delivering.

Let me first start on fairness and safety. We have had many people come to us with concerns about fairness and safety in women’s sports. Women’s groups, mothers, families—they have been distressed, and for a very long time now we have listened to them. That is why the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in our coalition agreement, secured that publicly funded sporting bodies support fair competition that is not compromised by rules relating to gender. At the end of last year, the Minister for Sport and Recreation approached Sport New Zealand and asked that guidelines be reviewed and updated. Now, we see that this is something that we are delivering on.

Another topic that we are very committed to is democracy and people’s right to decide. Now, there are two areas that we have done work on. One of them is Māori wards, and the other one is the fluoridation of our water. As per our coalition agreement, last year legislation was placed “to restore the right to local referendum on the establishment of ongoing use of Māori wards.”—promise delivered, along with our coalition partners.

Only last week, the Rt Hon Winston Peters met with a group of concerned people about the fluoridation of water. Over 20,000 people signed this petition, and we gladly accepted it because we believe in the right of people to have their say and to not be shut down. Also last week, New Zealand First submitted a member’s bill. This member’s bill will reinstate the fundamental right of communities to determine, through democracy, whether or not their water is fluoridated. New Zealand First will always remain firm on protecting our democracy and our freedom.

Let me now talk about freedom. When I talk about freedom, I think of phase two of the COVID inquiry. Now, the reason we have a phase two is because many people did not feel that they had the right to be heard. They felt gaslit, they felt shut down, and they were, and many feel that they still are. The New Zealand First people, we all listened to everyone who has come to us for many months now and expressed their concerns, which is why, back in July 2023, Mr Peters—once again, a very busy leader—committed, in Whangārei, that we would have the second COVID inquiry. He also committed that we would have wider terms of reference, which is what the people wanted. This was secured in the coalition agreement with our partners beside me here.

In phase two, we will be looking at things that people did not have a right or the freedom to speak up on: vaccine safety and efficacy, the mandates, the lockdowns in Auckland. We were all locked down for many months. All of these things will be discussed, and people who are feeling still that they are unheard will have the opportunity to share the trauma that many have shared with me. I still continue to speak with many who are vaccine injured, and they share the trauma that they feel. They are too scared to actually sometimes write down on paper what it is that they are still suffering from. It is important that we listen. Someone has to listen, and New Zealand First will continue to listen and be a voice for those who feel that they do not have a voice.

There’s another area that New Zealand First have been listening to concerned parents and concerned groups about: what is being taught in schools. We were shocked to hear some of the things that parents were going through, and no one would listen. So we had to listen. That is what a democracy is all about. We need to listen to all New Zealanders. Everyone has equal rights to be heard. That is why, in the coalition agreement, we secured to refocus the curriculum on academic achievement and not ideology, including the removal and replacement of gender, sexuality, and relationship-based education guidelines. This is another promise that we are delivering on. All people need to be heard.

Also, I just want to say that we will always listen to all New Zealanders. Common sense will prevail. Democracy, freedom, safety, and equality—this is what we will always stand for. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): E te Māngai o te Whare, thank you for giving me the chance to have a few words and make a few observations on going for growth, economic growth, and how we can go for growth with, for, and alongside Māori. It’s a key facet and foundation for ensuring that New Zealand’s economic development and economic story are not only accelerated but catalysed.

We’ve got to pick up those economic challenges as a Government, but also facing many, many Māori communities, to ensure that we accelerate and supercharge the economy. It’s my very strongly held view that without realising the potential of te ao Māori and Māori people and Māori communities and iwi and Māori organisations, we’re never going to achieve the leading small advanced nation that the Prime Minister has so carefully articulated over the last 15 months.

The first pillar for doing that is making sure we recognise talent and encourage talent and develop talent—not just that talent that’s out there at Te Puni and St Stephen’s and sometimes across the other side, but recognise the youth of our population, knowing that over the last 10 years there’s been a growth of nearly 50 percent of the total Māori population in this country. That’s absolutely phenomenal. That upward trajectory, actually, if we support it carefully, if we facilitate opportunities carefully, is going to create a huge ballast for the nation’s economic growth. You can’t have economic growth without social growth and without cultural growth. Those things, in my world, come together very carefully. That’s why it’s my great privilege to be the Minister of various matters.

Whilst the average age of the Pākehā or European population in New Zealand is around 42, the average age of Māori is between 27 and 28. That points to us and says, actually, you’ve got to invest very, very prudently and very reasonably. I acknowledge Minister Stanford for her mahi around a Māori education plan and rolling out the Te Marautanga o Aotearoa curriculum, rolling out structured literacy and numeracy resources in te reo Māori, and really being focused on ensuring both attendance and achievement across Māori students, no matter whether or not they are in kura kaupapa or Māori medium education but also mainstream education.

Ko te kai a te manu e kai nei i te miro, nōna te ngahere, ko te manu e kai nei i te mātauranga, nōna te ao.

[The bird that consumes the miro berry has the forest. The bird that consumes education has the whole world.]

That bird that participates in the miro berry has a great time in the forest, but that bird that participates in education has a variety of global experiences and opportunities available to him and her.

Not only that, Māori land and the development of Māori resources are also a massive challenge upon us. There’s a lot of regulatory molasses that affects Māori freehold land, which comprises around 5 percent of the total land of New Zealand—1.5 million hectares of this country. Some of our challenges include ensuring that we have greater equality for our people to actually develop our land.

I heard a submission the other day in the Treaty principles submission hearings about how it takes 26 steps to get an easement for Māori land but it only takes about five steps to get an easement on general land. That is absolutely a stunning example of where we can improve some of the regulatory burdens that continue to confront the development of Māori land. We need to get to that because the productive capability of Māori land, if we realised that, can create billions of dollars of extra revenue for our whānau and for our communities.

Promoting trade and investment: well, we heard from Minister “Trade McClay”—I mean Todd McClay—who was here early on, who has been absolutely instrumental in driving international trade deals to enable massive exporters, including Māori businesses like some of those that we heard from today at the Ahuwhenua awards announcements, Whangaroa Ngaiotonga, and also Tawapata South in the primary sector, but others like Tuaropaki, who’s partnering with Obayashi in producing hydrogen down in the middle of the central North Island, and of course Waikato-Tainui and their hotels out at the Auckland Airport with Accor. That notion of promoting trade and investment and getting our Māori businesses and folks out there is absolutely important.

There are massive confronting issues for many of our communities. I just think about Tokoroa, for example, and we need to ensure that we provide the necessary support. My tuakana from the member from Waiariki mentioned before the unemployment rate of Māori being around 10 percent. Of course the youth NEET rate is absolutely massive, particularly in places like Henderson and West Auckland. Somehow we need to tilt some of our mahi to ensure we give them the experiences, and part of that involves supporting wānanga like Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, but actually our own wānanga as well, whether or not that’s Puanga, te Tai-o-Rongo, or other wānanga that we have ourselves.

Infrastructure: if we get the infrastructure right for Māori communities, not just driving infrastructure without people’s consent but get that moving, we’re going to be in a far better place. That’s why I’m a massive supporter of investment in Māori organisations to deliver social infrastructure like housing, and I’m sure there are other infrastructures, like roads, car parks, health organisations, that we can be involved in too. Kia ora tātou katoa. Māori economic growth.

SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, can I just say to members down at the back of the House having conversations, it’s not permitted to do that. There’s been too much of it this afternoon. Don’t do it any longer. Also, conversations among members need to be kept as soft as possible so that those speaking aren’t interrupted.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No problem.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: That is a Government full of facile slogans and empty rhetoric. It has words, saying, “Growth, growth, growth”. It says it wants growth. It tries to sell growth. But, frankly, it is a cargo-cult Government. It thinks if it says the words, then it will just happen. What are their big ideas about getting growth growing in our economy? Import some rich people from overseas—and that’s it. That is it. That’s the way they’re going to try to accelerate growth in this country.

What is their other big idea? They’re going to have a slogan saying, “Everyone will go.” Do you know who they’ve been telling to go in this economy? They have been telling scientists to go. That is the people that they have been telling to go. If we want growth in this economy, it needs to be strong and sustainable. It needs to last for a long time. It needs to come from our innovation, not from rhetoric. They’ve talked a big game about supporting science in this country, but what have they actually done?

The science sector is in turmoil. One estimate from our own sciences is that around about 500 jobs have been lost in science since that Government came to pass—500 jobs across all parts of the science sector, some in science, some in NIWA, some in the Department of Conservation, some in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, some in the Ministry for Primary Industries. There is still no Chief Science Advisor for the Government. They do not value science. It’s all words, but nothing actually happening.

They’ve cut research funds for science, got rid of the National Science Challenges, got rid of the blue-sky element of the Marsden funding, and, while they’re at it, they knifed the humanities in the back. Then they said that their big idea was to reform the science system, and they had some grand ambitions for that reform of the science sector. They said that high-performing science and tertiary sectors are vital parts of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy, but what have they done?

Well, when the Science System Advisory Group reported back, it advised that perhaps the science sector should be restructured and restructured into public research organisations. It said also that Callaghan Innovation should be disestablished and some parts of its activities would go to other parts of the science system. We don’t quite know where yet or how that’s going to happen, but it’s going to happen, they tell us, and three new public research organisations are to be set up by some time in 2026.

Then they did something else with Callaghan Innovation. The new Minister sent a letter of expectations, and said, “Here’s some activities which will be hived off to various parts of the science system.” Then there was to be funding for innovation, for the Food Network, for the Measurement Standards Laboratory, but everything else that Callaghan Innovation was to do, all other activities, here’s the exact words from the Minister’s letter of expectations: “any other activities beyond this will no longer be funded from 30 June 2025”.

What does that mean? No new science organisations until 2026; funding for activities at Callaghan to stop by 30 June 2025; science activities to stop—that’s 60 to 70 scientists whose jobs are going at Callaghan Innovation. Those are the scientists who work doing actual science—industrial science for businesses who can’t afford it themselves, who can’t afford a huge science infrastructure, but they contract into Callaghan Innovation. Those are the scientists who do actual physics, actual chemistry, actual industrial research for businesses. They’re not going to be funded beyond June this year.

Those scientists have no option but to look for employment elsewhere, and, in many cases, it’s looking to go overseas because there is no funding for science in New Zealand. We are losing our scientists, and that is the action of that Government that says it values scientists. They might say that, but that doesn’t actually happen. The reality is that funding for science is going. What does that say to children who might be interested in a career in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? That is a Government that has, through its science activities, shown a callous disregard for people, a callous disregard for businesses, and a callous disregard for science in New Zealand.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Speaker. Never let it be forgotten in this House or across the nation that that member who’s just resumed her seat, Deborah Russell, was part of the failed last administration that led our country into the financial abyss that we find ourselves in today, and that this coalition Government, supported, led, by National, ACT, and our partners in New Zealand First, is getting New Zealand back on track, getting the economy growing again, and getting the cost of living under control.

Now, in the beautiful Coromandel, we’ve had a pretty good summer, I have to say. I was just thinking, reflecting on it, that it’s almost exactly two years to the week that we were impacted, as were so many other parts of the North Island, by Cyclone Hale, initially, and then Cyclone Gabrielle. Two years ago, our roads were closed, communities were cut off, telecommunications weren’t working, and people in my part of the world were doing it very, very tough. Two years on, I’m very pleased to say things have changed: we’ve got a new Government. That’s, of course, a great source of jubilation and happiness across the Coromandel, as it is across the rest of the country.

Just to give the House an indication of how well we’ve been doing in the Coromandel over the summer, there’s analysis of data that was produced by an organisation that was analysing ANZ’s domestic tourism spending from mid-December last year to mid-January this year. I’m delighted to report to the House that in fact it was the Thames-Coromandel area that had the highest level of domestic tourism spending over that summer period. We knocked out—and this is no offence to my good colleagues in Northland—we knocked out Northland and we knocked out the Queenstown Lakes area.

It wasn’t just the quality of parliamentary representation that made people want to come to the Coromandel; it was just the beautiful beaches, the lovely nature, the beautiful bush, and the wonderful opportunity to spend a classic summer in New Zealand’s summertime holiday capital. There are many, including people who preside over this House, who visited the Coromandel recently, and they got an opportunity to see it. In fact, over the summer there are often more MPs in the Coromandel than there are on some sitting days in this House, and that’s all for good cause.

On both a micro and a macro level, things are happening and are reflected in my electorate that are reflected around the rest of the nation. Let’s just think about some of that stuff for a moment. Today, we had the announcement at 2 o’clock that the Reserve Bank had decided to drop the OCR by 50 basis points. That’s very, very good news. Most people will be thinking, well, what does that mean in real terms, to themselves? Well, for people in the Coromandel who have mortgages, people anywhere in the country who have mortgages, that’s really good news because what it means is that interest rates will drop again, and they’ll have more discretionary dollars in their pocket to help them counter the cost of living crisis that our Government has inherited from the last lot. That’s good news.

That’s kind of at a macro level, but what about some of the stuff that this Government is doing at a micro level, that actually might seem relatively small to many people but actually has a big impact. I wanted to cite—there was a very good question today asked in question time about the impact of a consultation document on changing the time frame for renewing warrants of fitness and certificates of fitness on motor homes and vintage cars.

Now, in the Coromandel we have a great thing called Beach Hop; it happens every March. We’re having the 25th anniversary Beach Hop this year. About 100,000 people arrive in Whangamatā and they bring with them their classic cars, their vintage cars, their caravans, their motor homes and what have you. Now, those sorts of people, if this consultation paper goes through, are going to benefit by having a reduced cost on renewing their warrants of fitness and their certificates of fitness. That’s a small thing, but it’s a good thing, and it’s how this Government is adopting an approach to red tape, to rules and regulations that are unnecessary and that are slowing our economy down.

The message that this Government has is we’re going for growth. We’ve got to get the economy growing and thriving again so that we can afford all the resources, all the investment that we want in a First World nation: into health, into education, into police, into defence, into all those things that New Zealanders want for our country. Ours is a Government that’s clearly focused on that—that’s going to be our primary goal over the next 12 months. Getting the country back on track in a way that has been helped today by the OCR is great news.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I commend the member who’s just resumed his seat for a great speech—although it’s not too hard to explain the beauty of the Coromandel. It’s a stunning part of the country and very well represented by Scott Simpson. I think we need to talk more about the real New Zealand, about the people up and down this country who actually make it tick, the challenges they face, and the effort that the Government is making to hear their concerns and fix them.

Today, we saw a 50 basis point cut in the official cash rate by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Now, the Reserve Bank is independent; the Government did not make them do that, but the Government did create the conditions for an official cash rate cut. The Government created the conditions for that cut that will allow the banks to lend money at lower rates. It’s not just to people with mortgages—although that’s really important—it’s also to people on farms; it’s also to people with small businesses, who need working capital to get through the week and pay the wages to the people who depend on them, so they can keep serving their customers. It’s the people that actually make this country what it is by taking the effort to build a home and raise a family. Those people are going to get cheaper access to loans because of today’s cut.

I said the Government didn’t make the Reserve Bank do it, but we created the conditions. How did we do that? Well, a problem defined is a problem half-solved, so it might help to understand why the interest rates were so high. That’s pretty simple: at the heart of it, we had a Government for too long that created too much money and ended up producing too few goods. They spent billions and billions and billions that they couldn’t afford. All the while, they locked down the borders, locked people in their homes, and put oodles of new rules and regulations that stopped people producing—lots of Government cash sloshing around, driving up the prices, and lots of red tape restraining the people who are trying to produce stuff to buy. If there’s more money hanging around than there is stuff to buy, then the prices go up. That’s what has been hammering New Zealanders for the last four years, until finally we got inflation under control.

When inflation gets out of control, what does the Reserve Bank do? They put the interest rates up, and that forces up the mortgage rates and the business loans and the farm loans. And why were they doing that? Because the Government was spending so much that it had to rein in money from somewhere, and the Reserve Bank reined it in from the people who try and make this a great country every day. By restraining our own spending, by cutting waste, by getting rid of red tape, we have taken the problem that the last Government defined for us, and we have reversed it. That 50 basis point cut today by the Reserve Bank represents money coming out of the Government column—less waste, less spending, less inflation, less red tape—and put into the hands of the people who work hard to earn it and make this country work every day.

It’s that simple. People use all these terms: OCR, basis point, Reserve Bank, fiscal—whatever. At the end of the day, what is happening here in New Zealand is that we’ve got a Government that understood what the other guys did wrong—they spent too much and they tied us up in red tape—and then we thought, “If that’s the problem, we’re going to run as hard as we can in the opposite direction.” We’re going to cut the waste. We’re going to do things smarter and more affordable. We’re going to deliver the same services, and yet we’re going to spend less money. That’s going to take pressure off inflation, that’s going to take pressure off interest rates, and that allows something that is much more important. That’s what it’s all about.

It allows New Zealanders, no matter who they might be or when they might have come here—whether it was a waka, a sailing ship, or a 747—to actually have a chance in this life to use their time on Earth to make the most of their life, to make a difference in their life, to be able to celebrate their successes and be accountable for their failures. In other words, it allows New Zealanders freedom—freedom to choose how their own life story turns out without excessive hectoring, lecturing, and waste from a Government. That’s why I’m proud to stand in this House representing the ACT Party. That’s why I’m proud to be in a coalition with National and New Zealand First that is bringing about these values, because we are creating a free society where New Zealanders can be their best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātau e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, that is, greetings to us all in the House. I stand to present the views of Te Pāti Māori today.]

Before I start, I want to make one thing very clear: takatāpui are our whānau. In the recent events we have witnessed following Pride week, we saw our takatāpui communities being devastatingly targeted for simply being themselves. Our taonga Māori, like haka, should never be used as a weapon against our own people—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I always hesitate to interrupt a member’s speech, but this member’s been here for six months now. I understand there’s a rule against reading a speech; you should be able to just give one by this point.

SPEAKER: There is a provision that members don’t read speeches, but there is also a convention that speakers may refer to notes in front of them. There would be very few members in the House who have, perhaps, the expertise that the member who raised the point has that would enable them to speak without those notes.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: That side just loves me, don’t they, Mr Speaker? Any little thing—from my stickers, to my shoes, to whatever it is. They love it! They just keep picking, and, honestly, it doesn’t do them any favours. But talking to the point—

SPEAKER: Hang on. There is so much noise going on in the House, I’m having trouble listening to the person who is speaking. I think I just missed something that I shouldn’t. Could we stop having this across-the-House conversation. It’s not acceptable. Hana, please continue.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Reflecting back—and they were only just notes to reaffirm—on such an important kaupapa like our takatāpui communities being devastatingly targeted over the weekend, the immense disappointment and heartbreak that I felt as a young wahine Māori to see this.

Now, I am not able to speak on behalf of takatāpui communities, but it should be my responsibility to advocate for and stand up for our takatāpui community. I think of the way they were barricaded and pushed—this is not how you protest; this is not how you advocate for something. What even are you protesting about? Someone simply being themselves.

I want to mihi and reflect on some of the takatāpui that I know, such as the magnificent Pere Wihongi—I mean, isn’t he just absolutely amazing in the way that he’s constructed our taonga tuku iho mātauranga Māori in a way that my generation can benefit and flourish from? There are so many takatāpui who have been so instrumental and educational in my life that I’d like to acknowledge.

Throughout our Polynesian whakapapa, our takatāpui whānau have always been accepted and have always acknowledged our differences, even more so throughout Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, being held on a pedestal of an example of a māhū in Hawaii. We each come with our own whakapapa and our own genealogy and our own identities, but, at the end of the day, we are all whānau.

It was colonisation that started criminalising and oppressing our people for being simply who they are. We must speak up. We must ask ourselves what allyship looks like when it comes to amplifying the rights and voices of our takatāpui community. Fighting for our rights as indigenous peoples means we must fight for all rights of oppressed communities.

During the campaign trail for 2023, during my first debate, I had never experienced discrimination and hate like I did when I stood up for takatāpui communities in my debates. It was an extreme wake-up call for myself, instantly realising my privilege as a straight wahine. I say to our people: don’t let your fear from lack of understanding drive you to discriminate against our own whānau. It’s our job to tautoko and awhi our takatāpui communities.

I’d, finally, like to say to any takatāpui community person listening to me in the House or outside of the House: we hear you, we see you, we love you, and we appreciate you. With the platform that I have on social media—if any rangatahi are listening to me now, and if you have had any self-doubt or mental health hardships after watching the recent events, please go to the ME Family Services and OutLine Aotearoa if you are struggling with anything that you have witnessed over the week, where they can help and facilitate any awhi or tautoko that you might need. Tēnā rā koe e Te Pīka.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’ll be no surprise to anybody that I want to talk about growth, and economic growth, and what it means for this country. New Zealand has huge potential. We are fantastic. We’ve got the best global connections coming together now with our free-trade agreements. We are the world-class innovators; remember it was we in New Zealand that split the atom. We feed the world; we’ve got the world’s best farmers. And we want a stronger, wealthier, more resilient country and economy, because that will bring more jobs, more opportunities, more people starting their businesses in our country, and more innovation. That is what leads to growth. That all leads to more jobs.

I want to talk about infrastructure and jobs. New Zealand is doing it tough out there—we know that—and, in my part of the world, the cost of living bites hard every single day, but we don’t get economic growth by taxing people more. In fact, once, the very effervescent Winston Churchill said, “Trying to tax your way out of prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift it up by the handles.” And he’s quite right. We have to run this economy well, we have to get it charged up, and we have to get it going, and we’re doing that. I mean, you will have noticed interest rates are down 50 basis points again today. What a great result. We have inflation down. We are putting more money in people’s pockets so they can spend that money.

Now let me just talk about two things that relate to that—infrastructure first. Good infrastructure is the backbone of the New Zealand economy. It’s what gets us around. It’s what transports our goods and services and people up and down this country. What great news it was for the people of Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay and Wairoa to have the announcement just last week, on the second anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle, that this Government has put its money where its mouth is. It is funding the Waikare Gorge realignment, which is a massive project. I don’t know if you’ve seen the virtual thing on Facebook—on social media—but that realignment means everything to the economic future and sustainability of regions like Tairāwhiti and Wairoa.

It is the one road that took everything out. When Cyclone Gabrielle hit two years ago, the time from my house to Napier increased from 2½ hours to 3½ hours, overnight, like that, but that was only after the Bailey bridge was put in. Prior to that, we had the circuitous route of going via Ōpōtiki, Murupara, Taupō, and back to Napier to get to Hawke’s Bay—six hours on a good day if you didn’t stop for a cup of tea along the way. It just strikes me that that is the absolute answer: the infrastructure for our economy means everything. If we can’t get people up and down that road, if we can’t get the goods and services in and out, if we can’t get the tourists up and down the country, and we can’t get the students back to school and back to university, then we’re really going to struggle to get anywhere. Reliable, economic, and efficient; that’s what it has to be.

What does infrastructure do for us? Well, it brings jobs. If we’re going to build infrastructure and we’re going to get foreign investment and we’re going to do all of these things, how does that relate back to what it means for Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs in New Zealand? Well, I’ll tell you. It makes business confidence go up. The economic growth will put the business confidence up. The inflation and interest rates are down.

What happens to Jimmy? Jimmy is on his jobseeker benefit in Gisborne. He’s there, he’s earning $300 a week—well, he’s not earning $300 a week: he’s getting $300 a week on the jobseeker benefit. Business confidence has gone up, inflation has come down, interest rates have come down, and guess what? The businesses thought it was all good, so one of them came into town and bought a mill, and then all of a sudden there are something like 300 or 400 jobs available. Jimmy got a job, he went to work, and instead of earning 300 bucks on his jobseeker benefit, he now earns more than twice that after tax. Not only has he got more money but he’s got some self-esteem back, he’s got a few more skills, he’s got some opportunities, he’s got a reason to get up in the morning, and he has opportunities that he didn’t have before.

If you think about that—just extrapolate that out a little bit. For every Jimmy, that’s about $15,500 a year we pay in the jobseeker benefit for Jimmy. That’s not a lot, I accept that. But for every thousand Jimmies, that’s $15 million. And for every 10,000, that’s $156 million that, if we aren’t paying jobseeker benefits because we’ve had growth, we’ve got more jobs and opportunities, we can spend on everything that the Opposition tell us we need to: health, education, housing, infrastructure—all of the things you want. That’s what we need in this country: more growth, because that’s where the answer is. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under this Government, we are seeing patients being denied the healthcare they need and should have access to, with devastating consequences. In Nelson today, there’s been a story on the front page of the Nelson Mail—of one of my constituents—of one of the most horrific examples of this happening. It is the case of Daniel Walker, who is being treated for testicular cancer at Nelson Hospital—and I do note a couple of giggles across the other side, which is not appropriate.

In June of last year, Mr Walker was referred to Nelson Hospital by his GP for suspected testicular cancer. The referral was urgent and he was supposed to be seen within a two-week time frame, but in fact it took nine weeks for Mr Walker to be seen—nine weeks. His clinician wrote in his files, “I saw Daniel in clinic today. He was appropriately referred in late June, and his triage was accepted on 27 June as a two-week-wait patient. Unfortunately, he has waited for significant time to come through to clinic.” It goes on to say, “I have requested urgent staging with a CT chest, abdomen, pelvis, and I have placed him on my theatre list for tomorrow. The urologist was so concerned, she said he needs to be seen tomorrow.”

The urologist was concerned about the delay and encouraged Mr Walker to seek financial support through ACC. In September, she wrote, “I have also completed ACC treatment injury paperwork for Daniel today. It’s possible that his disease has become metastatic, or certainly that the metastatic disease has worsened, during his wait time.” The clinician is of the view that it is very likely that Mr Walker’s cancer spread because of this massive delay in him being seen. What is even more concerning is that in the initial communication to ACC, Nelson Hospital said that the reason for the delay was because of clinician shortages. It wasn’t until Mr Walker, on the advice of his excellent case worker at ACC—who is a hero and deserves a medal, who advised him to come to my office and advised him to go to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC)—went through the HDC process that Nelson Hospital finally admitted there had actually been a change to his medical records. A change to his medical records, which had initially said it was an urgent, urgent, suspected high-grade cancer—down to a painless right testicular lump.

How on earth did this happen? We are asking these questions of Te Whatu Ora. We expect answers as to what happened, and steps to be taken so that this does not happen again. One of the questions that we need answered is why was his clinical status downgraded in the system? Why did this happen after the two-week wait period that he should have been seen in had well and truly passed? It didn’t happen within it; it happened after those two weeks had passed. Someone went in and downgraded it in his file. Why did Te Whatu Ora originally tell ACC the delay was due to clinical capacity? It led to a declined ACC claim, and significant financial strain for Mr Walker, who had to go on to a jobseeker benefit even though he has a job. The man has a job and he had to go on to a jobseeker benefit and take $10,000 out of his KiwiSaver because of financial hardship.

The biggest question is: what was going on inside Te Whatu Ora in Nelson in terms of their ability to hire more urologists? Were they actively seeking a locum urologist, or were they affected by the removal of their approval to approve recruiting at a local level? The timing lines up, and this is a critical question. Why did they not have enough urologists? Were they actively recruiting? Had they been given that approval to do so? These are the questions that we will be asking of Te Whatu Ora and of the Minister. This operational issue has led to a most horrific situation. It has led to a man having a terrible cancer diagnosis that will have devastating consequences. It is an example of how this coalition of cuts is taking New Zealand backwards, and how people’s lives, like Mr Walker’s, are being put at risk as a result. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill

First Reading

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider this bill.

The Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill provides a framework for governing and managing the Auckland Future Fund and to add an additional layer of protection over the purpose of the Auckland Future Fund as a long-term financial investment for the benefit of the current and future communities of the Auckland region, and to set the first hold for departing the specified principle related to that purpose, as 75 percent of its governing body, commonly called a super majority. This bill is about the future of Auckland for the benefit of all Aucklanders.

I would like to acknowledge Auckland Council, particularly Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown and Councillor Christine Fletcher for their role in establishing the fund as part of the council’s long-term plan. I would also like to acknowledge Auckland Council’s head of governance, Stu Mullin, all the council staff, and all the parliamentary staff who have all contributed to bringing this bill to the House this afternoon.

As background, the governing body of the Auckland Council had established the Auckland Future Fund in September 2024 as part of the Auckland Council long-term plan, and it has been initially capitalised with $1.31 billion from the divestment of Auckland Council - owned shares in Auckland International Airport Ltd. Auckland Future Fund is intended to be a long-term investment fund for the benefit of current and future communities in Auckland. The purpose of the Auckland Future Fund is to protect the real value of the Auckland Council intergenerational assets so they can continue to benefit future generations, and to provide an enhanced return to the Auckland Council to fund services and infrastructure.

This bill is critical to ensure that the Auckland Future Fund can continue to function as a stable and resilient investment vehicle for the current and future generations of Aucklanders. As a council-controlled organisation, the Auckland Future Fund operates under the high-level direction of the Auckland Council but through an independent structure where the trustee board makes all key decisions.

The board of directors’ chair Chris Swasbrook, Craig Stobo, and David Callanan were recently appointed to lead the fund, following a robust appointment process. They received unanimous support from the performance and appointments committee and the council’s independent Māori advisory board as well. This board is guided by a clear set of investment objectives and policies set by Auckland Council. Established as a trust, there are strict protections over the fund’s assets, in particular the protection required for the fund to maintain the real value of its capital over the long term.

The Auckland Future Fund bill enables the diversification of Auckland Council investment, providing a buffer against financial shock by spreading investment across various sectors and locations. The fund is diversified to reduce the risk associated with over reliance on a single asset or investment. This diversification strengthens Auckland’s economic resilience, positioning it for sustainable growth and stability.

The fund has also been established to deliver revenue to help fund services and reduce reliance on rates. The council expects the Auckland Future Fund to achieve a target of an average annual return of 7.24 percent over the long term, after the management costs. Of the projected return, 5.24 percent will be returned to the council as an annual cash distribution, with the remainder retained to protect the real value of the fund over time. It is estimated it will provide an additional $40 million per year to the council, starting from the financial year 2025-26.

To ensure the fund’s assets are used for their intended purpose, the bill establishes strict guidelines for how distributions are made. Only individuals specified in the bill are authorised to make distribution decisions. Furthermore, if a proposed distribution falls outside the fund’s usual principle—for example, if the council wants to withdraw capital from the fund, it will reduce its real value—the Auckland Council can only approve it with a 75 percent majority vote, commonly called a super majority, provided it aligns with the long-term plan and has been properly consulted on. Such a decision would also require the governing body to determine that, in reducing the real value of the Auckland Future Fund, the council will achieve a benefit that is better for the current and future communities of Auckland than maintaining the real value. This ensures that any distributions are made in the best interest of Auckland’s current and future communities.

Also, we understand that this is a very important bill for the public, and the fund will be making a huge contribution to the future generations of Aucklanders, with increasing public scrutiny on how the council manages its financial assets. This bill also provides statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund by quantifying the principle for managing and distributing the fund’s assets. The bill fosters public confidence in the integrity and long-term sustainability of the Auckland Future Fund, ensuring that Aucklanders can trust that their financial assets are being managed responsibly.

This bill is not new to the House. We had similar legislation passed in 2022. The New Plymouth District Council has a perpetual investment fund, which is protected by the legislation the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Act 2023. Their fund was formed from the proceeds of the New Plymouth District Council selling their $259 million shareholding in Powerco Ltd in 2004. In 2021, their council recognised that legislative protection was required to ensure the fund was managed sustainably. This Auckland bill has a similar provision to the New Plymouth legislation, for the benefit of the current and future community of the region and for the real value of the fund to be maintained and increased over time.

This legislation will make a lasting difference to the future generations of Auckland, and I’m proud to commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tāmaki herenga waka, Tāmaki here tāngata, Tāmaki-makau-rau. [Tāmaki that binds canoes, Tāmaki that binds people, Tāmaki of one hundred suitors.]

I love the city of Auckland. Like many, I came to the city for the opportunity that it presents, to learn, to work, to get ahead in life. From the outset, can I acknowledge Carlos Cheung for bringing this local bill to the House. I want to say that Labour supports the bill and its provision of statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund.

This bill will help to futureproof the fund and provide Aucklanders with confidence that their city’s investments will be protected. It will add around $40 million in return each year from 2025 to 2026. The hard work of Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council to progress this initiative and drive it into this House is a testament to their commitment to ensuring that Auckland’s future growth is protected. I want to thank Mayor Wayne Brown and all those involved for their tenacity, professionalism, and commitment to our city of Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland.

We know that if New Zealand is to prosper, Auckland’s success is our key. Our city drives over 38 percent of our national economy. This bill is a step towards greater success for Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, through productive investment that will support growth and support prosperity for many who live, reside, and work in that city. Auckland is a city with incredible potential. However, for this potential to be unlocked, it does require a Government that is committed to taking Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, forward through meaningful change and innovative projects.

This bill gives statutory protection to ensure it maintains or increases the real value of its capital over the medium term. The Auckland Future Fund is a council-controlled organisation and regional fund that will strengthen and protect Tāmaki-makau-rau’s, Auckland’s, financial resilience by diversifying the council’s major investments, providing long-term capital growth and cash distributions.

While the bill is a step forward for our city, it does not change the fact that the Government continues to take Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, backwards. The $400 million in additional revenue that this fund will provide is dwarfed by the $1.2 billion that Auckland lost in revenue when the Government removed the regional fuel tax. The Government has not provided an alternative revenue stream. Auckland Council has been forced to fund projects on their own that would have previously been shared 50/50 between local government and central government and that is appalling.

The Government has a responsibility to help ensure that Auckland has the adequate resources and revenue sources—$7.1 million cut to the major events fundings from this Government, impacting our city’s ability to market ourselves offshore. They have refused to consider a bed levy requested by Auckland Council, which would help uplift and invest in Auckland events and the cultural sector. Their good slogan “Just say yes” didn’t apply here.

As a result of National’s economic mismanagement and lack of action from the Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown, Aucklanders continue to face a transport deficit of $564 million and a higher unemployment rate than the rest of Aotearoa New Zealand. In our city alone, food costs are becoming more expensive, rental prices and affordability going up. They don’t like to hear it but for every Aucklander this is the reality—this is the reality. Increasing food insecurity in this city has been highlighted by many community providers and organisations just like Auckland City Mission.

Cameron Brewer: Make it stop. Is this a split call?

SHANAN HALBERT: There have been cuts to key social service providers, food banks, including North Shore Women’s Centre, Mr Brewer. Young people in Auckland are falling through the cracks. In the year to September 2024, Auckland saw an increase of 5,200 in the number of young people who are not engaged in education or training.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. We’ll be bringing it back to the bill.

SHANAN HALBERT: I reference this because, while I acknowledge that this particular bill that we are putting forward today at the request of Auckland Council rather than the Government is a step forward, we can’t provide red herrings in front of us that takes away the attention from the Government’s inaction.

The Minister for Auckland is responsible for achieving outcomes for Aucklanders on behalf of this Government. He’s not doing that. This is not his bill. He passed it on to a backbench MP, Carlos Cheung, to bring Auckland Council’s bill to this House. While I accept that that sometimes is the done thing, I don’t accept that by reducing staff in the Auckland policy office and by making major cuts to our largest economic city that benefits all of Aotearoa New Zealand, I don’t accept that those things go unnoticed in this particular conversation—I don’t accept it.

What I do encourage is that this Government steps up to deliver real outcomes for Aucklanders. Part of that is the Minister for Auckland specifying what he’s responsible for, other than coordination, putting in some measurable targets so we can hold him accountable for delivering for Auckland Council and delivering for Aucklanders.

To finish off here, again, I want to say that Labour supports this piece of legislation. It’s progressive and it invests in the future of our city. I acknowledge the hard mahi, the work of Mayor Wayne Brown, but I also stand here, genuinely, today to the Aucklanders on the other side of the House to say, “You must do better.” We all came to Auckland for opportunity, to get ahead in life, to provide a great future for our young people. This bill is a step forward in achieving that and I commend it to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. This afternoon we’re talking on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, and I want to acknowledge the member in charge, Dr Carlos Cheung. I, as I’m sure a number of members across this House did, had conversations with Mayor Wayne Brown when the kind of incubating of this idea was occurring. I know that having the Government’s backing meant a lot to get this across the line.

It’s worthwhile defining what this bill actually does, because I think some may think out there, potentially, that this is the vehicle for the sale of the airport shares. To clarify, that’s already happened. That is not what this bill does. This bill doesn’t even actually establish the Auckland Future Fund. What it does is put legislation and statutory protection around the kind of what we would call “raid protections” against the future potential use of that fund. The most salient parts in that are found in Part 2, clause 8, around principles for governing and managing the Auckland Future Fund. I think it’s worthwhile unpacking these two principles.

The first is around how the long-term fund must be governed and managed for the benefit of current and future communities of the Auckland region. This is something which I’d really love to get submissions from members of the public on, because there is not a definition of what we consider to be a benefit within this legislation. It could be the case with these trustees that potentially there is a diverging view or otherwise, but we don’t yet have any clarity as to how they will come down on making that decision. I think it’s really, really important that that benefit is defined in such a way that takes consideration of our environmental, our social, our cultural, and, of course, our economic wellbeing as well.

The second principle found under clause 8(b) is for that fund to be managed and governed in such a way with the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of its capital over time. Therein, I think, lies, again, a really salient point that if clause 8(a) is to be read in the context of clause 8(b), then potentially we might end up with some shorter-term decisions being made around particularly increasing the real value of capital over time, and potentially prioritising economic wellbeing over that environmental, social, or cultural wellbeing.

The first thing that the Greens really want to see here is clarification at that select committee stage for what “benefit” actually means; to whom, for what, on what kind of time horizon. We want to play a really constructive role here. As I’ve just alluded to, I’ve had conversations with counsellors about this, and obviously also directly with Mayor Wayne Brown, with whom I have a pretty robust and straight-up relationship, as I’m sure many others do, but we also hold out some further concerns around the broader context here, because this is not happening in a vacuum.

Nine years ago, back in 2016, a very riled up 22-year-old ran for the Auckland mayoralty on the premise of, actually, a lot of very similar issues to what we’re facing today. There were some real issues with how we were experiencing a brain drain. There was an infrastructure deficit. There were complaints and frustration about a lack of arts and culture infrastructure. I thought that it was really important that, instead of simply complaining about it, we all mucked in and did everything that we possibly could in order to take accountability and responsibility for our city, to realise that no one was coming to save us but that we had to do it ourselves.

At that point in time, when I was doing a lot of research and talking to a lot of really smart people, I found out that we are an outlier internationally when it comes to the proportion of spending that is spent at a local government level as compared to a central government level. In the OECD, the average amount of spending that occurs at a local government level is approximately—and, again, these will be really old figures—30 percent, but here in Aotearoa, from what I recall of about nine years ago, it was far lower than half of that at around 12 percent. That problem has only continued to compound.

We actually had the Shand inquiry 10 or 15 years ago, and then we had the Productivity Commission review of the Shand inquiry about six years ago, and then we had the review of the future of local government, which was published about a year or two ago. All of those inquiries and reports and all of that evidence has told us that local government does not have the resources necessary to do its damn job. We see that right now in the proof of how so many councils are being confronted with these incredibly challenging propositions to raise rates astronomically, or to sell their assets, which is something that I think fundamentally runs against the values that we hold as New Zealanders where we want to care for each other and the planet that we live on.

We want to be crystal clear that, while we are intent on supporting this in a constructive way and working through the select committee process, this doesn’t touch the sides on the broader issues which the Government’s austerity agenda will only further deepen and entrench. We support this bill to this stage and through the select committee.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party will be supporting this bill to first reading, despite some reservations, which I’ll outline in a moment.

Firstly, I want to applaud Auckland Council and its elected members for taking the courageous first step to sell assets that they no longer had a strategic need to hold. It was a tough decision for many of those members to support the sale of those Auckland Airport shares and to place them into, essentially, an independent managed fund—the Auckland Future Fund. I applaud all the councillors, all the elected members who supported that move. It was necessary, it was courageous, it demonstrated a maturity that, unfortunately, some other councils around New Zealand have not yet demonstrated, but they’re going to get their chance.

This bill recognises that some assets once considered strategic or vital can actually be better run not under the heel of politicians, of people who have a whole lot of other things—like continuing to get elected—on their minds, but can actually perform better for ratepayers and respond to the kinds of challenges that, say, Auckland Airport has: needing to raise billions of dollars in capital over the next few decades.

Can you imagine going to Auckland Council and asking them to contribute their share of these billions to upgrading Auckland Airport? It doesn’t make any sense for local government to own assets where they cannot participate as a responsible shareholder. Thank you, Auckland Council; thank you, elected members—you’ve demonstrated great maturity. I look forward to councils like Wellington, like Christchurch, and others demonstrating the same level of maturity when it comes to making those decisions about transferring their existing balance sheet, which isn’t performing or isn’t delivering the assets they need into new assets.

What we heard from some Opposition members here today, though, is quite remarkable. Labour MP Shanan Halbert complained about cuts that central government has made to funding Auckland and Auckland-based activities. Now, the difference between this coalition Government, with ACT in it, and the former Labour Government is that this Government is looking at spending line by line, cutting wasteful spending and finding ways to reallocate spending to infrastructure and services that Kiwis actually need right now. This Government is not throwing chum to a feeding frenzy of consultants feasting on hundreds of millions of dollars of bike bridge and Auckland light rail fantasies.

Shanan Halbert: Just landlords, bro.

SIMON COURT: We’re not, and Auckland Council gets it. That’s why they’ve taken a mature decision, Shanan Halbert, and why they do not deserve to be lectured by members of the former Government. It gives me hope, though. It gives me hope that councils like Auckland Council can take the step to put their assets in a trust tasked with making a profit for ratepayers. Now, that might be remarkable to those reborn, born-again socialists in Labour and the Greens who don’t believe in profit, but, actually, it is a mature thing to have your assets make a profit so you can return that to ratepayers. The Auckland Future Fund intends to reimburse Auckland ratepayers with a $40 million dividend in the 2025-26 year. That’s $40 million that won’t end up costing ratepayers a whole lot of extra rates.

The other good thing is that these assets won’t be a political plaything for politicians in the future. What local government needs is more courage like this. What local government also needs is to find ways to liberate the billions of dollars they hold on their balance sheets and assets to pay for the new assets and infrastructure that they are going to need. ACT and the coalition Government will be supporting councils to make these tough decisions. We’re also putting in new tools around infrastructure funding and financing, which Minister Bishop and I will be announcing in the next little while. It may mean that councils need to mobilise existing assets they’ve so far been reluctant to. That’s what businesses and households do: they sell stuff they no longer need and they use that money to buy and fund and invest in the things they do need.

ACT does support this bill. We have some reservations about the entrenchment provisions, because we’re concerned it might limit the flexibility that future councils might need, but we support it to first reading.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look, thanks, Madam Speaker. I want to start by congratulating Dr Carlos Cheung for introducing the bill and congratulating the Auckland Council and Wayne Brown on several counts—first of all, for establishing the Auckland Future Fund; secondly, on this bill to put some legislative discipline around that fund; thirdly, on not frittering away the proceeds from the Auckland Airport shares but actually setting them aside in that fund for the future benefit of Auckland residents and businesses; and, also, I might say, on a disciplined approach to running the council, and I think they’re doing a good job there.

I think this bill is all about Auckland Council being responsible on behalf of the future citizens of that great city. The bill sets out the principles and it says that “The Auckland Future Fund must be governed and managed [as a long-term fund] for the benefit of current and future communities of the Auckland region”, and it has the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of the capital fund over time. I think that is a very responsible approach to take. It also puts some management and Government disciplines around it and says that this fund would manage, essentially, independently. It keeps it away from the politicians, as you’ve already heard in this debate, and I think that that is a very good move as well.

The bill also establishes some disciplines, and it requires that any larger distribution or drawdown on the fund requires a super majority of the council, and that’s 75 percent. I’ll tell you what, getting 75 percent of any council for a really controversial issue is not easy. It also has to be subject to a community consultation process through the long-term plan. That is also a very significant discipline and there are some responsibilities around that, that that consultation needs to be a genuine consultation. That makes a challenging proposition for the council—a future council—to draw down on that. It does allow, as you’ve already heard, sensible distribution. What it does is make sure that this fund continues to support the ratepayers of Auckland City going forward as well.

As Carlos, in introducing this bill, said, other councils have taken this approach before, particularly New Plymouth District Council. We have the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Act 2023, and that does a similar sort of thing of putting aside that fund for the long-term benefits of the residents and ratepayers of the New Plymouth district. These funds are backed by legislation. It gives discipline; it also gives confidence to the people of those communities to know that that fund is going to be there for a very, very long time. That’s really, really important, so it’s good to see councils who want that discipline put on them.

The other thing I might say is that asset sales are often not very popular, and we’ve already heard that before. What this does is it allows councils to say, “We want diversification instead of having all our income earning assets in one place”—a Powerco, an airport company, whatever it might be. It allows them to diversify those assets, which, of course, is good investment practice. I might say there was another council not too far from here that actually was looking at doing a very similar thing. They fouled that up in part because they couldn’t work out what they were going to do with the proceeds. I think that they lost confidence, not only of the residents and ratepayers of the area but also of themselves, and ended up having to back out of that and couldn’t even, in the end, land a long-term plan. There is a lesson in that.

Just to finish off with a couple of other points, I do want to make an observation about the return—Carlos Cheung noted the return that there was intended to be on this fund —on Auckland Airport shares. I looked at what it was worth in 2000 and what it’s worth now. It was about $1.05, 25 years ago; it’s now $8.50. If you put that over time, it’s almost a 10 percent return in the share price alone, not including dividends. It hasn’t done too badly for the ratepayers and the shareholders over that period of time.

Hon Mark Patterson: Why’d they flog it off?

ANDY FOSTER: Well, that is a good question. New Zealand First, of course, has always taken a very strong approach on asset sales, because we believe if you’re going to, as Simon Court said, recycle assets to pay for something else—another asset—you want to make sure that that new asset actually earns you a return, which is pretty much commensurate with what you were selling before. To sell an asset to then buy another asset which earns you nothing, and is probably a liability, is not a very smart move.

Of course, at a national level, this is one of the reasons that our balance of payments is where it is. It’s one of the reasons that our economy is where it is. We will be so much better off if we hadn’t flogged off assets. It’s not just public ones but also private ones over a long period of time, because our living standards will be so much higher.

If I might just finish, Chlöe Swarbrick said that we have not enough money—local government has not enough money. That is true as a country as a whole, and I hope that the Green Party will now turn around and say, “We actually need to grow our economy because if we don’t do that, none of us are going to have enough money.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Today, I rise as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau to speak on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, a bill that will shape the economic future of our city and will determine how we protect intergenerational wealth.

For Māori, the principles of kaitiakitanga, guardianship; and manaakitanga, collective wellbeing are central to how we manage resources. We have always planned for the long term, ensuring that the whenua, taonga, and economic opportunities we have today are presented for future generations. In that respect, this bill has good intentions: to establish a fund that safeguards Auckland’s assets for the benefit of current and future communities. But intentions alone are not enough.

This bill raises serious concerns from a Māori perspective. Just to remind the House: the decision to capitalise the fund by selling Auckland Council shares in Auckland International Airport was made without proper iwi consultations. Ngāti Whātua, Tainui-Waikato, and other iwi have deep historical and economic interests in that taonga. The airport is more than just an asset; it is a strategic and cultural landmark. Māori should have been at the table before this decision was made.

Beyond that, this bill lacks guarantees of Māori representation and its governance. How many of the 75 percent are Māori representatives? How can we talk about benefiting future generations, when Māori, who have the largest-growing populations in Tāmaki Makaurau—250,000 living in our city—are not explicitly included in decision making? If this bill is to reflect the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori must be partners in managing the fund, not bystanders watching from the sideline.

We also need stronger safeguards around future asset sales. The bill allows for more public assets to be added to the fund. But who decides what is sold? Māori communities have long fought against the loss of public- and Māori-owned land, only to see it sold off with little consultation and even less benefit to our people. If this bill is to protect intergenerational wealth, it must ensure that Māori have a say in what gets sold, how funds are invested, and who benefits from the returns.

Yet we will support this bill at first reading, not because we agree with all of it, but because we believe this process is not yet finished. By moving this bill to select committee, we create an opportunity for Māori to have their say, for iwi and hapū to determine stronger protections, and for this House to ensure that Auckland’s economic future reflects mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. If Māori are to be partners in shaping the future of Tāmaki Makaurau, this bill must change, and we will be watching closely. Kei a tātau te tikanga. The choice is ours. Tēnā koutou katoa.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well, it is another great day for Mt Roskill, and I want to acknowledge their favourite son Carlos Cheung, who brings this local bill in his name to the House. I tell you, I’ve been in Auckland a couple of times in this role, and, jeez, they love him up there, don’t they? I just hear such great things. He’s everywhere; he’s working so hard—along with our great team from Auckland. I think of Cam Brewer in Upper Harbour, I think of Greg Fleming in Maungakiekie, and, of course, Dan Bidois in Northcote—and, jeez, he’s doing a great job.

Shanan Halbert: You’re obviously not hearing right.

TIM COSTLEY: We’re certainly not going to take a lecture on economics from Shanan Halbert telling us how to do a better job with the economy.

I’ll tell you what Aucklanders want: the ability to make a few decisions for themselves. In part, that’s what this bill is about. They want options in their back pocket. They want a few more dollars at the end of the week. That’s why you fundamentally have to grow the economy if you’re going to deliver that. And it adds on—not just the early childhood education boost, the FamilyBoost, the tax reductions; it is about growing the economy so they have more money, so they have more opportunity, and they have more choices.

Cameron Brewer: No more regional fuel tax.

TIM COSTLEY: It’s not a tax; it’s an excise, remember! But, apparently, now it’s allowed to be.

Anyway, to this local bill—and it’s yet another local bill coming from Auckland. We’ve already got the “ice cream bill”, and now we’ve got this one. It’s good to see the council up there are obviously busy. You know, I take slight issue with Wayne Brown; a lot of people have made great comments about him. He is, of course, the one—I am the proud MP for Horowhenua and Kāpiti—who infamously said, “Horowhenua, wherever that is.” I am pleased to see, though, Mayor Bernie Wanden from Horowhenua sent him a “Horowhenua—wherever that is” T-shirt, and he was wearing it in his Christmas message this year, so maybe the education goes in. I’m tempted to move an amendment when we get to committee stage to see if we can add in “part of this fund goes to educating mayors as to the location of Horowhenua”. It’s a great place to visit, and every Australian must go as well—come to Horowhenua; it’s a great place to be.

To the bill, to the bill—I can feel your eyes on me, Madam Speaker. To this bill specifically, one of the questions—because it is a local bill, another local bill for Auckland—that I think will come up in select committee is: “Why does this have to be an Act of Parliament?”

The answer, we’ve heard in part from some of the earlier contributions, is around wanting to have protections in place. Actually, this is formed as a trust, and the trust deed can capture those, but they want to have an extra layer of protection. I acknowledge that and I can understand the driver of that, but, also, we don’t want to get too far to the other end of the spectrum, where we see everything becoming a local bill and Parliament spending lots of time on this—obviously, the last one was allowing the Takapuna Boating Club to sell ice creams, or things to that effect. There is a spectrum. I understand that this is a significant piece of work that you want to see protections for in the long term, and so I understand that, on balance, that’s a good thing.

Some of the parts that were spoken about—in fact, the Green Party talked about clause 8, but I’d actually like to talk about clauses 7 and 9. Firstly, clause 7—and this is another thing I think we should look at the select committee stage—says that the AFF, the Auckland Future Fund, has to comply with certain sections, but it may be implemented either internally within council or externally through one or more trusts. Now, it’s being implemented this time through a trust, and that’s where the protections come from, but there’s nothing to stop it then being transitioned and still complying completely with the Act, and then being implemented internally within council. That will be a question that I think will be worth teasing out with officials just to ensure that that balance sits at the right place.

The Green Party contribution focused on what the community benefit is. Well, we have just been through that in the Governance and Administration Committee, looking at what the community benefit is for proceeds that come from the Takapuna Boating Club and any commercial activity that takes place there—and I think some good advice: that may not warrant many changes. But, of course, people will be welcome to have their view and to make their comments through the select committee process.

Then it goes on to clause 9, which is all about the investments and how it’s done. I think, actually, Carlos Cheung did a great job of explaining those and how it has to be divested by qualified persons that have to act independently of council. This isn’t up to councillors saying what they want; it’s independent. And as he called it, the supermajority clause, clause 11(2)—if they’re gonna bring that capital down, then it needs 75 percent. Those are a few questions I’d like to see teased out through the select committee process.

To be fair, I’d take Horowhenua over Auckland any day, for the record, but until that day, I do commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I suggest to the speaker who’s just sat down, Tim Costley, that the only reason he would take Horowhenua over Auckland any day is he has not visited Titirangi or the fine beaches of the west of Pīhā and Whatipū and Karekare. Auckland has many, many wonderful places in it—as, of course, does Horowhenua.

This is an interesting bill concerning our largest city and some of the measures that the Auckland Council has debated fairly robustly over the past year or so, as to how to look to the future, how to build itself for the future, what it can do to ensure some kind of effective use of assets and some kind of long-term gain.

It’s an interesting solution, this one—one that I don’t think was in Mayor Wayne Brown’s mind when he first started thinking about what to do with the airport shares—but, through a process of consultation and engagement with city councillors and with the broader community, this is the solution they’ve come up with: to establish a future fund for Auckland and to put the proceeds of the sale of the Auckland Airport shares into that fund. That’s a pretty sensible move. It is actually a compromise move, I think, from the point of view of the mayor, but a compromise that he was prepared to make and a compromise that he came to with some pretty robust work from some committed councillors. If we’re going to talk about mature processes, that looks like one to me.

I do want to take up some points that have been raised by previous speakers. Takutai Tarsh Kemp did raise the point of to what extent iwi were consulted and to what extent iwi will be represented in this future fund. That’s actually a very good point and one that does need to be teased out through the select committee process. Now, I note that in clause 9 of the bill, it says that an investment decision may only be made by a person who is “appropriately qualified;”. I take it that a person, in local body terms, could comprise a committee—that might be a way of ensuring that we’ve got really good iwi representation in there as well.

Simon Court: We voted out co-governance. We got rid of it.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There’s space in there for movement, but I do think it’s an issue that needs to be teased out.

I note that the member Simon Court, who spent a lot of time commending councils for making mature decisions by selling assets, is also the member who likes to give mature advice to women about how to manage periods; perhaps he might like to reflect on what he does in that regard. “Mature” should not be a synonym for saying “a decision I approve of”, all right? That particular party is fond of selling assets. Just calling it “mature” is not the same as saying it’s a good decision. Decisions each need to be weighed on their merits. Sometimes it will be a good decision; sometimes it will not be.

Here we do have what I’ve seen is a really good process of consultation, engagement of a mayor working with his councillors to set up this future fund. That’s the kind of process I think we should regard as one that’s really effective—indeed the sort of process we engage in in this House: consultation, negotiation, trying to come to compromises, eventually making our way through decision processes.

Finally, I’d like to note that Wayne Brown has just announced—in a decision that was actually kind of well foreshadowed—that he will be standing for the mayoralty again. He is, as we’ve noticed, someone with whom many of us have a very robust and straightforward relationship. I’m looking forward to a robust and straightforward mayoral campaign in Auckland this year. I’ll be there for it, and I’m sure many of us will be too. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won’t actually take too much time, because I think a lot of things have been addressed, but I start off by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill in the name of my friend Dr Carlos Cheung, MP for Mt Roskill.

I think one of the things that many people who are watching at home and many members who haven’t actually read the bill might think is that we are creating the fund. We are not; it’s already established. It was established last year as a result of Auckland Council’s long-term plan for 2024 to 2030. It was a 10-year plan that they had, and what they wanted to do was establish a fund that could be beneficial in the long term—beneficial to Aucklanders, both physical and financial resilience for the people and the council.

As a person who lives in Auckland, someone who actually moved to New Zealand and settled in Auckland, I am really pleased that the council has had the vision to see the future and wants to work towards the future. New Zealand, as in Auckland, being successful and prosperous will give the future generations a better opportunity, and I think that’s a good thing.

What happened was that they had shares in the Auckland Airport. What they decided to do was actually sell that and put it into the fund. I think it was a New Zealand First member who talked about the value and how it increased from something like $1.80, and now it’s more than $8. They did sell it for quite a lot of money. I think it was something like $1.3 billion that they raised through the sale of the Auckland Airport shares.

What that fund that they’ve already established is—they have a board of directors who are financial people who are experts in this area. It’s not the councillors who will be making decisions on the investment that they will actually make with the fund but the experts in the Auckland Future Fund (AFF). They will make decisions on the investments that they will invest in to grow the pot, so they will grow the investment that they have. Currently, with the Auckland Airport shares, it’s $1.3 billion, but they will grow that for the benefit of all of Aucklanders, and I think it’s a good thing.

Earlier, someone said, you know, instead of having all of your eggs in one basket, you actually want to diversify and actually return for the council a bit of a dividend so they have spending money for the council so they can spend on things like projects. Earlier, the Māori Party MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp talked about consulting with Māori people. I mean, these dividends that council gets through this fund, they will invest in things like transport and access, environment, cultural heritage, opportunity and prosperity—Māori identity and wellbeing, belonging, and participation being at the top end of the vision that they have for how they will invest that money from the dividend that they get from the AFF.

The other aspect of it is that there are percentages that will actually grow the fund from the dividend as well, apart from the investment, so that long term they will keep on growing this fund for the benefit of all of Auckland. I think it’s a wonderful thing that this particular bill is not here to start a fund or sell the airport shares; those things have already happened. This bill is specific to making sure that they put in structure to safeguard that investment, to make sure that it is not councillors who make the decision but specific people who have the knowledge and the acumen to grow that fund. I think it’s a good thing, and I recommend this bill to the House and congratulate my friend Carlos Cheung.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution from this side of the House. Labour will be supporting this bill. I do want to thank colleague Dr Carlos Cheung for introducing it to the House. As I begin my talanoa, I just want to go back a little bit, where other members may not be aware as to where the Auckland Airport shares actually came from and were derived from.

I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the community of “South Side”, South Auckland, particularly in the ex - Manukau City Council days, particularly to the ratepayers and the residents who were living, at that time, pre-2010, in Māngere, Ōtara, Papatoetoe, Clevedon, Howick, and Botany. If you were a resident or a ratepayer before 2010, you would have understood that you were part of this growing pot of funds of Auckland Airport shares. I want to pay tribute to you. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, fa‘afetai, and thank you.

For those of you listening at home, it was explicitly those living in those areas who supported Manukau Council in terms of their patience, their foresight, and their business acumen of investing and purchasing, originally, those Auckland Airport shares. I understand that the Manukau Council teams at that time were strongly opposed to the sale of council-owned strategic assets, and largely due to the mind-set at that time of those who valued public airport shareholding. I want to pay tribute and quickly acknowledge the members of council, specifically Councillor Alf Filipaina, Councillor Lotu Fuli, and the board members of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, because of their strong stance of where the Auckland Airport shares came from.

We are now in 2025—get that—and through this bill, the main purpose will be to provide the statutory protection of this trust money, and rather than be spent on other priorities of Tāmaki Makaurau, the Auckland Future Fund that has now been established will do and provide that investment for Auckland. I also understand that because of the sale, of the transaction that happened, $1.3 billion is now in the Auckland Future Fund. I do want to thank the mayor and the Auckland Council Governing Body for having the robust discussion and, then, being able to move forward with the transaction, particularly with the fiery exchanges of elected members, to where the journey of investment is for the previous Auckland Airport shares.

We’ve heard a lot of our members discuss that the Auckland Future Fund, which is now a council-controlled organisation, is part of Auckland Council’s financial strategy to protect and strengthen Auckland’s fiscal and financial resilience. The trust members are obligated to keep that promise for Auckland. It will be utilised for the benefit of current and future communities because it is the largest populated area in Aotearoa, with 1.7 million people, and growing at 1 percent per day.

My cautionary point would be, as I finish up, that this local bill requires the protection via legislation to protect the real value of council’s intergenerational asset, to continue for current and future Auckland generations, and to provide strong returns to the Auckland Council to fund future services and infrastructure. It will be very important that should other councils’ strategic-owned assets be put forward for consideration to head down the same trajectory, I strongly want to emphasise that the trust members, that the Auckland Council, speak and have the extensive public consultation, because we know Auckland is a very diverse community, a community of many voices, including iwi, and it’s really important that Aucklanders get to have their say. Fa‘afetai.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): First of all, I’m humbled to receive the support across the House for the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill to pass on the first reading.

First of all, I’m here to address some of the issues or some of the concerns being raised by the previous speaker. First of all, I agree with our speaker across the House: Auckland’s success is the key. I think this is the reason why Auckland Council decided to bring this bill, because they believe this is the Government that can bring Auckland back on track. This is the reason why we’re having that, because one of the objectives for Auckland Future Fund Trust Limited is to set up a new approach, partnering with central government to provide regional leadership and deliver better outcomes for Auckland.

They believe in a National-led Government; they believe we can bring Auckland back on track and deliver a better outcome for Auckland. I can see that my colleagues here—Cam Brewer from Upper Harbour; we’ve got Rima Nakhle from Takanini—all work very hard every single day to make sure we have a better outcome for Aucklanders. The Opposition also questioned about the choice of the members to bring the bill to the House. I just want to assure them that this is the decision of Auckland Council, and it’s also after a discussion as well. They wanted to choose an MP who always puts people as their top priority. They wanted to choose someone who is passionate to advocate for people. They wanted to choose someone that is more community focused and people focused. I believe that that is the reason why they chose me to bring the bill to the House.

Also, I want to address the concern raised by our member from the Green Party as well. How will the fund be benefiting Auckland, especially in environmental issues? Basically, the Auckland Future Fund is focusing on maximising the contribution to Auckland by providing a strong return and protecting the real value of the fund. The distribution from the fund will deliver the outcomes of the council, and Auckland Council has set six major outcomes for this year, and one of them is environmental and cultural heritage. There’s no doubt that the return and the distribution of the Auckland Future Fund will be paying on that sector as well, to make sure environmental issues can be addressed as well.

My colleague Tim Costley was talking about a local bill selling ice cream, but I just want to make sure this bill does more than that. This bill is about benefiting every single Aucklander, and it’s very important for the future generations of Aucklanders as well, so I’m very much looking forward to working with colleagues, both on my side and across the House, on the Governance and Administration Committee.

Also, in terms of other issues being raised about this, the fund is consulting with iwi and it has a Māori focus as well. I can tell you that in terms of the set-up of that Auckland Future Fund, basically they have consulted with the Māori Advisory Group as well, and they are actually working on developing and achieving a Māori outcome plan, and this is appropriate for the organisation, and making sure this is reflected in the scope and the nature of its activities as well. One of the Māori strategy’s outcomes will be the main focus for Auckland Council as well.

Lastly, again, I’m humbled to receive the support across the House for this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill as well, and looking forward to having more discussion during the select committee process to ensure the bill achieves its purpose, and for the benefit of Auckland as well.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. We come first to clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection—[Interruption] Oh, there is objection. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Sorry, Mr Chair. I got confused by my diligent colleague from Takanini, who I thought was going to ask the first question.

First of all, can I just take the opportunity to congratulate the member Camilla Belich for taking this diligently through the hard-working Education and Workforce Committee and the various oral submissions and written submissions that we had the opportunity to engage in, and for the thoughtful debate we had through the select committee stage.

My first question just relates to why the member felt it appropriate for a bill of this nature, which is relating to theft, to be dealt with by or through employment law components, I suppose. Rather than it, for example, being a personal grievance and being dealt with purely in the realm of employment law, this particular amendment will amend the Crimes Act and, therefore, it becomes a piece of criminal legislation, I suppose, and it will sit within that realm.

It was dealt with by the Education and Workforce Committee, and I feel that it would have more naturally sat as an employment law issue; as something in the realm of a personal grievance and something that could have been dealt with by the likes of more traditional personal grievance - type processes. Rather than that, we’ve got a piece of legislation that is going to involve other agencies such as the police and that could involve the courts because it is a crime piece of legislation. Now, ultimately, for how often the Opposition members talk about their concerns around us filling up our prisons with too many prisoners, this could ultimately result, potentially, in people filling up or clogging up our justice system.

I have a number of questions as we go through the different parts of this amendment this evening. My first question is in relation, as I say, to why we are dealing with this under criminal legislation, as opposed to employment law, purely. I’ll leave it at that point and will ask my next question in, hopefully, a few minutes’ time. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Carl Bates for that question. The first part of his question, on why it’s in the Crimes Act as opposed to a personal grievance, is really the entire purpose of this bill. It’s to recognise the fact that there isn’t a criminal sanction available for employees who suffer theft as a result of the actions of their employer. That’s why it’s in the Crimes Act.

In terms of the Education and Workforce Committee, that was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee by the 53rd Parliament, but as the member is aware, the Ministry of Justice did provide advice to the committee and so was well served from that purpose.

In terms of the wider issues around theft by an employer being a crime, this is not new in New Zealand law. There are existing provisions in the Immigration Act which criminalise theft by an employer for recent migrants, and often—and inequitably, in my view—employees who do steal from their employers are referred to police and treated in the criminal law. This bill is merely about addressing that imbalance.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just will remind the member to be aware that this is about the title, this section, having voted to do it section by section. I did allow it, but just any further question, be reminded that we are doing this part by part.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Chair. Point well noted. I will focus on that first part, then, being the title. I suppose, when looking at the title—and while we didn’t discuss this in any depth in the Education and Workforce Committee, I think it is important for us to consider, at this point in this committee of the whole House stage, what the appropriate title for this bill could be. I’ve given some thought to the member’s intent behind bringing this piece of legislation to the House and whether the focus on employer or employee—who it is exactly that the member is looking to protect or create harm for through this amendment.

I wondered if this title, Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, would more appropriately be named something like the “Crimes (We Think All Employers Are Thieves) Amendment Bill”, because, certainly through the process of the select committee, it became clear that a number of the submitters seem to think that it would be natural for employers to want to do this and that employers don’t value the contribution that their employees make. Indeed, during the select committee stage, as some of my colleagues may recall, there was no data able to substantiate the size of the problem that the member is trying to solve.

That’s particularly concerning to us on this side of the committee, as we think about what we can do to get New Zealand going, to make sure that we improve productivity in this country, that we enable, that we can focus on raising wages and raising salaries of employees. Frankly, when I’m door knocking, like I was on Sunday, in Whanganui, meeting members of my own constituency, the everyday worker’s focus was on how their wages can increase. My concern with the title of this bill is it suggests something that is softer than the underlying intent—certainly, some of the submitters’ views towards employers, and maybe I could go as broadly as saying some of the unions who submitted on this bill.

I think if the true intent, the true understanding or feeling behind those that did support, or many of those that did support, this amendment bill was appropriately reflected in the title, it may encourage some of my colleagues around the House who may be inclined to vote for this amendment bill to reconsider their position, because I’m not sure that anyone in this House really, actually, wants to call employers thieves. I think that there is an intent—a feeling, if intent is too strong a word—behind this amendment bill that there are many more employers that have this intention than was the reality. Certainly—and I go back to the submission process—there wasn’t data that was able to be provided that substantiated the true size of this problem, if there is really a significant problem at all, that was able to be provided to the select committee.

I would encourage the committee and the member to consider ensuring that the amendment bill reflects the real feeling behind those who wanted this amendment to pass, and I would be interested in the member’s view of reflecting the true intent of the title in the title itself, as I have suggested. If the member is not open to my first suggestion on the title of this amendment bill, I’m happy to provide alternative suggestions as the course of this evening goes on. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t think that that is a good suggested alternative name for the bill. I think this is actually a really well-named bill, and so I don’t consider that we should be considering any alternatives to that.

I would like to just reject Carl Bates’ allegation that this is about calling employers thieves, or that there was any suggestion that all employers are involved in this type of behaviour. Of course, we know that the vast majority are very good employers, just like most New Zealanders, but there is a place for the criminal law in New Zealand when crimes are committed. It is somewhat ironic to hear members of the Government side complaining about a bill like this, which would simply treat employers in the same way that employees are treated—an effective example of balance, which from today and in recent days we’ve been hearing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety talk about. This is a perfect example of balancing fairness for employers and employees.

It is a tough-on-crime bill. It is very ironic to hear members of the National Party stand up and take calls wanting people who have committed crimes against their employees not to face justice as a result of that; that is the effective nature of that submission and something that I reject.

I also want to thank all of the submitters for submitting on this bill. It’s not an easy thing to submit on a bill in Parliament. I reject the member’s characterisation of those submissions, and I also would like to refer the member to the information provided by the Ministry of Justice in their report to the Education and Workforce Committee, which set out in detail the data available in relation to wage theft cases in New Zealand.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just want to remind members that it’s unusual that we’re having the title and the commencement at the beginning, so just a reminder that we’ll be strict on what we’re actually going to be discussing in the question.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Chair—appreciate that. Firstly, like my colleague, I’d like to congratulate the member for having her bill in the Parliament. Well done. It must be a real privilege to be able to do that.

Look, I suppose I would question the title of the bill. I do wonder whether it’s aptly named, having sat through the submission process in the select committee and listened to the submitters. I do just wonder whether it may be better named “Crimes (We Don’t Trust Employers) Amendment Bill”, because that was the kind of theme that actually came through. It would probably better reflect where this bill is actually coming from; it’s about lacking trust in employers, and that puts a lot of extra pressure on employers. If we’re going to name a bill, we should have the name reflect what it actually is and what it actually does.

Actually, the other word in there is “Crimes”. Is that an appropriate thing to note and call where you’re talking about people that actually may make a mistake around the payment or otherwise—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Read the legislation!

GRANT McCALLUM: —of their wages and salaries? I think “Crimes” is far too strong. It puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on to the—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: This is “intentionally”—

GRANT McCALLUM: This is about the title of your bill. It’s about the title. The honourable member on the other side doesn’t seem to like what I’m saying, but that’s fine. This is all about making sure that we get the appropriate title, and it’s really important that we do that. I’m disappointed that the member can’t see the logic of that. Maybe if that member had sat through the process themselves, they would have actually been able to see what was being said and then would appreciate the new title that I’m suggesting. It is about trust and the lack of trust that some see in their employers. I think that is a sad thing in our society.

I really would urge the member to consider renaming this bill in a more appropriate way because I think, actually, what it says now is far too strong on employers. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thanks, Mr Chair, and thank you for your guidance regarding the stage that we are at, at this point in the committee of the whole House, and I look forward to taking your guidance as we move through, that we’re moving through at a pace that you are comfortable with. For now, I take it we are still considering the title as the first part—if I’m mishearing you, Mr Chair, I’m happy to take your guidance on that.

The title itself cannot be disconnected from the intent, so I just want to focus for a moment on the lack of clarity that came through the submission process about the point at which this bill would be triggered. This, Mr Chair, relates to the title, and an alternative concern I have around the underlying bill, particularly in relation, as I say, to when an employer could be caught out. By way of example—and I need to share the example in order to get to the point of sharing the potential title that I would ask the member to consider as an alternative to the two that we have just suggested—an employer through, for example, a mishap in banking, didn’t pay their employee.

Under the current wording—and I appreciate that there is an amendment to the amendment, and that suggests that maybe this bill is not drafted as well as it could be, because we’ve got to now make some amendments to the draft bill—if an employer didn’t pay their employee because there was a mishap with banking, or let’s say, for example, they thought they had enough money in their account and it happened that there wasn’t and employees didn’t get paid and they didn’t realise that this was the reason and it took some time to sort it out, that the employer could be caught out as having stolen from their employees.

I wonder if the member would consider as an alternative, as an amendment to that, the “Crimes (Theft (Even if it is an Accident) by Employer) Amendment Bill, because I am concerned—as came up in the amendment bill—about what the trigger is for when an employer could be caught out in terms of having “stolen” from their employee. I think that is the last of the suggestions I have at this stage around the title and will be happy to move on to the substantive after the member has responded, if she so wishes, to our suggestions. Thanks, Mr Chair.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you, Mr Chair. It’s so rare that I stand and take a call, other than to move a motion like the previous member just did. To be asking a question on this very important thing which is the title of this bill—because names matter and words really matter. I just wanted to ask: in your consideration of the use of “theft”, given that some of these things are happening in regard to people’s pay, potentially, or other benefits in their employment, did you consider using the word “pilfer” or “pilferage” by an employer? That is really a much better description of the kinds of things that we are dealing with. Or “peculation” or “rapacity”—these are words that potentially could have been better used.

This is the kind of thing where a good descriptive word can help to better give your intent of what you mean when it comes to the kinds of low-level things that we actually see happening. It was mentioned by my colleagues that there’s not really much evidence of there being a huge number of crimes in this matter or a big problem that we’re trying to solve. I just think that this is one of those examples, potentially, where we’ve got a bill that’s looking for a problem to solve, and it’s not necessarily that we’ve got a huge background problem here that we’re trying to amend. Just thinking further on these titles and these words that you’ve got, I’m just really interested to see how much you dug into that and whether you’ve given any consideration to anything else. I’ll leave it there for you to give us your wisdom.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to clause 2. This is the debate on “Commencement”. The question is that clause 2 stand part. The question is—

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Mr Chair—I had done it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You sneaked in there, Mr Bates.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No—if it’s about whether he’s entitled, I hadn’t actually started to close, so no—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, I certainly heard you say “The question”—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, no—I don’t care what you heard, I’ve given the call to Mr Bates.

CARL BATES: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for your generosity this evening. I think this sort of demonstrates my concern about the commencement date, that businesses have a lot going on—businesses that are trying to grow the salaries and the wages of their employees by becoming more productive, by growing the New Zealand economy, and by being able to do the stuff that actually puts money in the pockets of New Zealanders.

I’m concerned about the timing of the commencement. This date of commencement—the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. This could be any given random day in the business week, or in the business month, or indeed, I suppose, in the business year. I think that there would be value in giving some consideration to a timing of a commencement date that more appropriately reflected the times or the business cycle of the business year—the life cycle, if you like, of business.

There are a number of dates that become the life cycle of business. One particular date is the start of the financial year. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill, Camilla Belich, would be willing to give consideration to commencing the bill on the first day of a new financial year. That gives an opportunity for communication around this change to effectively go out to all employers so that they are clear on this additional burden to their job as employers that the Opposition has put on them. Let’s be clear, it will be the Opposition and friends—if this goes through this evening—that put this on. If it is the case that this bill goes through this evening, that timing aligns to a date that employers are going to be able to be communicated with. Effectively, that’s the start date.

Now, the first day of this financial year, being 1 April 2025, is probably too soon, given the time it will take for this to go through and get Royal assent and then actually go through the administrative process, and then we’ve got to communicate it out. In that regard, the supplementary question to my question would be: would the member consider aligning, if it was to pass, the commencement to be 1 April 2026 so that, first of all, it is aligned, as I’ve said, with the life cycle of the business year—that naturally sits at the start of the financial year, being 1 April—then, secondly, allowing sufficient time for not only the communication out of this House to get through to employers, through appropriate different channels, but also for HR practitioners to get the appropriate up-skilling and up-training?

The Opposition always go on about the importance of people being up-skilled— professional development—when there is a change. This is a change for HR practitioners to be aware of, and it’s important they have the opportunity for professional development so that they are clear on this change before it goes into action, into commencement.

As I say, aligning it both with the business life cycle at the start of the financial year, and ensuring sufficient time for employers to be made aware, and for the support that they have—because in this country right now, if you are trying to drive productivity up, you need all the support you can get. Many employers—small businesses and the like—across this nation use HR practitioners to support the implementation of their HR policies, so I would encourage the member to consider both of those commencement questions. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for his contributions. I just have some responses to that, and also some things that were not really part of the title section that he and his colleagues mentioned that I thought I could comment on briefly.

In terms of the drafting of the Education and Workforce Committee being deficient, he is a member of that select committee. He has the numbers by majority on that select committee, so if there’s any issue with the drafting, then he is, if not just as responsible as myself, more so. I would like maybe for him to reflect on his comments in relation to that. Additionally, the select committee changes were agreed unanimously with, in fact, his vote.

The issue that he reflected on with a mishap in banking is definitely not covered by this bill. This bill covers intentional theft—not mistakes, not mishaps, not people being forgetful: intentional theft—and that links to his suggestion that the commencement should be delayed. This is not an administrative burden additional to what employers already have to deal with. Employers should currently not be stealing from their employees. They should not be taking money from the people who work for them. This is already an obligation. What we are looking at with this bill is to simply make it an option for police or other prosecution services to, in cases where it meets the prosecution guidelines, take action against what I suspect would be the very worst employers in New Zealand.

Also, to reflect on some of the comments that this isn’t a widespread issue, unfortunately in some communities and for some people, this is a widespread issue. For our most vulnerable workers, they often have employers taking from their wages. We heard Ibrahim Omer—the first person who brought this bill to the House, in the 53rd Parliament—speak of two examples of wage theft that he had suffered himself. This is an insidious common problem in New Zealand and we shouldn’t tolerate it, so I reject the suggestion around the change to commencement. The day after Royal assent is a standard legislative format, and for this type of bill, which addresses an existing wrong and doesn’t require any additional thought by employers, who should already not be stealing, I don’t consider it’s justified.

Additionally, I commend the member Vanessa Weenink for her, well, her good Google search in relation to the word “theft”, but it is well understood and defined in the Crimes Act so I believe it’s the appropriate word to use in this instance.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to rise and talk about the commencement date actually from a rural point of view, because whilst my colleague Carl Bates previously discussed the impact on general business, I want to speak about the commencement date from a rural and a farming perspective.

Actually, there’s a number of organisations in the farming sector, and one of these is the dairy sector, so when would be a better commencement that would fit their financial year so that they’ve got time to understand the changes and to line up with it? That might be 1 June because the financial year—the people on the other side who’ve never run a business and don’t understand what the rural sector’s like, this is actually quite an important time. Being a farmer at that time of year is very stressful, so we’ve got to give ourselves time for people to understand what the change is, when the change is coming, and the education required.

The dairy sector are particularly busy in this period. They need to know for certain when it will come in and to give them time to learn so that we can go out to have professional consultation—give time for that to happen—which is why I would suggest 1 June 2026 might suit the dairy sector, because it gives them time to really understand that, actually, this is a potential criminal act that they could deal with. That, I think, is really important, but the other farming sector—

Helen White: Think we could have a delay on murder as well?

GRANT McCALLUM: Boy, they’re really getting wound up on the other side. She’s obviously concerned about what I’m saying.

Hon Member: Trigger word—farming’s a trigger word.

GRANT McCALLUM: Oh, clearly. The other area is the sheep and beef farming sector. Their balance date is slightly different, usually—it’s the end of June. Just maybe we could look at—we have to work out which date suits the farming sector.

In fact, we could have two commencement dates—one for each sector, possibly. One could be 1 July 2026. That may be more appropriate for that sector because it just takes a while to let people know and understand so they don’t get caught out by the word “intent”—the word “intent”. Proving that intention is a real thing. And “theft”—no one wants to be held up for a criminal situation—you’ve just got to be very careful about that. When you actually have to pay a lot of people and understand the stress of making sure you get it right, when you could potentially be had up for a criminal act, I think is really, really important. I would say to the member Camilla Belich, I would really appreciate it if she could consider those different types of businesses in the rural sector and when they may. Thank you, Mr Chair; I appreciate the opportunity.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to clause 3. This is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 3A Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to clause 3A, the debate on the amendment to section 2. The question is that clause 3A stand part.

Clause 3A agreed to.

Clause 4 New section 220AA inserted (Theft by employer)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to clause 4. This is the debate on new section 220AA. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I would first like to sort of take some time, because it’s a little bit odd for me to be speaking, and I feel a little bit like I’m out of sorts. I’d first like to just ask the member Camilla Belich around supporting the amendment that New Zealand First has put forward, and I’d like to take a bit of time to kind of explain why New Zealand First’s position is where it is on this piece of legislation.

Firstly, just if you’d indulge me, Mr Chair, the background on this space is that I have done a lot of work in the labour exploitation area and recognise the vulnerability of these communities and, therefore, have had to rely a lot on the immigration legislation that looks at the protections for temporary workers and unlawful workers in this country. There is a real disconnect around the balance between those who are vulnerable workers, for different reasons, and that they have a position where they are losing wages.

At the same time, New Zealand First is a strong advocate for our New Zealand businesses, for our hard-working Kiwi battlers: our farmers, our entrepreneurs, our small-business owners, that are incredibly diligent employers. They rely on their workforce significantly and treat their workforce incredibly well because they know the investment that they have made is the backbone of their business. We are talking about a very small sector.

Our concern that New Zealand First had in this—and it’s been touched on in the discussion so far—was that we needed to ensure that there were not only intentional actions, not only the mens rea to deprive, but that there was no reasonable excuse. That will capture, I think, a lot of the concerns that have been raised in the committee today: that if there’s a payroll glitch, if there is a delayed time sheet, if there is a dispute over a time sheet, if there is a cash-flow issue—all of those factors that would generate a reasonable excuse would ensure that this component of legislation is really focused on those who we are targeting, not the hard-working Kiwi battlers that we know contribute so much to the backbone of our economy but those who maliciously and intentionally seek to use their power control of vulnerable workers and not pay them.

I know we’ve talked a lot in this House—and if you’ll indulge me to explain further why this is an issue—about the personal grievance model and the opportunities. The challenge with the personal grievance model is, yes, we can go through the employment process, but when we’re dealing with employers who are intentionally intending to deprive workers, the grievance process is seldom used, and if it is used, there is no recourse or exposure to the employer regarding their reputation—and brand reputation is a significant issue, that when there is a company that is held accountable for something as serious as a crime, there will be a change of mindset. There won’t be an invisibility about this process. I think it’s important to get some context.

The reason New Zealand First is speaking on this legislation is because we recognise that just as we have hard-working Kiwi businesses, we have hard-working employees who on occasion can be victimised because of that power imbalance. I think it’s important to recognise that when we talk about “without reasonable excuse”, when we’re talking about the protections that we’ve expressed in concerns in this House about the onerous conditions, there are no onerous conditions. Most of our employers are doing exactly what they do and there’s no additional conditions coming from this legislation. They pay their staff; they make sure their duty of care to their employees is met. We are talking about the employers who will profit off the backbone of hard-working New Zealanders who are here to make a buck, and I think this is where we want to see the balance.

My question, really, is asking the member to accept this amendment, to recognise that intention and “without reasonable excuse” provides the balance that we think is important in this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Casey Costello for that very thoughtful contribution to this debate, which I think does really sum up the purpose of this legislation. It’s not meant to punish people who’ve done no wrong. It’s not meant to be an extra bureaucratic cost. It is simply punishment for those who intend to commit theft, and so I’m grateful to the member for providing this very good Amendment Paper to the House, and I do support this Amendment Paper.

I think that in both of its major changes it really adds a clarity to the bill and clarifies that it’s not a bill that covers mistakes in payroll. It’s not a bill that covers errors. It’s not when people forget. It’s “intentionally”, “without reasonable excuse”. It really makes that wording stronger, and so I do thank the member for that suggested wording and I do support this Amendment Paper.

I also support the aspect of the Amendment Paper that makes this, I think, a better piece of legislation by making sure that the way that theft is treated in relation to this new small part of the Crimes Act is consistent with the rest of the Crimes Act as well. I think it’s a beneficial amendment, and I encourage all members across the House, even if you’re not voting for the substantive bill—I would like to request that you consider this Amendment Paper, because I do think it is beneficial and makes the bill, hopefully, a better piece of legislation.

In relation to the member’s other comments, I agree with that; this is about balance. It is about making sure that there are serious consequences for serious wrongdoing. I know that I speak for the whole House where we do, of course, support the work that employees do. We know it’s not always straightforward to be an employer, but there has to be a line. The line in this case is when you intentionally, without reasonable excuse, take money from your employee. There must be consequences for that. It helps good employers. It helps employees. It makes people answerable for what is a crime and creates balance within the Crimes Act to make sure that crimes that employees commit and crimes that employers commit are treated the same under the law. I thank the member for that contribution and encourage the House to support the amendments that she’s proposed.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thanks, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take an additional call on this and to start off by speaking about the Amendment Paper. The member Camilla Belich raised, earlier, the opportunities we had to improve the bill and we in the National Party want to just thank New Zealand First for bringing this Amendment Paper to the Table and indicate that we’ll be supporting the amendment.

I do have some concern about the wording “without reasonable excuse”, and I expect that there will be some litigation through the courts over time to determine exactly what “without reasonable excuse” would mean. That could be somewhat expensive; it could have some impact on employers who have genuinely, for a particular reason, a set of circumstances, ended up with a delay in payment of their employees or withheld a payment for a reason they have felt is entirely reasonable but becomes, in the view of the court, not a “reasonable excuse”.

I suppose that speaks to a broader concern that we still have about the substantive clauses of this piece of legislation, one of which being that—despite the assurances that this isn’t a high burden for business; it isn’t something that businesses who are doing the right thing are going to have to worry about—it will add to the challenge that good employers have who are trying to do the right thing all of the time and, whether they be farmers, as my colleague Grant McCallum spoke about before, or other businesses, has the potential to create additional mental health challenges for employers, particularly small and medium businesses that this country is built on. I’d like the member to speak to us and share with us her view on the potential impacts of this legislation on the mental health of small and medium employers across New Zealand.

I’d also like her to speak in terms of the substantive intent, and I hear this intent particularly focused on employers who employ migrant workers. This has come up a number of times today about the role of employers who have taken advantage of migrant workers, and it makes me wonder if the member would consider more targeted legislation, or regulation even, that focuses on that particular problem. This potentially is a very broad-brush approach that captures all employers, even those—as has been said—that are doing the right thing, that are trying to go about running their businesses effectively and efficiently to grow the productivity of this country, to grow the wages and salaries of employees through doing that.

An example of what I’m saying would be the removal of accredited employer status for employers who are caught doing wrong in terms of this type of intent. If that is the true policy intent behind this bill, then I wonder if the member would be open to either a bill that is much more targeted in its policy intent or engaging the Minister on regulation, for example, that did something like the removal of the accredited employer status in those immigration cases.

The last thing I’d like to raise at this point is regarding the data on the size of the problem. We’ve heard the anecdotal scenarios that the member has shared; we heard several anecdotal examples in the Education and Workforce Committee, but I still am yet to hear data, “In 2024, X number of these cases were identified”, “In 2023, Y number of these cases were identified”, “In 2022, C number of these cases were identified”. I really struggle with potentially adding a piece of legislation to the statute book here in New Zealand and adding another layer of administrative burden, something else that HR practitioners have to get their head around, without that data. I’m keen to hear the member’s response to those questions.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to respond. I want to point the member Carl Bates to the existing offences under the Immigration Act 2009; there are special penalties already for the exploitation of employees and temporary workers that are made under the employment legislation, and that comes with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $100,000. My response to the member is the idea that targeted legislation obviously has merit; it’s already in place in our statute book. What this bill intends to do is, in fact, provide the protections that migrant and temporary workers currently have to the rest of New Zealand in respect to wage theft.

In respect to his question in relation to data, the document I pointed out to him earlier that was provided by the Ministry of Justice to the Education and Workforce Committee states that in 2020, there were 77 cases of wage arrears in the Employment Relations Authority; 2021, 61 cases; 2022, 107 cases; 2023, 130 cases; and 2024, 30 cases. Now, not all of these cases will necessarily reach the higher threshold of theft, but some of them may. It does show that there is a significant issue of wage arrears currently in New Zealand that is being dealt with in the Employment Relations Authority.

I can assure the member that the cases that get to the authority will be a very, very small percentage of a much larger issue. Like the member, we heard very, very compelling stories of exploitation through the select committee process. I want to acknowledge the people that were brave enough to share those stories with us. This is a big problem. We do need to look at this data and, if this bill was to be passed, I would encourage the collection of data to make sure that in the future we are able to have this offence put in place and also look at the instances of when this has occurred.

The last thing I want to just remind the member of is that this is a prosecution provision in the Crimes Act. This means that it has to reach a very high threshold under the prosecution guidelines. I appreciate that, of course, with all changes to statutes there’s the opportunity for arguments and case law, and that’s the foundation of our justice system, but to prosecute someone for the crime of wage theft, I have confidence in our prosecutors and in our police that they will only take cases that are likely to succeed. In fact, that is the wording in the prosecution guidelines, that that must be a criterion that’s met. I understand the member’s concerns, but I think that the way that we have prosecution set up and the good people that we have working in the police will make sure that that is taken into account at the time that they decide to prosecute that offence.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this next part of the bill. Firstly, on the Amendment Paper that our colleagues in New Zealand First have put up, I’d like to thank them for doing that. Certainly, for a bill that is, I think, of questionable use, it at least adds a little bit more certainty for small-business owners in New Zealand—in particular, the small-business owners because of the extra stress that it could well put on them from having to deal with the burden of potentially being accused of a crime over getting payment wrong.

I’ll just pick up on what the member Camilla Belich said towards the end there about the data. I think it would be really helpful, around the data, if we could get a breakdown of the data, if it does exist, of small business versus large business, just to see where the burden sits in this space, because with small-business owners—being one myself—it is up to the owner, the worker, the person who does all the work to actually have to do the book work and all that themselves as well; whereas, the larger business have specialist skills and people employed in this space. It would be really, really helpful if we could actually have data that separates those out into small and larger companies with more professional people available.

One of the other things that does worry me about the bill is the list of the punishments that you’ve got here in terms of imprisonment of not exceeding a year. Is that really appropriate in this situation? That seems to me to be very heavy-handed, along with a fine of up to $5,000.

Hon Mark Patterson: Tough on crime!

GRANT McCALLUM: This is the thing, you’re talking about small-business people, who are the heart and soul of this country, who you’re putting the extra burden and pressure on of potentially going to prison. That is a heck of a burden to put on somebody in a small business, where you’ve got the day-to-day worries of running your business on a regular basis. And a $5,000 fine—for a lot of small businesses, particularly in the very, very tough economic situation that we find ourselves in now, a $5,000 fine is a substantial amount of money for a small business to find, so I really would like to think that we could maybe have a look at that. Then there’s the larger fine of $30,000. That is a significant amount of money—significant amount of money.

Look, anyway, I thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to make my contribution on this. I look forward to the response. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): This is just a clarification point really. The Amendment Paper put forward by the Hon Casey Costello would replace section 220AA(2), which outlines what we’ll be liable for and actually just makes it consistent with “theft” as currently in the Crimes Act. I thank, again, the member for that. I think that strengthens the bill to have consistency as in what’s already a punishment in the Crimes Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Casey Costello’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 243 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 5

Section 223 amended (Punishment of theft)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is debate on the amendment to section 223. The question is that the Hon Casey Costello’s amendment to delete clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 243 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

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

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is suspended for the dinner break. We’ll see you back at 7.30 p.m.

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

Bills

Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I move, That the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I would like to begin with thanks to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, who considered the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill and who worked hard under the leadership of Parmjeet Parmar and came up with some really good recommendations to make this a better bill. I’d like to thank the officials who also worked hard with us to make it a much better bill. And I say “us” because, although I do not sit on that committee, I attended while the bill was progressing through and the chair and members of that committee were very supportive of me participating in the discussions.

I would also like to thank our former colleague Sarah Pallett, who was the person who first authored this bill. When Sarah wasn’t re-elected to Parliament, I took over the bill. It was then still in the biscuit tin, and it was drawn out. This is Sarah’s work as well, and it’s good to be able to see our former member’s work carrying on in the House.

To remind people what this bill does, what it does is it creates the capacity for directors of companies—and, by the time it came out of the select committee, it’s directors of companies who are also shareholders in those companies—to have their home addresses removed from the Companies Register and replaced with an alternate address. It’s a change that’s supported by a large number of the submitters, and I’ll get to exactly why in a moment.

I’d like to say there are some really significant submitters who supported this change. The New Zealand Super Fund supported it, and so did the Restaurant Association and Retail New Zealand. Russell McVeagh supported it; so did Business New Zealand and the Institute of Directors and one of our big insurance companies, IAG, who also put in a submission on it. All these significant entities supported this bill. Now, to be clear, they didn’t support it in its entirety. They supported the intent of the bill, and most of them thought it should go further. That’s what they wanted—a really good solution in place. The solution we have in place through this bill is a bit of a band-aid but, for the time being, a band-aid will do. Again, that will be come through in my speech.

As for why this bill is important, I want to go to some of the submissions that we received during the select committee process. The first one here is from a woman, Susan Templeton. Now, Susan is another person we need to thank because she is one of the people who has been instrumental in getting this bill to the point where it is. She and I met before the bill had its first reading in the House, and she submitted on it. For those who care to read her submission, what they will see is a story of Susan being stalked, of being harassed, of having threatening text messages, of consulting the police but finding that there was little the police could do—fortunately, stalking is now an offence in this country—of having a driver of a car pull up behind her, of having things go oddly wrong at her home. What she found is that her name, her home address, was on the Companies Register, where her home could be found in a matter of moments by anyone with an internet connection—the name and a Google search.

Now, Susan was able to get a final protection order against the person who was stalking her, but what she couldn’t get easily was a way to get her address removed from the Companies Register. She said, “No one should have to go through that.”, and, “There needs to be a solution in place for that soon.”, she said. That’s Susan’s story, and she asks a couple of questions in her submission. She says, “My first question is simple: Who needs to know where I live? I have a public business location and service address. I have a public website and keep regular business hours. I am not a criminal. Why should I be forced to live like one?” And her second question is urgent. She says, “Why should I, or any other person who is being threatened by someone wishing us harm, wait another two days or two years for our government to get around to updating our outmoded Companies Act?” Susan wanted action fast to ensure that someone who was being threatened could not be found via the Companies Register. It was one of the compelling submissions we received.

The New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists submitted on this bill. They were very much in favour of it. Again, let me read a submission from one of their members, who wrote, “As a clinical psychologist who runs a large practice in Auckland, we have not been willing to register as a company, because we are concerned about our private information being available. Boundaries are a crucial part of our work, and it is important that psychologists have the autonomy to decide which information they share with their patients to maintain these boundaries and, in some cases, their safety and privacy. For example, in our practice, clients are only able to contact us via email and so on.” Importantly, though, this clinical psychologist, writing in support of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists, says she wants to be able to keep her address private for safety reasons.

Here is one I found really compelling at the moment, from Sparrow Consults: “My organisation is a strong ally for the trans and LGBTQI+ community, and we are gravely concerned about the personal and online safety of those who work … in trans health. I am on the unpublished electoral roll due to past employment working within family and sexual violence areas. I am concerned as business owner about the Companies Register requirement for anyone who is a company director to have their residential address be listed on a public website … I wish to protect my business, myself, and my whānau. I have a primary aged child who is an ally, and I want the power to protect them as much as myself. Advocacy in the current global climate is increasingly tough and it is only through knowing my business, myself, and my whānau are safe that I can continue to support gender-affirming health care.” We all saw what happened last weekend when allies were attacked. They have a compelling reason not to have their addresses publicly available. Those are the reasons for this bill.

Now, there are some very sensible changes made at select committee to make this bill workable and work in a particular way, but I do want to address one major outstanding issue. The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has said that he is preparing a Companies Amendment Bill to amend the Companies Act, and he’s proposing, or he will, a particular solution within that bill that would actually be a better solution than this one. It would be a better solution, and I agree, from talks I’ve had with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, that it would be a better solution. He said it was coming “soon”, but “soon” is a very slippery word: “soon” can mean five minutes, “soon” can mean three months, “soon” can mean five years—what does “soon” mean in this case? We heard in Susan Templeton’s submission that she needed this protection now, not soon—whatever that “soon” might be.

This solution is a band-aid. The solution proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will be a better solution, but that solution is not available yet. The bill is not even in the House yet. Now, if that bill gets into the House and passes its first reading, then we could reconsider whether this bill should go through or whether some aspects of it could be adopted, but until that moment, this band-aid is needed. Until that moment, trans allies, clinical psychologists, business people who have had an unfortunate incident that means that they are now vulnerable—in fact, possibly any company director who’s also a shareholder—can benefit from this band-aid. I invite the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to clarify his “soon”, very soon indeed, and in the meantime, I urge the House to support this bill.

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

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the honourable member Deborah Russell for pursuing this bill with vigour. It’s always a great thing to have a bill pulled from the ballot and to see it progress, so I do want to compliment her for doing that. As she noted, we have talked long and hard over a period of time about this bill, and as I’ve always said to her, there is no one that I’ve come across—and she certainly spoke of examples where it’s absolutely essential—where this change is not required. I totally accept that proposition.

We are going to support this bill, but I do want to just continue to highlight that when we do the update to the Companies Act—the first time in 30 years, which we’re in the final process of completing, subject to approval through Cabinet and all normal processes—and when that comes through, we want to make sure that one of the key principles of that bill, which is about modernising, digitising, and simplifying the Companies Act, is this issue around director addresses and also director identity.

This bill addresses a small part of what’s in the wider bill that we will be, hopefully, debating in due course, but I just reiterate: there are significant concerns about the safety of company directors and their families. I think the bill allows company directors to substitute their residential address with address for service, which is good, and I was just looking at the proposed amendments that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has worked its way through.

Obviously, you want to be able to nominate either an address where the business is actually located—that should be one option—or an address such as an accounting firm or a legal adviser, but, to be clear, that service address should not be such as a service office in a big town where there is, effectively, no formal presence, because one of the most important things about an address is the ability to be able to present documents, whether it’s a court summons or something else, to a company. Particularly if it’s going to a director, having those options around it is absolutely essential.

The second thing is the bill requires someone to make a statutory requirement to change the address. Our current view is that we would like to actually make it more permissive than that, because that’s a certain process you have to go through. We believe that, in fact, the ability to deal with someone’s personal address and change it should be more a matter of right rather than going through a statutory process, but that’s something we’re looking at and considering at the moment. That is being even more flexible about how we deal with this.

The other related area that I want to cover, which is a key part of what we’d like to do when we do get to the companies reforms, and I’ve discussed this with the honourable member, is that we want to make sure that we also deal with the issue of director identity, because in taking away the identity of the address, it becomes increasingly difficult to deal with identifying who particular directors are.

Members would be aware that there—I forget the actual number; I did check it once, but there are many, many John Smiths in the company register at the moment, and there are cases, sometimes deliberate, where people might put John Smith, John R Smith, Jonathan Smith, Jonathan R Smith, and might add an “e” to it at the end. Relying simply on a name, if you remove the address, actually creates a much wider and more difficult issue, and I don’t think this bill contemplates that and, in fact, creates quite a vacuum.

Whilst we support this bit, we don’t think we’ve actually dealt with the substantive issue, which is: how do we track directors? How is someone able to actually follow and check directors? The importance of having a director identity number is a most logical solution to that process and that issue, and that’s certainly something that we’re contemplating. I think, if you see that discussion, that actually has wider connotations around financing of companies and other areas.

Whilst this bill has done a good job, and I commend the select committee for what it’s done during the process, it did highlight some of the obvious flaws in the bill, which I’m glad have been picked up. It is good as far as it goes, but, actually, there’s a need for a much wider remit to actually make sure we have a comprehensive solution, not just a piecemeal solution. That’s not to detract from the work that the member’s done—it’s not meant in that context—but I am just taking the opportunity to explain why I’ve been talking to the honourable member about this and what the wider context is.

None the less, we will support the bill tonight and see it through, but I’d just say to the member: we will capture the best parts of that, but we’ll certainly be looking to fuse it into what I hope all members of the House, and certainly the Opposition, will see there is a need for, next year: an actually much more holistic approach to this. On that basis, I congratulate the member and look forward to hearing the other speeches.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to also support this bill, and I would like to thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for bringing this bill to the House and for highlighting the importance and also the potential risks that having your personal and private address being published in the Companies Register may bring.

From the Green Party’s perspective, we do think that this bill is quite important from the perspective of privacy but also safety for individuals and their whānau. We are particularly heartened by the fact that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee also took up the advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment around extending this bill to the scenario where a potential shareholder may also be in the same household as the director. That is a really, really important step, as well.

Overall, as we see with some of the other bills that have been introduced into the House, this is the strengthening of legal protection for individual privacy—as the Hon Dr Deborah Russell mentioned before—against things like stalking and harassment. Particularly, if you are from the marginalised communities, it is particularly crucial.

I think that one thing that we would like to just highlight is the fact that although this particular bill brings it in line with the likes of Australia in terms of approach, the fact remains that there is possibly a reasonably high threshold for you to have to meet in order to establish that there is a possible safety concern, as opposed to a broader sense of having the address being published on the director’s website in the first place. In saying that, we think that this is a really important step and this is a really important bill, and we look forward to this bill being introduced in due time.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Gosh, Lawrence, you were so quick and speedy; I did not expect that. I rise—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Keep you on your toes.

LAURA McCLURE: I should be ready at all times; I appreciate that. I rise in support of this bill. Straight away, I think it’s really important to caveat that we will be supporting this bill and hope to see it go through the House.

I, firstly, would like to mention the Hon Deborah Russell for bringing this bill forward. I’d also like to mention the Hon Brooke van Velden from our party, because as quite a few of you that have followed this piece of legislation’s journey, you will know that she also had a similar bill in the tin last term. This term I actually took up that bill. I removed it and I got a free space, which meant I actually got another bill pulled—so thanks for that, Deborah. We’ve got a bit of a two-for-one happening, I feel, going on here, so it’s great.

This is a really important piece of legislation, not only because I’ve been a director of my own company myself but because being a female, there seems to be an overwhelming risk that comes with having your information public. When I took over Brooke’s bill, I actually talked to quite a few people that were having issues. While there were a couple of blokes—don’t get me wrong, it’s not just an issue for females—overwhelmingly they were stories of harassment.

One of the people that I’d really like to talk about today is actually someone I won’t mention by name, but one of the main people that have stood out to me during this process. She did submit on this bill. Essentially, she had a breakdown in the relationship and the person knew, based on her job, that she owned her business and went on to harass her for at least three years.

Maybe that actually comes down to the fact that there are actually not great rules and laws around stalking—which I’m also pleased that we’re going to be addressing—but it came down to the fact that they were able to access her details really easily by a quick Google search. In a modern world, it doesn’t take long to do that. If we look at this House, I’m sure that there are some of us, members of Parliament that probably have a business, and possibly have shares within a business, and quite a quick company search would actually bring up our addresses as well. That’s actually a really scary prospect.

My lovely colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar was the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I know she really would have wanted to talk to you guys about this today—but, unfortunately, she’s not with us—to go through some of the information that the select committee have done. I think it’s really important to acknowledge the work—given the scope of the bill’s quite narrow—because there’s quite a bit of detail that you guys have gone through.

I think, as Lawrence mentioned, the covering of the prospective directors is really important, because we know that those prospective buyers that are going through the contractual process or that of having shares—it’d be good to also keep them off. Otherwise, it’s a matter of them going on and having to apply to have it removed. I know that that is actually quite challenging.

The other little bits and pieces are all quite technical, and I think those at home probably won’t be overjoyed to hear about the technical details, but it basically means it will work when it comes to the legislation. Yes, it is potentially just a band-aid at this point.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Mr Bayly, who is also doing some work in this. New Zealand is way behind the game when it comes to the Companies Act—like, so far behind. Places like Australia, Canada, the UK, they’ve been far ahead of this for quite some time. I’m more than happy to see that there has been quite a bit of work on this, but, look, the problem for the people that I know I was representing when I put this bill forward is actually very real. If we can do anything—whether it’s today or in a few months when this bill gets past its third reading—to help them and to have their piece of assurance that their private details won’t be shared and online, and they can’t be exposed to potential harassment, I think that we’ll be doing a really, really good job. I support this bill and I recommend it, and commend it to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before the next caller, Ms McClure there were a lot of first names in that. In the future, could we use full names in here to stop it sounding like a pub chat.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the select committee process, New Zealand First did give a differing view—and I quote—“New Zealand First will not support the bill as it is our view that there is a more comprehensive approach required.” We will stand and stick with that. We know that there is a bigger piece of work now coming from the Minister. After 30 years of a piece of legislation being changed, we feel that we are prepared to take the time and wait for “soon”, rather than do something “now”. That is still our view. It’s going to be a short call, really. We look forward to the third reading, but, at this stage, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe. What line do I want to start with—I’ve heard this often today, so one might say this is a no-brainer, but the fact is that this is used so often in the House I’m not quite sure whether I believe that any more. I do think there’s an extra element to this, which is that it is about how we think about it, how we process it, but it’s also as much about the instinct that’s in play—and I think that’s certainly what I’ve heard from previous speakers—and the instinct particularly of women: women’s instinct; our intuition, right? Partly it’s got to do with our brain but it’s more to do with the instinct and the way in which we must care and protect who we love, and that is who lives in our houses and in our homes. I think that’s a particular element that I think has been raised in this discussion, and I wanted to just make this quick contribution in this way.

I think anything that ensures that, as much as possible, when we remove those details we immediately feel like we’re safe—I think we should be able to feel that, and I think it’s just a simple and smart idea; and thought up by women, obviously, so we’re really good with that. That makes complete, good women’s sense to me and to our party. Really, there’s enough that’s been said in support of it. Te Pāti Māori supports it, and I support it too, so good on us. Kia ora tātou.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Aotearoa, there’s a lot of issues that we need to address. I absolutely take the point that this bill identifies a gap where there are privacy concerns that arise from having companies’ directors’ addresses in a very public forum. I absolutely take the comment from the Hon Deborah Russell in relationship to how this may put specific population groups far more at risk, particularly those that may be running smaller businesses but may not have the resources to keep themselves safe. I do take the point. This will acknowledge a gap that will put some people far more at risk.

In saying that, when I hear the Minister say that the Government intends to put a more comprehensive bill, that’s an invitation to address some of the issues that exist in relationship to the behaviour of companies’ directors. I think, to me, if he’s looking at addressing, I guess, the Companies Act, I would be encouraging him to take a really fulsome view around other types of issues that Aotearoa faces. We invite him to actually do a comprehensive view. Until he actually puts something forward, I also call on the Minister and his party to continue supporting this bill, because, at the end of the day, unless there’s a genuine alternative on the table, I think Aotearoa actually deserves some progress on this issue. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a substantive contribution on this bill this evening. It is important that we ensure that we safeguard company directors.

There seems to be agreement across the House this evening that we safeguard company directors and those that cohabit from the risks associated with public disclosure of their residential addresses. The question is whether or not this bill comprehensively addresses that charge. As the Minister has made clear this evening, it is our view in the National Party that this is not a comprehensive solution. I think it’s a bit disingenuous of the member to challenge the Minister on when the piece of legislation is coming to the House, when this Government has been in place for just under 18 months and has already—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Remind us how many times you’ve used urgency.

CARL BATES: —got in process, ready to come to this House—I’ll remember that next time we use urgency, your eagerness to get legislation through this House—that the Minister has committed quite clearly that there will be legislation or a bill coming to the House that we will take through and turn into legislation to address the fact that the current Companies Act is 30 years old. Now, that, basically, means the Companies Act was about when I was at intermediate—so time for an update.

Dan Bidois: Are you that old?

CARL BATES: But things have changed. I have members asking what intermediate I went to, by the way, so I’ll answer that question. I went to Rutherford Intermediate. It was not at Rutherford Intermediate that I learnt about the Companies Act, but I have spent my career talking about the Companies Act both here in New Zealand and around the world. Indeed, I wrote a book called Traversing the Avalanche, which was all about the Companies Act and the role of governance and the things we do to improve company performance.

Now, the thing that I learnt about writing that book is that the New Zealand Companies Act was leading in 1996 and has been used by other jurisdictions around the world. Indeed, they followed our lead—countries such as South Africa and a number of our Commonwealth partners, including Australia and Canada, used the New Zealand Companies Act as a basis for the changes that they made. This is important because often when we talk about the likes of our Commonwealth relationship, we don’t appreciate the value of working together on things like this—pieces of legislation like the Companies Act. One of the aspects, as I say, of that relationship is that some of those countries have used our model. I’ve worked in a number of those countries, working with companies that have used our Act or the basis of our Act for their Act and the way they’ve implemented it.

One thing that may not surprise you is that a number of those jurisdictions, particularly some of those that I worked with in Africa, had a large paper-based component of the way they implemented the Companies Act. Now, the challenge with the bill that is in front of the House this evening is that there is a large component of the way that it is implemented that requires manual intervention. It requires a statutory declaration and it requires a form being filled in. It’ll be no surprise to many members in this House that the Opposition has a view that when things are required to be done, we need lots of paperwork to make it happen, and often it is not as effective as it needs to be. I think that that probably summarises the position this bill is getting to this evening.

The member described it as a band-aid. The thing about a band-aid is that band-aids need to be effective. Our view is that this bill, this band-aid, is not as effective as it needs to be in addressing the underlying challenge that is real here: that there are directors and their associated shareholders who, because their addresses can be disclosed or are disclosed publicly, can be contacted and put in situations that they shouldn’t be put in, and can have mental health and other challenges as a result of that. As Minister Bayly has said, the bill that he intends on bringing to the House as it goes through the process will be more comprehensive, will cover the detail, and will comprehensively review this 30-year-old Act with a key difference. That key difference is that this challenge will be dealt with electronically.

Now, another part of the life I had prior to entering this House is that I was a director of several companies in Australia. I was part of the implementation of their director ID system. We heard the Minister speak earlier in this debate about understanding whether it’s John Smith, John R Smith, John Raymond Smith, John Ray Smith, and whether all of these people are the same person or different people. The ID system that Australia has implemented as part of their changes makes it clear who the director actually is, what the identity is of the director, and there is a large electronic component to making sure that process is effective. I’m looking forward to the Government’s bill, which is coming soon. I think that that’s important. It is on the horizon. It will come to this House. It will be debated and, ultimately, I’m sure, will turn into legislation. I think this bill that we are currently discussing, as I say, lacks provisions for directors with similar names. It creates a real challenge and demonstrates that need for the ID process that we’ve been speaking about already.

As a sort of side issue here, there is also an opportunity as we develop that bill and address this issue of director identification and protection of addresses, I can see as part of our desire to bring people to New Zealand that we will see through those Commonwealth relationships some of those countries that have used the New Zealand Companies Act as the basis for their changes will travel here to New Zealand, will be part of that international, everyone must go, everyone must come here, and as part of the Companies Act review will come to New Zealand, spend time here, and learn here as part of that process. Maybe the next international iteration of the Companies Act, maybe the next basis of the Companies Act over the course of the next 30 years, will again have its genesis here in New Zealand. To Minister Doocey’s question earlier, maybe after my career in the House, may it be long, my next book might be on this new Companies Act that addresses the concerns that the member hasn’t addressed in the member’s bill that we are speaking about this evening.

I think one of the challenges around that statutory declaration requirement is that statutory declarations can be difficult to get signed. You might be interested in the fact that—and hopefully the Opposition is interested in this and gives it support as well because it makes the implementation of this bill easier. There is another bill in the members’ biscuit tin, under the name of the member from Whanganui, which seeks to make it easier to get statutory declarations signed by making a chartered accountant able to witness a statutory declaration. I’m sure that, when that bill comes to the House, it will get the support of all those that support the bill in front of us this evening, because that statutory declaration, that additional form, that additional piece of paper, is going to need witnessing and we need to make it easier for that to happen.

It surprises me, actually, when we talk about the requirement for an additional form, the statutory declaration which is in the bill in front of the House this evening, that the Greens are supporting this, because surely there’s another couple of trees being cut down to have that form in front of the director that has to sign it to change the address and ensure their address is protected.

In summary, we are supportive of the intent behind the bill in front of the House this evening. We support the band-aid that this is but the more comprehensive bill, the bill that’s actually going to solve the problem, will be delivered to this House by this Government in due course. I commend the bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. I would like to congratulate Deborah Russell on bringing it to the House, and also Sarah Pallett for starting the journey of this bill. Coincidently, I had the opportunity to catch up with Sarah Pallett on the campus at the University of Canterbury today, so it’s a nice piece of timing that this bill is in the House tonight.

Now, I can assure members that I am not going to take the full 10 minutes, because I don’t want to be the person that stands between this bill progressing with a long speech or a book review or a talking version of my curriculum vitae. We’ve all had those little mechanical toys that you wind up and they go for much longer than they you think they’re going to, but that doesn’t mean we have to reenact those experiences in the House—to the entertainment of both sides of the House.

What I do want to convey is that I had the privilege of sitting on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee and hearing a number of submissions. I want to cover some of those here. In order not to take a huge amount of time, I’m not going to read them in their entirety, but what I do think is important is to start with the Institute of Directors, who said in their summary that director safety is a principle consideration for the institute, and they have heard, and now document, too many stories where directors’ physical and mental welfare has been threatened over a long period because of the Companies Act 1993 requirement to supply to the Registrar of Companies their residential address and to publish them.

Now, this was the issue of highest concern to the directors in the 2023 ASB Institute of Directors Director Sentiment Survey, and as part of their submission—and I’m not going to read them out but they are available, and they are very much worth reading—there is an appendix full of submissions from members that go into, in some detail, some of the fear, anxiety, and stress that has been caused to company directors because their residential addresses have been available to people, and those people have acted badly and intimidated them in their homes. That is not right, and this bill will address that.

One of the other submissions—and Deborah Russell mentioned this in her introduction to the bill; the issues associated with this community being targeted at times by groups—was from InsideOUT Kōaro. This is not a long submission, so I will read it in its entirety: “We strongly support this change to better protect company directors. There is a growing climate of hate, doxing and violence particularly towards minority communities, such as the rainbow communities which we represent in Aotearoa at the moment. Our staff have previously had experiences of being followed, having photos taken of them and their cars, threatening phone calls, hateful emails … and a number have had their details removed from the electoral role. Directors are often a target for hate and having the option to protect their privacy and safety, especially in their home is extremely important.”

The other two submissions that I want to mention—and I’m not going to read from them, but I did want to acknowledge them. The first submission is from Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa, the Māori Law Society, which supports the steps taken in this bill, but also highlights some other areas of specific consideration, particularly around trusts, that they think should be addressed. The final one I want to finish on is a submission from the New Zealand Police supporting the bill to, in essence, enable the safety and protection of our communities.

Now, that’s a pretty a big role-call of pretty important organisations and Government agencies supporting the bill. I think, for that reason, we should not stand in way of this bill progressing. It was slightly confusing to hear a New Zealand First member tell us to “wait for soon”, so slogans from that side of the House are not great this week. On behalf of my colleagues at EDSI, I’d like to thank them for listening through the submissions as well. I’d like to thank all those who submitted on the bill, and also Sarah Pallett and Deborah Russell, who brought this bill to the House. I commend this bill and hope to see it progress.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I do rise to support this bill. As we’ve heard, this is far from a perfect bill, but we are supporting it.

It’s definitely not a comprehensive solution to what is a very serious problem. Of course, it can come to that kind of tension between safety but also for the transparency that we require in our capital markets. What do I mean? We do need to move to enhance privacy for directors, but we do need to make sure that we don’t compromise essential transparency. The Minister earlier also mentioned the need to make sure that we can have clear identification of directors. That is very important. As has been mentioned, there’s going to be a more comprehensive solution coming. The Companies Act is 30 years old and it has a long way to go to be modernised and digitised.

What’s often lost in these discussions, of course, is that directors don’t need to be directors of big companies; these are your mum and dad directors who have small businesses, whether it be the local cafe, whether it be a construction company. It is their home addresses which are being published on the Companies Register, and, of course, “It’s not just a house; it’s a home.” I do have to admit that I never thought I’d quote The Castle in this House, but I just have. Of course, when it comes to homes, there’s young families often involved, as well. I think members of this House probably know what it’s like to have their security threatened when families are involved. That is a serious matter, so it is important.

Of course, there has been other great news for businesses today. The OCR has been cut by 50 basis points. That’s going to make interest rates go down, and that’s going to help small businesses. We do need more businesses to help the country grow, because we are going for growth. It is very important. Of course, that then leads to more employment. We on this side of the House want more directors, more businesses because that’s very, very important.

I know, Mr Speaker, you’re looking at me and telling me to get back to the bill. That is important, but, of course, this bill is dealing with those important ramifications: cases of stalking—once again, this Government is moving legislation to crack down on that sort of behaviour—harassment, and, of course, there’s many other things that fit into that sort of space, which is really unpleasant for people.

We have seen, in other jurisdictions, senior managers of various companies gunned down and all sorts of crimes committed against people by members of society who have maybe a disagreement with the way a business has been run, so it is very important that we are putting this band-aid in place, because, of course, we don’t want anything like that to happen in New Zealand. Hence, we are supporting this band-aid before a more comprehensive reform is made, but we have heard that is soon, so we are looking forward to that.

Of course, we have heard that this is a no-brainer, but there is a reason why directors’ addresses have been included; it’s to stop things like the phoenixing of companies, where people might be trying to hide from creditors, and other things, and when there are debts, that means other small businesses go without pay and that leads to some other problems. While we are supporting this bill, we realise there are many holes in it, there are many gaps, and it is not, by far, a perfect solution.

I do just want to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for hearing submissions on it. At that time, I wasn’t a member of that committee; I now am a member of that select committee, so I do look forward to working with all those on the committee as we look at some of the bills going forward. I know they’ve put a lot of work in. There’s been a lot of good recommendations come to the House from that select committee. I do just want to acknowledge all the work that they have put in. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A five-minute split call—Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill.

This is a good bill. It saves a discrete problem from occurring and it’s something which, like many members’ bills in the House, has stimulated further Government work, and that’s a really good thing. It’s a great opportunity for lawmakers around New Zealand to get into the detail on something like the Companies Act before the Government commits to a bigger programme of work on this, and lets us flesh out, frankly, some of those principles that we will hold fast to when examining some of those bigger issues—bigger issues, like when we would give directors of companies certain protections that other people who haven’t constituted a company do not get.

Obviously, directors of companies get all sorts of special protections. They can avoid liabilities that are incurred in their business when they wind up their businesses, because we say that that’s a really good way to organise our economy. It’s a good way to ring-fence certain types of business activities under the Companies Act into its own legal personality, but we also say that you need to be able to track and understand who are the people behind these companies who are making the decisions, to make sure that when things go wrong, or when things go very right, the people who have been attributed to the decision making of a company can be publicly found. It’s important for things like services, service of court documents, or official proceedings to have an address where people can get in touch with directors.

That balance is really important, but this bill makes a discrete change which gets that balance a bit better, because there is a real and legitimate need to protect people who for some reason feel that their safety is compromised if an address is up on the Companies Register. I would point out that there’s at the moment heavy-duty corporate structuring that will allow many people to avoid having their personal and home addresses on the Companies Register. That’s available to directors at the moment if they, say, have an arrangement with a lawyer or an accountant to receive their official documents or to have another sort of entity that is not required to display its company information acting as a shareholder on their behalf in companies which are required to have official address information.

There are ways to get around this, but not for some directors—not for the small business directors who are running a one-man-band coffee shop, not for the small builders who are employing one guy in a contracting scenario. These are really important directors who we say should be able to enjoy the protections of the corporate veil and should also be able to carry on business in this way by using a company structure. They shouldn’t, if they are facing some sort of threat to their safety, have to put themselves at risk, so this is a discreet way of changing the balance there to be more in their favour, and I think it’s a good one.

I also just wanted to raise this point about the need for further work on identifying directors that the Minister has pointed to. That seems to be a really useful thing, and there’s lots of good opportunity to work through what that would mean. He gave the example of hundreds and hundreds of examples of John Smith coming up on the register and many of those being different people, but many of those being the same person. I found, very quickly, that when I searched for “Bayly, Andrew” in the directors section of the Companies Office, there were 82 results, many of them at the same address and many of them at different addresses. It does confirm that there is this need for people to be able to rely on the information that is on the companies’ directors information held by the Companies Office, and that would point to a further need to delineate between who’s who and who’s making what decisions in what company. That seems like a good thing.

Finally, I just want to really acknowledge Sarah Pallett, whose name this member’s bill was first in. This is a lawmaking process where it has identified gaps, and we’re used to this in this House. The honourable Todd Muller had a good wee bill on sunscreen that had a larger piece of legislation coming after it from a Labour health Minister that would have addressed all of the concerns that he had raised, and yet the Labour Government supported that bill because it was a small discrete change that was helpful and useful and could support further legislation coming later. It also gave Parliament the opportunity to really home in and understand what it was doing around this particular change that wouldn’t have got as much attention later. This is a great way of making this law. It means a lot to the people who have submitted on it and to many, many directors around the country. I commend not only the Minister for supporting it, but those members who have shepherded it through, like the Hon Dr Deborah Russell too.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): I te reo Māori mō te nuinga o te wā. Koirā te hiahia nā te mea he whānui te kōrero e pā ana ki ngā taipitopito o tēnei pire nā reira he pai ake ākene pea te kōrero me te whakarongo i te reo taketake nā te mea kia rere ai te reo ki tēnei Whare kia tau te wairua. Koira tōku wheako.

Ā, ko te take matua o tēnei pire, ko te pire e whakatakoto ana i te whakahounga o te Ture Kamupene kotahi mano iwa rau iwa tekau mā toru, hei tiaki i ngā kaiwhakahaere kamupene me ō rātau hoanoho i ngā raru e pā ana ki te pānui māmā o ā rātau wāhi noho. Ahakoa ko te tino kaupapa he whakapiki i te haumaru whaiaro, kāore e rongoā i ngā pānga katoa, ā, e hiahiatia ana te mātai i te painga o te mārama kamupene.

He aha ngā kaupapa matua o tēnei Pire? Tuatahi, whakawhitinga o te wāhanga rua rau kotahi rima e āhei ana te whakarerekē i te wāhi noho o te kaiwhakahaere ki te wāhi ratonga i roto i ngā rekoata tūmatanui i te mea e tutuki ana ngā paerewa o wāhanga toru rau ono tekau section d. Wāhanga hou o tērā wāhi e taea e ngā kaiwhakahaere te whakarite i tā rātau wāhi noho ki te wāhi ratonga mā te tukanga e tonoa ai te tono whaiaro e kākahu ai te riki mō te tuari te wāhi rerekē me te utu e pā ana hoki ki ngā kamupene maha. Ko te pire hoki e whakauru ana i te utu kua whakaritea. Ko te rautaki nei e whai ana ki te whakapiki i te tūmataiti engari pea ka kākahu i ngā mātāpono nui o te mārama kamupene me te kawenga mō ētahi, ā, e kākahu tonu ana ētahi i tā rātau wāhi noho.

Ngā karere matua o tēnei pire. Tēnei pire, tuatahi, he mea tautoko mātau ki tēnei pire, engari ko te pire he tino arotahi ki te whakatika i ngā raru haumaru motuhake anake, kāore e pā ana ki ngā raruraru nui pēnei i te tūmataiti mō ngā kaiwhakahaere me ngā kaiwhiwhi rangatira me te raru pea o te taha tāke, taha rākau me te pēnā, ā, ngā kōrero mutunga i te reo Māori, kāore hoki e tautoko i ngā raru ki te takahi anake i ngā kaiwhakahaere paerewa o te pire katoa ki te kahua rōpū.

[I will speak Māori for most of the time. That is the aspiration because there is much breadth in the details of this bill, so it may be better to speak and listen in the indigenous language because when we use te reo in this House, there is a calm spirit. That is my experience.

The main purpose of this bill, which sets out amendments to the Companies Act 1993, is to protect company directors and their partners from issues arising from easy access to their home addresses. While the underlying purpose is to improve personal safety, it does not address all aspects of this, and it is important to consider the benefits of commercial transparency.

What are the main themes of this bill? First, it seeks to transfer section 215 to enable changes in the address of the director to the service address in public records because this fulfils the standards of section 360(d). There is a new section in this part that allows directors to nominate the service address as their home address through a process that enables a privacy request to conceal the listing and provide an alternative address, through a charge that would apply to many companies. The bill also introduces this charge. This approach is intended to increase privacy, but it may also conceal the principles of commercial transparency and the duties on some by concealing their home address.

Those are the key messages of this bill. We support this bill, but the bill is very narrowly focused on addressing issues only related to personal safety. It does not address some major concerns about the privacy of directors and shareholders and issues relating to tax matters, forestry, and the like, and, in my final comments in Māori, it does not support the issues related to breaches of director standards across the whole bill.]

In my remaining time, I just want to return to the member from Whanganui’s comments, first of all, about his intention through the members’ bills to see the ability for statutory declarations to be expanded to include chartered accountants. That brings me great delight. I’m a chartered accountant and I have long wanted to be able to authorise statutory declarations, and I can’t express to you fully te tino harikoa o tōku wairua ki tērā moemoeā. [how truly happy my spirit is in terms of that aspiration.] I understand that there are six accountants in this House?

Carl Bates: Correct.

GREG FLEMING: And they are all in which party?

Carl Bates: Chartered accountants.

GREG FLEMING: On this side of the House—chartered accountants on this side of the House.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: It’s concerning.

GREG FLEMING: It is concerning, isn’t it? I might say something, all right?

Carl Bates: All on these benches.

GREG FLEMING: All on these—because we’re the Treasury benches. The second thing I wanted to say—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I hope the member is aware of the rules around irony.

GREG FLEMING: I also wanted to say that I am looking forward to reading the good member’s book. I have been looking forward to some compelling reading, and as compelling as I have found this bill and as clear as our understanding has been made of it and as much as we are looking forward to reading the good Minister’s more complete investigation into this said topic, I doubt that anything that that Minister or any other Minister writes in this House could compare to the compelling literary genius of my good member from Whanganui. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I was going to remonstrate with the member for reading his speech, but he has redeemed himself in the last minute.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first want to start my speech with a shout-out to Sarah Pallett. She came to this Parliament with me in the last term, and I am just thrilled that her bill looks like it’s got the support of most of the House tonight. I’d like to thank Dr Deborah Russell for shepherding this through. I totally take heart at the Minister’s suggestion that he’ll be improving this bill and broadening its appeal, and at his look into the issue of phoenix companies and other related issues.

I just wanted to take a little bit of a different angle here, and that really is the issue of the change over time. Before I was practising law, I was a search clerk; it was one of the jobs that paid the rent. We would actually go to a building and we would take down the file, and we would find documents like that. When people initially were making these rules, it was a very different thing, getting someone’s address. Actually, we were there in a semi-professional—as professional as a baby junior search clerk can be—capacity, going back to our firms. It wasn’t an everyone-can-find-it-in-two-seconds scenario.

I also just wanted to broaden this to perhaps it’s time that we looked at the access to people’s information of this kind more broadly and did a bit of a search, because this is identified an issue that is in the companies area. I think that’s really important and it’s good, and absolutely what’s been done in scope has also included our shareholders.

I take the point that’s been made by every side of this House: this is an issue over safety, and it’s an incredibly important thing that we make sure we protect the safety of people. I’ve had this experience myself in my professional life, where it was actually my husband dropping my name in one of his cases. He was a family lawyer, and they tend to get targeted a little bit. I ended up having to have my office closed down, which was interesting and seemed like a melodramatic thing at the time, but it was necessary. The person involved had been to prison and he was stalking my family, and it was actually a really terrifying experience at the time. It was one of those things where the more information that somebody can get in those circumstances, and the quicker they can do it, the easier we make the pathway through.

One of the things I thought about this bill that’s before us tonight is that it actually just also sends a signal to people that this information is private, that it’s important that we protect that and that we see the value of it. That’s really important. When I was dealing with the police, on this occasion with this particular person, it was actually quite hard to get traction that this was serious—and it was very serious, and it proved to be. I think it’s incredibly important that we review our laws. Times have changed. This has highlighted that issue over the privacy of information. I absolutely take the point that we need to make sure that people who register a company are accountable—that’s incredibly important to me. I take that point. I think we do need a better system than we’ve got.

This is a very good start, and I’d just like to thank, once again, Sarah Pallett for bringing this bill into the House at the beginning. I do know that she had a very strong interest in the vulnerability of women. I take the points made in this House tonight, and I know that she’ll be listening and she’ll be proud of the fact that we’ve got the message.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Yeah, she is listening.

HELEN WHITE: Kia kaha. Kia ora

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be the final speaker in this second reading of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. This bill, as has been well traversed, is widely accepted as being very important for safety.

Just to sum up some of the issues that people have raised in regards to stalking—and we just heard from a member across the aisle her personal story of being stalked and having this information used in this way—during the process through the select committee, we also we also heard other stories, compelling stories, from people about being stalked and the impact that this has had. When it comes down to safety, this is something—although we do have something else on the horizon, as the honourable Minister mentioned—that should address this issue more fulsomely and also other issues around company directors. It’s still a matter of safety. If we can bring something in, in the meantime, then we should do that.

Others have spoken about the fact that this is an issue that particularly affects women and women in directorships. It is something that, when I became a director and was going through the Institute of Directors training and was diligently reading the Companies Act and all of these things and realising that all of my information was so available, was quite an eye opener. It did make me think, “Gosh, had I known about that, would I have been so comfortable taking up that position in the first place?” But there I already was, a company director, so it was kind of happening as you go. Mariameno mentioned that it’s sometimes the feeling—Kapa-Kingi, sorry; I should have said that. She mentioned the fact that it is the feeling that it brings, that feeling of safety and wanting to protect those in your home and wanting to protect your whānau. It’s a really important thing, because I think that is something that potentially women feel as much, if not more, that they hold that, and that is something that is taken into consideration.

As people are thinking about making a new business and how they’re going to structure that, there are reasons why a company structure might be more useful, and it might protect certain elements and structures in the way that they do that, and people may limit themselves if they don’t set up a company. We want to see more people get into business, building up businesses, and developing new ideas, and when you’re developing a new idea, in all sorts of industries, you can relatively easily form a company. But, as has been explained, it’s those smaller businesses that don’t have the protections of being able to put their information into a subsidiary or another kind of entity that can protect their personal information being so easily found.

I thought it was a really good story that Helen White—sorry, I was about to call you Dr Helen White and just added it in there. You talked about the fact that, when you were starting your first job, you were having to go along to the actual physical location and look things up. In 1993, when the Companies Act was last brought in, that would have been the typical way that people did things. In 1993, well, Carl Bates talked about him being at intermediate school, or primary school, then. It was the centenary of the suffrage movement in 1993. I remember exactly that that was my fourth-form year. We certainly didn’t have the internet and didn’t have any idea of what that would really be. The Companies Act and all of these things came into effect just about the time that the internet was developing.

When we are building in our new legislation, as we bring through the new companies amendment bills and reviews, we’re going to have to think ahead as much as we can to try and protect against technological change, because technological change happens so rapidly, so fast, that we are not able to imagine sometimes what that might look like. When we do bring this through the House, I hope that we have a really good and robust discussion about all the potential implications and things so that we might be able to potentially see the pitfalls going forward. This bill does allow directors to be able to substitute their residential addresses for an address for service for public records or an alternative address, which is a useful thing to be able to do.

Going through the process in Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we did make a couple of amendments that have been included, which is useful. As we’ve talked about, there are some limitations of this bill. The narrow focus of it—it is important for a member’s bill to have a narrow focus. People at home might be wondering, “Well, if you’re all saying this is so narrow, why didn’t you just broaden that during this process?” Members here know that that’s not how it works. When there is a scope of a bill that’s agreed to, then we need to stick within that scope, and then we have to make sure that it is kept to that very narrow focus. Whilst we have sort of criticised that narrow focus and said that we are going to go on and do a more broad approach, especially for being able to identify the shareholders and directors, for example, with a director identifying number, it’s still important that we’ve kept the bill as it is. It maintains its scope to be really narrowly focused within its confines so that it’s just in the situation of safety.

It doesn’t broadly address all of the issues and concerns that some of the submitters brought up, as others have mentioned. Many submitters talked about the fact that the broader privacy is a concern, and while we understand and agree with those issues, we are just going to be waiting for those new, better solutions that are on the horizon. The Minister spoke a little bit more about what that approach is going to be. As we acknowledge, that’s a 30-year-old bill. There’s a lot of technical elements that are included in that and need to be brought forward, and it is coming soon. He promises me it’s coming soon. But I think the wisdom of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell in insisting that this comes through at this time is probably quite true.

While this Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill is a positive step forward and we are putting a plaster on it, we will be working further, and in more depth, to be able to create a more comprehensive programme. I acknowledge and thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for sitting with us through the process in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I also just wish to thank the other members of the select committee—most of whom are here now, including Dan Bidois, who is no longer with us on that committee. I just acknowledge Dr Parmjeet Parmar for her chairing of us through that process. Whilst I think that there’s more work to be done, I’m really looking forward to the further discussions on that.

If we put it into the context of other things—if you’ll allow me, Mr Speaker—having this discussion at this time was really useful because it highlighted the issue with stalking. It meant that we were bringing this up and talking about it, and now we have a bill before the House to make stalking a crime—it is still unbelievable to most people that it wasn’t.

In coming to a close, this is very much a band-aid solution for the time. We have acknowledged that there’s further work to be done, and the broader implications of the identity and privacy and all of those issues that need to be brought forward will be done in a more fulsome way through the review of the Companies Act itself. That is a process that is worthy of taking the time and working through. With the importance of safety and making sure that we really take a stand on issues that are important, particularly for women, then it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 115

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 8

New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

The right to repair bill is exactly that: the right for us to repair our goods. In Aotearoa, we’re all really proud of being able to fix our stuff. We actually highlight that as a primary part of the culture of us. We fix stuff. We like to get under the hood. We like to work out what has gone wrong. The right to repair bill will support us to be able to fix our stuff when things go wrong, when they break.

I’m really, really proud of being able to bring this member’s bill to the House tonight. I’m also really grateful for the incredible, long work that many organisations, community groups, and businesses have put into calling for exactly this sort of bill. Organisations like repair cafes across the country—my goodness, if anyone ever gets a chance, I urge our MPs to attend one of those, and I know many of the MPs have—they are the epitome of who we are. They are people coming together with their broken things—I saw coffee machines, lawnmowers, toasters, watches, clothing, and a whole range of goods—with people in the community who have a flair for being a tutu. We all know that. We all love that about us. We’ve probably got one in our own whānau, most of us: the person who we called up when the video bunged up, or when anything bunged up.

There are the repair cafes, organisations like the Repair Network Aotearoa, the Right to Repair Coalition, Consumer New Zealand, Choice of Repairer and their particular focus on mechanics and campaigning for better protections for their mahi, and many businesses—many businesses—who already have repair in their business model, like BLUNT Umbrellas, for example. There’s also, I believe, Sleepyhead New Zealand manufacturing and so many community groups and advocates who have been working collectively for a long time to bring legislation like this before Government, before the House. Also, Mr—Madam Speaker, thank you. I turned around and you had changed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We surprise you like that sometimes.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Ha, ha! It’s good to see you there, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. It’s good to have you back, too.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you. Because people are aware that I have been away, I need to thank my colleague, firstly, Ricardo Menéndez March for drafting this bill and allowing me to steward it into the biscuit tin and out and being the kaitiaki of this bill while I have been away.

We cannot do our work without our incredible staff—we know this—and I am so proud to pay respect to our team who have been doing the research on the bill, who have been allowing us to stay connected to the organisations who are really backing this legislation, connecting us to the community leaderships and the repair cafes across the country; so many people to thank, and that is because this bill is quite a common-sense one—it’s a very common-sense one. It is because this bill is at the heart of our communities wanting to fix our stuff and removing the barriers.

At the moment, the issue that we have got here is there’s a loophole. Manufacturers normally have to provide information, spare parts, and tools so that when stuff goes wrong, we’ve got a pathway to repairing it. There is a loophole where they can get around that requirement by simply saying, “I’m sorry, you must bring this to a manufacturer-approved or a licence-approved repairer.” or “You must not replace any parts with any other parts.” or “You must not seek a third party to help you to fix this.” All they have to do is be upfront about that at the start, at the point of sale, and then they are not obligated to help us to fix our stuff. This right to repair bill removes that loophole and will require manufacturers to provide tools, information—access to diagnostic information, for example—spare parts so that we even have a chance of fixing it in the first place.

Now, there are so many benefits from this: yes, of course, as I’ve highlighted, the convenience, the sovereignty of us actually owning our stuff for real, which means being able to have control over it when it breaks down, but what we also know—and I’m going to pick up on farmers and rural communities—[Applause] Yeah, we should all be clapping for this. It’s really important for farmers and people in rural communities to be able to address their issues promptly when equipment breaks down, and often that equipment is large, massively priced, expensive investment machinery. What we have got is a barrier, often, to even diagnosing the problem, especially with some of the more modern equipment where there is what’s called proprietary software. It’s closed software—“I’m sorry, we can’t even access the computer that is operating your thing.” You can’t even have a look at what’s going wrong.

Then, beyond that, we actually have skilled specialist people in our communities, often on the same farm. We’ve got the story of a farmer whose two sons have actually trained as technical automotive and mechanical repairers, but because they cannot access the information, they cannot fix the machinery themselves. Farmers are held hostage by having to then call on manufacturer-approved technicians and wait. Often, the machinery breakdown is at crucial times like harvesting, and then waiting for a technical expert, an approved expert, that can actually price-gouge and exploit farmers and charge a price that is well above what is reasonable, whereas a local technical expert can get there faster and for a reasonable price. These are some of the examples of the stories of why this bill would make it better for all of us.

Not only that: even, let’s say, vacuum cleaners, dryers, washing machines, coffee machines—we have got the instance of, when those things break down and are taken back to the manufacturer, because that’s the only option, less than 24 hours later, that thing is in landfill and has had a full replacement—straight to landfill. It might be a broken lid; it might be something as trivial as a little part—motor’s fine—straight to landfill. There are environmental benefits, also, to this bill, alongside the convenience and cost of living benefits to this bill. We’ve got climate change; we’ve got reducing the cost of living.

I want to acknowledge the thousands of businesses who have at their heart a vision for enduring sustainable practice, who are also lending their voice to this bill. We often overlook that, actually, many businesses are streets ahead of successive Governments when it comes to wanting leadership, because they understand and are not pulling the wool over their own eyes—because a smart business does not—that they have to address in their practice model the crises of climate change, inequality, and social cohesion. These businesses have reached out to us in support of this as well.

I see no reason why this House wouldn’t unite when you have got rural communities, farmers, businesses, community—just consumers, just people at the heart of our communities. I don’t see any divide across all of the political parties in here for being able to step up and support this bill right now—not later, not down the track; right now, where we can send it to select committee, where we can hear from the experts, where we can hear from businesses and farmers in rural communities and just people who buy things to come in with experts.

Also, that’s where the link to international overseas legislation will be made, because we are going to be left behind—behind the UK, the US, Canada, Australia. France has a repairability index, where they are now forcing competition, for businesses to say, “Hey, my stuff can be fixed better than yours.” What a fantastic way to cause competition.

I am so proud of being able to bring this bill to the House with its multiple benefits to people and planet and to just our everyday convenience, with its broad support from across diverse communities, with the opportunity right now to get it to select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and to kick off the opposition’s debate to the right to repair bill. I’d like to start out by acknowledging the member Marama Davidson—good to see you back in the House—and for her willingness to bring this bill to the House. I’d also just like to acknowledge the people in the audience from Federated Farmers—thank you for what you do for the communities across New Zealand. We back you, so thank you very much for what you do.

It’s a pleasure to rise and—look, I want to just start by saying that National won’t be supporting this bill, but there’s a lot we agree on, and I want to run you through our rationale. I’m a strong Bluegreen member, and being a Bluegreen means being a pragmatic environmentalist. There’s a lot to like about this bill—there’s a lot to like about this bill. We support the intent of this bill, because, really, what this is about is ensuring that, as part of a free and competitive market, it’s relying on perfect information.

There are some market failures around the lack of perfect information that is available. We’ve all got our own stories of things that we’ve bought and that we’ve taken in to get repaired and we haven’t been able to get repaired. I’ve had kitchen equipment—but most recently I had an electric vehicle. I won’t tell you the manufacturer, but there was an issue with the lithium battery. I took it in to the manufacturer, who said that there’s a couple of cells in the battery that need replacement. They said that they don’t replace it directly—I’d have to actually purchase a new one, but the new one cost twice as much as the vehicle.

There is a real challenge here around right to repair. The interesting thing is that there are innovations happening in this space to make a more competitive market as a result. We do support the intent of this bill, but the devil is in the detail. Let me run you through the details.

Firstly, it doesn’t support all goods in New Zealand. There are expensive goods, but not suitable for low-cost items. The research backs this up. If you go and look at the research from Harvard Business Review that looks at the effects from right to repairs for low-cost items, all it does is manufacturers can reduce the price even more to flood the market. That actually has perverse incentives for both the environment but also for consumers because consumers just end up buying stuff because it’s cheaper rather than actually the right to repair. It doesn’t suit low-price goods.

Even with high-priced goods, like the automotive situation that I described, if you have a right to repair model for the high-priced items, what ends up happening is that manufacturers just price that into the value of the project. What you actually see—and the research from Harvard Business Review backs this up: in their models, they calculate that, actually, prices increase for particular high-priced items because of the right to repair. It becomes a lose-lose-lose situation for consumers, producers, and the environment.

Thirdly, there are issues with enforcement and compliance. There are hundreds of thousands of different goods and products out there waiting to be purchased in New Zealand. There is no way the Commerce Commission or anybody—any other regulatory body—can enforce those tens and hundreds of thousands of products available. The devil is in the detail. We support the intent but we have serious concerns about the details.

On behalf of the National Party and on behalf of the Minister Andrew Bayly, who is passionate about this topic, who does see the merits of this, we will be looking at more targeted approaches to rights of repair—more specific examples, like the one they’ve got in Australia, the right to repair that the Australian law has, that they just implemented in 2021 around sharing motor vehicle and service repair information. That is a great example of choosing, out of these tens of thousands of products, a product category that actually will make a big difference to consumers, a big difference to the environmental outcomes of this country, but will also have a few unintended consequences as a result.

I mentioned the Australian law because it is a good example, because actually the Australian Parliament changed the Commerce Act and created a marketplace. They created a marketplace so that automotive manufacturers can sell to the secondary market their information so that repairers can access that information at a fair price, and that is going to be good for consumers. That is something we will take very seriously: looking at a specific product category and designing regulation and a marketplace that is fit for purpose. That is what you will see. One member from this side may, in fact, put a member’s bill up in this area, or it will come through in Government policy, but that is our commitment to advancing this cause as we have today.

In addition to that, on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, there are scopes for reviewing the Fair Trading Act to look at, as has been pointed out, what are some broad scopes, some broad things that we can do to help strengthen the rights of consumers and the rights of businesses and the obligations for manufacturers so that the intent of this bill can be delivered in a pragmatic way. That is something we will be looking at as a review of the Fair Trading Act. It is subject to Cabinet approval, which I’m not part of so I can’t tell this House any further than that.

With two minutes remaining, I just want to say, on behalf of this side, we approve of the intent of this legislation. We are pragmatic environmentalists on this side of the House, but we have very serious concerns around the unintended consequences of it. It is likely to go through to select committee, judging by my crude mathematics. I would encourage any of those four people that are sitting at home tonight who may have an interest in this bill to submit, and we will endeavour to incorporate your feedback into our Government programmes and initiatives, whether it be the Fair Trading Act, whether it be a possible member’s bill, or whether it be Government policy.

I look forward to following this bill through this great select committee called the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—some hard-working members here and, I see, across the House as well. I look forward to following the development of this bill in the select committee process. Without further ado, I do not commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Labour supports this bill because Labour supports the little guy to fix his own car, to fix his own tractor. The National Party has told us in the same week that they’ve gone and announced a big policy for vintage car owners, that those same vintage car owners can’t be trusted to repair their own cars, and that they should be paying the manufacturers the privilege of being able to order the special parts, and order the special information, and order the specific schemes.

They’re telling farmers that if you own a tractor, you might be able to fix it yourself—you might be able to get under the hood and do a little bit of tinkering—but if it’s got a wee light on the dash that says “Error. Please fix.”, you won’t be able to turn it off without a $90 trip down to the repairer to get the right code. That is pathetic. New Zealand farmers should be able to fix their own gear. New Zealand small auto workshops and the mechanics in our towns should be able to fix your car for cheap and not have to go to the manufacturer to get an expensive, worthless code.

This is a good bill because it opens the door to fixing all of these problems. This is a good bill because it recognises the Kiwi ingenuity involved in actually getting out and fixing our things—

Dana Kirkpatrick: I thought this was about toasters and hairdryers, not tractors.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —and saving waste. There are thousands and thousands of people fixing up their toasters, Dana Kirkpatrick. They’re fixing up their vacuum cleaners already, but they’re struggling against the very manufacturers who want to stop them from doing that, because a wasteful, throwaway economy is more profitable, and the small businesses who are in the business of fixing those things can’t get ahead.

There are 8,000 small businesses in the business of aftermarket auto repairs around this country. They are a struggling industry where young people aren’t getting into auto workshops because they cannot buy in for the capital requirements. It is a skill that is rapidly declining as skilled auto engineers and auto workshop mechanics cannot get qualified to do that work. That’s a hard job. You know what makes it much harder? When big corporate giants require those small mechanics to pay them 160 bucks for the privilege of fixing up the car they already knew how to fix up. This law fixes that.

I have an amendment called the Consumer Guarantees (Motor Vehicle Repairs Information) Amendment Bill, which you can read because it is in the ballot right now in the name of Ginny Andersen after she went out to a local Hutt mechanic and heard about this problem firsthand. I went and talked to Kam and Swarti from the Manukau Midas, and they told me that they’re shelling out between 60 and 160 bucks for these codes—no value to the consumer, no value to their business, no value to the apprentices they take on. They’re a small local business and they deserve a fair go. This National Government is telling them that they should be paying the giants for the privilege—

Dan Bidois: You had six years.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —of their intellectual property that is worth absolutely nothing to those businesses—shame. Get this guy on Michael Laws. I know that talkback will have something to say about this National Government that says no to farmers fixing their tractors and no to the small auto workshops that want to fix up your car for cheap.

Can I tell you that I really have appreciated working with the small auto aftermarket repairers in this bill. It is a useful amendment that Labour has got ready to go because we back them. We back those 8,000 businesses that are rapidly facing declining market as big manufacturers get into aftermarket repairs and try and eat their market shares. That is a problem. It is anti-competitive, and it is large overseas corporates eating up small businesses that are owned by mums and dads in our community.

The auto shop in Manukau has been operating for 28 years. They can’t find local young mechanics to take on their work because they are paid more at the large global auto manufacturers. At the same time their working conditions are eroded. They are not affording the same kind of training and professional development to these young guys. That is a shame, because their mums and dads in this business can’t continue to train up the people that they need because their margins are getting eaten up by those big players.

If this Government was serious, it would say yes to the right to repair bill. It would send it to the select committee so Labour can make the amendments it needs for cars, and New Zealand First can make the amendments it needs for tractors. We back the little guy. National does not.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of ACT on the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Marama Davidson for having this bill drawn and for speaking tonight and putting forward her case.

I will come to some of the issues, as we see them, with the bill, but I want to start, really, at a higher level and talk about why we don’t think this bill in its current form is the right thing to do. Really, I’ve got three key points that I want to put forward. The first is we need to think about the actual economic impact on manufacturers. If we impose this right to repair—it’s not an offer to repair, it’s not a may be repaired; it’s a right, so a consumer can demand something is repaired—that is actually going to place additional costs on manufacturers, and we have to accept that. Those costs are likely to be—well, they are going to be—passed on to the consumer. I think we just need to think about that.

Also, if you’re a small or medium business—pretend you are, and I’ll get on to why there are many New Zealand manufacturers in a moment. If you are a small New Zealand manufacturer—and you’re likely to be small—that is going to be a substantial cost on your operation, having to put in place this right to repair obligation. Also, we don’t want to be adding these extra costs on the consumer goods, or any goods in fact, because that’s actually just going to put further pressure on household budgets, and we know what’s happened to household budgets over the last few years with inflation costs. That’s something we do want to avoid.

Many, many of the goods that we actually consume in New Zealand are imported. If you think of electronics, TVs, etc., they are actually imported—we don’t make those here; we’re a very small market. By having this right to repair legislation—again, it’s like a kind of tariff, because those importers would be required to put in place something special for New Zealand. We really need to think about that. There’s a lot of talk, obviously, about tariffs in the world at the moment, with some things that have come out of the US, so we actually need to think about these things.

Also, large, consumer electronics companies like Apple and Samsung have very complex supply chains, so putting something in place for one very small jurisdiction, which, unfortunately, New Zealand sometimes has to accept when we are in-buying goods—we do need to think about what that might do and whether that might deter them from bringing their goods here.

A point that was well made, actually, by Eric Crampton, who’s an economist, is that we’re really a regulatory taker. Because we import so many of these small goods, we’re actually required, really, to take them and not be too difficult about the rules and regulations we impose on them, because all that’s going to do is either deter them from selling their goods to New Zealand or put really high costs on the goods that they do sell here. Also, there are businesses that do want to repair goods, and that’s actually their business model. Again, we want to make sure that they are—

Laura McClure: Niche.

TODD STEPHENSON: —yeah, niche—and able to do that. The second thing is that this bill could actually reduce innovation. Again, we just want to talk through that with a couple of points. Actually requiring companies to make repairs and parts available might disincentivise them from investing in new technologies and going to the next innovation. We want to make sure that innovation is encouraged—that that is delivering new products and thriving economic growth.

Also, some technologies are actually planned to be obsolete; that’s the life cycle. They’re actually not designed to be repaired; they actually move on and go to the next iteration.

There are also some implementation challenges, which were also mentioned. I’ve got to agree with my colleague Dan Bidois that this bill is too broad, and there are probably some targeted product categories or interventions that we should look at, but this bill doesn’t do that. There’s also a very scary clause, which actually, basically, is around discovering net percentage profits and imposing, basically, a mark-up—actually deciding what the mark-up that a manufacturer can decide to make for a repair. On that basis, ACT will not be supporting this bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): First of all, I want to congratulate the Hon Marama Davidson both for this bill, and also it’s good to see you back in the House. All of our health is really, really important. It’s great to see you back here.

Look, this bill is about amending the Consumer Guarantees Act. At the moment, when something goes wrong, consumers have the right to replace, to get a refund, or to repair, but there is an opt out. What the current legislation says is that, under section 42, if the manufacturer or the retailer says, “Actually, we’re not going to repair.”, they can opt out of that, and so there is no right to repair. The bill seeks to remove that option to opt out of repair by repealing that section 42, which means that manufacturers or retailers would then be responsible for repair if that is reasonable. The bill requires manufacturers and retailers to provide repair parts, tools, and information to consumers within a reasonable time of purchase. Obviously, that’s going to depend on what the nature of the product is. Some products are going to be long life; some products are going to be short life. That’s going to vary.

It’s interesting to get advice about what the international experience is. This is a relatively new proposition, so we’re going to have to see how it goes internationally. My understanding is that our friends from Federated Farmers have actually just left at the moment—but my understanding is that it was started in the USA when farmers were getting pretty grumpy; come in, John Deere, with their ability to be able to service and repair their tractors, and then it took a lot longer to get their tractors back into operation, which obviously is a significant impost on business. It’s also now growing in the EU, and also in Australia, so the question is: is it also something which we should be looking for in New Zealand?

Look, I’ve been engaged by proponents on the right to repair legislation last year. I acknowledge Paul Smith from Fixed First, who’s in the gallery at the moment. Good to see you here, Paul.

The principle is a good principle. We heard from my colleague Dan Bidois that the devil is in the detail, and that’s right. The question is: do you try and fix the detail now or do you wait for soon, whenever soon might be, and then have a go at fixing that, whenever that might be—you know, next term or the term after, or whenever it might be?

The general view that I’ve got—and that is from proponents of the legislation; people who support the legislation—is that it does need to be narrowed, that it can’t be every product. If you say that the product that’s worth $20 is going to cost $100 to fix, that makes no sense whatsoever. Generally, it seems, from the experience that’s been overseas, it is the bigger, more complicated products that are relevant to this bill: your tractors, your cars, your whiteware, your computer products—and, I’m told, Winston’s mower; and that was important in our caucus! Narrowing it up is really, really important.

The other thing is that this is also about the Consumer Guarantees Act, and at the moment the Consumer Guarantees Act doesn’t provide an answer to our farmers, because a “consumer” is defined in the Consumer Guarantees Act as “a person who—(a) acquires from a supplier goods or services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption”. That is not a tractor.

In some places, you’ve got to narrow the legislation as proposed; in other places, we might need to broaden it. The proposition here is: why not let the people who know about these things have a say, tell us what they think the legislation ought to look like, so that the devil that is in the detail can be fixed? That is the position that New Zealand First is taking, so we’re going to support this legislation at its first reading. It doesn’t mean that we’ll support it beyond that, but it does mean that we want to see—

Glen Bennett: The coalition’s crumbling!

ANDY FOSTER: —God, they got very excited there!—that detail fixed, then maybe we support it at second reading and beyond; if it can’t be, then we don’t.

Back to the legislation, look, this is about better resource use. Who hasn’t got frustrated by—you’ve got a product there, it’s a complicated product, and you want it to work and one small bit breaks, and because you can’t repair that small bit, the whole thing’s got to be thrown out. Now, that’s a terrible situation to be in. What about the potential to build repair capacity? Who doesn’t love that small shop that can fix almost anything? This might give those small shops the ability not only to fix the new stuff that’s protected under this legislation but also to protect old stuff, simply because they’re able to exist to be able to do that kind of work. I think it’s more likely that these repair shops might be able to exist, and they’re gold. It might make us a little bit more resilient as well. The evidence seems to be so far—early evidence—that it will make products cheaper not only for the consumer but also for the manufacturer. On the flip side, we don’t want to be too onerous for businesses. We need to get our economy working. Clearly, as I said, repairing some of those smaller products won’t work.

On balance, we support this legislation to go through the first reading and we look forward to what feedback we get through the select committee process. I commend the bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te tuahine. Tēnā koe me tēnei pire, me taku aroha nui kua hoki mai rā koe ki te Whare nei.

[Thank you, and greetings, sister. Greetings in terms of this bill, and my love to you who has returned to this House.]

It’s nice to see you back. It’s nice to see you back and strong. This bill, we will be supporting also. It’s nice to hear all the kōrero around the place, and I’m glad that Andy wants to make sure that he can fix his Saab, or the BMW, that he’s got in his garage. Those European vehicles, they’re very, very difficult to fix, and I know you’ve got a garage full of them, to fix those vehicles. We want to make sure that the legislation is in place to ensure that you’re not parking that BMW or that Bentley or whatever the vehicle you’ve got in your garage there—that you’ve got to go to Germany to get the parts or whatever. You know, these European vehicles are very difficult to fix—just like the European system we’re working in.

Section 42, the “opt out of repair”, is also an issue, and I think this piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation. I live an hour and a half away from any town. When you’re living in a rural community and you buy something, you want to make sure that it lasts. Once upon a time, you could buy a Zetor tractor and you could grab a garden hose and put it on that bit there to fix that piece there. And uncle was always good at fixing things, right? It was a smooth transition. But it’s not like that any more, right? You’ve got to plug something in to tell you where the issue is, and it takes you a very, very long time to get anything fixed, like the old John Deere tractors. They don’t make them like the old Zetors any more. They don’t make them like the old Ford tractors any more. They don’t make them the way they used to make them where you could fix things, where you could go down to the shop and get something to fix it.

This puts the responsibility on those who actually sell these products to our people. It’s a little bit like my auntie and uncle’s marriage, right? Sixty years—60 years—married. I said to my auntie, “How did that last?” She said, “You know, these days when something’s broken you just throw it away, go down the shop and get another one.” “But”, she goes, “in our day, you fixed it.” It’s nice to be able to look at a bit of legislation that ensures the people that buy a product know that they can get it fixed—that they can get it fixed; you can get that product. It’s like your bloody iPhone, you know? With the iPhone, you’ve got to buy the phone and then they sell the cord separately. Then there’s a different guarantee for the cord than there is with the phone—you know, it’s all that type of stuff.

Look, we’re looking at supporting this particular bill because I think it’s good and it’s sane. We don’t have to look at the detail now; let’s go to the select committee and deal with the detail and sort it out there and make sure that we get the things that we want in there to ensure these products, right? As a consumer, I live an hour and a half away from Ōpōtiki, and that doesn’t have everything. I’ve got to go two hours away to Whakatāne, which also doesn’t have everything, right? So I’ve got to go three hours farther, to Rotorua or Tauranga. This is the reality for people who live in rural places like Cape Runaway, Whangaparāoa. If I buy a product, I want to ensure that I can fix it quickly. Otherwise, look, I’m weeks out, months out, from continuing to do that mahi. Maybe I’ll go and borrow Winston Peters’ lawnmower, right, that he wants to make sure he can get the part for. But I doubt if I’ll get it—I doubt if I’ll get it. And I doubt if he’ll get it, after some of the rhetoric today.

Look, this bill will help to reduce waste, specifically e-waste. I’m into that. Aotearoa and Australia produce the highest volumes of e-waste per capita in the world, while having some of the lowest documented rates of recycling. Aotearoa produces 99 tonnes of e-waste every year—that’s 19.2 kilograms per person. You fellas are learning something tonight, aren’t you? Only 2 percent of this waste is recycled. Ensuring that consumers have the ability to repair their product will help to lower our e-waste production and raise our recycling rates, erasing the burden on our whenua. We’re into protecting our whenua, we’re into protecting our people, and I think this bill does both.

I commend you, Marama. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe mō tēnei pire. [Many acknowledgments to you for this bill.]

I was just blown away also with New Zealand First supporting it. I think we’ll be going to the select committee with this bill, to go down and drill down into the deeper parts of this bill—not like these miserable fellas over there, you know. Miserable—miserable. They’re not even looking at how they can support people or the whenua. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): There is something completely bonkers about this world and there’s something completely bonkers about our modern economic systems, that the right to repair is something that we have to fight for. It is actually, if you think about it, sort of back to the past—it’s going back to what we always used to do. I think about the fact that—

Cameron Luxton: No one’s stopping you owning a horse and cart.

GLEN BENNETT: —they’re asking me what’s stopping me—for example, I have a modern jug in my kitchen that I’m unable to fix because of the way it’s compiled and created. Back in the day, who got in trouble from their parents when they forgot to fill the jug up and, of course, they burnt the element out? What did you do? You went down to the local electrical shop, you went down to the local Mitre 10, and you were able to get a new element, put it in yourself, and the jug would boil again until one of us boys forgot to do it. You cannot do that any more, all right? That’s the thing; you cannot do that any more. It’s the simple things that we need to think about.

The other one is around, for example, my grandmother’s Kenwood mixer. Now, my grandmother’s Kenwood mixer from 1970 sits proudly in my kitchen. For some reason, I was, obviously, the favourite, because in the will that’s what I got. Who knows? Anyway, the thing is that some parts are starting to fail—it’s 55 years old, almost—and, once upon a time, it was quite easy to go to Kingsroy Electrical on Devon Street; some of us in this place have probably been there. They were in business for 75 years, repairing small electrical goods, ensuring that they were fit and didn’t end up in landfills but were things that could be fixed and taken home and used again, like my grandma’s Kenwood mixer. That’s hard, these days. For a company like Kingsroy Electrical, they had to close down. Because of modern technology, because of the ecosystem we’ve created where we’ve locked things off, it is unable to happen. We support this bill and think it is good quality.

I also think about my colleague Arena Williams, in terms of the amendment that she has on the Table. Now, I very proudly, back in the mid-1990s, owned an HQ Holden myself. It was a golden Holden. It was quite beautiful. It had a couple of problems as well, though. For example, the head gasket blew—wasn’t my fault, of course; it wasn’t me burning it out or doing anything dodgy. The thing is that, when it went, my dad and I were able to sit inside the bonnet, pull it apart, put the head gasket on, and go from there. The issue now, and this is why I support Arena Williams’ amendment, is the fact that my car, which is not that modern—2010, but it’s not that modern. There’s no way I can even unlock it without having the mechanic come in and do the electrical thing and do—what do you call it, the thing with all the computer stuff?

Hon Member: The codes.

GLEN BENNETT: The codes. This is just good simple legislation. This is good simple legislation that will make a difference. It will move us forward. The grumpy ACT Party, who just want their mates to make more money—it’s the fact that, actually, people want to repair stuff. People actually want the opportunity not to dump it in the landfill. A classic example is recently I was at an op shop, and I went in and the op shop truck was piling full of—

Hon Marama Davidson: Love an op shop.

GLEN BENNETT: —oh, I love an op shop too—electrical goods. They were throwing them in the back of the truck, and I said, “What are you doing with those?” They said, “We have to dump them.” “Why do you have to dump them?” “Because there’s small issues with them but also there’s electrical certificates we have to do. We don’t have the money or the capacity to do it, neither the ability to repair them.” Where did they take them? They took them to the landfill.

So, to the Hon Marama Davidson, we say thank you for bringing this to the House. We say thank you for having some pragmatic environmental ideas for the future of our country, and we look forward to it going to select committee and ironing out some of the challenges and, hopefully, going a little bit further as well.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill has very good intentions. As is a cliché, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so National isn’t supporting it. However, you’ve seen this before—we’ve changed our minds. We might be tempted to do that if there had been some huge changes that were made. This would be a massive amount of work and is probably much better done while we’re in a review of the Fair Trading Act and we’re looking at all of the reasons why this whole ecosystem is damaged.

I agree that it is a problem that there is such a thing as planned obsolescence. The very idea of planned obsolescence is awful. Now, are we in New Zealand going to be able to influence that whole ecosystem that is an international problem? Maybe, maybe not. But it is something that when we go through the select committee process, I’m sure we’ll be able to hash out many of these things. I’m surprised members across the House didn’t actually pick up when Dan Bidois nearly gave away the secret and stole Mr Andy Foster’s thunder at being able to say it. He really dragged it out, didn’t you, Andy? You really dragged it out and let them wait to find out what New Zealand First’s position was going to be on this bill.

There are many things in this bill that are to be commended and that we agree with—agree very much so with the intent behind this bill—but the current scope is far too broad. To have everything included—including, as the previous speaker alluded to, a kettle. Those sort of things, at the moment—I just quickly looked it up and you can buy a kettle for $10. These are the kinds of things that just show that the economies of scale are ridiculous.

In this bill, it does mention that they expect that it’s just no problem and won’t affect intellectual property, but I think there’s some actual fish-hooks that are in there. Intellectual property is a little bit of a challenge at the moment. This is something that I think we need to think harder about, because intellectual property, when it comes to things that are secret in the set-up of and really are commercially sensitive items—people need to be able to protect that intellectual property. In Australia, they have a regime, as Dan Bidois mentioned, where they’re able to sell to specific repairers to be able to enable that repair ecosystem to go on. This is something that’s not considered within this bill.

I think there are also real significant problems with the idea of how you would possibly enforce this. Whilst many things, when we bring them in in a bill or as legislation, it’s bringing in the understanding and it’s about creating the structures that people and businesses can operate within. Whether this would set up the right kinds of penalties and incentives from this would be a real challenge. I’m not sure that it would really go far enough. In our planned review of the Fair Trading Act, I think there’s much more that can be done.

Also, when we were speaking about the electronic goods and the inability to fix those, well, some of the reasons for that is not necessarily economic. Some of those reasons are actually around health and safety. There are other reasons where there are other barriers that come in when we try to repair things. While I’m just still on my feet, I would just like to point out that it was a little bit galling, I think, for some of us over on our side, hearing Labour talk about farmers and how they stand up for farmers. After what they put farmers through over the last previous six years, it did sort of stick in the craw a little bit.

Although many of us see good things in this, as many have, Hon Marama Davidson—I have also been to these repair cafes and had a look and had lots of people talk to me about this issue, and give lots of reasons why I would want to support it—there are just too many holes in it to be able to do that from our side. We do support the intent. It’s a shame that we cannot commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. It’s a real pleasure to be able to support the bill, and welcome back to the Hon Marama Davidson. It’s lovely to be able to do that tonight. I’ve been really listening tonight to the contributions made and taking on board that concern over things like proportionality and practicality. It would be really nice if this bill came out in a way that serves that kind of pragmatic need and becomes a bill that is a workable contribution to New Zealand.

I wanted to talk about my concern that what we’ve heard from the ACT Party, and the reservations that National have had, show a real lack of hope and vision. This was something that had been part of a New Zealand world. My friend Glen Bennett is exactly right about that. We did used to repair things. I’m sure that most of us have had the experience of buying appliances, then watching them die in what looks like, actually, a calculated obsolescence. It has definitely happened. That is one of the things that has become part of the experience of many New Zealanders. They’ve bought these expensive appliances, and they have found that they cannot repair them or that they are trapped into repairing them at a high price.

It has affected our small businesses. I too have been out to see the people who are repairing our cars and heard their frustrations about how they are locked out of repairing cars by tricks, basically, that are being played in terms of repair by monopolies that have been created. This is a complex area. It does need our full attention, but it also needs some basic principles, and what I like about this bill is it’s a very basic principle: New Zealanders have a right to have products repaired where that is appropriate. They should not be in a situation where they are buying an expensive product and not being able to repair it, paying a great price for it. Our small businesses have a right, if they are competent, to repair things for the New Zealand public, and we all have a right not to expect good quality products that cost the environment money in our landfills. That is a price we simply cannot pay on our planet any more.

I see this as a bedrock piece of legislation, if we get it right, where we reset our expectations in our society. It lets our small businesses grow, it lets our consumers pay a fair price for a fair product, and it lets our environment survive.

This is an important bill, and I’m absolutely thrilled to see it here in this Parliament with the support, at least to the first reading, to make sure that we can actually do our job. I say to the National Party and to ACT, who have spoken tonight: it is not a time for defeatism. It is not a case of just handing over the control of our world to these big monopolies, which are actually manipulating us in this way.

Now, I’ve got a minute and a half, and I’m going to have a little bit of a gripe about this happening to me, because it has happened to us all. It’s a really classic story. I used a little electric scooter. I went into town on that electric scooter for years. It saved me buckets of money. It meant that I wasn’t using up petrol. It was extremely good for the congestion in Auckland. When I replaced that scooter with what I thought was an identical one, it turned out that I couldn’t get the battery in any more. I have to go offshore if I want to. Where do you think the scooter is now? It’s sitting in a cupboard in my house. There will be lots of scooters, lots of dishwashers, lots of washing machines, lots of motor mowers. There will be lots of these things sitting and wasting in New Zealand, and they represent the hard-earned cash of New Zealanders.

Yes, there may be a balance to be struck, but it’s not being struck at the present time. It is not functioning the way it should. I am thrilled to see this bill. I am looking forward to it coming to my select committee. I will give it my full attention, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak on the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill in its first reading, and I actually am conflicted over this bill, because I do often live by the motto “If it doesn’t move and it should, use WD-40; if it moves and it shouldn’t, use duct tape.” Actually, that’s probably a little bit of a stretch. I don’t use WD-40; I usually use a hammer, and, of course, the difference between an amateur and the professional is the size of hammer that they use! I have lived my life repairing motor bikes, coffee machines, and vacuum cleaners. We actually don’t need this bill to do some of these things; we can actually do that, as we’ve said.

We’ve heard a lot of hyperbole that we don’t support the small guys—well, how about the tax relief and how about cutting the red tape? Those are the sorts of things that are going to help the small repair shops, if they have been absolutely hamstrung with health and safety. We’ve heard about repairing jugs. I don’t know when the last time was when you legally were allowed to play with 240 volts here, in New Zealand, and there are other issues around this legislation which haven’t been mentioned tonight.

While I do actually support the objectives of this bill and I think they’re sound, I think the current scope is far too expansive. Extending the right to repair to all goods is actually impractical, and you can probably think of, I don’t know, a waffle-maker from Kmart. It actually is not practical to do it. In the end, we’d actually end up making things far more expensive, and we don’t actually have some of the safety features that some of these things have. Often, those are probably the first things that are bypassed when things are repaired, so I think we’ve got to think about this very, very carefully.

Of course, there’s a whole piece of work that needs to be done around the Fair Trading Act, because I think there’s a lot of issues that we do need to iron out. An iron is another appliance that I wouldn’t suggest repairing—once again, the high voltage. We’ve heard about scooters and lithium ion batteries. I wouldn’t be encouraging anybody to have a wee tinker with a lithium ion battery. We’ve all seen the sorts of fires that can occur by doing that. I think there’s a whole range of issues that there could be here.

As I say, I agree with the principles and I have spent my life repairing things, but I think that this bill doesn’t actually come to the nub of the problem. I think we have a whole health and safety issue that we’d come to with some of these things. Of course, we have a safety issue, and we heard about the code for key fobs for cars. That’s a security thing that has been brought in.

I appreciate that there are certain members of this House who want to go back to the bygone era when things were very simple, not very environmentally friendly. Without fuel injection and things like that, some of those mechanical things were far easier to repair. Of course, machines have got far more complicated. We have far more safety regulations now because everybody should be able to go to work and come home safely.

There’s a whole range of issues, and I don’t think this bill is actually going to fix the problem. I see the intent, and I think that it is a good intent, but I don’t think this bill is going to fix the problem.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Marama Davidson, in reply.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I was supposed to mention in the first speech reading that I purposely chose to wear my hokohoko op shop dress tonight that I also did have to repair to be able to wear it. We all love a good op shop—many of us across the House.

All of the valid reasons—there were some very invalid reasons, but the so-called valid reasons that I have heard in the House tonight from politicians who are not going to support this bill are reasons to get it to select committee right now rather than delay the bill. Whether that’s for a review—we have got the evidence of what is needed: a review—and then what and how long? Right now, we can get this to select committee, we can look validly at product specification, we can look at any other potential challenges that members may have valid concerns about at select committee.

With product specification in particular, even if something might seem to fall outside the scope of this current bill, we can work together to write to the Business Committee to be able to ask and request that we make this opportunity work for us all right now. We can do that right now, and the urgency is real. I again want to shout out especially again to Consumer New Zealand, but I’m going to again shout out to Ōtautahi Repair Revolution; Para Kore; the rubbish tip; Federated Farmers; businesses’ Choice of Repairer; Brigitte Sistig; FixedFirst New Zealand; and Paul Smith, who was also formerly with Consumer New Zealand.

We have the urgency which needs us to legislate right now. A quote from the chief executive of Consumer New Zealand, Jon Duffy, says that Kiwis throw away 100,000 tonnes of just e-waste each year, on average around 20 kilos per person. A Lower Hutt recycling centre says the number of products coming in to be processed has escalated just in the last two years. There is urgent need for legislative action to tackle the scale of even just e-waste alone. Well, here it is—here is the opportunity right now.

Let me also pick up price, because I will pull that one right apart. Around the world, we have several countries and places where repair legislation has been in place for a number of years. I mentioned the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, France—and that’s several states across the US. After several years, there is absolutely zero evidence of price increase to consumer, and I know why: when you think about right to repair, actually, at the moment, manufacturers will often replace the whole entire thing for a little thing that is wrong with it—a whole product replacement.

Actually, there is no general actual real cost increase to manufacturers when they are trying to repair things. That is why there is no evidence around the world, where this has been in place for years, of price increase to consumer. I had a responsibility to rip that argument right apart, and thank you again to Consumer New Zealand and Paul Smith who have also helped us on the research with that.

Local jobs, for crying out loud, we all love that—we all say we do. This is an opportunity to support local employment with something that is in our Aotearoa DNA: our fix-it expertise, having your local people and person be right at your ready when something breaks. This bill will support our local jobs, our local community initiatives.

We used to make better-quality goods. It’s no good in this House to pretend like going back to better-quality goods will hurt the world. It is actually planned obsolescence that has been hurting us and Papatūānuku for many, many years. That we pretend that going back to a state where we had better-quality goods in the first place, where we were able to conveniently fix our things in the first place—pretending that that’s going to be a horror situation for us just does not stack up.

The real problem—the real problem—is planned obsolescence. The real problem is a market that has allowed big companies to force us to buy and buy again, and buy again, and be locked out of fixing our things. Let’s be straight about where the real problem is. Thank you. I’m so glad we’re getting this to select committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill First be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I put the next motion, I did hear a comment from someone on my right-hand side during a vote, saying “Crazy.” I’m not going to ask who it was, but I wouldn’t expect a repeat of that comment during a vote. Thank you.

Members, the question now is, That the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Bills

Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill

First Reading

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I move, That the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider this bill.

E tātou mā, the Crown has used the Public Works Act as a key tool to alienate whenua Māori through the generations. Let’s not be fooled as to what the Public Works Act has done to te iwi Māori.

E ai ki te poropiti o Aperahama Taonui, i te wā o te hainatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi, he taniwha kei te haere mai ko ōna niho he hiriwa me te kōura, ko tōna kai he whenua. Kaua e mataku i te hiriwa me te kōura, engari kaua e tuku ko te hiriwa me te kōura hei Atua māu.

[According to the prophesy of Aperahama Taonui, at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, there is a taniwha coming with teeth of silver and gold, who consumes the land. Do not fear silver and gold, but do not allow silver and gold to become your God.]

There is a demon on its way. It’s a demon that will arrive with teeth of silver and gold with an insatiable diet for land. Fear not the silver and the gold, but do not allow the silver and the gold to become your God.

Now, I’m getting a bit emotional because the Public Works Act has an immediate impact and effect on my family, my hapū, and my iwi, because this is something that goes right to the roots of how Māori have been displaced off their own whenua.

E tātau mā, kua kite te iwi Māori i te whakatinanatanga o ēnei Kāwanatanga katoa e kaingia ana i te whenua, i ngā rawa o te taiao, mō te kore whakaaro mō te āpōpō, mō te iwi Māori hoki.

[To us all, the Māori people have seen the implementation of all these Governments consuming the land, the assets of the natural world without thought for the future, or for the Māori people.]

Our iwi have a long list—a long list—of impacts of the way that the Public Works Act has been used against us for the betterment of all. And we’ve given so much. Te iwi Māori has given so much. When we sit now with only—what?—some 5 percent within the hands of Māori today, you cannot say that te iwi Māori has not given enough to the public good. Whether you think of railways, quarries, school sites like Mangamuka, Ōkaihau township, Rāwene, and Whangārei, how many marae and urupā have been separated by a road because the public good was taken as the atua instead of prioritising what the whenua Māori landowner even thought.

These are historic things, but they’re contemporary as well, because this tool of the Crown is still being used today and it will continue to be used tomorrow, because, remember, we’ve got a Crown that wants to fast-track the Public Works Act right now, and that fast-track impact of public works on te iwi Māori will mean more land goes from the Māori people. Let’s not be fooled.

My bill is about informed consent—informed consent. If we were to back this bill, there would be an opportunity for the Māori landowner to actually have the hui consider the opportunity, look at the case put before them, and say yes or no. It’s as simple as that. We’ve never been given the chance, because compulsory acquisition of whenua Māori through the Public Works Act has been a foregone conclusion. It’s been a thing that we have experienced in the past, and we’ve experienced it today, and we will experience it tomorrow, unless this House corrects what has gone on in New Zealand’s history and what Māori continue to suffer.

Where is the honourable Kāwanatanga? Where is the honourable Kāwanatanga that will stand and say, “Enough is enough. We recognise what we’ve done to Māori through the Public Works Act.” I think of my own whenua, Onoke Pā. We’re fighting for that, and that was through State-owned enterprises. They took it for a quarry, and, now, we’re fighting—what?—a developer who acquired the land and now wants to build 93 executive-style homes on wāhi tapu.

This is the type of reality that Māori are facing every day, because when the Crown is finished with the land, it don’t come back; it swirls around and around in the Crown purse, and Government departments decide, “Hmm, how are we going to utilise it?”, instead of just giving it back. Just give it back to the people that it came from.

Rawiri Waititi: And Te Tumu Paeroa, give it all back.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh yeah, Te Tumu Paeroa, where to begin? Kia ora tātou. Tools of the Crown, e tātou mā—tools of the Crown.

Nōpera Panakareao said, in 1840, as he looked to sign Te Tiriti o Waitangi, “Ko te atarau o te whenua i riro i te Kuini, ko te tinana o te whenua i waiho ki ngā Māori.” [The shadow of the land has gone to the Queen, the body of the land remains with Māori.] Only the shadow of the land goes to the Queen—aka, just use it—engari the substance of the land remains with us. We don’t have the substance of the land when we only retain 5 percent in our hands right now. We don’t have the substance. Don’t say that Māori are somehow treated better or we’ve got some type of privilege; we are landless on our own whenua.

I am ashamed when I see tribal members who are landless, sleeping in cars and in tents on their own tribal whenua. They cannot get a house. We cannot say that public works and other Acts of the Crown have not had an impact on te iwi Māori. And don’t think that we were, like, playing favourites here. This is a property right for Māori to be able to say yes or no—it’s as simple as that. I ask this House to really look inside yourselves in terms of the histories, in terms of the settlements that come through the House and we give these beautiful speeches and say, “Here’s your 2c to 3c in the dollar, Māori. Take that and let’s park all of your issues from 1993 back to the time of the signing of Te Tiriti, because we have given you your dollar and a mountain and a river and a co-management plan. And that’s you sorted.”

Well, I’m worried about tomorrow. This bill is about tomorrow. Yes, I can’t address the past. There’s a policy and a process under way. This bill is about addressing today and tomorrow for my children, our children, and our mokopuna—the Māori to come; that those descendants who might own or be a shareholder or be a responsible trustee, if there’s a proposal to come and they need quarrying or they want to put more railways through us—because we’re fast tracking rail—through our whenua, that we have the ability to sit with the Crown or the council and make the decision āe or kāhore.

How is that so wrong? Why can Māori not have the opportunity now, since we’ve given 95 percent of our land, sometimes with no compensation, not even a dollar for the public works that have been taken in the past—why can we not receive this little pīhi, this little piece, a glimmer of rangatiratanga over our whenua to say yes or no? It’s not a big one. We don’t have much whenua left. Many of our tribes only have about 2 percent left. When you come for our 2 percent of whenua that’s left in our hands, of course we’re going to get upset.

I think about our whānau at Kopuawaiwaha and Marsden Point, the proposal to put the railway through their whenua to create the rail spur to connect up Marsden Point and the existing railway lines. Mere Kēpa has been fighting that for over a decade—that trust—to try and protect the little bit of whenua that we have left in southern Whangārei.

This is not a new story, and we all support the public good and the need for infrastructure. We support the fact that we need our schools established. We support that there have been roads. Some of our roads are quite windy, but you notice the windy parts are around the whenua Pākehā, because it goes straight through the whenua Māori. Let’s think about when you went to Waitangi, and you drove up through to Kawakawa, and you see the awesome pouwhenua at the roundabout in Kawakawa—Miria (Waiomio) Marae with State Highway 1 straight through the middle, and there’s the Wairere urupā there, and then there’s the cemetery. That is a common story amongst Māori.

My plea to this House is to open your heart and think about public works’ impact and what we can do to right the wrongs of the past, for the future. I acknowledge the Minister’s been doing a review. Absolutely. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to address his review panel and have a hui, but, ultimately, the ability to say yes or no is the crux of this bill.

Yes, you might say, “Oh, well, we can design a compensation package that can even go down to the household level.” That actually doesn’t understand the way that whenua Māori is a collective asset. The worry with what is proposed is that the review did not really take into account the crux of the issue, which is our ability to say yes or no—informed consent. Adding in the Minister of Māori Development to the hierarchy of the yes and the no to compulsorily acquire our whenua does not improve the situation; you’re just adding the Māori into the equation. It doesn’t change. Councils and the Crown can still take our whenua tomorrow if they want to go and put more railways through our whenua.

We know that’s a real reality for us today, whether it’s in Whangārei, whether it’s in Wellington, whether you need a State highway to go through us—yeah, so many roads—but ultimately that’s what my bill’s about. I look forward to debating this issue in the House. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.