Tuesday, 4 March 2025

TUESDAY, 4 MARCH 2025

TUESDAY, 4 MARCH 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Speaker’s Rulings

Debate—Use of “Aotearoa”

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve been asked to rule on the use of the word “Aotearoa” in the House. I said I would consider the approach taken by the New Zealand Geographic Board, though this is not at all binding on the House, which does enjoy unfettered freedom of speech. The official name of New Zealand may only be altered by legislation. However, “Aotearoa” is regularly used as a name of New Zealand, including by the Geographic Board itself in its own name, and in the title of the legislation that created it. It appears on our passports and it appears on our currency.

I’ve pointed out several times that Standing Order 109 says that “member[s] may address the Speaker in English, [te reo] Māori, or New Zealand Sign Language.” That really is the end of the matter. In light of Standing Order 109, it’s not for the Speaker to arbitrate when individual words in any of those three languages may be used.

I suggested to Ricardo Menéndez March he might like to use “Aotearoa New Zealand” for the sake of order in the House and to assist anyone who might not understand the term. However, members may speak in any of the three languages at any time. If other members do not like certain words, they don’t have to use them. But it’s not a matter of order and I don’t expect to have further points of order raised about it.

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

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

SPEAKER: The Clerk will present six petitions.

CLERK:

Petition of Connor Sharp requesting that the House ask the Government to work with local government in Auckland to deliver surface light rail in Auckland

petition of H Hakepa on behalf of Te Pāti Tangata Whenua, requesting that the House increase the number of Māori electorates

petition of Conrad Petersen requesting that the House repeal and rewrite section 24A of the Arms Act 1983

petition of Chris Gilmore requesting the House urge the Government to hold a referendum on the Gene Technology Bill

petition of Christian van der Pump requesting that the House urge the Government to release incident statistics collected by Fire and Emergency New Zealand

petition of Councillor Sam Bennett requesting the House urge the Government to require New Zealand Transport Agency to immediately plan, finance, and undertake remedial work on State Highway 3.

SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered five papers.

CLERK:

Government responses to the:

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of John Hearnshaw

petition of Raina Vermani, and

petition of Rainbow Labour Christchurch Branch

2024-25 annual report for Whaikaha - Ministry of Disabled People

report on Unappropriated Expenses and Capital Expenditure for the financial year ended 30 June 2024.

SPEAKER: I present the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled “Regulating vehicle safety inspections”. I also report the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, OPTCAT, Aged Care Monitoring, Chief Ombudsman’s Observations—I don’t like acronyms. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Eleven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the:

International treaty examination of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability

International treaty examination of the Agreement Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, and

International treaty examination of the US Tuna Treaty Amendments to Annex II of the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Brian Webb

petition of Deirdre Kent, and

petition of Kylee Kelly

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, “Monitoring importers of specified high-risk foods”

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2023-24 annual review of the Social Services and Community sector.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report of the Controller and Auditor-General and the international treaties are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of three bills.

CLERK:

Referendums Framework Bill, introduction.

Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction.

Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Motions

Te Matatini 2025—Congratulations

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to acknowledge Te Matatini 2025.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That this House congratulate all of those who participated in the Te Matatini o Te Kāhui Maunga National Kapa Haka Festival last week and, in particular, Te Kapa Haka o Ngāti Whakaue, the Supreme Winner, and note that Te Matatini this year was attended by record numbers of both participants and guests, with 15,000 people attending the finals on Saturday, generating an estimated $26.5 million for the Taranaki region.

Ka tū te ihi, ka tū te wehi, ka tū te wana—have no fear and compete.

Motion agreed to.

Urgent Debates

Hon Andrew Bayly—Ministerial Resignation

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the resignation of a Minister, the Hon Andrew Bayly. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility that warrants the attention of the House and the Government. At the conclusion of oral questions, I’ll call on the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public business.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action in recent days to make it easier for New Zealanders to see a doctor. We know that too many Kiwis wait too long to see their GP, which is why we’re putting more funding into primary healthcare. And thanks to that funding, Kiwis will see more nurses working in primary care, more international doctors working in their community, more opportunities to enrol with their local doctors, and more choice with the roll-out of a 24/7 digital service. Fixing the healthcare system won’t be easy, but our outstanding Minister of Health is backing patients and making sure we can get them the care they need—he’s funding more, he’s growing the workforce more, and he’s getting rid of the bureaucracy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he expressed confidence in David Seymour’s ability to clean up the mess he’s made of the school lunches programme, given his own Minister of Education has refused to share that confidence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, David Seymour is the accountable Minister. I’ve got every confidence he’s all over the detail and he’s going to make sure all the food and the meals get up to scratch.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Erica Stanford correct that David Seymour’s announcement cancelling teacher-only days overstepped the mark; if so, what has he as Prime Minister done about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I have clear delegations and clear responsibilities. David Seymour is the accountable Minister for school lunches; he is aware of the issues and he will fix them. Erica Stanford is the accountable Minister for teacher-only days, and she will manage that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is Erica Stanford being left to clean up David Seymour’s messes while he fails to show up to meetings with her, and he as Prime Minister won’t do anything about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you explain which meetings?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No—no you may not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I don’t believe I need to explain questions—

SPEAKER: You may not. You can—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —but the Prime Minister might like to read the news.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Just—can we move on to question No. 2 then, if that’s where we’re at.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ve asked the Prime Minister a question.

SPEAKER: Yes, you did, and then you decided to qualify it when he gave an answer, and that was unacceptable. I’m asking you now to ask the question again and nothing else.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: OK, I’ll repeat the question: why is Erica Stanford being left to clean up David Seymour’s messes while he fails to show up to meetings with her, and why will he as Prime Minister not do anything about that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said before, I have every confidence that David Seymour is working his way through the issues around the school lunches. He’s aware of the detail, he’s on top of it, and I have every confidence that he will sort it out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does Erica Stanford have the fortitude to repeatedly stand up to David Seymour that he seems to lack?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said—

SPEAKER: No—the last part of that question is not in order. Next supplementary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it still his expectation that the new, cheaper, mass-produced school lunches will be at least as good, if not better, than the healthy locally made lunches his Government cancelled; if so, when can hungry school students expect him to deliver on that promise?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member, it’s a bit rich because we saved school lunches, because that Prime Minister didn’t fund school lunches. So we are spending more on school lunches and we are giving them to more kids. That’s a good thing. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: When the House comes to a little bit of quiet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If it hasn’t taken feeding children melted plastic, failing to deliver lunches at all, serving up the same food 13 days in a row, or serving pork to halal students, what will it take for him to finally step in and sort out the mess that his Government has made of the school lunches programme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, again, I’d just say to that member, this is a Government that has actually put together a school lunch programme that is feeding more children and is funded. He hadn’t funded it; we funded it. We’re expanding the access to it. Yes, some of the food is not up to scratch, but the Minister is working his way through the issues and I have every confidence he will resolve it. And I just say to parents that may be listening to this, feel free to prepare a Marmite sandwich and an apple for lunch. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That is the last mass outburst that we’re going to hear today. We could be a very empty House if people continue to participate in that.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Recent data releases are consistent with a growing New Zealand economy. Yesterday, for example, the latest trade figures were released. These show that in the December quarter of last year, New Zealand exported $26.7 billion worth of goods and services. That’s an increase of 9.6 percent over the same period a year earlier. Dairy was particularly strong, making up almost a quarter of our total exports in the quarter.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is driving this increase in exports?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, both export volumes and prices have been rising—that is, the amount of goods we export has been rising and the world price we get for those goods has also been going up. Furthermore, the New Zealand dollar is currently at a competitive rate for exporters. ANZ’s Commodity Price Index, which follows movements in prices for New Zealand exports like dairy, meat, horticulture, and forestry, has risen 15 percent in the past year when measured in world prices, and has risen 25 percent in New Zealand dollar terms. That is good news for New Zealand’s hard-working exporters and the people they employ.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How do export prices compare to import prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Import prices are, of course, the other side of the equation. Luckily, economists have a measure of a country’s export prices relative to its import prices, and that’s the terms of trade. New Zealand’s terms of trade have been rising strongly as export prices have been rising much more strongly than import price rises. Currently, the terms of trade is at a near-record high in a series that goes back to the 1950s. Now, that is good news. As New Zealand’s purchasing power has, effectively, gone up, we are getting more in return for what we export.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What other export industries are picking up?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d like to share with you facts from a letter I received from New Zealand Apples and Pears, who tell me that New Zealand’s apple and pear industry has achieved $1 billion in orchard-gate returns for the very first time. I would like to congratulate the apple and pear industry, which also has revealed that this is worth $2.5 billion in revenue impact to the New Zealand economy—up 27 percent from 2023—with employment in the sector also increasing to more than 13,700 jobs, and this growth trend looks set to continue.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to support Kiwis with the cost of living. We know it’s a tough time for New Zealanders, which is why it’s so important to get on top of wasteful spending, inflation, and interest rates. We’ve made real progress: repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax, delivering tax relief, and supporting young families with FamilyBoost. But there’s more to do, and that’s why the focus this year is on unleashing growth so that Kiwis have more money in their back pocket. That’s why we’re backing farmers; that’s why we’re backing exporters; backing tourism; fighting hard offshore in trips, like to Vietnam, to make sure that we actually create more deals for Kiwi businesses, to create more jobs at home and more money in the back pockets of Kiwis.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Ka Ora, Ka Ako is about supporting our tamariki to be healthy and well in order for them to learn, and, if so, can he tell the House how he can be proud of his Government’s roll-out of the updated school lunch programme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of it because that member was part of a Government that didn’t fund it, and this is a Government that has come in, has funded the programme, and has extended it to more children. That’s a good thing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ragne Maxwell, principal of Porirua College, that the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme is “one of the most direct ways to tackle intergenerational poverty”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think it’s an important thing for kids who come to school with no lunch. We’re not willing to let them go hungry, we don’t want them not to learn, and we don’t want them ending up on, or being consigned to, welfare or other things. We want them to have potential and a future.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement made this morning that some of the lunches aren’t “up to scratch”, and, if so, what is he doing as the Prime Minister to ensure our tamariki are given on-time, nutritious, edible kai?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the Minister who is accountable—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, what are you doing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m talking to the Minister to make sure that he has got everything he needs to make sure that he gets the food up to scratch and that the food that was contracted is being delivered.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he as Prime Minister take responsibility for failing to achieve the purpose of Ka Ora, Ka Ako, and feed our tamariki?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have funded the programme and we’ve extended it to more kids.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree hunger should never be a barrier to learning for the over 156,000 tamariki whose households cannot afford basic essentials, like food, and who deserve better from this Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is why we have a welfare system and a school lunch programme.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Government ever considered that there are comparisons of a former time when much poorer Māori families in largely Māori schools nevertheless provided the food for their children every day, with the older students doing the labour—the males—and the girls doing the cooking, and never relying upon the State at that point in time, when we were being better educated at the same time?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I do agree with the Minister that there is actually some parental responsibility. We would like not to have a State-funded lunch programme, but we do have one to make sure that we are supporting the kids who don’t or can’t have lunches, and make sure they can learn. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Someone is about to leave. That’s not to happen again. Unbelievable. All right? I know what I saw. I’m not going to mention names, because that would be naming someone. I’m not going to do that. Be very aware that that sort of level of barracking is not going to be accepted.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I think that’s one of the most chauvinistic displays that we’ve seen in the House in recent times. I think that is going to prompt a bit of a reaction.

SPEAKER: Well, we can’t, on the one hand, say that this is a House where people can, within bounds of decorum, speak freely, and then start asking the Chair to determine whether or not a view that’s held by someone is acceptable or not. Frankly, I’ve got my own strong views about lots of things, but I listen respectfully here in the House every day, and I expect every other member to do the same. You may not like what’s being said, but there’s every right for it to be said. I hope this isn’t going to keep us going on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I take objection from a number of people who get up and give their views when questions are being asked of, clearly, events that they know nothing about—poverty: how it smells, how it feels, what it tastes like—and they show it every day in this House.

SPEAKER: Well, that was helpful!

Question No. 4—Justice

4. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell’s statement, “I think there’s a real risk of seeing a tragedy unfold with members of the public who have become exasperated … every week I’ve got to try and talk to people that want to take vigilante type action to actually protect themselves … That’s the worst possible thing that could happen. And I’d encourage people definitely not to go down that road”; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes—and I agree that many New Zealanders have become exasperated at the high level of crime occurring in our communities and that vigilante justice is not the solution. That’s why this Government is focused on restoring law and order, so people are confident that our justice system delivers real consequences for crime.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice did Police give the Minister of Police on the public safety risks of citizen’s arrest powers?

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for advice received by the Minster of Police.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, I assume?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes. Mr Speaker, this question was originally posed to the Minister of Police. The Government decided to transfer it to the Minister of Justice. Speakers’ rulings and McGee are quite clear that if the Government decides to transfer a question to another Minister, that Minister should be in a position to answer the following supplementary questions.

SPEAKER: Not to argue or correct you, but the decision by the Government has to be in favour of who can best answer the question that is placed as the primary question. I think the difficulty starts to arise where a question immediately reverts to a different Minister with an expectation that the Minister answering the question would have the same information. It’s a messy process—there’s nothing clearer. But I’ve sat in this House for a long time and seen this sort of thing occur before. I think it is fair to say that the question that was asked would be information specific to the police Minister, not necessarily related to the primary question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that—two points there. The first one is that the primary question was asking the Minister of Police if he agreed with statements that he had made before becoming Minister of Police. The issues may well occur when they transfer a question to the Minister of Justice, asking him to stand by a statement that someone else made. The second point is that if this Speaker’s ruling and the expectation outlined in McGee is not, in your view, applicable here, can the Hon Ginny Andersen have another opportunity to ask that supplementary—without penalty—in a way that the Minister of Justice may have a better chance of answering?

SPEAKER: Well, firstly, I’m not disputing anything that’s written there, but, clearly, it’s my job to interpret it. I think that would be a reasonable way to progress, if the Hon Ginny Andersen asked a question, perhaps, about awareness.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice did Police or the Ministry of Justice provide him on the safety risks associated with the new citizen’s arrest power?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There was a range of advice. The Police, quite frankly, were not broadly in favour of the changes; they had concerns around potential impacts. We weighed that up against our concerns about the current situation, where that, during the day—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is that why Mitchell is hiding?

SPEAKER: You can’t say that. Just calm down.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We weighed that against other advice and considerations, given the fact that New Zealanders currently have citizen’s arrest powers for things that happen at night. But then, if the same thing happens during the day, when somebody walks out of a shop with around $900 worth of food or clothing or electronics, nothing can be done about that, and we don’t think that’s the correct situation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What consultation did the Minister of Police or the Minister of Justice undertake with the Police Association regarding the impact of citizen arrest powers on front-line police?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The proposals, in particular, came from the ministry advisory group led by Sunny Kaushal in response to a significant increase in retail crime over the past few years. New Zealanders are fed up with the level of retail crime that they are experiencing in our communities. That’s why this Government has considered proposals to change the rules, because if you want to have a different outcome, sometimes you have to change things, and that is what we are proposing. So, in the course of developing those proposals, the ministry advisory group talked to a wide range of people, and, of course, when we introduce this legislation it will go off to the select committee and then many New Zealanders will have their say, including the Police Association.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will there be Police operational guidelines issued to the public in addition to his advice, “[It’s n]ot necessarily a headlock, it’s just holding someone steady.”; and if so, how long will the members of the public be allowed to “hold someone steady” for?

Hon Chris Bishop: Minister Goldsmith is responsible for many things but he’s not responsible for Police operational guidelines.

SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is a store owner required to inform the parents of a child who is being held steady or detained in a storeroom?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the requirements if a situation occurs when somebody is stealing from business and reasonable force is being used to detain that person—the proposal is that they would then need to contact the police and follow instructions from police. Then that is the situation. It’s already the law at five past nine at night and our proposal is to make it the law during the day, and, ultimately, every retail worker needs to consider the broad circumstances and the situation that they confront. But this Government makes no apology for coming up with new ideas and new responses to deal with the significant increase in retail crime that we experienced over the past few years. New Zealanders want change and that’s what we’re going to deliver.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he justify a $3.6 million spend on the retail crime advisory group when there are 72 fewer police on our streets and methamphetamine use has doubled under his watch.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think people would recognise that retail crime costs our community billions of dollars, and all New Zealanders have to pay more for the things that they buy because some New Zealanders steal it and don’t pay for it. That is why we think a modest investment in a retail advisory group to come up with bold ideas—and the purpose behind the retail advisory group is to say, “Look, we have a Ministry of Justice and a whole justice sector that has continued its ways a number of times, and we’re open to radical new ideas coming from elsewhere, in order to come up with different solutions so that we can have better outcomes, and for New Zealanders to keep safe in their communities.”

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it the case right now that it is legal to initiate a citizen’s arrest on someone stealing something at 9.01 p.m. at night with goods worth more than $1,000 but illegal to initiate a citizen’s arrest at 8.59 p.m. at night for stealing a toaster, and does he think that this is a particularly sensible move to bring these things into line?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I do think it is a sensible move. There’ll be a wide variety of views, and I would note that there is one fellow called Stuart Nash, who said, “I am a fan.”, and there’s no doubt about that. Of course, I can understand why he’s out of step with the current Labour Government, which seems to be wanting to defend the current situation whereby people walk out of stores during the middle of the day and nobody can do anything about it apart from escort them to their car. New Zealanders are tired of that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he take responsibility if someone in New Zealand loses their life because of his law change?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What I can tell that member is that the only person that is responsible for losing a life in a situation like that would be the person that took the life—that swung the axe, that used the weapon to kill or hurt or maim somebody. If that member doesn’t understand that and wants to create excuses for that kind of activity, then I don’t think they understand how law and order should work in this country. We are very determined to ensure that New Zealanders are kept safe in their community, and that is why already in Government, we have brought back three strikes, increased sentencing reform, and given the police the powers that they need to deal with gangs. All of those things are designed to keep our communities safe.

Hon David Seymour: How long has the Minister believed that crimes were the fault of the person who committed them, and was he surprised to be asked about that fact just now?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, I think one of the biggest changes in the last year or two in justice policy has been a shift away from a culture of excuses for crime that we inherited under the previous administration, where crimes were the fault of all sorts of reasons other than the actions of an individual. This Government is about restoring responsibility for criminal actions to the people who undertake those actions.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, especially our action to build the infrastructure that Kiwis need to get the country moving and our economy growing. That’s why it was so positive last week to see the infrastructure pipeline continuing to grow, hitting almost $204 billion last quarter. We know that high inflation and interest rates have hit the construction sector hard in the last few years, and that’s why we’re so positive to see that $15 billion more than expected is going to be spent on infrastructure this year, with more than half that going to transport. New Zealand won’t get rich doing phantom projects like Auckland light rail or Let’s Get Wellington Moving. We’ve got real projects that have an impact and get Kiwis growing and get the country moving.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement that if parents are unhappy with the Government’s school lunches, they should “go make a Marmite sandwich and put an apple in a bag”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that parents are sending their kids to school hungry because they are too lazy to make lunches or because they cannot afford to make their kids’ lunches?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Some, yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the parents who have lost their jobs, who have had their benefits sanctioned, who have been thrown out of emergency housing, afford to “go make a Marmite sandwich and put an apple in a bag” for the kids who cannot eat the Government’s slop?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: For those that are not provided with a lunch going to school, there is a school lunch programme, which has been extended, as I’ve said before, to many more kids. There’s also a welfare system that’s available to help people in need. We continue to support both those programmes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will his decision to cut the school lunch programme make it easier or harder for children in low-income families who are already struggling to learn?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We haven’t cut the school lunch programme; we’ve increased it. We’ve funded it, which is what the last Government didn’t do.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: That’s not true. Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. [Interruption] That’s enough, thank you.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My apologies, through the Chair.

SPEAKER: Withdraw and apologise.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. I withdraw and apologise. What do you say to the 1 million people who can earn less than $30,000 and only get $2.15 tax cut per week when a loaf of bread costs $4 and 250 grams of Marmite costs $5?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d say that that’s why this Government’s working incredibly hard to grow the economy so that we can lift incomes and get people into more jobs so that they can have greater opportunity and more choices about how they get to live their lives.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made to encourage overseas investment into New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his question. On 23 February, I announced changes to the Overseas Investment Act. Cabinet has approved a package of legislative reforms that will ensure faster decision-making, greater investor certainty, and stronger national interest protections. Specifically, I announced reforms that will change the presumption of the Act to better acknowledge the benefits that international investment provides to New Zealand’s economy. It will reduce the time frames for the regulator’s assessment of most applications to 15 days unless escalated to a comprehensive assessment in more sensitive cases. These reforms will make New Zealand a more attractive place to invest, enabling businesses to access capital, grow, and create higher paying jobs.

Todd Stephenson: Why does the Government believe these reforms are necessary?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Because we follow economic evidence. The evidence in particular is clear around productivity. Our growth has stalled. It was at 1.4 percent per year from 1993-2013, but only 0.2 percent over the decade to date. One of the keys to improving productivity and driving growth will be reversing these trends by ensuring that Kiwi businesses get the investment they need to grow. When businesses get capital, they can invest in better technology, expand production, and pay their workers more. That’s what this Government is committed to enabling with these reforms.

Todd Stephenson: How do these reforms compare with overseas investment regimes in other countries?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: New Zealand is currently one of the hardest countries to invest in. Other OECD countries such as Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom protect their natural interests effectively; meanwhile, they receive billions more foreign direct investment than we do. The reality is that other countries are competing for global capital while we’ve been scaring it away. That must change and it is changing, including with these changes to the Overseas Investment Act, making us a country that actually welcomes our friends around the world sending their money and their ideas to our country so we can trade value for value, and get stronger together with higher wages and better jobs.

Todd Stephenson: What protections remain in place to safeguard New Zealand’s national interests?

SPEAKER: A concise answer would be good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That was concise; there’s just a lot of quality content.

SPEAKER: Well, if that’s concise you’re rewriting the dictionary.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This Government believes in smarter regulation, not more regulation. We are retaining screening for farmland, residential property, and fishing quota, and we’re strengthening our ability to intervene if an investment is genuinely against New Zealand’s national interests. These reforms ensure that the Government has the power to step in when needed. A ministerial directive letter will provide clear guidance to Land Information New Zealand in case additional scrutiny is needed to protect our true national interests, in particular our national security and our public order.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that school lunches would be “the same quality or better”; if so, why?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I thank the member for her question. Yes, I do stand by that statement, and the reason is that the programme has been set up to ensure that the nutritional standards under the previous iteration of the school lunch programme will be met under this iteration.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How are plastic containers melting into food the same or better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Plastic containers melting into food is not a part of the programme. For the member to claim that would be to say that every single failure, including, if I recall, seven different food safety investigations into the prior scheme, were a feature of that programme. Now, I’m sure the member wouldn’t think that the Ministry for Primary Industries investigations into the lunches she served were a part of the programme. However, in this particular instance, we have taken it very seriously and done so rapidly. We have investigated the cause, which was the overheating of plastic by using the wrong temperature in an oven in one of the 27 regional kitchens and then failing to do correct quality control before they were sent out. The people concerned have been spoken to about this and we are taking steps to ensure that it won’t happen again. And this is important because we are here to make things better every day, and we are—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s ChatGPT at this point.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I beg your pardon? She said it’s ChatGPT. I tell you what, if that member used ChatGPT, she’d make a lot more sense. And ChatGPT doesn’t hallucinate as much as that member.

SPEAKER: OK. That’s enough.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How are undelivered meals, that leave kids hungry all day, better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That would be no better if it were true. However, it is not. As I said in my primary answer, if the member heard me say that, the specifications and standards for the healthy school lunch programme are equal to those under the previous programme. But I tell you what they are much better than: they are much better than zero, because people tend to forget that when the previous Government budgeted for the healthy school lunch programme, there was a fiscal cliff where there was no money in the Budget for the healthy school lunch programme in 2025. That’s a Minister, in the past, who budgeted no money for healthy school lunch programmes; this Government is delivering.

SPEAKER: Those answers can go on for as long as they like as long as that barracking continues.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you.

SPEAKER: It’s ridiculous.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is providing the same meal 13 days in a row better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think I addressed this question, and it speaks to the issue of what people are happy to have and not. In this particular instance, I seem to recall it was actually butter chicken. Now, a lot of people I know, if someone gave them butter chicken for free 13 times, they wouldn’t be complaining. They’d actually be thrilled. Namaste.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How is school staff having to go to a bakery to buy sandwiches because their school’s lunches were not delivered better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Throughout this programme we’ve been upfront and honest about any teething problems we’ve had, and then we’ve fixed them. That’s what you do when you have challenges. You own it, you accept it, and then you fix it. And in terms of fixing it, yesterday on 3 March, we achieved 99 percent on-time delivery up and down New Zealand. That’s how you start off with a problem—you put on your thinking cap, you solve it, and make the world a better place. And if that member had done it when she was the Minister, we wouldn’t have to work quite so hard.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How are hundreds of local jobs being lost up and down the motu in favour of a centralised system that clearly doesn’t work better?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I believe that it is working better. Wherever there are problems, we fix them, and in many instances, we hear from children that they believe that the food is better. There’s been some confusion. For example, that member tweeted outrage at the quality of the healthy school lunch programme, but we all know how this ends. She forgot it was a picture that had been sent to her of the school lunches that she was responsible for. [Interruption] And I’ve got something else. I’ve got news for the member. I heard a rumour that cannot be substantiated that that picture was sent to Jan Tinetti by Young ACT. [Interruption]

Hon Jan Tinetti: If his school lunch—

SPEAKER: Just wait, please.

Hon Jan Tinetti: If his school lunch programme is better, how is it that he won’t even show up to a meeting with the education Minister, the Hon Erica Stanford, to discuss it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s very simple. We had a meeting scheduled, contingent on our respective caucuses finishing on time. But the ACT caucus is a very tight, busy, and productive group of people, and we can’t always be ready for that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: And who chairs it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, the chairmanship of the ACT caucus I’m being asked about now, Mr Speaker; I’ve got to say that I am a great admirer of David Seymour’s chairmanship.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made to improving access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced a boost for primary healthcare to help Kiwis access timely and quality primary care for all New Zealanders. This includes 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors to work in primary care, incentives to recruit up to 400 graduate nurses per year for the next three years, a new 24/7 digital healthcare service for online medical appointments, and a $285 million performance-based uplift for general practice over the next three years. Our Government is putting patients first, and these measures will help ensure Kiwis have more access to the care they need, where they need it.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the Government increasing the numbers of overseas-trained doctors working in primary care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we all know that we need more doctors. That’s why we are funding a new two-year primary care training programme for up to 100 extra overseas-trained doctors. It makes no sense that overseas-trained doctors living in New Zealand who are willing to work in primary care can’t, because there aren’t the training opportunities available to them. By funding 100 clinical placements, we will provide them with the support needed to work in general practice with our most needed, putting their skills to good use so that New Zealanders have improved access to both timely and quality care.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the new 24/7 digital healthcare service improve access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are investing in a new digital healthcare service that Kiwis can see a doctor or a nurse, get prescriptions and lab referrals any time, anywhere, using their phone or laptop. Enabling Kiwis to access video consultations with registered clinicians at any time from anywhere will play a key role in improving access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What reports has he seen from the healthcare sector about the Government’s healthcare boost?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news. I’ve seen some very positive reports from the sector. The chair of General Practice New Zealand, Dr Bryan Betty, said, yesterday, that our Government’s investment will “help ensure that patients receive the care they need when they need it, while also strengthening the sustainability of the workforce.” The College of GPs’ president, Dr Samantha Murton, has backed our actions, saying that “focusing attention and resources on general practice and primary care will go a long way to turning our health services [around].”

Question No. 9—Police

9. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Police: What announcements has she made regarding the Government’s commitment to boost front-line police numbers?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): On Sunday, I announced that the New Zealand Police will be opening a training base in Auckland, increasing the training capacity of police and supporting the attraction and training of quality new officers from our largest market. This Government is committed to restoring law and order, and adding a training facility in Auckland is another example of what can be achieved with a Government that is backing police. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the calm to come. Yeah, when you’re ready.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is another training facility needed?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This Government wants to do everything they can to drive recruitment, increase the number of police, and make our communities safer. Opening a training facility in Auckland is a concrete example of that. This Government knows that delivering our additional 500 police is not just about delivering people but implementing the systems and providing the resources that invest in the front line, which includes expanding our training facilities.

Tanya Unkovich: How does adding a training facility in Auckland complement other work being done to boost recruitment?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Police now have record numbers of applicants, and having an extra training location will support their efforts to get applicants through the pipeline and into training faster. I would like to recognise and commend the efforts of the recruitment teams and the Police front line, who have worked diligently to improve processes, create efficiencies, engage earlier with our applicants, and achieve an outstanding pipeline of quality recruits that are now entering the college.

Tanya Unkovich: How are Police recruitment processes becoming more agile and fit for purpose?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m advised that Police are holding recruitment days where resources will be on site to assist applicants in moving through the first stages of recruitment processes at the time to help reduce wait time within the current processes. We have reconfigured the advertising campaign with the relaunch of the He Ain’t Heavy campaign to ensure that the quality of police is recognised and the service they deliver is recognised. We have also recently launched an updated version of the recruitment management system to allow candidates to better manage their recruitment experience and support Police to understand what options there may be for future improvements. Police are working incredibly hard, investing resources nationally and across the districts, and I would also highlight the Round the Bays efforts, which will be in Christchurch at the end of this month, where we are actively engaging with the public to attract recruitment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, does this build on the multi-tranche record of New Zealand First with respect to 2,338 new front-line police when we were last in Government?

SPEAKER: In so much as the Minister’s got knowledge of that.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I can commend that, and it is the reason that we recognise that we also need to complement investment and training resources and trainers and capacity to meet the added demands for front-line police.

Question No. 10—Rail

10. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Rail: Did he discuss in his meeting with Hyundai on Friday, 28 February 2025 the cancellation of the rail-enabled ferries; if so, did Hyundai raise any concerns about future shipbuilding contracts with the New Zealand Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): I want to thank that very sensible member for his very sensible question. We shared with Hyundai the fact that a two-ferry project in May 2020 involving $400.1 million of Government funding, when I was Minister, was on track to reach over $4 billion under his Government—that is, the Opposition now. The core objective of infrastructure to safely berth ships blew out to involve the highest possible specifications for the renewal of almost every piece of infrastructure, all at the taxpayer’s expense.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m going to ask the Minister to consider the question that was asked and perhaps make some comment, at least, on the intent of that question, which was about—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I used the words “We shared with Hyundai”—that’s the answer to the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, it isn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, it is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it is—you’ve got to get an education.

Tangi Utikere: Did he discuss the $300 million break fee with Hyundai; if so, what did they have to say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be unusual that a Minister in that circumstance did not have that as part of the background information, but with respect to that discussion, that lies with KiwiRail and Hyundai in a contractual sense. However, that so-called $300 million break fee has been misrepresented by the questioner in the sense that there were a whole lot of infrastructural costs that made up that $300 million, not just the iReX project.

Tangi Utikere: How confident is he that Hyundai will put in another contract bid for the new Cook Strait ferries when they are currently negotiating out of an existing contract with this Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ve got some good news for the member: their head, S Y Park, was delighted to meet us. With his team, we had a very, very amiable and profitable discussion, and we were delighted to learn of their renewed interest in this tendering process.

Tangi Utikere: Is it correct that it was his Government that triggered the multimillion-dollar break fee with Hyundai that’s now required him to go back calling for a redo?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is correct that when this present Government realised that a $400.1 million project was blowing out past $4 billion, in the interests—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it is probably not true—it’s probably $4.2 billion, but I’m being modest now.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s just not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that part is not true, it probably would have been $400.2 billion. It is true, and what would that member know about costing? He’s said in his speeches recently that the mistake they made with all of their calculations was that they didn’t do the work on it in the first place—and this was just one more example.

Tangi Utikere: Did he consult with the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, before inviting a new bid from Hyundai, and, if so, what was her response?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In this Government, we’re famous for consulting with each other, and she wished me the very best and hoped that I could fix up the Labour Party’s mess.

Tangi Utikere: If Hyundai signs another contract for new ferries with this Government, is he confident that Nicola Willis won’t pull the rug out from under them again?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that no responsible finance Minister could not take the action that the Minister of Finance took, because—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, oh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the responsibility of a good Government is to be as careful about spending the taxpayer’s money as they are about spending their own—not borrow and hope, frivolously throwing it away, and running the country into tens of billions of dollars of debt, which is the reason why they’re over there and we’re over here.

Question No. 11—Infrastructure

11. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made about improving infrastructure funding and financing to get more houses built?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Last Friday, I announced pillar two of the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policy, five improvements to infrastructure funding and financing to support urban growth: replacing development contributions with development levies, regulatory oversight of those levies, increasing the flexibility of targeted rates, improving the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act, and broadening existing tools to support value capture. We’re developing a flexible tool kit to support growth paying for growth, to allow a responsive supply of infrastructure where it’s commercially viable to build new houses. A flood of urban land coming to market plus responsive infrastructure will unlock an abundance of development opportunities, drive down the price of land, and make housing more affordable.

David MacLeod: Why do our existing funding and financing tools need to change?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I think many members around the House acknowledge and recognise, as indeed councils and developers do as well, there are significant challenges in our infrastructure system around funding and financing. Development contributions, for example, can only recover infrastructure costs for planned and costed developments, meaning councils need certainty about when and where the growth will occur. It is true that some councils have not been able to effectively recover growth costs, leaving ratepayers to pick up the cheque and cross-subsidise that growth—for example, at Drury, and there are other examples that members will be aware of around the country. We are creating an environment in which there are no ceilings on how high our cities can grow and there are no rings around how far our cities can expand. And that means the days of careful drip-feeding of land into a hot market fed by artificial scarcity, driving up land prices and therefore house prices, is over. We are creating a system where if you want to build and you can fund the infrastructure to build it, subject to normal environmental constraints, you can go for it.

Hon Nicola Willis: What impact will these reforms have on New Zealand’s economic productivity and growth, and how would that compare with a scheme such as, say, KiwiBuild?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the single best things New Zealand can do to get productivity going in this country is fix our dysfunctional housing market, make housing more affordable, and make sure we get on top of the $4 billion we spend as a Government every year on housing subsidies. Bigger cities are better cities and they are drivers of economic growth and productivity, so we are focused on fixing the fundamentals, not tinkering around the edges but focusing on what actually drives our housing market: land supply; responsive infrastructure funding and financing; and, in due course—with our friends in the ACT Party—we’ll get to incentives as well.

Hon Nicola Willis: In devising these new reforms, did the Minister reference at any point a speech given to The New Zealand Initiative by the Hon Phil Twyford, and has that influenced his thinking at all?

Hon Member: I hope not.

Hon Member: Good question.

SPEAKER: Those little chips are not particularly helpful. The House knows that someone can be questioned about what reports they’ve seen or what information they might have received. Both those questions complied with that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the theses advanced by Mr Twyford in his New Zealand Initiative speech—I think it was from May 2019—was that—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s not the way to do it. You were asked about what you’d seen. You don’t need to go through what he said or where he was going. Have you seen it or not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was answering the question—which is that urban containment policies have driven up land prices and house prices, and that is the underlying thrust of the Government’s policy ambition in this area, which is to let our cities grow. We are a country with a land mass the size of the United Kingdom. With only 5 million people, we have created a housing market that has seen the fastest house price growth in the Western World in the last two decades. The solutions to that are to let our cities and regions grow, and sort out the infrastructure system so that they can, and that’s what we’re doing.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, supplementary.

SPEAKER: Simon—

Hon Members: Court.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Peeni Henare: I thought they could swap with each other.

SPEAKER: Simon Court.

Hon Peeni Henare: Simon somebody or other—simple Simon!

SPEAKER: My apologies, Mr Court, I wasn’t expecting you.

Simon Court: Minister, how do the new funding and financing tools, announced last week, line up with the value capture—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member Simon Court, asking the question, but Peeni Henare made a comment, first of all, by the nature of which I think he should withdraw and apologise if he respects the House; and, second of all, he should be silent while a question’s being asked, as with when somebody’s raising a point of order.

SPEAKER: Look, I don’t know what was said—I didn’t hear it. I’ll have to ask Mr Henare, was there something that was said that might be slightly out of order and therefore require a withdrawal?

Hon Peeni Henare: Speaking to the point of order, if I may, sir. For my comment, I withdraw and apologise. For the second point that the member made, the question hadn’t even started, which is the offering of help I gave and offered you and the House, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much. I always appreciate that, much less than people realise.

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. How do the new funding and financing tools, last week, line up with the value capture approach outlined in the ACT-National coalition agreement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s been good to work with my under-secretary on this policy. One of the changes that didn’t receive a lot of attention last week was a change that Cabinet has agreed around value capture for major transport projects, which we believe will unlock a new funding stream for city-shaping infrastructure like highways, rapid busways, and potentially metro. Our simple proposition is that those who benefit from publicly funded infrastructure should help contribute to the cost of it. So the changes that the Government’s making will allow infrastructure funding and financing levies to be charged on landowners, for example, to help to fray the cost of major State highways and, indeed, other public transport projects that are located next to them that drive up the value of that land and make it more likely that people will actually utilise that land.

David MacLeod: What feedback has he heard from the sector about these changes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, this is a complicated area but we have worked through the issues with the expert advisory group and it is very pleasing to see much support from around the community. The Property Council New Zealand says it’s an important step towards creating a more sustainable and transparent approach. Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale and Hamilton Mayor Paula Southgate said it was a much-needed change. Local Government New Zealand said it was a game-changer and developers have also said that it will save cost, resources, time, and, at the end of the day, the end user gets a cheaper product. I do want to acknowledge the support of the Opposition on this—genuinely—who said that it seems like a step in the right direction. I’m in the middle of arranging a briefing for the Opposition in relation to these reforms. It does pick up on some of the thrust of where Mr Twyford was taking things when he was housing spokesperson. I am keen to get bipartisan buy-in to these things. It is one of the most fundamentally important things this Government or, indeed, this country can do to fix our housing crisis.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by the statement of his climate change Minister regarding the Paris Agreement that “It’s not a liability on our books, it’s intent and there is no legal obligation in the context around that.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree that we are working incredibly hard to deliver on Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 1 for 2030, and I also note that we have signed up for NDC2 in 2035.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government committed to meeting the Paris Agreement or does he agree with his climate change Minister that Aotearoa be just “seen to do its part”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re committed to doing is going incredibly hard on economic growth and we’re going to make sure that it’s in our national interest to continue to do so. We’ll continue to put Kiwis first and make sure that we’re acting in our own national interest. But we are determined to drive for growth, and we are going to do everything we can to deliver on net zero 2050.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Prime Minister so far unwilling to use the word “committed”, as in the Government is committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’m very pleased about is that our NDC2 2035 target now finally aligns with our internal targets for New Zealand net zero 2050.That’s a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister and his Government committed to meeting our Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are committed to delivering on net zero 2050, as we have consistently said from the beginning.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister committed to meeting our Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement, and can he be specific about that commitment under the Paris Agreement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve got nothing further to my previous answer.

Urgent Debates

Hon Andrew Bayly—Ministerial Resignation

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public business.

One of the core responsibilities of a Prime Minister is to set standards for ministerial conduct and hold them accountable when they do not meet those standards. The current Prime Minister has set the bar so low that Ministers now need to sack themselves, as Andrew Bayly did last week.

Let’s recap the facts. It appears, for Andrew Bayly, that abusing someone for working late, calling them a loser, and telling them to “eff off and go home” was insufficient for the Prime Minister to do anything. Then, when Andrew Bayly manhandled a member of his staff, finally it seems that the Prime Minister reached his particular threshold. However, no one in the Government, other than Andrew Bayly, is willing to offer an account of actually what happened. It seems justice, in this Government’s eyes, is that the only person who gets to speak, the only person whose version of the facts gets heard is the perpetrator; the victim, the person who made the complaint, is invisible in the process.

The complaint was received on Wednesday. Andrew Bayly, even though the complaint had been received, continued to act as if nothing had happened, continued to do media interviews as if nothing had happened. The Prime Minister wasn’t even told about the complaint until, by his office’s own admission, very late on Thursday night. What kind of outfit is this Government running that a complaint about a Minister physically manhandling a member of their staff was not even presented to the Prime Minister until more than 24 hours after it was received? And what kind of outfit are this Government operating where the Prime Minister did nothing about it until the following night when, allegedly, Andrew Bayly offered his resignation—offered his resignation to the Prime Minister, apparently, and yet there is no record of that happening.

In fact, it appears that Andrew Bayly’s resignation didn’t actually take effect until the following Monday. Is that correct? Who was actually the Minister of those portfolios over the weekend? If Andrew Bayly had resigned on the Friday, when did the resignation take effect from? Who was the Minister over the weekend? And why did the Prime Minister do media conferences over the weekend where he didn’t think to mention it?

What kind of level of transparency have we reached now that the Prime Minister can stand in front of the media, knowing that one of his Ministers had been accused of manhandling a member of his staff and had either resigned or maybe was refusing to resign or was being told they should resign, and yet he didn’t think to say anything about that to the New Zealand public? Business as usual for the Government, no transparency with the New Zealand public, and yet the Prime Minister thinks that’s OK. We have a Prime Minister now whose bar for ministerial conduct has fallen that low that he will wait for an entire weekend to pass, five days after the alleged incident took place, before actually taking any concrete action to hold Andrew Bayly to account.

Still, we hear no account from the Government about what actually happened. Andrew Bayly said he grabbed the member of staff by the arm. That’s the only account of what happened. What does the complainant say? Why won’t the Government be up front about exactly what the complaint was that led to Andrew Bayly resigning? Has the Prime Minister asked him exactly what happened? The Prime Minister wouldn’t even answer that. If he has asked him, what did Andrew Bayly say? Did the Prime Minister or anyone in his office speak to the person who had the complaint; if they hadn’t, why didn’t they? It’s a pretty serious allegation.

Where a Minister in the Government is accused of something like that, it is very reasonable for the New Zealand public to expect that it will be thoroughly investigated. There was an incident where this happened before, an independent investigation took place, and the outcome of that investigation was shared with the public, and there were consequences for the Minister concerned. Under this Government, nothing. The facts are not being shared with the public. The Prime Minister did nothing. The Minister himself had to resign, had to hold himself accountable in a way that the Prime Minister was not willing to, and still we don’t know exactly what it was that happened.

We have a Prime Minister now who has set the standard, set the bar so low that criticism of the courts is OK, threatening to cut funding of other organisations is OK, and now laying hands on a staff member is something that the Prime Minister did not think was a sackable offence—although, did he? It’s still not entirely clear whether Andrew Bayly would have been sacked, had he not resigned, or not, because depending on what day of the week the Prime Minister is asked a question, the answer seems to change. It’s a relatively simple question: would Andrew Bayly have been sacked had he not resigned?

That’s why the time line is important, because did Andrew Bayly actually resign on the Friday? Will the paper trail, which the Government should release—and by paper trail, I include in that text messages—will that actually reveal that Andrew Bayly resigned on the Friday or will it actually indicate that Andrew Bayly didn’t resign until the Monday?

Actually, the critical thing here is: when was the Governor-General informed that a Minister had resigned? If the Prime Minister was told of the resignation of Andrew Bayly on the Friday and did not relay that to the Governor-General until the Monday, the Prime Minister has not lived up to his constitutional responsibility, because it isn’t actually the Prime Minister’s job to receive a Minister’s resignation; that is the Governor-General’s responsibility. If the Prime Minister received the resignation and did not pass that on to the Governor-General, then he has actually breached his constitutional obligation when it comes to Ministers holding ministerial warrants.

When did the Prime Minister tell the Governor-General that he had received the resignation of a Minister? Once he had received it, he has one obligation at that point, and that is to tell the Governor-General whose job it is to issue and retract the warrants that he’d received the resignation. If he received it on the Friday and didn’t tell the Governor-General until the Monday, then he has not fulfilled his constitutional responsibility. Will, on the other hand, the paper trail show that the resignation was not actually received until the Monday? In which case, why should the New Zealand public believe anything the Prime Minister is saying?

Is the real reason that the Prime Minister did not say, in his media conferences over the weekend, that he’d received the resignation of Andrew Bayly—is the real reason he didn’t mention that because Andrew Bayly, in fact, was refusing to resign? That is a question the Prime Minister should be answering for the New Zealand public. These are serious allegations—allegations that we still do not know the full extent of, and yet the Government aren’t willing to share the details of that with the New Zealand public.

Privacy is important. The privacy of the complainant is important. Details of the nature of the complaint can be shared without the identity of the complainant being revealed, and, in fact, the Government have a responsibility to do so. It’s well and truly past time that the Government fronted up and answered questions about exactly what took place.

What exactly did Andrew Bayly do—and not Andrew Bayly’s version of events, but what he is alleged to have done? What does the complaint actually allege Andrew Bayly did? Why did the Prime Minister’s office not tell the Prime Minister until late Thursday night, 48 hours after it actually happened? Why did it then take three more days for the Prime Minister to be up front with the New Zealand public about that? Did the Prime Minister fulfil his obligations as Prime Minister to inform the Governor-General of a resignation of a Minister?

These are serious questions; they’re not trivialities. They actually cut to the heart of the integrity of the processes of the New Zealand Government, and it’s about time the Prime Minister fronted up and answered those questions.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this urgent debate. Let me begin by saying, as Andrew Bayly has made very clear in his statement, that there was an animated discussion in which he inappropriately put his hand on the upper arm of an employee. Andrew Bayly has apologised, and Andrew Bayly has taken full responsibility for his actions. Andrew Bayly has then subsequently resigned from his ministerial portfolios, which shows personal responsibility for his actions.

Now, I’ve listened to the Leader of the Opposition try and find a conspiracy here. All he’s been doing for the last 10 minutes is trying to find a conspiracy. Well, the reality is: it’s not. What this is called is “personal responsibility”, and Andrew Bayly has taken personal responsibility for his actions. He has apologised to the staff member, and then he has resigned because, as he said, the actions which took place didn’t meet his own expectations and his own standards. He has, ultimately, taken responsibility for his own actions, and that is something which I recognise and all members of the National Party recognise.

We acknowledge Andrew Bayly for taking that action, for recognising that, and for, ultimately, resigning from that position because he did not meet his own standards and because of the actions that he took. Ultimately, on this side of the House, it is very clear that whilst Andrew Bayly did something which was inappropriate, we have standards, and we take responsibility for our own actions, and that is why Andrew Bayly subsequently resigned from the positions that he had in his ministerial warrants last Monday. I just want to acknowledge Andrew Bayly for doing that.

The second issue here is in relation to the points that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition. Here he is, trying to stand up like some sort of self-righteous individual who’s better and more holier than thou. That’s what he’s trying to do. We all remember the number of Ministers, under the last Government, who they held on to week after week after week, trying to hold on to them. We had Stuart Nash. We had Michael Wood being told 17 times from the Cabinet Office—17 times from the Cabinet Office—to sell his shares.

I’ll tell you what happened in that instance. Well, when finally—finally—the story came out on 6 June 2023 and the media reported on Wood’s Auckland Transport shares, he was only stood down from his transport portfolio—only stood down from his transport portfolio. He then took two days to sell them; he had had 18 months or two years. He sold them in two days. But he failed to tell the Prime Minister, “Oh, well, I’ve also got some other shares.” Then it took 15 days from the day the story broke until Michael Wood resigned from his ministerial portfolios. As it says here, Hipkins announced Wood’s resignation from that portfolio. He resigned, and he did the right thing in that instance.

Of course, we all remember Stuart Nash giving the old Police Commissioner a phone call every now and then, interfering and sending some Cabinet information to his friends, and the weeks that these stories dragged on. What did we hear from the Prime Minister of the time, Chris Hipkins? Crickets. Again, week after week after week and nothing happening, because that was the approach under his Government: there was no actual accountability.

We come to the instance of Kiri Allan. We all remember Kiri Allan, don’t we? We all remember Kiri Allan. She turned up to an event here at Parliament and, despite the fact that she had ministerial responsibilities, decided to criticise RNZ over its approach, interfering with independent journalists at an event here in Parliament, around the employment of her then partner and her employment at the broadcaster. That took weeks for that instance to be sorted under that Government. But, in that instance, all she did was apologise, and Hipkins let everything go—let everything go. Standards now, no standards then—that’s what we saw. There’s a word which starts with “hypo-”, which I can’t use in the House, which we can all talk about.

Of course, we’ve got our friend Shanan Halbert, don’t we? Shall we talk about our friend Shanan Halbert? He received an e-mail about bullying and harassment. What happened there? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Hipkins made some inquiries. No action; no investigation even took place—no personal responsibility. On this side of the House, we take personal responsibility for our actions.

We remember what happened with the Hon Ginny Andersen and the teenage girl who volunteered for her complaining to Labour about several instances of bullying over several years. No action taken by Mr Hipkins. In fact, in this instance, we saw that Hipkins promoted Andersen eight places and gave her more portfolios. That was what happened under Hipkins. After the election, she was promoted eight places, given more portfolios, and he said he has full confidence in her and expects her to do an excellent job. On this side of the House, we take personal responsibility. On that side of the House, they drag these issues out. They don’t take accountability; they don’t take responsibility.

For what Andrew Bayly has done and for the actions which he publicly has put on the record as to what he has done, how he has stated very clearly that he did not meet his own expectations of behaviour, he has taken responsibility by resigning. I acknowledge the action that he has done in this instance.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to raise it; I didn’t want to interrupt the member in his flow. I’ve overheard what I understand is an unparliamentary comment being made by the co-leader of Te Pāti Māori. I’m not sure if you heard it. I think the Minister speaking actually referred to this term being unparliamentary. I’m just wondering if you might like to reflect and maybe the member might like to withdraw and apologise if he recalls the comment he’s made.

SPEAKER: Well, I do make every effort to concentrate on the person speaking and did not hear other comments that were made, but if there were comments made that were inappropriate, then the member themselves should take some action with regards to that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Throughout this debate on the resignation of Andrew Bayly, I think I have two key points that I want to communicate. The first one is that I think what people are expecting us to do is to do better. I think it’s a disservice, actually, to workers—whether it’s in the Beehive or out in the streets—to see actually political point-scoring on a debate that actually is related to an incident that involved a complainant and a worker who was not treated in a way that I think any of us would expect or aspire to. It is disappointing to see the Government’s side being unable to take it on the chin, to acknowledge that what the former Minister did was wrong, and then to simply actually send a message of aspiration and standards to what we should all rise up to, which is actually just treating workers with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

At the end of the day, the chairs may change—we may have a new Minister in charge of Andrew Bayly’s portfolios—but the premise actually remains the same, and that is that working people, whether inside or outside the Beehive, are simply collateral damage to this Government’s agenda. The incident with Andrew Bayly speaks to a broader culture of how the Government speaks in relationship to working people, whether it’s calling parents—today—“lazy” for simply not having the means to provide decent lunches for their kids; calling people on the benefit “bottom feeders”; or undermining the right of workers to fight for better pay and include safer working conditions. Those safer working conditions many workers aspire to could include, actually, better work and safety guidelines in the workplace to prevent harmful engagements between themselves and, for example, people in positions of authority and power.

Ultimately, I think for us the issue isn’t resolved here; it’s resolved when we actually see a change of culture and approach to working people from Government, because I do not expect that the new person holding Andrew Bayly’s portfolios will suddenly bring a shift of culture when it comes to how working people are treated and spoken about. I do want to pick up on some of the comments from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins in relationship to questions that remain, in regards to the transparency and communications of this news. I do think the Government needs to step up and provide greater clarity and transparency when it comes to this series of events. I think some of the questions that have been raised are simple ones: a matter of time lines, a matter of when the resignation was offered, and a matter of simply being able to provide clear answers.

The other thing that I was quite shocked and disappointed by is that, in the comments from the National Party Minister, we did not see a single mention of the complainant or the parties affected by these incidents. Instead, we saw a range of political attacks, but at the core of it, we have workers who, through no fault of their own, have been dragged out into the public on a very, very public incident that has led to a Minister’s resignation. These are workers who didn’t choose to show up to work to end up being in the news in relationship to a Government Minister resigning. I think the least the Government side could do is to pay tribute and acknowledge the complainants that have led to Andrew Bayly’s resignation, to at the very least wish them well and to, at the very least, commit to some level of accountability. We haven’t seen that. It is concerning when we have these serious incidents that lead to a Minister of the Crown resigning, when at the core we have political attacks that are put before the wellbeing of those very workers who are affected.

With that, the Greens will continue to do the mahi so that all of us—all of us—take accountability for the wellbeing of workers in this place and outside these four walls.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT as part of the urgent debate about the Andrew Bayly resignation. A couple of reflections and observations from me—and I’ll be quite brief.

Outside of the four walls of this House, the number one issue is the cost of living—the number one issue. We’ve got health issues, we’ve got crime issues, we’ve got infrastructure issues. This gentleman has apologised, and I think if he was to share his thoughts, he would probably say the incident in question he was embarrassed by, it was a dumb mistake, he has taken personal responsibility for it, and he has resigned. Novel, isn’t it? Someone stands up when they do something wrong, says to the community at large, “I didn’t mean to do it; I apologise.” We do it at home with our families; we do it with our friends. We’ve had a gentleman in an esteemed position who has conceded a terrible mistake. He’s borne the consequences of that and resigned the post as a Minister.

Outside of the four walls of this building, people loathe the piety of politicians—“You said it.”, “He said it.”, one side of the House pointing fingers at the other. It happens all the time, the left and the right. No one really resolved anything other than the chap—he’s quit. Go out and talk to the real people outside—there’s a novel idea. For 50 percent of the people I talk to, it’s the cost of living. Everything’s too dear.

Let’s talk about the salient issues, not this. This chap has quit; he’s moved from his post. Someone else will replace him—invariably, that will be the Hon Scott Simpson, and, hopefully, the work in and around deregulating the financial sector and the enormous task therein will be picked up by his skill set. Let’s go back to common sense. There’s a lot going on outside the political sphere of this building.

I tie off by saying it actually pays for the politicians in this building to listen to constituents. Their core issues are not this. He’s apologised—move on, and let’s get back to business.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I’m just waiting for the Labour Party, which wanted the urgent debate, to take the call—but, anyway. I don’t have much more to add to what my good friend and colleague the Hon Simeon Brown said in his contribution. This is really a waste of Parliament’s time. A Minister made a mistake, he owned up and took accountability for it, and he resigned. I mean, the matter is literally as simple as that.

Over on this side of the House, we believe in ministerial accountability. Whether or not he resigned or was going to be sacked is actually not that material to the point. The point is that there was a Minister who was doing a good job—I think most people agree—as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. He made a mistake, he acted inappropriately, he accepts that, and then very quickly he resigned. The matter literally is as simple as that. That is exactly what happened, and that has been well canvassed throughout the media and also in this debate. There is not much more to the situation than that.

The fact that the Labour Party has called for an urgent debate and then apparently doesn’t seem to want to say very much about it, I think—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The inference from that member is that Labour missed a call. It was New Zealand First’s call that he has taken. I want to put that on the record, so that he’s not giving incorrect information to any members of the public that may be watching.

SPEAKER: And, at the time, you might have heard me say that was an inappropriate comment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He just did it again.

SPEAKER: Well, he shouldn’t have done that. I’ve actually indulged the National Party by accepting the transfer from the New Zealand First Party, so it’s not a particularly smart line. My apologies; I was actually trying to work out who else might be speaking in this debate, because it is somewhat disorganised and unclear. The member can continue without that line of offering to the House.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I apologise, Mr Speaker. The overall point I’m trying to make—the overall point I’m trying to make—is this: there is not much more to this issue than has already been said, both in the first half an hour of this urgent debate but also that has been well traversed in the media.

I’ll just point out that the Parliament has, over the last few years, or the last 18 months to two years in particular, been witness to a series of degrading incidents to the standards and the mana of the Parliament. Suffice it for me to point out the litany of appalling incidents that happened in the last year of the outgoing Labour Government’s administration. Need I remind members about Meka Whaitiri, who went through a long process to do with an incident all the way back in 2018—fought it all the way. The contrast to this particular incident is extremely clear, which is that something happened and the Minister owned up and accepted responsibility. There was no long investigation which produced an outcome and then eventual removal as a Minister.

In relation to Meka Whaitiri, the incident was on 27 August 2018. The Prime Minister was advised two days later—so very similar to what happened in relation to Mr Bayly’s case—Ms Whaitiri stood aside a day later, but there was a month-long investigation before Ms Whaitiri was removed as a Minister, and then, of course, a couple of years later she was actually reinstated. The contrast with this is pretty apparent—I think members will be able to work it out—which is that there was an incident, the Prime Minister and his office was advised about what happened, and two days or so later Mr Bayly stood down as a Minister. It is really as simple as that.

Of course, we need not traverse the long history of the Michael Wood matter, where on—I forget the exact number of occasions—

Hon Members: Seventeen!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Seventeen—thank you. I knew my friends would remind me—I knew my friends would remind me. The Cabinet Office advised Michael Wood to divest his shares in Auckland Airport and Contact Energy on 17 separate occasions, and none of that happened. And, in the meantime, the Prime Minister of the time knew about that—or, at least, their office knew about that—and nothing was done. So, if you want to talk about accountability and talk about, as Mr Hipkins was voluminously exclaiming at length in his initial contribution to the debate—if you want to talk about accountability and the jobs that Prime Minister absolutely have to do—I would point him to the Michael Wood saga of 2022, 2023, and so on.

I would also point him to the Kiri Allan disaster, which, of course, we don’t need to go into the precise details of, but I think everyone watching is familiar with exactly what happened there. And, then, of course, there is the Stuart Nash affair. Now, Stuart Nash has become a friend to this side of the House in recent days because of his voluminous support for the Government’s action when it comes to citizen’s arrest. Whether or not he’s still a member of the Labour Party is unclear or not—

SPEAKER: That’s not a matter for this debate.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’re having a debate about ministerial resignations and, in particular, the resignation of the Hon Andrew Bayly, and I’m just simply pointing out that, if we’re going to have a debate about it, we need to view things in the round. Is this the downfall of the Government? No, of course it isn’t. Did Mr Bayly act badly? Yes. Did he take accountability and resign? Yes, he did. And that is really the end of the matter.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I join this debate listening to the two sides deflect, and I guess one of the things that we need to be really mindful in this is that there is a staff member involved. There’s a staff member, the staff member’s whānau, and probably a whole lot of other peers involved who are sitting there watching this really distasteful discussion. I think if we were to talk about where is the end point and the starting point, we have a Government that has promised to be more transparent and be better than the last. I’m not sure if that is really where we’ve landed.

The reason that I think we’re having this debate is because it is simply about the abuse of power, and it is about the abuse of power that we have not only within this House—but Ministers particularly—but the abuse of power that we see asserted financially from this Government, and the abuse of power across to communities. When we have the risk of abuse within this place—and, again, I’ve struggled with this “animated discussion” and “hand on shoulder”, because it does sound like assault. I don’t want to put words in those who have survived or those victims’ mouths, but there has been a really colourful display of words being used to deflect.

What we have been seeing since the Minister’s resignation is, sadly, what we continuously call out, which is the politics of distraction. The politics of distraction is only used when things have to be covered up, and I think that’s what we should be really concerned about, as a nation. I agree that those we speak to out in our communities are really concerned with the cost of living crisis, but also the disconnect from a Government that doesn’t seem to feel the pain that they are experiencing or to care about them. This debate is actually about: did our Prime Minister care enough about his nation to be able to say this is what went on?

The time lines, we agree, are really, really disturbing. On 18 February, we have a Minister who touched a staff member’s shoulder—and, like, I do that often to my co-leader and our staff and I don’t see the reaction, so I think we need to, first of all, stop minimising what happened to one of our own in this building. To sit there and justify this by saying “So and so did it in 2000”, “Such and such did it but he’s now my friend” is actually poor form. It’s poor form for those who have to survive and work amongst us in this environment.

Then we saw, 21 February, there was a resignation behind closed doors. Then, 24 February, we hear about it. That’s disturbing. Six days, a victim has had to survive all this knowing what’s going around while everybody got their architects and their advisers and their comms team all lined up. That’s poor form. Our staff and our community and those we serve—our voters—deserve better. That’s what this debate is about.

We saw the Prime Minister’s own media shocked that he could not say, “Would you have sacked him if he didn’t sack himself?” That is not the accountability that our nation deserves. They are experiencing unprecedented pain at the moment. They are experiencing unprecedented, huge, huge, horrific loss of jobs, of cuts in services, health, ferries, you name it. This Government has made promises, and in order to hold those promises you must maintain the confidence of your communities. The minute one of their own—the real workers; the people that hold us up in this place—are abused, then we should be sitting here, not saying, “They apologised on the spot therefore forget it and move on.” We should be saying, “How else are we making sure that the Government and their Ministers,”—I’ve no doubt, having never been one, but one in waiting, that it is extremely difficult, but that does not give us the excuse to abuse and assert our power incorrectly.

There has been a lot of that—a lot of that pain. We’ve seen, you know, two strikes, three strikes, you’re out. We continuously have heard justice talk about their concern here on each side of the House about the victims. We haven’t seen that aroha from the Government. There has not been the humility to just take it on the nose and accept what it is that you’ve done. There needs to be more transparency, and I’m really glad we have this debate. Kia ora rā.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I have been highly disappointed by the speeches that have come from the Government members and the way that they have attempted to minimise the behaviour of the former Minister. We have heard from them that in some ways they’re almost implying we should be grateful that there was a resignation put forward, that that former Minister has acknowledged he did wrong, but what we haven’t heard from them is any level of empathy for the staff member who was put through a distressing situation, the detail of which the vast majority of us in this House have no access to.

Now, we have heard from that side of the House that the resignation has been given; he is no longer a Minister. I think Minister Bishop said, “That’s the end of the matter.” Well, actually, it’s not the end of the matter because in this country we expect transparency. We expect accountability. We know that that former Minister had an episode where he swore at a worker, where he told him to “eff off”, where he criticised him for being at work and berated him. He was allowed to hold on to his job as a Minister, and now we are told, in another way of minimising the situation, that he had an animated conversation with his staff member and he put his hand on his shoulder.

Well, I tell you what, an animated conversation and just simply putting your hand on someone’s shoulder is not going to lead to a resignation from a Minister. There is much more to it. I’m going to say on this side of the House that we’re concerned about the level of abuse that may have been experienced by that public servant by that particular Minister at the time and the fact that the Government is covering it up and not willing to share any of the information. In fact, telling us that the matter has ended and it has been dealt with. Well, it hasn’t been dealt with.

Sadly, what we’re seeing here is another demonstration of the lack of leadership by the Prime Minister. We see it often with his engagement and his relationships and inability to kind of keep tabs on his coalition partners, but now we’re seeing it with his own team. He gave that former Minister another chance. He would not have been given another chance under the circumstances that we saw from Minister Bayly at that time—swearing at a worker, acknowledging that he did that, berating him for still being at work. There is no way a Labour Minister would be allowed to continue in their role.

Then, what we hear from that side is a constant desire to reflect back on other examples where Ministers were had up for a level of misconduct. OK, I get that. However, at some point in time that Government has to take responsibility, that Prime Minister needs to take responsibility. The Prime Minister needs to set some standards for his team. The Prime Minister needs to lay out clearly what his expectations are of his Cabinet. What we don’t need is the Prime Minister and his team coming here and expressing remorse for their colleague—remorse for their colleague—when their colleague would have inevitably been sacked anyway, whether or not the Prime Minister is willing to go so far as to say that, reflecting back on that three-minute interview with Mike Hosking. He would have had to have been sacked anyway. A resignation, in many ways, was the only opportunity that he had to save himself a little bit of face. He shouldn’t have actually been given that opportunity.

If the Prime Minister was the leader that New Zealanders expect of their Prime Minister, he would have acted swiftly and he would have dismissed that Minister. He would have made it clear that, under his watch, that type of behaviour and that treatment of staff is not appropriate, that it is misconduct, and that will never happen under his watch, but he didn’t do that. The thing that I think New Zealanders are most concerned about is the lack of leadership; it is the lack of transparency, it is the high level of concern for what actually went on in that office and the level of abuse that potentially that staff member had to endure. That side of the House should hang their heads in shame and they should not be coming here apologetic for their colleague.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge a number of things in my contribution this afternoon.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the apology that Andrew Bayly gave after the matter was brought to his attention and to the public’s attention. He said—and I quote—“As many of you know, I have been impatient to drive change in my ministerial portfolios. Last week, I had an animated discussion with a staff member … [and] I took the discussion too far, and I placed a hand on their upper arm, which was inappropriate. I have apologised to the staff member and regret placing them in an uncomfortable position. There are times when you have to hold yourself to account. [and] Today is one of those days.”

That was from Andrew Bayly taking responsibility and accountability for what took place, and the Prime Minister then said, “Mr Bayly fell short of my expectations and the expectations he sets for himself, and, as such, offered his resignation as a Minister, which I have accepted.” Members on the other side can’t seem to read, see, or hear the apology given in that statement and at that time. I understand and I know, looking through this litany of previous incidences which we can speak to under their administration, but we need to be crystal clear: our colleague, our friend, a Minister, has taken responsibility for their actions and resigned. This debate is, effectively, a farce, because actually the Minister has taken accountability for what’s happened.

For most general New Zealanders, they are not worried about the inner politics of this place. They’re worried about putting food on the table; having their kids in quality clothes to wear to school; ensuring that the roads they travel on each day are up to standard; that if they need it, there is quality and timely healthcare available to them; to ensure that the education system is delivering for their kids so that our next generation of leaders in this country are coming into the real world prepared and ready to give back. But members on the other side want to debate matters that happened two weeks ago, because to them, that’s the only issue at play here. Everything else is not a priority to them. The only priority, to the other side, is around Andrew Bayly’s resignation—which he gave, and it was accepted.

If we’re to look back, and it seems like short memories have come across the other side. Let’s look back: Meka Whaitiri, how many chances was she given? How long did that investigation take while she was under investigation for doing even worse to a member at that time? Michael Wood: how many opportunities was he given from the Cabinet Office to get rid of his shares? Seventeen times—17 times—Michael Wood was told “Remove those shares, you are a Cabinet Minister”, and he didn’t. He was removed, eventually, and thank goodness. Stuart Nash—oh, I’m sitting next to my friend Katie Nimon, from Napier, and it’s refreshing to have a change in that part of town, because Stuart Nash disclosing Cabinet information to friends—don’t you forget that. Then he had his disagreements, and Nash was allowed to resign rather than being sacked by the Minister.

Then we move on: Kiri Allan—in a diabolical situation there. Gaurav Sharma: who remembers Dr Gaurav—the Sharma drama? And what did that do? It gave us the gift of Tama Potaka to this House as a strong representative for Hamilton West. And then the list goes on—the incidents of Ginny Andersen and the volunteer during that campaign as well in 2023. I would say to members opposite: do not throw stones if you are in glass houses. This member and former Minister has taken accountability for his actions, which the Prime Minister has accepted.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Not one mention of the victim.

TOM RUTHERFORD: There is mention of the victim, and the victim is an important part of this process; we’ve acknowledged that throughout. What I’m saying today is, without a doubt, Andrew Bayly gave his resignation, it was accepted, there are bigger things in this country for us to focus on as a Government, and we’re going to deliver on it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We come to some trouble here as a Parliament when the Government has been asked a series of reasonable questions, which are in the public interest, about how a worker was treated, and constitutional questions of responsibility in a time line which has not been disclosed. Instead of the Government Ministers who have fronted this debate acknowledging those questions and endeavouring to answer them, they have in fact attacked the Opposition.

We’re at a crossroads here where we as a Parliament can accept that and move on, and that is the standard that Ministers will be held to in the future, or we can choose to pursue these questions. I hope that we do. I hope all members of this House take it incredibly seriously that it is not clear whether the Prime Minister himself knew about the situation of how the worker was treated, and it is not clear whether Cabinet knew, it is not clear whether that information has been compiled, and it certainly has not been made public. The ACT Party have argued in this debate that this is a waste of time, and we had National member, Tom Rutherford, who has resumed his seat say that this debate was a farce, when in fact we should be focusing on the cost of living.

Well, the irony is that Minister Bayly’s resignation—for the few New Zealanders who did know his name he will always be remembered as a Minister with issues of personal conduct. Yet he was the only Minister around the table who was charged with the most important issue on voters’ minds right now, which is the cost of living, which is the fact that New Zealanders are being charged too much at the supermarket, and too much in banking services. He was the person charged with this incredible responsibility, and yet we now have a supermarket plan which is weak. It has no hope of reducing prices for Kiwis, and no Minister to stand behind it. It is completely indicative of the crisis that the National Party faces now. There’s no shortage of tough talk on corporate interests, but nobody around the table who will actually back it up with regulatory reform, and no plan to see prices coming down for ordinary Kiwis.

What are we meant to take away from the way this Government operates? We’re actually seeing big corporates responding to those signals. Instead of the supermarkets being out there in the newspapers saying how they have a plan to address the cost of living for ordinary consumers at the checkout, they are in fact telling the National Business Review that they are redoubling their efforts to lobby Government. It is more in the interests of corporates to get cozy with Government Ministers than it actually is to bring down prices for ordinary New Zealanders across many sectors. That’s because this Government is going from announcement to announcement, to chaos to chaos, and there is no one who is willing to take on the leadership that it will require to actually make serious change.

When we think about what the commerce Minister, who was so passionate about those portfolios, will be remembered for, it is for being the Minister who obfuscated about calling a worker a loser and then was caught out in question time. It is for being a Minister who asked a worker repeatedly to join him and his staff who were having drinks, and it is a Minister who didn’t seem to get a worker’s hesitance to say no to him when he was on the job late on a Friday night. That is the legacy of this Government in the competition space. That is the record for consumers, and it is a shame in the record of that Government who promised at the election that they would address these consumer issues and the lack of competition in these sectors, and actually bring prices down.

This will all require more leadership than what we are seeing now. The Government is so out of touch with how important these cost of living issues are for ordinary Kiwis that it is not putting the people on the job who should be on the job. The guy who was around the table who had responsibility for this and was out there telling the supermarkets that they were on notice has now resigned and his portfolios have been consigned to the most junior Minister in Cabinet.

The Government requires leadership. Governing requires leadership. The Prime Minister has been asked to explain the nature of the complaint. No Government Minister would come down here and tell us what the plan is to ensure that this worker’s story is taken into account when addressing the conduct issues of a Minister on that side of the House. This Parliament is no clearer about how things will improve, and nobody in New Zealand is clear about this Government’s plan to improve things for ordinary Kiwis who are paying too much at the checkout. Both of these things require leadership, and on both counts this Government is failing.

We deserve as New Zealanders to understand what the standard is for Ministers. People in Government need to hold themselves to a higher standard and to make it clear what has happened, and to own up to it, and take responsibility.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, honestly, this is an exercise in clutching at straws by the Opposition, in my view.

I just want to recap quickly: there was an incident, which was subsequently escalated and investigated, which is the right and good practice and what we would expect when something like this happens. A discussion took place between the Prime Minister and Andrew Bayly, and the Minister resigned his position and portfolios. He stated that he did that after reflection that his action didn’t meet his own high standards. As Andrew Bayly apologised, he held himself accountable and he resigned as a result. I don’t think there’s any value in dragging this out when the Minister owned his actions and took action and resigned. What else could there possibly have been to be done? That was what the end result was.

I want to personally thank Andrew Bayly for his great work in consumer finance, insurance, and ACC—and acknowledged by the Opposition, who sound like they are missing Andrew Bayly already—because I genuinely believe he was doing a great job in areas that require specific expertise and focus. He has taken this on the chin. That work now, of course, will be carried on by the Hon Scott Simpson, who has been a fine whip for our great caucus and I want to thank for him for his service and wish him well. He has led us through the last year and been a great whip, a great mentor to those of us who needed it—and kept us all in line.

The vain hunt by the Opposition for a conspiracy in this whole case is ridiculous. There is no conspiracy—it’s been dealt with and we have now put it to bed. We have to get back to what this country expects us to be talking about, which is how we’re going to fix the mess that we were left in 2023, and how we are going to get the economy back on track and get moving again. We could stand here for ages, we could talk for—I don’t know—two hours on the vagaries of what happened in the previous Government and those who should have resigned and didn’t, or those who should have been sacked and weren’t—we could go on and on. There’s no point in going back through that because this actually has been sorted. It’s been done: Andrew Bayly resigned. There’s no further outcome to be met. I would argue, in closing, that it’s time we just got back on with it.

Could I also now just welcome Stuart Smith to the role of whip—he’s the chief whip. He will come in and continue to deliver for this Government, as the result of us will, as we get on with the job at hand. I don’t think there’s much more to be said on this, and I think that’s where we should end it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

Congestion is a tax on time and productivity. It means we are away from home for longer, sitting in gridlock. It means fewer jobs being done, fewer goods being moved, and delays to services being delivered.

This is actually quite a banner day in and amongst a, dare I say, banner couple of weeks for productivity and urban growth. Successive Governments of both parties and a select committee inquiry in 2021 has broadly come to the same conclusion, which is that time of use charging is something that we need to do as a country to reduce congestion. I’m really proud to be part of a Government that is getting on with it.

I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor in the transport portfolio, the Hon Simeon Brown, who started this work, but I also want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Michael Wood and others from the last Labour Government that started this work, as well. This bill is different to that which was canvassed in the last Parliament. It picks up some of the ideas, and takes it forward into 2024 and 2025.

This bill is a vital step towards improving the performance of our transport networks through a nationally consistent yet locally adaptable framework. It represents a strategic response to some of the most pressing challenges in the transport network, including congestion and demand for better transport solutions.

The simple proposition is this: by charging motorists to travel on certain roads at peak times, we will encourage people to change the time or the way they travel or the route they take, maximising the efficient use of our roading assets and keeping the traffic flowing freely. Faster, more reliable travel times will help increase economic growth and productivity, lower costs for businesses and their customers.

Now, Auckland Transport and the Mayor of Auckland have released a report this afternoon, which shows that congestion in Auckland will cost the economy up to $2.6 billion per year by 2026. That is an extraordinary sum of money. That is $2.6 billion that could otherwise be deployed in economic activity that actually grows the economy.

Previous modelling has shown that successful time of use charging could reduce congestion by up to 8 to 12 percent at peak times, improving travel time significantly. Now, 8 to 12 percent—let’s call it 10, for the sake of argument—10 percent congestion reduction at peak times might not sound like a lot, but, actually, the snowball effect, the compound effect, of that at peak times actually has the effect of reducing travel time significantly. Just by spacing out when and how people travel on our roads, it can make a material difference to travel times and the ease of getting around.

It is simply an economics problem. There’s a fixed amount of road space and everyone converges on it at the same time. The effect of that is congestion, because there’s a fixed amount of space and there’s a certain number of vehicles travelling. The economists would tell you that the simple way to solve that is a use price. That is exactly what other countries have done and other jurisdictions have. I think of New York, which, up until President Trump’s executive order stopping it, had experienced quite a reduction in congestion as a result of a 20-year journey to introduced congestion charging in New York. It’s about the same amount of time we’ve been talking about it here. I was talking to some people the other day, and I think I’m right in saying that the first economic study into time of use pricing was by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), and, from memory, it was back in 1994.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, before I was born!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Before you were born? Goodness gracious me! Well, Tom Rutherford wasn’t alive, but back then the boffins at NZIER were doing studies into congestion pricing.

From memory—I don’t want to mislead the House—there’s been about 20 studies since then by NZIER and all of the transport modelling agencies and the economists out there. There are a few things that economists broadly agree on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Capital gains.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, well, that’s definitely not one of them. The only people who agree with capital gains are the lunatics in the Green Party.

There’s a few things economists agree on—well, it’s a shame Chlöe Swarbrick can’t hear this—broadly three things: one, free trade’s good and free trade raises incomes, free trade lowers the cost of production and it lifts all boats; free trade’s good. They agree on that. They agree that rent control is stupid and it lowers the quality of housing and disincentivises people from offering rental goods into the market place and so you end up with stretched demand for rental housing because price controls like that don’t work. They broadly agree on that. By the way, that is Green Party policy. They’re still banging on about how we need rent control. It’s a dumb policy and they know it. The third thing they agree on is that time of use pricing or congestion pricing is good. I’m pleased to be on the side of economics on this side of the House. Every now and then, the Green Party get there, but then sometimes they misread the text. But, anyway, we’ll wait and see where they vote on this bill.

As I say, overseas time of use pricing schemes have been implemented. We have taken some of the lessons in the policy design we have adapted for this bill. The first is that schemes need to be scalable. There’s an option to start small, build support, and expand where needed. The purpose of the charge needs to be clear and the performance against this purpose needs to be measured and monitored. That is what we will be doing through this proposal. The other lesson is that revenue needs to be reinvested into the area paying the charge and used to improve mobility and transport in the area. That is part of it as well. People want to know that if they’re paying for something, the money is going into a system that will get recycled into providing better transport choices and options.

Central and local government need to collaborate for the schemes to be effective. One simple reason for that in New Zealand is that central government owns the State highway network, and local roads are owned by the city councils or the relevant territorial authorities. Of course, people drive from one to the other, and they don’t go from a State highway to a local road and go—well, nerds like me do this, but most people don’t— “Oh, I was on State Highway 1 and now I’m on the local road owned by the Horowhenua District Council.”

Katie Nimon: Yeah, maybe it’s just me and you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, Katie Nimon does that. She goes off that expressway, which we’re expanding, by the way—that great Hawke’s Bay Expressway—on to the State Highway—what is it up there?

Dana Kirkpatrick: 2.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 2—yes, yes. And, of course, we’ve got the Waikare Gorge, also north of—connecting my good friends’ seats. But, anyway, most people don’t do that.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and local councils have to work together, so there are legislative amendments to the Land Transport Management Act and the Land Transport Act 1998. This is enabling legislation. This doesn’t put in place congestion-charging schemes; it’s an enabling legislation. It takes a partnership approach. As I say, it will allow local authorities to collaborate with the NZTA in forming scheme boards tasked with proposing and developing time of use charging schemes. Neighbouring councils within the region are invited to participate, promoting regional collaboration—we’re all in favour of that. It will be led by local councils but in partnership with NZTA.

This is not about generating revenue from drivers. All net revenue from the schemes will be reinvested directly into transport projects in the region where the revenue is collected. This creates a self-sustaining cycle of continuous improvement, enhancing mobility and infrastructure. The funds will be additional, supplementing rather than replacing existing national local transport funding. And, of course, these schemes can even defer the need for network investment. By reducing peak demand and improving traffic flow, successful schemes optimise the use of existing infrastructure.

If you want a modern-day example of something that I’m talking about, I think of the Northern Busway in Auckland, which was built in 2007, 2008. It was a bit controversial when it was built. Forty percent of people crossing the Auckland Harbour Bridge take a bus. That has actually elongated the life of the bridge, because many more people are just taking those, fast, direct buses to and from the Shore and further beyond. It’s a great example. By the way, it was $110 million in 2008, from memory, at a benefit-cost ratio of, they reckon, 1:1. It is almost certainly the single most successful transport project in New Zealand history, because of the deferred investment that it has allowed the Harbour Bridge. We do need to get on with the Harbour Bridge but we would have had to get on with it a lot sooner than if it hadn’t been for the Northern Busway. And, of course, we’ve got the Northwest Busway coming, airport to Botany, and, of course, other great investments like that.

This is going to be fair and transparent to protect the social licence. It is going to be a bit controversial. My full expectation is that, as we develop these schemes, there will be a bit of public debate about it, but the experience from overseas is that it is edgy when you first introduce it, but then, as people experience it and they see the scheme working, and they see that it’s easier to get to work in the morning and home in the evening to spend time with the kids, and tradies find it easier to get around and do three jobs in a day rather than two, people come to accept it. That’s been the experience from overseas.

As I say, this bill is going off to select committee. I’m looking forward to the engagement from the Opposition in relation to it. We do want to get it right. We’re open to feedback and changes as the debate goes forward. But we do want to get on with it. It is a really important move for New Zealand’s future. Thank you.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to arise on behalf of the Labour Party as the transport spokesperson to speak on this time of use charging amendment bill. The Minister is quite right in that this is a bill—or an issue, actually—that is not new; it’s been around for some time. This bill actually was introduced a number of months ago, as I understand it, and it’s unfortunate that the former Minister of Transport didn’t take the steps that the current Minister is taking to get this under way. I will put the Minister out of his misery and indicate that we will be supporting this bill—

Andy Foster: Oh, very good!

TANGI UTIKERE: —through to select committee, and I see our colleague over there, Mr Foster, who chairs the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, is delighted that that support is coming from this way as well.

This is something that we think will make a difference for communities around the country that face issues around traffic congestion. The Minister talked about the fact that when we turn our mind to other parts of the globe, often there is a little bit of reluctance around the implementation of some schemes. Certainly, there’s a lot of work that needs to happen before implementation takes place, but once these schemes are in place, generally they are supported as individuals go about their day, acknowledging that things do make a difference. That sense of acceptance is something that is seen all around the world.

I want to acknowledge, Mr Speaker, your own role in the previous Parliament when you chaired the Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry, and the members here in the House that were part of that inquiry team back in 2021. What it identified was the opportunity for a bipartisan approach to this issue. I’m proud of the fact, actually, that in Government, Labour did do most if not all of the groundwork around this policy, and in doing so we also sought the bipartisan sort of support from across the aisle to bring this to fruition. It’s unfortunate that that didn’t happen at the time, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Government seem very happy to want to progress this moving forward.

I do think it is really important that this is a scheme that is developed in consultation and via direct leadership with local communities and local council. One of the concerns that I do have in the bill as currently drafted is the stark ability of the Minister of Transport to just basically foist on to communities a charging scheme if, three years after commencement of this particular bill—or Act, as it would be at that point—he or she or they believe that a charging scheme is possible or needed. I do think that there is huge benefit in ensuring that those decisions—when it comes to time of use charging schemes, and operation and implementation—is dealt with by local communities as a particular driver of that.

The other reason why it’s important this is not seen as a revenue gathering exercise is, currently, the Government have a $6 billion hole in their transport financial plan. We certainly hope that in avenues like this they’re not seeking to simply generate the revenue to address their inadequacies when it comes to being able to undertake basic mathematics and make things add up.

The other issue that I want to just touch on briefly is the concern around what the balance of the money that would be basically brought in from the schemes would be used for. Currently, the bill as drafted indicates that it could be used for any measure of land transport activities. I think it’s really important that that equity space is given absolute focus and consideration: that where there would be a time of use charging component applied to any stretch of road in this country there are opportunities for alternatives—they must be free alternatives—but also that there is a focus on ensuring there is revenue set aside and redirected to ensure that those equity considerations are given a primary focus; that it’s not actually just about the necessary option of perhaps the Government of the day wanting to spend money on more roads but that it is about active transport opportunities, it is about public transport opportunities, it is about other modes and methods that would ensure that equity is not only something that is considered but something that can actually be played out in a complementary way.

As I say, we will support this bill at this stage. I look forward to working with other colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as this is progressed. It is a good committee that is very collegial and I’m sure we will hear lots of submissions and submitters, and I do hope that the Government is open to changing aspects of the bill to ensure that it’s workable, it’s fair, and at the end of the day it meets the needs that are required in the circumstance. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party has long stood for policies that will deliver more livable cities with affordable housing and transport options that help protect the climate and keep air clean and healthy, and all of that is better for livability. That’s why, when I came to Aotearoa in 2006 studying a Master of urban planning, I was quickly attracted to the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the only party at the time really talking about the issues that matter, like climate change and reducing inequality, and the practical solutions for achieving those outcomes.

In 2006, there was a report on congestion pricing in Auckland and I remember it being on the front page of the New Zealand Herald. I remember commenting, as we did back in the day, on comments on the website, before they got too toxic to be constructive, and making the case for why congestion pricing was a good idea. Of course, the framing of the article was all negative at the time. And, of course, that was nearly 20 years ago and we’re only now seeing a bill introduced.

The Green Party, at the time that I joined, I think was the only political party that actually proactively had investigated congestion pricing schemes where they would be appropriate in cities in New Zealand, so I think, like with the capital gains tax, we were at the vanguard of sensible economic policies. For the longest time, when people asked me about this, what I would also say is that really only a handful of cities in the world have brought in congestion pricing, even now. For the longest time, it was Stockholm, Gothenburg, the City of London, Singapore, and Milan, and now very, very recently, New York City finally got it over the line.

There’s a significant difference between all of those cities and Auckland. One is that they have much higher density of employment and people living in the city. Of course, that’s changed a lot in Auckland over the last 30 years thanks to more permissive zoning, but they have higher density, much greater use of public transport, because it’s more frequent and it’s more affordable, and they also have a much smaller supply of car parking and much higher prices to use car parking. It does make sense to do all of those things first; that is, allow higher density, invest in public transport, invest in people-oriented streets, walking and cycling, and include sensible approaches to parking management, including pricing the use of parking, before you go to congestion pricing. That said, the Green Party is supportive of this bill as drafted to select committee.

There are many other cities in the world that have used different types of pricing, and we heard at the select committee last term when we had the inquiry into congestion pricing that experts from around the world were recommending to us that our legislation should be flexible enough to allow low-emission zones as well. When we talk about low-emission zones, that’s important from a carbon emissions point of view, but it’s also air quality, because it turns out that the diesel particulates from traffic are far more harmful to human health than people have realised, and it’s been pretty much unregulated in New Zealand and is definitely having an impact on childhood asthma and on lives. Probably more lives are lost due to poor air quality due to cars and trucks in Aotearoa New Zealand than even in crashes on the road. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this legislation allows for low-emission zones.

Our other concern with this legislation is that it doesn’t, I think, sufficiently empower the municipal transport authority—that is, Auckland Transport and the city of Auckland—to manage how all of this is running. It’s very centralised—and really, these urban transport solutions need to be solved; they need to be managed at the level of the city. That’s the level at which people are voting for them. I think that the last Minister of Transport spent a whole year editing this legislation that was probably ready to go under the last Labour Government, making it far more centralised, giving far more control to central government. I think that’s going to be problematic. I think it’ll be less likely that the local councils will take it up unless we have some practical changes there.

Yes, it’s true that the State highway is owned by the New Zealand Transport Agency and central government, but, ultimately, the congestion is caused by cars and trucks making local trips on the State highway, and the alternatives to those local trips need to be provided before we bring in the congestion pricing—that’s buses, trains, walking, and cycling. All of that has to be provided by the council, and that’s why I think that’s the appropriate level for investment to be made.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad to rise and speak on behalf of ACT on this Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. As a feeling of camaraderie and support breaks out across the House, ACT too will be supporting this bill and it’s—

Hon Member: Oh, very good.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yes, isn’t that great news? It’s an expansion on what’s in the coalition agreement, what was already agreed to by coalition parties, so we’re seeing this go further. I must also say congratulations has to be given to the former chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who undertook work on this in 2021, and to the Opposition whose work while in Government has contributed to this piece of legislation.

I stand as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and also a resident of Tauranga, and I think the Tauranga experience is quite illustrative in this example. Tauranga has got two toll roads, soon to be three. Now, paying for road use is something that the people of Tauranga have become well accustomed to. In fact, it’s frequently a subject of conversation, of how much the rest of the country could benefit from having the pricing mechanism providing for a signal to the market on where roads are needing to be built. For example, people of Tauranga were extremely pleased to have a chance to have the Tauranga Eastern Link brought on sooner, through paying for a toll, and also Takitimu Drive tolled originally. That was led by local government, much like this bill is thinking of doing; having local government input saying, “This is where we think we could do with congestion charging; we want to see something happen.”

That’s what happened on what was formerly called Route K—now Takitimu Link—and the future road, Takitimu Northern Link, which will head out towards Te Puna and link up the north-western Bay of Plenty with the commerce capital and export port capital of New Zealand, Tauranga, which, I have to say, is one of the best places on earth, except for one small thing: we do have a bit of congestion in Tauranga, and that congestion does happen along State highways. It happens along Hewletts Road, which is a part of State Highway 2; it happens on State Highway 29 coming into Tauranga. These sort of places could benefit from having a bit of signalling to the market to say, “Look, we are happy to pay to be able to use these roads as a tradie to get out to a job or to get somewhere that we need to go at a certain period of time, at a cost that reflects a signal to the market of what we’re trying to do here.” But, also, if you don’t want to pay, “time of use” means just switch your time; shift your timing.

That is the signal, the information that is being delivered by this sort of legislation and this sort of policy. I hark back to my farming days, where it was often a conversation that many farmers had of “Should we become winter milk suppliers?” Now, the reason that is something that people thought about was because you could get a premium for your milk. You could get paid a little bit more for supplying milk in what was either the shoulder or the really low seasons of milk supply. That meant that we had—and similar to how we have roading infrastructure that is underutilised at certain parts of the days—stainless steel, or have stainless steel, tied up in milk factories up and down this country, which is underutilised at the shoulders of the season and in the winter time when the grass isn’t growing as strongly as it does around balance day. What we end up with is underutilised resource similar to roads in the middle of the day and over-utilised resource when the spring flushes on and milk’s pouring into the vat. That’s what I would say the analogy to the road is around peak times.

What this is talking about is sending a signal; similar to winter milk, it’s sending a signal, saying, “Pay a little bit more, we’ll get your milk in the winter, and you can try and move that production to those seasons.” We want to see people say, “Look, I think it’s a better use of my time to go out and use the roads at a time that isn’t the peak.”, and that means that people who do think it’s worth their while—tradies, people who need to get to jobs and businesses and schools and places of work at a specific time—can see the benefit in that and pay that fee.

To the Tauranga experience, we did have the Tauranga commissioners who put out a discussion paper, a discussion in the public around congestion charging. I was very much in favour of that. I think what we need to do and what has been exhibited here across the House is a sense of unity on this. I hope that continues through the select committee stage so that we can have a solid policy that goes out to the public, and really get the best use out of our national infrastructure.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Look, thanks, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to support this first reading, and it’s good to see the support around the House. This has been on the table for quite some time, as we’ve already heard. In fact, Wellington—not just Wellington City but the Wellington region—and Auckland in particular have been asking for it. Actually, I can remember we’ve already had the reference to the inquiry that was done which—in fact, Mr Speaker, I think I can use “you” in this context—you chaired in your previous role and making a submission, Wellington City and Greater Wellington at the same time, to say, “Hey, we actually support this as a tool to put into the tool kit.” It’s not the only answer to issues around congestion but it is an important tool, so it’s great to see this here and to see the support here.

I just wanted to pick up on a couple of things. First of all, the Hon Julie Anne Genter talked about getting other things right and having public transport and other means of transport right. That’s really, really important—also getting our urban form right. It’s really interesting to see—and I think about this in the context of housing and housing provision—the first line of the explanatory note says, “New Zealand’s largest cities face significant traffic congestion compared to cities with similar population densities.” What this is, basically, saying is we’ve got other cities around the world which don’t face such a challenge, but what we’ve done is we’ve spread our cities out. I think there is a warning there that, while it might make it cheaper, there’s also a cost to spreading out in terms of our cities. That cost is borne in congestion and the cost of infrastructure.

This is taking a targeted approach. It’s about making sure that, at times and places where there is congestion, that’s where you might apply this. You wouldn’t apply it across the board. You’d think about the cities where there is congestion. I’ve already mentioned Auckland and Wellington. We’ve had the mention from my friend Cam Luxton about Tauranga as well. There’ll be a few places where this makes sense. There are many places where that would not cut the mustard and you wouldn’t do it.

It’s interesting also to reflect that the Infrastructure Commission—who, I think, gives us really, really good advice—has also suggested that pricing across the board, and where there’s peak demand, not just for roading services or transport services but peak demand, we should put a price on that peak demand. We’ve already had that reference to milk, but it might apply to other resources as well—for example, power. We do that at the moment for a lot of our power use.

The Minister, when he was introducing the bill, said that the thought was around 10 percent reduction in traffic volumes. That, actually, is really, really significant. In the suburb which I come from there’s a difference of about 10 percent between the term time and the holiday time, and that makes all the difference in the world. What you have is free-flow holiday time, congestion during term time. That 10 percent makes a significant difference. This is real. The information there also says that the cost to Auckland, we’ve already heard, is $2.6 billion. While taxes aren’t very popular, neither is congestion. Nobody likes sitting in congestion for a long period of time.

A couple of other things I did want to talk about. One is that the cost of the schemes is going to be important, because these things are not going to be simple to put in place. There’s a consultation process. There’ll be a lot of design which needs to go into it. What time, what roads, what areas need to be covered. I do think—and I think Tangi Utikere has given us a little bit of a warning on that—the idea of central government coming down on top and saying, “Let’s go and design a scheme for any place.” might be a little bit challenging and might not work terribly well. This has got to be done with local government and, equally importantly, with local communities.

One other thing I would say about councils involved here is that councils should not be deliberately creating congestion to be able to warrant a time of use scheme. I have seen councils not too far from here who might actually deliberately try and create congestion. That probably would not go down terribly well. I’m looking forward very much to the submissions and to working through the detail. We do have a very collegial approach on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It is good to see all the parties who are members of that committee supporting this, and I commend the bill to the House.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I stand as the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau and on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

The bill unfairly burdens our most vulnerable: whānau Māori, tangata moana, low-income workers, and those who have been locked out of public transport due to this Government’s decisions. The Government claims congestion charging will reduce emissions and improve productivity, but what they fail to acknowledge is that the charge is a tax on those who often have no other choice. It is our cleaners, our caregivers, our construction workers, many of whom are Māori and Pacific whānau, who will feel this the most. These are the essential workers who cannot shift their work, which I heard a previous member talk about. Shifting your work is not that easy for our whānau—the hours; you know, we just can’t do that. Instead of investing in affordable alternatives, this Government has made it harder for them to get around.

Last year, the Government scrapped the half-price public transport subsidy. That decision alone made it more expensive for whānau to get to work, to kura, and to the doctor. Now, with this bill, they are adding another cost on top of that. What choice does a single parent in South Auckland have when buses are infrequent and unreliable? What choice does a kaumātua in West Auckland have when their local train services have been cut? This is not congestion pricing; it is poverty pricing. The evidence backs this up.

The Covec MRCagney report Congestion pricing in Auckland found that low-income households will face higher costs as a percentage of their income, compared to wealthier households. It also found that those on lower incomes are more likely to suppress trips altogether, meaning that they will miss out on employment, education, and their doctors appointments, all because this Government think they cannot make another dollar out of the struggling. There are so many families in Tāmaki Makaurau who haven’t even gone over the harbour bridge. This is transport injustice, plain and simple. In Aotearoa, where transport poverty is already a crisis, this bill will only widen existing inequalities.

The Government argues that the revenue raised will be reinvested in transport, but history tells us otherwise. The reality is that without a clear commitment to equity, this bill will depend on the transport divide that already exists in our city. Instead of congestion charging, the Government should focus on transport solutions that uplift communities, not penalise them. We need fair, free public transport, better services in regions, and meaningful investment in infrastructure that serves the people who need it the most. That is how we address congestion—by giving people real options, not by punishing them in circumstances beyond their control.

Congestion pricing as it stands is another example of a policy that is blind to the realities of working class and Māori communities. If this Government truly cares about congestion, it must ensure that any charges come with real public transport improvements, targeted financial relief for low-income whānau, and meaningful engagement with those whose pockets it will affect the most.

Tēnei pire he raupatu hou. [This bill is a new confiscation.] This bill is another tax on our people, disguised as progress. If this Government truly cared about congestion, it would invest in public transport first, rather than punishing those with no alternative. We must oppose this bill until equity and fairness are at its centre. Tēnā koutou katoa.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill, which is part of the solution to reducing congestion. I just want to reiterate for the House today that congestion is a tax on New Zealand’s economy—in Auckland alone, $2.6 billion by 2026—but it’s also a tax on mental health and a tax on livability. This is a good bill—a good bill—that will reduce congestion, improve productivity, optimise our roading network, and improve mental health and wellbeing.

It is, as the Minister said, really about using the market mechanism, and it’s pleasing to see the other side of the House welcoming the use of market mechanisms to solve problems. The evidence base for all this comes from overseas cities: Singapore, Stockholm, Dubai, and Seoul.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What’s the public transport like there?

DAN BIDOIS: I think this is a really good bill, but it is only part of the solution. And, yes, public transport is part of it, but it’s also making sure that local authorities trial new ideas to improve congestion on our local and national roads as well.

I am a member of the hard-working Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster here. I’m looking forward to receiving this bill and to interrogating the details further, and, to what the member from the Māori Party, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, said, to understanding the risks for working class members in our cities across the country and to making sure that it is workable, that it minimises risk not just for workers but also for small businesses, who are doing it tough out there at the moment.

Most importantly, this isn’t going to be a solution that is going to be able to be rolled out nationwide. There will really be limited cities that will take advantage of this, certainly Auckland and Wellington—a member from the ACT Party mentioned Tauranga—but I’m really keen to see what other cities may be interested in applying this, and also within cities, how this bill will be applied.

Take Auckland, for example: there are classic places on State Highway 1 where this could be rolled out, or State Highway 16. In my community, in Northcote, there’s congestion on our main arterial roads, which we may wish to consider. As a member of the select committee, I’ll be wanting to understand the impact on small businesses, those that have to travel far and that work in predominantly blue-collar professions, and how that will be rolled out.

This is a good bill. It is a bill that just provides the framework—the framework—for local authorities to apply time of use charging to their local areas. This is not about revenue gathering. All the funds that are gathered through time of use charging will be reinvested back into the local areas, which is great news for places like Auckland. I note that the mayor, Wayne Brown, is a strong advocate for time of use charging being applied to Auckland.

It is a rare moment where we have near-unanimous favourable votes in the House today, and I would encourage my colleagues from the Māori Party to join the waka—there is still time—because this, I think, is a good bill and a good bill that addresses a very significant challenge facing our cities up and down the country. As I said, it’s a tax on productivity, it’s a tax on our economy, but it’s also a tax on mental health wellbeing.

On behalf of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I look forward to welcoming submissions. If you are listening to this at home, you can go online very shortly and make a submission as part of this process. I commend this bill to the House today.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Congestion sucks. It sucks 2½ hours out of the day of a tradie from Manurewa who’s working in town. He might be working in Henderson, might be working in Māngere—2½, three hours gone from his day. It sucks two hours out of a parent’s day that they could otherwise be spending with their kids at the end of the day, but instead they’re in their car. It sucks the joy out of living in the Auckland suburbs.

I live in the best place to live in the country. Manurewa is a paradise. Hillpark, where I live, is the best place to live in the country. We’ve got the bush, we’ve got the native birds, and we’ve got the bus station in the town five minutes from where I live, with the library, but you cannot live there and work in town if you won’t sign up for 1½ hours on the way in, and 1½ hours back. It’s no good. We need to fix this. This is a bill that does that, and that’s why I support it, but I’ve still got questions about how it’ll apply to those people in Manurewa. It needs the kind of controls that will make sure that it is fair for everyone, and that there are viable alternatives.

I looked today at the reporting from Auckland Council, and we’ve got Mayor Wayne Brown saying it’s costing Auckland $2.6 billion each year by 2026. This congestion problem is huge, and it will only get worse if we don’t have these tools, and we absolutely need them, but when I looked through that report, I thought about the alternatives that are being proposed by Auckland Council. The alternatives are obviously more public transport, and access via the train and bus, and making choices like carpooling, and travelling outside of peak times. Those are all really good options for people, but there are some people who won’t be able to use those, and we need to keep thinking about how to design a system which is fair for them—fair for shift workers like people who cannot choose when they travel, and how they travel, and are needing to get to work at times when there are no other colleagues that they can go with.

Some businesses in South Auckland will actually put on transport for their workers because there aren’t good enough public transport options, and that’s important, but those workers who don’t work for a business like that, who can’t put on those kinds of services, that is one of the number one issues that I encounter when I’m out door knocking in a place like Wiri, where manufacturing workers are going to work at different times every week depending on their roster and do not have other options, with the dearth of transport options there.

We also need to make sure that we’re asking the questions of this Government that it has the right system in place to support these kinds of congestion charges. It’s one thing to levy charges on people and demand behavioural change, but when the behavioural change happens, have you got what it takes to actually get people into the centre of the city? Are we going to see projects like the Northern Busway—great, great project; very effective transport project—and projects like the Eastern Busway hugely upping demand there and ending up in bus congestion if there are no other options for people? Will we end up with a Government that has actually hiked public transport fares; said it’s going to build new roads as its priority and, furthermore, levy taxes on the Uber drivers who might be an alternative by levying charges on electric vehicles? Those are the alternatives, but this Government is turning the dial down on them.

We need some answers about how this is actually going to be supported for behavioural change if behavioural change is in fact the thing that we’re going for here. I look forward to a select committee process where we can actually dive into the detail of this, because it will take bipartisan effort. It will take cross-partisan effort. I also welcome the comments of the Greens, because there has to be alternatives for people if we’re going to use regulatory tools like this to drive behaviour, because we are—let’s be frank—telling people that they should change their behaviour. It is up to the Government to actually make that possible for people to do—people with disabilities, kaumātua, kuia, people who do not have other options currently and deserve them.

This Government taking money out of public transport and re-prioritising it into roads needs to actually front on those issues which are facing central Auckland now. They need to be able to give Auckland Council the ability to design not only this programme—which in the empowering legislation does propose a lot of licence for councils—but also the powers for Auckland Transport to actually get people where they need to go with appropriate fares, appropriate routes, and a well-funded system that has to be backed by Government to make something like this work. I’m excited to get into this; chair Andy Foster has his work cut out for him. I commend this bill to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this. This has been signalled for a long time, particularly from the infrastructure consultancy groups, and so it’s great to see our Government just getting on and doing it, and also great to see the support from the other side of the House, of course.

As the Minister mentioned, congestion is really a tax on time, and also the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, made a really good analogy—when we’re travelling in peak traffic, and I think of the great suburb or electorate of Hamilton East between sort of 6.45 a.m. to 7 a.m. and about 9.15 a.m. peak traffic, particularly on school days. I’m not necessarily saying this will be a solution for Hamilton, but you can see the effectiveness, or change, rather, of peak and off-peak traffic flows.

This is, again, like a lot of our policies and decisions, a tool in the tool box. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s another option that can help massage or feather the intensity of peak traffic flows. This is a tool that, like congestion being a tax on time, can be an option that will make people rethink about travel arrangements. They’ve got an option of whether they can afford to pay the little bit extra because it’s worth it and built into a business model, or they’ll look at car pooling or public transport, or maybe starting earlier and finishing earlier. There’s a myriad of options.

This is just another tool in the tool box that we’ll be keen to explore through the select committee process. I look forward to that committee feeding back to the House and letting us know how those submissions pan out. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good this afternoon to be able to speak to this piece of legislation on the time of use charging. This is one of the most constructive things that we can do in this Parliament to decongest our largest city in Aotearoa: Auckland.

If I go back to 2021, we had a wonderful chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and we opened up an inquiry because we knew we were short of solutions at the time. We needed feedback from key stakeholders, the public, and from councils to say how we actually address the congestion challenge in front of us. We put to Aotearoa New Zealand the idea of congestion charging across a number of cities, but particularly we had a focus on Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. Overwhelmingly, people recognised that we had a congestion problem. In fact, once again this week, we saw the largest amount of congestion in “March madness”—reported, of course.

The other thing that people said is that it is a cost on Aucklanders. I acknowledge today that, around the House, generally we agree that this is a really good thing. The Government members are talking about a tax on time, but we do need to recognise, actually, that this is a tax on Aucklanders. It’s a tax on Aucklanders because it costs them money to get from A to B. The reality is that for those that choose to travel at peak time, it will halve congestion. It will be just like what we experience in school holidays—if we’re going down Onewa Road across to the city, then that will be the experience that will change for many that will use it.

We heard from countries overseas. We heard from Stockholm; I had the opportunity to travel to Vancouver to see how they were implementing congestion charging. They were very clear that change is instant on the day that congestion charging is introduced, but there will be a reaction from the public; that we, as members who are supporting this bill, will be challenged by that; and Government members do need to hold their nose and move through it and support this because it will be the change that we need to achieve in our city.

Back in 2021, when we launched this inquiry, things were quite different. The Government of the day were investing largely in public transport, in active walking and cycling measures; that we were on the road to put half-price public transport and free public transport in place for under-13s. Those are the types of initiatives that supported things like congestion charging to be implemented. If we seek to achieve the behaviour change and we use this as a demand management tool, then there needs to be good alternatives in place to motivate people and actually to support them to get from A to B. At the moment, the Government of this day has taken away many of those measures.

Part of my concern, and where I will be looking at the select committee process, is how do we ensure that not only does the revenue that this generates go back into our largest city—into Auckland—but also that it’s invested back into public transport. Auckland Council were very clear on this; they want us to see that investment in public transport and walking and cycling to give people alternative modes to get around our city.

My other concern here is that the Government says this isn’t about revenue generation, but we do have a reality in front of us. They committed in the last election to repeal the fuel excise scheme, the regional fuel tax, in Auckland. They did that, but that left us with a $1.2 billion hole in dedicated transport infrastructure investment in Auckland. Those projects have now been shelved; they are no longer available, and so, again, I come back to those alternatives that are no longer there.

Alone, I agree with Government members that this isn’t just one tool to fix congestion. What I’m looking for is what are the other tools alongside that that they are putting in place to ensure that Aucklanders have meaningful alternatives to take, at a lower cost, to get them from A to B in the speed that they want to. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Like many others here today, it’s a great privilege to be talking about the time of use pricing legislation that is having its first reading almost unanimously across the House. What a great day.

Some of us who were around local government and working in mayors’ offices over 20 years ago were excited when the transport Minister of the day, Paul Swain, through the Land Transport Management Act, was keen to introduce congestion charging and the possibility of tolling. That 2003 legislation never really quite delivered. If you’re looking through the Land Transport Management Act now, there have been various versions to get it up to a position where public-private partnerships are enabled. Now, with this amendment, it will allow for the development of time of use schemes.

This, as I said, is 20 years in the making. I remember when Michael Barnett, chair of commerce, and others were talking about $1 billion in wasted time and wasted fuel in Auckland. Now the report released by Auckland Council today talks about $2.6 billion by 2026, and that’s just in Auckland alone. As has been articulated, Mayor Wayne Brown backs it. In fact, the headline at 3.15 on the New Zealand Herald: “Mayor Wayne Brown backs congestion charge amid $2.6 billion traffic cost”. Brown said traffic costs businesses and Aucklanders alike and it needed to be fixed in order to get growth in the city. “A time of use charge will enable people to think of other ways to travel, like public transport, carpooling or driving outside rush hour.” We’ve got to acknowledge that work flexibility these days enables many people to just alter their car movements, their truck movements, slightly to work around this.

There was concern raised that perhaps this Government wasn’t going to be investing in the multimodal options that motorists needed as a viable alternative if they weren’t prepared to pay for time of use charging. Well, can I remind the Opposition about the Eastern Busway that we are committed to building. Can I remind the Opposition about John Key and Simon Bridges and others pulling the lever on the City Rail Link. And can I remind the Opposition of this Government’s commitment to the dedicated northwestern bus corridor. There will be alternatives in place. We are committed to a multimodal system in Auckland and in other places, and we are committed to partnership with local government to ensure the design that will be overseen by NZTA and community input through the land transport schemes that both deliver up through regional land transport policies. It’s with great delight that the National Party, in conjunction with ACT and New Zealand First, get this done.

We remember the Labour Party in August 2023, and some of them were over there in front of the Harbour Bridge—remember that? They were going to deliver the $56 billion plan to replace the bridge. I thought maybe I got that number wrong. I just googled it. Oh, yeah, it was $56 billion. It was talked from the tops of the cliffs down at the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron—$56 billion plan. It was going to be like spaghetti put over the North Shore. It was going to see trams—Dan Bidois, can you believe this?—up Glenfield Road. This was pie in the sky stuff. Thankfully, with this Government, we’re back to the basics, we’re back to core business, and we’re back to something that 90 percent of Aucklanders have wanted for 20 years—it’s time of use charging. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 6

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a second time.

The bill as reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee contains a range of adjustments as a result of public feedback. I should point out that feedback from the submitters on the bill has not changed the bill materially. This is because the bill was generally well received by submitters. In fact, responses focused largely on opportunities for extending the ambit of proposals—15 percent on interest payments—that’s interesting. That’s very good.

Many of the things that have been arranged in this legislation relate to interest payments, and they can also pay a levy of 2 percent. We want to make eligible businesses able to access those savings even if they mistakenly register for approved issuer levy (AIL) late, so we’re proposing that the borrowers could retrospectively register a security, in some circumstances, to qualify for the lower tax rate on interest payments.

Submitters supported the proposal but thought it could go further—one of the proposals in this legislation. Some suggested that a two-year time limit on applying for retrospective registration be removed. Others said the concession should be available not only where the borrower overlooked the AIL requirements altogether but also where they failed to register on time despite attempting to do so. It was also suggested that tax pooling should be available to settle an AIL liability resulting from retrospective registration. The committee agreed with those suggestions.

Now, legislation was also needed for the Canterbury earthquakes and 2023 North Island floods and previous efforts, but submitters were generally supportive of the generic response to emergency events proposal. I was pleased to see that.

We also want to help young people secure their economic future. We’re proposing to allow, as part of this legislation, young people under 16 to enrol in KiwiSaver with the signature of just one guardian. At present, they need the consent of all guardians, and that can be difficult where parents are living apart, for instance.

One last thing to note is that some submitters expressed support for the bill’s strong remedial focus. This is a positive thing. An important job in tax policy is to continue to work at rectifying legislation to ensure that it’s fit for purpose while continuing to meet the intended policy objective.

I don’t want to take up too much time of the House, and so, on that matter, I now move that this be now read a second time.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Many—perhaps most—of the measures of this bill are good and sensible measures with respect to tax law, and like a lot of the tax legislation that goes through this House, all sides of the House agree on particular matters in the bill. However, the Labour Party will be voting against this bill.

The reason is not the particular tax measures, but the bill does contain the annual rates for 2024-25, and unfortunately, we do not see in those rates any response to the fiscal needs of this country. We will be examining those rates, in particular during the committee stage of the bill when we reach that—sometime soon, I hope, because this bill must be passed by the end of March. In the debate on Part 1 during the committee stage, we’ll have a long discussion about the annual rates, as is traditional. That is the tax debate for the year, in the committee stage of the annual rates bill, and I trust all members of the House will participate in it. I think, at that stage, you’ll hear us talking about how tax rates relate to services.

One of the duties of the Minister of Revenue is to safeguard the revenue system. One of the jobs for the revenue system in this country is to ensure that it supplies enough Government revenue—gathered from all citizens, all residents—to ensure that Government can do the things that Government ought to do, like paying for a health system, like paying for an education system, like paying for decent school lunches, and like paying for the increased defence spending we’re likely to need in this increasingly uncertain world. Yet we do not see the Minister taking responsibility for ensuring that the revenue system can supply those needs, so we’ll talk about that extensively in the committee stage of the bill.

However, in the meantime, we want to talk about some of the other measures in this bill. As I’ve already said, we pretty much, by and large, agree with them, but I think they are worthy of comment rather than just a garbled rush in order to get the initial speech out in the House. I do want to talk about some of the particular measures in this bill. The most interesting one is the generic response to emergency events.

Now, members of the House and people who have joined the House in this Parliament will know that in the six years that the Labour Government was in office, there were three—arguably four—black swan events that had a huge impact on the country. There was the COVID emergency, which had an enormous impact on the country. Possibly the Whakaari explosion could be counted in this regard. There was very much the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods. There was Cyclone Hale just before the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods, and then, of course, there was Cyclone Gabrielle.

In each of those big black swan events—events that had a huge impact on the country, the nature of which the current Government hasn’t had to deal with one of those yet—what happened was that we needed to take tax measures to help businesses through: help them with their cash flow, help with some of the extra expenditure, and help with some of the insurance implications of what went on. Each time one of those events occurred, a whole series of measures was wheeled out, but it had to be wheeled out individually each time, for each event.

As that went on, the thinking in the tax community, the thinking in our party, the thinking of Ministers at the time, and the thinking of Government departments was that, actually, there should be a generic set of measures, a set of measures that could be plucked off the shelf and rolled out as needed, in order to ensure that people affected by a disaster could continue to manage their affairs in a satisfactory manner. The sorts of generic responses we’re talking about are the ability to get some rollover relief, the ability to defer tax payments, and the assurance that penalties would not be applied if tax payments were late and so on—because of the nature of the emergency. This is a particularly good set of measures—started under the previous Government, quite correctly continued by the current Government, as a way of ensuring that there could be a generic response to emergencies.

Sitting in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we did some work on that and to improve the particular set of measures that could be rolled out. I think when the next black swan event occurs, whoever the Minister of Revenue is, whoever the Minister of Finance is, won’t have to try to design measures from scratch and won’t even have to look back at the measures that have been used previously. They can reach for them from the shelf. That’s an excellent piece of work from across the House.

There’s some quite complicated stuff sitting in this new legislation, this particular tax bill, around when people moving to New Zealand—in particular, from the UK—try to bring their pension funds with them. There are some particular interactions between the New Zealand tax law and the UK tax law that mean that those people attempting to transfer their savings from the UK to New Zealand—to have them locked up, as they are with KiwiSaver—nevertheless face an extra tax burden just because of the interaction of the legislation. What they have to do is transfer their foreign investment savings, their UK investment savings, to what’s called a QROPS scheme, and that stands for a qualifying recognised overseas pension scheme, but with that, they did get an extra tax burden.

Now, the thinking going into select committee was that all KiwiSaver schemes would be required to provide a QROPS service to people who wanted to join those schemes, but through the select committee process, we realised that in fact that wasn’t necessary for all KiwiSaver schemes, that it could be done on a voluntary basis. You’ll see that change coming through in the legislation as it comes through the House, in the committee stage, and I’m sure we’ll talk about it a little bit more there. The objective there, complicated as it was, was to ensure that people paid their tax but paid no more tax than they ought to between the transfers in the country. Otherwise it could have been a double taxation situation for some people, which does seem at least a little unfair.

There is another nice measure in here sitting around the minor beneficiaries rule. Now, that’s a rule that applies to trusts. There was a particular complication around trusts for people with disabilities, where they could get hit with the minor beneficiaries rule, meaning they’d end up paying extra tax. This bill fixes that—so, again, another good measure. I would note that that was sitting in the remedials.

The Minister of Justice just said that the bill contained a number of remedial measures. Of course, remedial measures are important, and they occur in a couple of situations. One is where the tax law just doesn’t—the drafting of the law, the way it’s gone through—quite work in the way it was intended. Tax law is complicated, and sometimes there can be interactions that are not foreseen. Sometimes the law as drafted doesn’t really quite meet the commercial situation, so we need to put through a remedial to remediate the law, to fix it up. Sometimes the way that we do business changes and the law no longer quite fits. That is the purpose of a remedial.

Inland Revenue often spots remedials itself. Businesses write in all the time, particularly tax consultants, saying we need a remedial for this, that, or the other—something needs to be fixed in the legislation. What that points to is a very important process in New Zealand, that the tax community—tax professionals; the firms; the academics; and the Treasury and Inland Revenue, the tax experts there—and, by and large, politicians as well too, do work hard to make sure that those remedials get through the process and that we keep the Income Tax Act looking shipshape. It is a complicated Act, and it is hard to keep it shipshape, but there’s a lot of work that goes into it, with a lot of goodwill from across the House and from across the tax community.

As I said previously, we will be voting in favour of all the amendments to the bill at committee stage, but we will not be supporting Part 1 of the bill, and alas, we cannot support the bill overall because of the annual rates in it. Having said that, I’m looking forward to the debate we will have at the committee stage.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just wanted to appreciate the contribution made by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell just then, walking us through the changes that were made at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is, of course, in those moments that we see that cordial working across the aisle to try and improve pieces of legislation, even if indeed we are opposed to those laws. Herein I just want to speak to firstly some of the parts of the legislation that the Greens do support but make the point that we cannot support the bill in its entirety because it entrenches the Government’s trickle-down tax cuts.

Some of those initiatives which we support in the bill are the likes of incorporating the crypto-asset reporting framework, and the amendments to the common reporting standard, of course, enabling young people under 16 to enrol in KiwiSaver with the agreement of one parent or guardian—making it a lot easier for solo parents, I might add—and also addressing the issue of locked-in KiwiSaver funds for migrants. But it would be remiss of me not to spend the majority of my time in this contribution today speaking about the so-called meat in the sandwich that is the centrepiece of this Government’s Budget from May last year, which was of course those trickle-down tax cuts.

Here, if I may, I would like to refer to the regulatory impact statement of those income tax cuts, which are entrenched within Part 1 of this legislation, and where we see the benefit of those tax cuts aggregating who ends up actually winning from these changes that the Government is making to our income tax system. Herein you can see the distribution of who gets what on a weekly basis based on quintiles—that is, every 20 percent of the population. You can see painted here very clearly that the top two quintiles—that is, 40 percent of households—gain $1.6 billion or 55 percent of the total of the value of those tax cuts. Those top two quintiles, that top 40 percent, it must be noted, also benefit from $750 million a year from the landlord tax cut reduction. When that is included, that top 40 percent in our country ends up getting 64 percent of the value of the Government’s tax cuts—by far the lion’s share of that total. What is actually even more shocking is that the lowest quintile, the bottom 20 percent of New Zealanders, are getting just 5.4 percent of the total over here. Even more than that—and the Government knows this—we are seeing 130,000 households get nothing at all. Meanwhile, 8,000 households are worse off.

Now, that’s just about the distribution of these income tax cuts as put in Part 1 of this legislation. That’s not even speaking to the bigger thematics and the consequences that we will see in our economy and in our society as a result of the decisions that this Government has made in its Budget in May 2024, which this bill goes some way to actually rolling out, because these tax cuts were paid for by the reintroduction of prescription fees, by increases in bus fares, by increases in vehicle registration fees, by increased and raised immigration levies, by higher tertiary education fees, by more toll roads, by increased court fees, of course, by a hiring freeze at the front line of our public services, particularly at our hospitals, and by cuts—cuts, cuts, cuts: cuts to Dunedin Hospital plans, cuts to the per child cost of the school lunch programme.

This is trickle-down economics in practice. It is reheated from the 1980s. What are we seeing in terms of the Government’s plan? Well, they’re telling us a heck of a lot about their plan to go for growth. Yet so far, what we have seen in practice as a result of the intentional decisions that they have made is that they have knowingly increased climate changing emissions, they have knowingly increased child material hardship, and they have knowingly increased inequality. I want to spend a moment particularly on that point of inequality, not just on the distribution of who wins and who benefits the most from these income tax cuts as put forward by the Government but with regards to the broader sense of disdain that this Government seems to have, and that the Prime Minister echoed in his responses in question time to me the week before last when I asked him about whether he thought it was the Government’s job to deal with inequality.

Tolerance of inequality, of gross inequality in particular, is precisely what creates poverty. This was spelled out by research done by the Inland Revenue Department in 2023, which told us that the top 311 households in Aotearoa hold more wealth than 2.5 million New Zealanders. That report also spelled out that that is not an accident but a consequence of a tax system which sees those at the top pay an effective tax rate that is less than half of that of the average New Zealander. Just before we got into this debate, we had one Minister of this Crown actually chastising me for making the point that there was something that economists across the board agree with. The point that I had made is that economists across the board agree with the fact that Aotearoa New Zealand is an outlier and that we pay the cost for not having any form of capital gains tax, stamp duty, wealth tax, or otherwise that addresses that fundamental inequality but, more so than that, exacerbates the productivity crises that we have in this country.

Here I would only just quote from the OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2024, where they say, “There is a need to reduce distortions to household choice of asset allocation. Shares, land and owner-occupied residential property are tax favoured. Most capital gains from shares, owner-occupied residential property and land are not taxed. To ensure the tax system is not overly distorting saving and supporting broader growth,”—by the way, something the Government keeps telling us that they care about— “capital gains taxation reform should be done as part of a review of tax settings for saving.”

Of course, we are, unfortunately, not having that debate today, are we? We’re not actually meaningfully talking about, from an evidence-based perspective, how we go about improving productivity in this country, how we go about fixing those distortions in our tax system. No. We are, unfortunately, still stuck in the frame of these trickle-down tax cuts and, effectively, of austerity, of being told that we need to put private gain ahead of the public good, which only continues to further entrench all of the issues that we see play out in society, because after 50-odd years of this playbook, New Zealanders are not safer, New Zealanders are not healthier, and New Zealanders are not happier. In fact, the opposite is true. The way to remedy all of these issues is for us as a Parliament to finally take meaningful responsibility to build the public infrastructure and the public good that New Zealanders deserve and ultimately rely on, which, I might add, those who currently enjoy untaxed capital gains also benefit from and make their money off the back of.

We know that societies with greater wealth inequality are less cohesive. They are less functional, and they are less healthy than their more equal counterparts. Inequality corrodes the basics of a good society. That is people’s ability to participate not just in this ephemeral notion of society but actually in our democracy. I think ultimately what you will find in this bill is continuing to spearhead the charge for trickle-down economics thinking, which has deeply, deeply under-served our communities for at least 40 years now. Unfortunately, that is the reason that we simply cannot support this bill, because despite there being a sprinkling of a few good things that are relatively overdue and have consensus across the House upon, this Government is forging ahead with a path of continuing to cut our public services. What do New Zealanders have to show for it? Some trickle-down tax cuts which absolutely do not touch the sides on the cost of living, which this Government promised New Zealanders that it would deal with.

We simply cannot support this bill. I would remind all members of the Government that this is in the regulatory impact statement that was first issued along with the income tax proposals. It shows all of you, all of this Parliament, precisely what this Government values. It is not fairness, it is not justice, and it is clearly not equality or everybody’s ability to participate in our society or this economy that they keep banging on about.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

Let me start by just thanking my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As we’ve already heard in some of the contributions this afternoon, it was a collaborative process. It is good to actually have some tax experts like the Hon Dr Deborah Russell on our committee. She’s obviously very interested in some of the issues and a lot of the technicalities, so she does add a lot of value, so it’s good to have her. We were also ably helped this year by John Cantin, who’s our adviser to the committee, and, again, we really appreciated the advice that he was able to provide us, along with IRD officials. It’s good to have an independent adviser just to check on those officials and also make sure that the IRD are reflecting what the tax community are thinking.

As we’ve already heard, there’s actually a lot of things to agree on in this bill. You know, we’re putting in place some of these issues around the OECD framework for tax reporting. We’ve dealt with issues around pension transfers across borders. We’ve heard about the ability for under-16-year-olds to enrol in KiwiSaver with just a single consent. There’s a few other issues, including actually streamlining the tax settings for an emergency response and actually having something that can be used immediately without having to pass additional legislation, and as we’ve witnessed in the last few years, we have had a few of those matters here. There’s a lot, obviously, that there’s consensus on across the House, which is great.

Obviously, though, a very key part of this bill is the setting of the annual tax rates. Look, in ACT we’re unapologetically in support of that as part of this Government, because we are actually about delivering tax relief for New Zealanders, and look, we should be very proud of our tax system. We do actually have a very robust tax system. It actually does have a lot of transparency. We don’t have a lot of deductions. It works very well. With our package, we’re obviously putting in tax relief for Kiwis. It does show a difference between what our Government and some members of the Opposition think

In addition to dealing with lowering tax—actually giving Kiwi families and businesses a break, actually letting them get on with spending some of their own money—we’ve also been able to do that by actually reining in Government spending, and so we’ve actually had to take a very considered approach to how we’re taking and spending taxpayers’ money. We wanted to make sure that that is being spent well and they are actually getting the public services that they deserve.

Chlöe Swarbrick: They’re not.

TODD STEPHENSON: Well, that’s right, because under the last lot, we didn’t measure how public services were actually being delivered and what they were getting, and so we’re taking a different approach.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’d check the veracity of those statements.

TODD STEPHENSON: I also heard Ms Swarbrick say that tax cuts won’t actually improve productivity. Well, that’s wrong. Actually, putting in place a capital gains is a tax on investment, and, in fact, what we need to do is actually have people investing in our businesses to improve productivity—adopting new technology, training their staff, etc., etc. Actually, lower taxes do improve productivity.

The other thing that we’ve made sure we’ve done is we’re being very clear about what people are getting for their taxes, and so we’ve been able to do two things with this reduction in taxes. One, we’re saying, “People, you had no tax relief for many, many, many years, and we’re delivering that.” Number two, we’re taking a hard look at the Government books and making sure we’re getting value and spending for money. It’s a totally different approach to what has been done previously, but we’re very proud in ACT to be a part of a Government actually taking that approach, and so I will be commending this bill to the House on behalf of ACT.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

Before I begin, I do want to say a congratulations today to Stuart Smith, who has become the Chief Whip of National and of the Government. He is someone I’ve worked closely with in the Kaikōura electorate. It also just reminds this House of the importance of South Island MPs, as we’re now sitting in very prominent positions, and also our new Minister for the South Island. But I realise I need to keep focused and get on to the bill at hand.

New Zealand First does support this bill, for a number of reasons. As you can see, this bill is substantial. It’s complex——170-odd pages, with 200 amendments, so it is a piece of legislation that is difficult to get to know every amendment in it. But, again, the people who have specialised knowledge—and I do acknowledge the Hon Dr Deborah Russell and her contributions during the committee stage, because this stuff in here can put the ordinary New Zealander to sleep. But the ordinary New Zealander is interested in the tax rates, and they’re being confirmed in this piece of legislation.

It is also difficult to hear from the Opposition as they, again, discuss that they will not support this as we go through the readings. This Government finally made the proactive decision to change the thresholds in the tax rates. That is something that New Zealanders have waited for since 2010 to see changes in the thresholds—2010. We actually have the Opposition saying to us, “Actually, we don’t support that. We don’t support seeing extra money in New Zealanders’ pockets.” I find that very difficult to understand in a cost of living crisis, that we can’t get support across the House to actually get the support that our families, our business owners, and our individuals need to just buy the basics. That is disappointing. It’s a different philosophy, where that side of the House believes they will tax, tax, tax, and their philosophy is that they will do everything for everyone, but there is self-responsibility, and this side of the House believes that by putting more money into people’s pockets, people can make the right decisions.

Also, as I mentioned, there are so many amendments in this piece of legislation. Probably the most substantial one is the emergency events. I’ve seen in my electorate, in Kaikōura, the earthquakes that came. We’ve seen the North Island floods and weather events, and we’re seeing, over time, the different events that come. In this piece of legislation, the changes here allow an Order in Council, and I think that is the big thing. Instead of having to have a piece of legislation that goes through the House, an Order in Council can make the necessary, quick changes to actually help people that are in times of need, in times where different emergency events have occurred. It is good that there is consensus across the House on that amendment.

We’ve also heard around KiwiSaver the overseas pension transfer reforms. We heard through submitters how people bringing their pensions back into New Zealand were actually being penalised. So, for those people, this actually helps them to not get taxed in a bulk amount but actually allows the money to come back into the pension fund and actually be dealt with in a way that the pension fund can actually pay the amount of tax that is required, instead of the individual ending up with a lump sum of tax to have to pay.

Also, through the bill, there were zero-rated issues, the GST zero-rated issues around the international vessels—some common-sense remedials in that sense. We also heard from the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago around FamilyBoost and the importance of changing so people are eligible for FamilyBoost—some minor changes there.

We had 28 submissions. It’s a technical bill. We did hear from the likes of PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, those tax advisers who specialise, and they were able to bring those finer details to light. The committee, through the 16 oral hearings, have made changes. What I can say is that it is a minimal fiscal cost to the Government but they make substantial changes to individuals and to businesses in New Zealand.

I think what I want to end up on here is that sometimes with remedials, they only affect you when it’s something out of the blue or it’s a minor thing, but when they actually affect your business or you as an individual, they become a substantial issue, and that’s what this remedial bill does. Those loopholes—it actually gives an answer to people having to pay their tax. So, in that, it is good to see that this bill sorts out those issues, those pitfalls, and, actually, what you hope happens is that future taxpayers don’t have to stumble or fight IRD or have to go through lengthy discussions, because we actually find a solution in this bill.

On all those parts, New Zealand First supports. I look forward to this going through to the committee of the whole House stage. So I further say that I commend it to the House. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I rise to my feet and give a short kōrero on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

The change is a change of income tax by stealth, hammering the wrong end of town once again. I just heard the last speaker, Jamie Arbuckle, talk about how there’s a minimal fiscal cost on the Government, but it would have quite a substantial cost to the income earner. I’m talking about Māori as a whole. As we all know, our tax system has fuelled extreme wealth inequities, and this Government’s changes will further facilitate the theft of our hard-earned money.

The Government’s tax adjustment will make our poorest whānau worse off—3,000 single-parent householders are earning less because of these tax cuts. This Government has given $3 billion tax cuts to landlords while over a million people who are earning less than $30,000 a year will only get $2 a week from their tax cuts. They have taken away public transport subsidies, free prescriptions. They’ve also taken away first-home grants. They’ve increased rates. They’ve cut the minimum wage, cut the benefit, cut 10,000 jobs. All of this for a couple more dollars a week.

We are not stupid. We know that you are taking away more than you are giving. The $3 billion tax cut for landlords is more than just a blatant example of the real priorities—looking after the rich mates. This tax cut is actually going to make the housing crisis so much worse in the long run. It will allow mega landlords to borrow more money to buy more houses until 99 percent of the people in Aotearoa are paying their rent to the 1 percent of homeowners. We have heard a lot of talk about Māori privilege because the super-wealthy need us to blame each other before we blame them. First they stole the land, then they stole our labour. This is what this country has come to.

It is an absolute travesty that the tax policies were implemented—if we had a tax policy, 98 percent of the whānau here in Aotearoa would be better off overnight. I’ll tell you why: removing GST, removing income tax for whānau on low incomes, we would increase take-home pay for 98 percent of whānau, income tax on those earning more than $200k, the company tax rate from 28 percent to 33 percent. We’ll introduce a wealth tax, foreign companies tax, land banking tax, vacant house tax. These are the omnibus taxes that we should be discussing in any bill.

When you’ve got 2 percent of the country controlling 50 percent of this country’s wealth, that is a travesty. And we continue to talk about omnibus bills that affect the lowest income earners here in Aotearoa. This Government has no aroha. It has no heart for those hard-earning, hard-working communities out there, and this, once again, is going to make it even harder. Yes, there are some good things in there, but there are a hell of a lot of other things we should be doing with our tax system. The tax system is broken and it continues to allow the rich to pay only 9 percent while the rest of Aotearoa pays 20.2 percent. This is the reality, and that’s the omnibus bill that we should be talking about.

All of these changes would actually affect 98 percent of Aotearoa’s earning capacity, but what we’re doing is continuing to favour the 2 percent that continue to control 50 percent of the country’s wealth, and this Government continues to move bills in their favour. We must look at a tax system that’s fairer. Wealth tax is the only way—is the only way. Yes, you’re allowing people to be able to transfer monies from overseas back here, but we are not punishing those who are making billions of dollars—the banks, the supermarkets, who are Australian-owned—to take the income and the profit that they make overseas. That’s the tax we should be talking about. That money should be used for the greater good of Aotearoa, but it is not.

What we are doing here is discussing an omnibus bill that’s going to put more pressure on those who work hard to uphold the lavish lifestyle of the rich—and, again, the 2 percent that control 50 percent of this country’s wealth. We will not be supporting this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick mentioned before, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not be supporting this bill. Yes, there were parts that have been mentioned that were a technical change, but let us be clear: this bill is a technical solution. It is a gentle edit to the potential hopes and dreams that people of Aotearoa New Zealand could achieve, and this bill does nothing for most of the people of Aotearoa, in this case.

Let us reiterate: through this bill, the top 40 percent get a break of $1.6 billion or 55 percent of the break, and that is from the officials themselves. That is in the regulatory impact statement. On top of that, $750 million a year for landlords for tax cuts, with the bottom 20 percent only getting 5.4 percent of the tax cuts—130,000 households get nothing. Let us just remember those stats: 130,000 households get nothing at all; 8,000 households are worse off.

You have people who will tell you, “Isn’t a tax cut good? Isn’t it nice that some people just get a little bit of money in their back pocket?” Let us break it down. If you are a couple and you are on superannuation and that’s all you are on, you are getting—through the Government’s own budget calculator—$8.62 for the couple, for the two of you, per fortnight. That is $2.16 per week. That is 31c per day. A two litre bottle of milk has gone up by 29c, just most recently. A one kilo block of cheese has gone up by 10c. When the cost of living cannot keep up, when the money that people are getting, the tax cuts people are getting, cannot keep up with the cost of living, that is not a tax break. That is not beneficial to the people of Aotearoa.

What we are seeing is a Government that only talks about growth, and before we talk about the fact that we have seen a Prime Minister who consistently uses the term “ruthlessly in pursuit of growth”, I would like to remind the House that the adverb “ruthlessly” has never been used in any positive light. That is only ever used to describe cruel and cold-blooded intent. That is the official definition of ruthlessly. This is the leadership that we have in Aotearoa.

We are seeing the Government, in order to cover the deficit, using overseas as a way of selling off and of entertaining the privatisation and the commercialisation of assets from Aotearoa of things that people of Aotearoa have worked and earned them for themselves and for their whānau and for their communities. We have seen the fact that just today, the Prime Minister will not commit to our nationally determined contributions as part of the Paris Agreement and without even recognising the fiscal cost that this will have on Aotearoa, on the whole. We are seeing shocking stats for child poverty. We’re seeing one in eight of our tamariki living in material hardship, one in five for tamariki Māori, one in four for Pasifika children.

We’re seeing hack and slash to the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme, and within that we’re seeing the way that this Government chooses to evaluate programmes that are meant to be feeding our tamariki. Out of the six evaluations that they will be using, three are about cost saving. They are not about our tamariki, they are not about our mokopuna, and they are not about our future. This is the reality of this bill, but an alternative is possible. It just requires political will. Poverty is a political choice, taxation is a political choice, and we have the tools to make those kind of genuine changes based on data, based on what economists around Aotearoa and internationally are telling us. What we need, what we need in terms of a capital gains tax, what we need in terms of trust tax or stamp duty—those are things that are possible for us. This is the time for us to hold on to that hope, and let’s not just simply edit.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): We’ve heard a lot on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, particularly the Opposition continuing to decline and continuing to reject the tax cuts that New Zealanders deserve 14 years on from the last lift of the tax thresholds—14 years on. What we are hearing, for those that are upset about this reconfirmation of the 2024-25 tax year, is their anti-ness of hard-working Kiwis getting some tax relief, as they have done in the last nine months. Can I remind the House that, overall, 83 percent of Kiwis or 94 percent of households benefited from the Government’s tax package—personal tax package—that we are confirming today through this taxation bill.

The thresholds have risen from $14,000 to $15,600 for the 17.5 percent tax rate. They have risen from $48,000 to $53,500 for those paying the 30 percent tax rate. They’ve risen from $70,000 to $78,100 for the 33 percent tax rate. The threshold above that hasn’t been changed. This is a tax cut that only benefits those that are earning those dollars—the dollars treated beneath $78,100. It’s a tax cut from low to middle income workers; it’s not skewed towards the wealthy. It’s effectively capped: the tax-cut benefit stops at every dollar earned after $78,100.

This is a tax cut not for the rich. I reiterate: this is a tax cut for low to middle income workers, and frankly, any dollars earned after $78,100 are not getting a tax cut. This is for middle New Zealand. We are proud of this, and this is why this side of the House will be voting for this taxation amendment bill. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to comment on this bill. I do so mainly in my capacity as the Labour Party spokesperson on emergency management.

For those who are familiar with the content of this bill, they’ll be aware that there are significant changes that this bill makes in relation to the way that emergencies are dealt with in New Zealand. Unfortunately, we do live a country, otherwise known as the “Shaky Isles”, that does frequently experience emergency situations due to natural events, and also we’ve had emergency situations in our recent history to do with COVID-19. This is something that everyone in this House will be familiar with, and I’m sure there’s many people who have lived through and supported their constituents through some of these events, which are mentioned in the documentation provided to support this bill.

In relation to those emergency measures that are in this taxation bill, essentially, as I understand it—and I wasn’t privileged enough to be on the committee that looked into this, but from my understanding—this bill, effectively, enables an off-the-shelf measure of tax support that can be utilised in an emergency situation. We did have that under the previous Labour Government and also under the previous National Government, who dealt with other disasters.

We’ve had a number of emergencies that have been looked at in relation to tax relief. We’ve had the Kaikōura earthquake; we’ve had the COVID-19 response. We’ve also had the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle as recent examples of when tax has been utilised in order to assist the emergency response in a situation. That part of the bill the Labour Party is supportive of. You would have heard my colleague Deborah Russell, who has been participating extensively in this at select committee, mentioning the reasons that those provisions are necessary. That is something that I think will be welcomed by New Zealanders in terms of these particular changes.

Another thing which I think is interesting is the proposal to turn off the brightline test in a situation where there is an emergency event. Obviously that type of situation could be quite catastrophic for the person involved, and so these obviously address those situations. I don’t need to tell the House about how awful some of these situations can be, but it was interesting for me to see how our taxation system and the good people at Inland Revenue were able to utilise the existing measures in order to address some of these emergency events but also, hopefully, to make this easier in the future so that future Governments—obviously, we all knock on wood and we hope that there aren’t huge emergency situations that this country has to face in the future, but we understand and emergency management people will tell you that it is when, not if, we face another disaster. I think it is prudent that those are included.

That was the main aspect that I wanted to cover in my contribution today, but the other thing that I feel I must address is the fact that, as has been mentioned by other members and also members across the House, we will not be supporting this bill as a whole. That is really because of the fact that there are the inclusion of the tax changes that were brought in in the Budget as a schedule to this bill. That is something that we disagreed with. I’ve heard members opposite say they can’t understand why we would feel that way. I just think it’s important to look at this holistically in terms of the impact that those tax changes have had on New Zealand.

Of course we want New Zealanders to have support in a cost of living crisis, of course we want all of our needs to be met within a society, but unfortunately the thing with tax cuts is timing is really important. It was a very difficult time, and we’re seeing the consequences of that through our health system. We are seeing consequences of that through other programmes, like the school lunch programme, which has had a reduction in funding. We are seeing things that we wouldn’t necessarily choose ourselves. This is a very important political difference that is highlighted within this bill within the way that we approach taxation within New Zealand.

On this side of the House, we want New Zealanders to flourish. We want to see an economy that is doing well. We want to see a productive economy. We want to see people doing as well as they possibly can. In our view, the changes that were put in place by the Government during the Budget process are not the way to do that. That has been seen through some of the terrible implications to our public services and our health system and our education system that we have already discussed. This is an important matter of principle. It’s not something that we do lightly. I just wanted to acknowledge some of those comments that the members on the other side of the House had in relation to that.

Overall, this is a bill that we can’t support, but at the same time we do recognise the hard work that has actually come about through not just this Government but also the previous Labour Government, and possibly even previous Governments to that, in working towards building better taxation systems. Not everything in a bill is always something that is bad. In this bill there are aspects that we support, and I think we really showed our good faith in that through the participation of—as has been widely acknowledged around the House—our resident tax expert, Dr Deborah Russell, who participated in good faith to make sure that although she didn’t support wholeheartedly the purpose of the bill, she worked very hard to make sure that the changes within that are workable. That sometimes happens in this House. I think that we have set that out really clearly.

I cannot commend this bill, but I want to acknowledge the work that has been done by others on the committee and through other parliaments in the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very telling what the last speaker Camilla Belich just said—things like “We take a holistic approach.” and “Tax reduction is all about timing.” We actually felt that, after 14 years and a cost of living crisis, it was actually pretty good timing. But, no, that side of the House thinks Government knows best. That’s why we’re now having reforms with tertiary, hospital, tax—just a mess everywhere we go, because they think Wellington knows best. Well, we like to give money back to the Kiwis that earn it.

One thing that I haven’t heard also is about FamilyBoost, which is another supportive mechanism. Some of the elements of it were ratified through this tax bill. In fact, one of the things I learnt, and you might learn too, sir, is that you can actually claim FamilyBoost for up to four years. If any family members haven’t claimed—sorry, Madam Speaker; not you personally, but anyone that wants to claim FamilyBoost can actually claim it for up to four years, such is the opportunity there, which really helps those lower and middle income families, as Cameron so aptly put before.

There were over 100 tidy-ups in this bill. Given it is a second reading, it is important to reference the select committee process, and I just want to read some commentary from Deloitte which was published at the time: “The bill itself is less controversial than some of its predecessors as it largely contains taxpayer friendly measures aimed at reducing compliance costs and increasing productivity.” For this reason, all Government parties and the Labour Party also voted in favour of the bill at the first reading, while the Green Party and Darleen Tana voted against the bill. Note, Te Pāti Māori were not present to cast a vote, so there aren’t many surprises there.

One thing that was quite interesting with this is this bill touches on tax administration, GST, KiwiSaver, stamp and cheque duties, and income tax, and the great thing about KiwiSaver is those under 16 can now access it with only the consent of one parent or guardian, which is just awesome. We support it. That’s a brilliant thing.

The other thing which I wouldn’t want to go unnoticed was SPV, or special purpose vehicles. There was a bit of a tidy-up—recommendations 65 to 68. We’ve heard a lot about infrastructure and infrastructure funding and financing, and a lot of the entities that sit behind that are special purpose vehicles. It’s very important that the tweaks such as “has received assets from a third party that is not a trust or has self-originated assets.”—those things were tidy-ups and it’s wonderful, so I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s interesting listening to the previous speaker, Ryan Hamilton, about how votes were cast at previous readings. That’s part of this Parliament; part of the process is to litigate the issues and to vote yes sometimes. Then it moves through select committee, and then minds can be changed, as they should be, because it’s not a binary decision from the first reading to the third reading. It’s actually about looking at the issues and debating them, which this place is all about. I feel really comfortable with the fact that maybe at one stage a party has voted yes and now they’re voting no, as we are here, because we on this side of the House and the Labour Party will not be supporting this legislation.

As the spokesperson for economic development, it is really interesting to look into the taxation and what it means and then to hear the comments from the other side in terms of, you know, giving tax cuts and people’s hard-earned money that they get to keep, which, of course—

Cameron Brewer: Great idea.

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, I’m just going to let—if you let me continue my train of thought, which you’re not even sure where I’m going with this. The factors around economic development is something that is crucially important to the wellbeing of Aotearoa, and in terms of the challenges we have in this space, I believe it comes back to looking at the expectations that councils had, which has been removed from the current Government, which is around the wellbeings, because we’ve got to look at this holistically.

We’ve got to look at this not just in the ecosystem of economics and cash; we’ve got to look at where it fits within our environmental, with our cultural, with our society. It is so important for us to be looking at taxation, not just taking money off people, but we’ve got to rethink the narrative around that—and they have their views and opinions; they’re not even listening, which is fine by me—because we need to talk and have better conversations around tax. We’ve got to consider it as our contribution. We are members of society, and unless they were part of the 1980s Tory Government in the UK, we do believe in this country that society is something that we participate in, and participating in society is around paying our fair share to drive on our roads, to access our hospitals, to access our education system, to access the infrastructure needs that we have.

The challenge that the Labour Party has around this legislation is really seeing that the Government made some choices. They made some choices to give some tax cuts, but the challenge now is “Where do we find the money to ensure that our hospitals, to ensure that our schools, to ensure that our public transport is world class?” That’s where we really need to sit back and consider the conversation around tax, and not just that “It’s mine. I’ve got to keep every last penny, and I’ve earned this. It’s my right”; it’s around “What is my contribution to my community, and what is my contribution to my neighbour?”

I know that many people in the National Party that I meet with and talk with do believe in that. They believe that we as a society are judged by how we treat our most vulnerable, and being a member of the New Zealand society, being a New Zealand taxpayer, is around our contribution. As we look at this legislation, as it’s been through the select committee process, there have been things from the Labour Party that we have looked at and said, “Well, we just can’t support this going any further forward.”

I find it interesting, also, that in my community of New Plymouth, we look at what choices Government has made in terms of tax breaks, and then what things have had to be cut because of that. I was very passionate and very confident in the work that I had been doing around housing, which was something I did long before coming into this House, and then since being in this House, and the fact that we’re able to get many new Kāinga Ora houses on the schedule to be built—we got many built. In fact, just earlier, or just like last year, we had 48 new beautiful homes open in central New Plymouth. To see, then, the hard work that was done and investment made be cut—to have the number of Kāinga Ora houses that were being built in my own city, to have that cut—has been devastating not only for the community but for myself in terms of championing the causes, of getting everyone into a place that they can call home, because it is so important.

We can’t support this beyond second reading. We want to work constructively with Government, and we can’t support this bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, look, the irony, with a couple of minutes to go, of hearing from the spokesperson for economic development that he would oppose this bill. The best way to achieve economic development is actually to make sure hard-working people get to keep more of their hard-working dollars. Wellington does not know best, but people do.

Let me finish with a quote from the famous economist Milton Friedman, who, by the way, shares a birthday with my wife. Milton said, “I am in favor of [tax cuts] under any circumstances for any … reason, whenever it’s possible. Governments never learn. Only people [do].” With that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, it is time for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is resumed. Before dinner, we were debating the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, and we are on call No. 11, which I believe is a Labour Party call.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to stand and speak on this bill.

I reflect on a number of matters in this bill from my time as a Minister, and importantly, the ones around emergency events. I think it’s a little known fact that only two Ministers in the history of this country—if I recall correctly—have actually signed a national declaration of emergency, and I know I was one of them. I was what was termed the Minister of Civil Defence at the time of the pandemic, and when we locked down the country, one of my key roles was to use the powers I had in the legislation to declare a national emergency. The pandemic itself was unique in so far as it’s one every 100 years, I think it was, so it triggered a whole heap of other things that needed to happen to make sure that we could support New Zealanders, and that was about ensuring that where there were challenges around taxes or the ability to file—businesses who were struggling. I do see some of the sense in making sure that we’ve got a particular piece of work under way.

I know, when we were in power, we looked at how we might make things a little more streamlined, make it far more efficient. The fact of the matter remains, though, that emergency events are different, just by the fact of the types of emergency events that happen in New Zealand. Through my time, I can say I’ve dealt with two fires, three floods, a pandemic, a volcanic eruption, and there was one more I was trying to think of—oh, no, I wasn’t quite there when the Kaikōura earthquakes hit, but I remember there was a lot of apprehension around those emergency events that happened in New Zealand. The point here is making sure that the tax system is able to respond when it needs to.

Overall, and underlining much of what we talk about in tax, is the tax policy and its overall intent—what it looks to do to support New Zealanders. While there are parts of this bill that I can reflect upon, as I mentioned in emergency stakes, overall, ultimately, what we can’t accept is that we would change a tax policy—and we opposed the tax changes that this Government did in last year’s Budget, because we believe it didn’t actually provide the kinds of support that New Zealanders deserve. At the time, New Zealanders were sold something that said you could get up to $250 a week back through the tax cuts being proposed by this Government, yet reality tells us that in our communities, that isn’t the case. Just overall, this tax policy from this Government is something we can’t support.

As I mentioned, there are some things—and that’s just by virtue of the experience I’ve had as a Minister to try and make sure that tax works for our people, because, for the most part, people don’t understand how tax works or doesn’t work for them. Most people will sit back and just expect it to happen to them, and that’s certainly the case in a lot of the communities that I’ve represented in my years here in Parliament, and I reflect on some of those communities, like the ones that were impacted by significant emergency events—so it just sort of happens to them.

As I’ve mentioned, the Labour Party made it very clear that we didn’t support the work that this Government was doing overall on tax because we didn’t feel that it actually supported Kiwis how they’d hoped, how the Government promised it would, and how we hoped on this side of the House it might, and it just simply didn’t. What we’ve seen from this Government over the last year—at least—is more changes to see those who are worse off have less, and those who are well-off actually get to save a lot more of their money for themselves.

Now, when we look at such omnibus or big bills like this, we look towards the detail. As I mentioned with regards to the emergency stakes, there is some good stuff there. For some of the other things, though—and there were some expressions throughout the Finance and Expenditure Committee process that showed concerned around the Privacy Commissioner and their view about the sharing of information. In light of a number of events that have happened over the past 12 months, it’s important that people’s data, people’s personal information, continue to be protected and have the kind of apparatus around it to give confidence in the public institutions.

Simply having quite a liberal approach, if you will, to the way that information is shared—with other agencies, or what have you—should always bring questions about it from all members of this House as we look towards the work that we do to support our constituents. As I’ve mentioned, there have been a number of challenges with data and with data security, and I suspect that those challenges will only continue to grow when we look at the big challenges with the protection of data.

I can recall one time, in one of my previous roles as an associate health Minister, the health system came under huge cyber-attacks, and significant amounts of data was challenged and was compromised. It’d be easy for New Zealand to say, “Well, we’re a small country, we should be able to secure it.” Well, the way that it worked was it was so broken up into different parts that there was no way actually that we could have protected that data. Simply having a provision in this bill that looks towards an easier stream or share of data, without the kind of analysis on the systems that I’ve been privy to in my previous roles as a Minister in different portfolios, must always bring questions about in the House.

The fact that the Privacy Commissioner in their submission and in their advice that they gave to the committee highlighted that is, I think, one of the things that need to be said on the record here, to make sure that the New Zealand public take their data and their information as something serious, and that we continue to grow the kind of confidence that New Zealanders expect when they think about their own personal information.

On top of that, there are a number of other smaller things that it attempts to do—looking at offshore superannuation accounts and the ability to look towards tax support or provisions there. Ultimately, though, when I think about that particular provision, I think about what actually needs to happen on a bigger scale as we look towards the way that people travel between countries and the arrangements that we have with these countries, because I’m sure most electorate MPs, or those that support constituents, have constituents that come into their office to talk about their super that currently sits in another country.

Now, I accept that some of them are countries that we would never have an arrangement with that would allow them access or to bring those super funds here, or, you know, something that’s more favourable to them, but for others, they do have questions. I recall just recently jumping in an Uber here in Wellington and the Uber driver, a scientist sadly laid off by a number of the cuts the Government made, but none the less a lovely wahine who is German, her and her tāne—her and her husband—had constant battles with the law, with Inland Revenue, as they looked towards their super that they had offshore.

Now, my point here is we can tinker around the edges on these things, but, ultimately, there’s going to have to be something far more substantive to make sure that those who are impacted by these matters around overseas super—the ability to access, the ability to transfer, and even the sharing of information around those particular superannuation schemes must be something that’s looked at (1) with considerable competency, but (2) with a considerable view to the entire superannuation package.

That’s why, on this side of the House, I’ll reiterate the point: the devil is in the detail, but we can tinker with the tax system as much as we want and we can always change little bits here and there on the edges, but, ultimately, what the country deserves is a tax system that is clear, is transparent, is easy to understand, and is something that the country and the public have the ability to have a clear eye across and a say on.

On a number of these matters—because there are a lot of matters in this bill—I feel the public are in the dark. I don’t know if they’ve actually been consulted or whether or not it’s just something that’s driven out of Wellington. I think of the family tax credit, which just in recent days a number of stories in the media have highlighted around shortcomings of how this Government is managing the family tax credit scenario and complicating it for more and more Kiwis who rely on those types of matters.

We can’t support this bill despite there being some parts in there that were started under our Government. Ultimately, if this Government wants to get it right, they’ve got to make sure that tax works for New Zealanders instead of the other way around.

NANCY LU (National): I’m very proud to be standing, as the last speaker, to support the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill at the second reading. I think it’s time to make it clear now, after the 11 speakers before me, who spoke about the different parts in this bill: yes, it is a giant bill, in the way that it includes so many hundreds of changes. There are many, in media responses and also in experts’ responses, with experts having to look into the different categories to really understand the areas that they are interested in.

I guess, as the last speaker on this bill, it is very important for me just to summarise for everyone who has turned on their TV right now, and also summarise all of the speakers above me, the key messages that this bill is really doing. It is a bill to ensure that the New Zealand tax system is efficient, is fair, and is also fit for purpose. For what? For who? For the ever rapidly changing New Zealand economy and tax system for all New Zealanders, and all of us sitting in this House, this side or the opposite side, are lawmakers in New Zealand trying to make laws—for who? For New Zealanders. All that we are doing here is making sure that our tax system—our revenue system—is reflective of what New Zealanders need on a day-by-day basis so that they can get on with making money, making progress, and making things work for their family. I think it is very important to actually look into the community, to look into the economy, on what people think this bill is doing.

Now, I have to quote one of the big four accounting firms, Deloitte—and there are many more, and I have worked for some of them, so I respect the level of expertise that they have in their firms—and I have to quote this, which I particularly like: “The Bill itself is less controversial tha[n] some of its predecessors as it largely contains taxpayer friendly measures aimed at reducing compliance costs and increasing productivity.” This is exactly what the National Government is doing. We are talking about cutting red tape, so therefore reducing compliance costs. We are talking about growth for New Zealand, which is about increasing productivity. This is why I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill

Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill

Second Readings

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Growth: I present legislative statements on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

These bills are omnibus bills introduced with the agreement of the Business Committee to make changes to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—MBIE. These bills are about good regulatory practice, keeping legislation up to date.

Continuously reviewing and amending legislation is an important contributor to having well-designed regulatory settings that provide the foundation for economic growth. Each change made by these bills is small by itself, but collectively the changes will reduce compliance burden and red tape, fix known problems with legislation, clarify unclear provisions and remove redundant provisions, allow legislation to adapt to changing information and technology, and ensure that people are getting their intended entitlements and regulatory protection. Because the bills have similar purposes, the Business Committee also agreed that they can be considered together by this House.

MBIE is one of the largest regulatory agencies, being responsible for around 140 pieces of legislation across a wide range of subjects. Some of this legislation is very old and may have been amended many times, which can mean that aspects are out of date or that it has become difficult to understand and administer.

Between them, these bills amend 31 Acts and associated regulations administered by MBIE. The economic development bill amends 24 Acts and associated regulations across five portfolios: commerce and consumer affairs; science, innovation and technology; media and communications; justice; and energy. The immigration and workforce bill amends seven Acts, and amends and revokes associated regulations across three portfolios: immigration, workplace relations and safety, and energy.

In keeping with the broad range of MBIE responsibilities, the amendments in the bills do several things. They tidy up unclear definitions and ambiguous language. They make it easier for registrars to correct inaccurate information on the registers they administer. They facilitate the use of electronic means to provide information to regulators, and for regulators to provide notifications and maintain registers. They also provide for certain types of deeds to be signed electronically. They remove redundant requirements to provide information, file reports, and renew notices that are always renewed in practice. They correct inadvertent errors in a couple of recently passed Acts: the Electricity Industry Amendment Act 2022 and the Plant Variety Rights Act 2022.

They facilitate the implementation of international mutual recognition schemes that allow managed funds based in one country to be offered more easily to investors in other countries, like the Asia Region Funds Passport. They provide for collaboration between the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority on matters involving unfair contract terms and contracts relating to financial services or products.

They ensure that people get their intended entitlements to paid parental leave in certain circumstances. They also allow ACC to issue a single invoice to cover ACC and health and safety at work levies, which will reduce the health and safety at work levy, on average, by $20 per year for the ACC clients it applies to. They allow the ministry for energy to approve dedicated electricity and gas safety instruments to keep technical regulatory requirements up to date. And, finally, they strengthen aspects of the regulation of immigration advisers. Being represented by an unqualified or an unscrupulous immigration adviser can impose significant costs on a visa applicant.

The economic development bill has been considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and the immigration workforce bill has been considered by the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d like to thank the submitters who took time to make written and oral submissions on the bills and to thank the committees for their careful consideration of the bills. The committees have recommended that the bills be passed with a few amendments, which I agree with.

I want to draw attention to some of the committees’ recommendations. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has recommended some additional amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001, proposed by the Minister for Media and Communications. These amendments address the expiry of rights of access to shared property for low- and medium-impact fibre installations. The rights that expired on 1 January 2025 will be reinstated for three years while a review is carried out that considers the long-term future of the issue. This will continue to support New Zealanders getting access to high-speed broadband.

The committee has recommended some amendments to electricity regulations. These amendments are a consequence of changes in the bill, relating to regulation of specified persons.

The committee also recommended removing a proposed requirement that a building society must have 70 percent of its depositories by number and value of deposits living in New Zealand. This requirement is not necessary because other amendments to the Building Societies Act 1965 will ensure that building societies have a substantive New Zealand presence to be registered here. The committee has agreed with submitters that there should be a transition period of six months to allow organisations affected by the proposed changes to the Financial Reporting Act 2013 to adjust to the new requirements.

The Education and Workforce Committee has recommended several changes to the provisions that amend the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act. These changes make the provisions for complaints about immigration advisers more accessible to complainants, clearly convey that those subject to a tribunal order can seek to have that order lifted or varied, clarify that the tribunal or the Registrar of Immigration Advisers can determine whether specified conditions have been met, and clarify that certain information may no longer be required for the purpose of the register of immigration advisers.

These bills are an increasingly important tool for regulatory agencies to keep the legislation they administer up to date. Collectively, the amendments in these bills will make a difference to the people regulated by, and who benefit from, the amended Acts. The amendments will also allow the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to operate more efficiently and effectively. I commend these bills to the House.

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

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on this legislation. It’s interesting—this Parliament moves in mysterious ways. This legislation came into the House under the guidance of the Hon Melissa Lee and it comes back into the House under the guidance of the Hon Nicola Willis, and so, yes, a lot changes in a select committee stage that moves things forward.

I’m going to speak because, obviously, the way this has been put together there is the economic development side, and then there’s employment and the side around immigration, so let me just gather my thoughts. We do support this—

Dan Bidois: Well, that’s good news.

GLEN BENNETT: —as it continues on, and it is good news because it’s simple, it’s pragmatic, and back in 2012, I believe, some changes were made to allow this sort of tidy-up and fix-up of Acts of Parliament to modernise and to ensure that they meet their current requirements and purposes; simple things like electronic and online use, etc.

I want to speak for a moment about the proposed amendments around the Building Societies Act 1965. That’s a classic example of how legislation in this House works. That was done long before I was born and, of course, the world has moved on and has changed and New Zealand society has moved on and has changed. Within the original bill—this is the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill—and then coming back to the House, we look at clause 26, which would insert new section 13(2)(b) to require that 70 percent by number and value of depositors to the building society be New Zealand residents. As a result of these requirements from the building societies and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), we recommend that, actually, this be removed.

I was a bit concerned about that because I felt that, as we have moved forward as a society and as we become far more multicultural and international, the challenge for us as a society is obviously ensuring that building societies retain New Zealand ownership and a connection to us. It’s something that we can live with, and I know through the select committee process there was discussion, and the reason it was taken out was the fact that submitters made it clear that there was some fish-hooks and ongoing consequences of that. Therefore, again, seeing the parliamentary process at work, seeing that at work, where it comes into the House in a certain form, the select committee does the work that the select committee does, which is, of course, being informed by the voice of New Zealanders to move that on.

This bill, as I said, is technical. For some of us it might seem a little bit boring because it is just trying to deal and move through different parts of what has been. I want to also commend, in terms of the process that we go through, the staff at MBIE. Now, it is a huge organisation in terms of the portfolios and the work that is put on their plate, but the fact that we have such good officials and staff who actually look after MBIE—and in terms of this legislation, they are able to guide, inform the select committee. But also, obviously, that consultation, which is such a gift in New Zealand—even though we get frustrated and even though things don’t always go our way, and even though sometimes we wished and hoped that people would do what I say or what people say—means that, actually, in this situation, things can be talked through, can be sifted through, and we can find pragmatic solutions to the issues at hand in the select committee.

The Charitable Trusts Act 1957 is also something that this bill is looking at, and it’s around just, again, simplifying in terms of the fact that nowadays we have not only physical addresses but electronic addresses that need to be considered, and just those sorts of things are things that we need to move through quickly, just so that we can be in the 21st century; it’s very simple. This is non-controversial, I believe, in terms of where we stand; we will be supporting it. More of my colleagues will be speaking on the other elements of the bill as we go through the second reading, but from my perspective and from our perspective, we support this legislation.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Greens, we continue to support the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, as well as the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill.

As others have noted, we’ve seen a change of Ministers who are shepherding this legislation, and I want to acknowledge the work of the select committees in charge of this legislation, particularly because, as the previous speaker, Glen Bennett, noted, it is technical legislation. It actually touches on a broad range of issues, so that requires some technical advice as well on behalf of the different public servants who were guiding us through these bills. I also want to thank the people who have submitted on this legislation. There weren’t many, but I think many of them added really valuable contributions.

I’ll start with the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill. As members have noted, this one touches on, for example, the Electricity Act 1992, the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Gas Act 1992, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, the Mines Rescue Act 2013, and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.

I did want to talk on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 changes. We did have some submitters who were calling on us to look at the changes that were made in this particular space. If we look at what was changed, it touched on issues, for example, around whether Immigration New Zealand could decline or refuse to accept applications or requests from unlicensed immigration advisers where they have been automatically accepted by an electronic system in error. It also touched on issues like removing a 12month stand-down period preventing former Immigration New Zealand officers from being licensed as immigration advisers, and a two-year stand-down period preventing them from being employed by the Immigration Advisers Authority.

I think on that particular point there was a good discussion—and noted by submitters on considerations about, for example, whether somebody who had been working at Immigration New Zealand would have, I guess, a competitive advantage or privileged knowledge that would set them apart from their peers. I think there were some parallels being drawn to, for example, the conversations we’ve been having around whether former Ministers should be able to become lobbyists or whether there should be a grace period. I think there were some distinctions being drawn around the types of services that, for example, immigration advisers in this case would be providing to clients.

There were some contributions around the fact that, actually—and even from talking to people outside of this space around the benefits of actually having people who understood the ins and outs of Immigration New Zealand then being able to be equipped with the tools to then guide people through what is actually a really complicated process. There is a reason why the work of immigration advisers took a lot of the time at the select committee, and that is because we do have right now the reality where our immigration systems are so complicated to access, because we have built an immigration system that actually is disconnected in the sense of it being really hard to access by migrants when it comes to getting, for example, a real human face on the other side of the phone.

What we do have is a profession that is now needed more and more often. There are some challenging conversations we needed to have. One of those at the select committee that was brought forward by submitters was the opportunity to look at how unlicensed people were providing advice from offshore, so those like offshore agents, for example. That’s something that I do think needs more work. I can accept that perhaps it would have sat outside of the scope of what we were looking at in the bill, but I think when we were asked to look at this—and particularly the changes to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act—this is something that was encouraged to us to pay attention to, because there is that reality that no matter how much you resource a profession domestically, what you have inevitably is a range of people offshore who are providing often not robust advice.

The downfall of having that coming to the immigration advisers, I’m sure, is that you end up with people who’ve paid a lot of money and have been given the wrong advice, and that’s to the detriment of the profession locally and also the migrants here. If we look at Part 5 in terms of the amendments to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, that’s one of the—and I can see Mr Speaker is probably trawling through the papers to see which bits I’m referring to, but rest assured, I’ve got the paper in front of me—areas of particular interest to me, but also to our stakeholders and submitters. That’s one of the key areas.

I want to acknowledge Camilla Belich, who was also quite an active contributor at the select committee, particularly more on the issues to the other parts that are being changed on the Employment Relations Act. I think there was a bit of a tag team going on in terms of our areas of interest. I think this is particularly important in these regulatory systems bills because they do touch on such broad areas that it does require actually us putting our brains together and our areas of expertise into good use.

I will also note, like others said, that despite the sort of robust contributions they had from submitters, there weren’t issues that were massively controversial. Most of them that were part of the different amendments in this legislation were often about modernising our legislation and ensuring that it is up to date. We accept that, but at the same time, I think the Government should be ambitious that sometimes there are opportunities to modernise legislation and actually go beyond that.

As I mentioned earlier, when it came to immigration advisers, if we’re getting the feedback that there is more that we need to do that sits within this sort of like non-controversial space of regulatory systems, that energy should be put in to address these issues. I hope that the Government takes the contributions of submitters and doesn’t let them just kind of enter into a void where nothing else happens, but rather that those contributions are then taken to address other issues as well.

Finally, I’ll just touch on a reflection, which is that I remember when the previous Minister at the time came to present to the select committee on a public hearing, there was, I guess, a bit of journalistic attention to her presentation. I do want to reflect that as many of us struggle to grapple with the technicalities of this bill, I wouldn’t want to harshly judge the former Minister for her presentation at the time, even if I know that there were prying eyes on her when she was presenting. I think this is an opportunity for us to realise that, as many others have spoken, we MPs rely on the public sector to often also help inform us on how legislation will impact our communities.

This is why we need a well-resourced public sector so that we can get the best advice possible on, for example, technical bills such as these ones. I think bills like these also help continue sparking a conversation about whether the number of MPs that we have in this place is actually fit for purpose to then handle incredibly technical pieces of legislation when we have increasing demands to meet in terms of a growing population. With that, I’ll end my contribution and hope that this debate continues to be constructive for the remainder of the debate and its third reading.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT and ACT is supporting both the bills, which are being debated together. I think it’s a good idea to debate these bills together, because both bills are associated and are actually channelling towards economic development. When we talk about workforce, when we talk about immigration, that is all about economic development as well.

In the select committee process, we received submissions, and I would say that based on my experience of numbers of submissions that we receive on various bills and the contributions that were made by submitters during their oral presentation of their submission, these bills are definitely non-controversial bills, and it’s really good to see that other parties are supporting these two bills going forward as well.

It was really good to be on both select committees which considered these bills. As we have heard from members, those who contributed previously, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill was referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which I chair, and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee, so it was good to see how the bills went through the select committee process. Based on those observations, I can say that this bill makes some minor and technical changes and even in the select committee process, the changes that we made to these two bills are quite minor and technical. There wasn’t anything that was controversial.

As Ricardo Menéndez March mentioned before, there were some contributions which were not in the scope of this legislation. For example, he mentioned the stand-down period for those who come from backgrounds like working in Immigration New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), or if somebody is a Minister of Immigration—the stand-down period for them to become a licensed immigration adviser. Those kinds of things came through, but they were not in the scope of this bill.

Now, going forward, as I’ve said, the changes that we made in the select committee to these bills—because these two bills overall are quite simple and technical kinds of changes just to make sure that our systems are working efficiently. Each bill is amending a large number of Acts. For example, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill amends 24 Acts, and most of these Acts amended in both of these bills are administered by MBIE. Just to give an example to substantiate that the changes that the select committee made to these two bills were actually minor, I would pick the same field—that is, immigration, and the complaints against immigration advisers.

We know that immigration is an important area not only for those who come from overseas to contribute here and to have a new start for themselves as well but also for everybody who is here. We want to see that our immigration system is fair for everybody. The complaints system for immigration advisers is an important system, and section 44 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 sets out how complaints against immigration advisers are made. Clause 32 of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill amends section 44 of the Act to update the requirements for written complaints. We wanted to make sure that the complaint process is fair for people, those who want to make a complaint, those who have concerns, and we wanted to see that if they do not recall a particular kind of detail, they are not obstructed from proceeding with their complaint process. This is one example.

Just very quickly—as we know, both bills are non-controversial and I don’t want to take too much of our House’s time, as this time is really important—another example is the Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 64 sets out an employer’s obligation to retain a copy of an individual employment agreement, individual terms and conditions, or intended agreement. In this, the change that we made in the select committee was basically to clarify that the copy should be held not only by the employee but employer as well, and it should be readily available.

These are the kinds of changes that we’ve made in the select committee, basically just wanting to make sure that the intention of the changes that these two bills are making are clearer and they are fairer for the sides that we are dealing with. There are always two sides to things when we are dealing with some legislation, and we want to make sure that the changes are fairer for both. With that, I would say that the ACT Party supports these two bills and commends these two bills to the House. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of both the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill. I was fortunate to be on the select committee of the economic development bill, and it was actually quite an experience, I must admit, because there was so much technical knowledge coming across our desk. We really did have to think. I’m very grateful that the submitters were very invested in this piece of legislation and they gave us very detailed pieces of work as far as the submissions go, and I’d like to share just a few of them.

Being an accountant in a past life, I was very interested to see some of the changes that were coming through in the audit and finance side of things. Back in my day when I was a young auditor, we had big suitcases of paper that we carried around. Now here we are doing legislation to amend electronic signatures, for example, which back in my day would never have happened. Things have changed; that is why we need this sort of legislation. It’s a bit like repairs and maintenance, you may say, of a whole group of legislation. It’s one way of doing it efficiently and effectively. I kind of liken it to me doing my clear-out of my pantry every couple of years. I find all of the things that have expired or that I no longer use and replace them or update everything. In a way, this is what we’re doing with these bills.

With regards to the economic development bill, we had 18 submitters—not a lot, but they all gave very detailed explanations of why and what they were doing. They were quite wide and varied. As an example, we had a lawyer who specialised in charities law who gave her opinion on definitions and wording. She was very technical and very detailed in the information that she gave on why, and she was very focused and wanted to ensure she came in and gave that orally—that particular submission.

We had a submission from a big legal firm. They, for example, made their comment on audit fees and why some big public companies, known as large companies, are forced to incur costs of up to $100,000 when they do audits. There were certain loopholes there that these firms that are very specialised came in to explain to us in detail. A financial services organisation came in and spoke of the importance of having the electronic signatures now. At times like during the COVID period, we couldn’t do things like that—they needed to be introduced temporarily—but now it is being introduced.

Look, New Zealand First believe in cutting red tape, doing things efficiently and effectively, and having that mix of common sense in every decision that we make. We feel that these bills will provide the clarity and streamline the processes, so we will commend both of these bills to the House. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei. Ka kore au e toroa i taku kōrero i te pō nei, engari hei pānui ko te katoa o tōku kauwhau i te pō nei ka reo Māori, ā, nā runga anō i te mea mai i mea mai tētehi, i mea mai ki ahau, e rua wiki ki muri, kāti te pānui i ōku pepa, nā reira ehara au i te tangata tino matatau ki te reo Pākehā, nā reira ka reo Māori.

Āe, ko tēnei o ngā pire, ngēnei pire e rua, arā ko te Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, ka tahi, ka rua ko te Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill.

Ko ngēnei pire e rua, ahakoa tā rāua moroiti he āhua ko ngā wahanga i tēnei ka panoni. Kāore i te mea ka panoni i te horopaki o ngā ture ka whai i roto i tēnei o ngā, i ngēnei o ngā pire.

Ko ētahi o ngā pire, o ngā ture, aroha mai, ka whai pēhitanga ki ngā, ki te tau pātata atu nei ki te 2013, tae atu ki te 1957, nā reira ko ngā rautau ki muri nei. Ko te tino pūtake o tēnei, o ngēnei pire e rua, ko te whakawhanake ake i ngēnei o ngā ture, ka nui ngā ture ka whai pēhitanga ngēnei o ngā pire e rua.

Nā reira, ko tana pūtake ko te whakawhanake ki te ao anamata, ki tēnei rangi tonu. Waihoki, hei tauira, hei tāpiri atu ki ngā panonitanga o te wā pēnei i te ao hangarau. Arā atu noa ngā horopaki o te ao hangarau ka pēhi ki a tātou i tēnei wā.

Nō reira e mihi kau ana ki te komiti whakahaere nā koutou anō i wherawhera, i āta wānanga i ngēnei o ngā pire e rua. Mā te ohu pakihi anō hoki e kōkiri whakamua, ka ono marama mā rātou e whai ki te wānanga, ki te āta wherawhera, waihoki ki te whai hāneaneatanga ki ngēnei pire e rua. Nā reira mā ngā ohu katoa ka whai pēhitanga ki ngēnei pire. Engari ka nui ngā ture ka whai pēhitanga, āe.

Nā reira ko ngēnei pire e rua, ahakoa tā rāua moroiti, panoni āhua, ko tāna pūtake ko te whakawhanake i ētehi o ngā ture. Nā reira, āe, e tautoko katoatia ana e Te Pāti Māori i ngēnei pire e rua. Kia ora.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and indeed to us all in the House. I stand to convey the statements for Te Pāti Māori tonight. I won’t speak for long tonight but will read the entirety of my speech tonight in te reo Māori, and that is because someone said to me, two weeks ago, stop reading my papers, and so I’m not extremely competent in English; therefore, I will speak Māori.

Yes, these two bills, namely the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development Amendment) Bill, firstly, and secondly, the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill. These two bills, despite being small, there are some aspects that the sections of these will change. It’s not as if they will change the context of the laws which are included in these bills.

Some of the bills, of the laws, sorry, have effect from the year close to 2013, and back to 1957, therefore previous centuries. The key reason for these two bills is to update these laws; many laws are impacted by these two bills. Therefore, its purpose is to update for the future world, to this very day. Furthermore, as an example, to add the changes over time such as modern technology. There are many technological contexts which currently affect us.

Therefore I acknowledge the select committee who opened up and carefully discussed these two bills. The business group will also carry it forward; they have six months to discuss, deliberate, and furthermore to become comfortable with these two bills. Therefore, all the groups will have an impact on these bills. Indeed there are many laws which will be affected.

Thus, these two bills, despite being small, and changing aspects, their purpose is to improve some of the laws. Therefore, yes, Te Pāti Māori fully supports these two bills. Thank you.]

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party also in support of these two particular bills.

As many of the previous speakers have mentioned, both of these two regulatory systems bills are sort of technical fixes on a largely ever-changing system in order for us to be able to continue ensuring that the system works as intended and is updated both in terms of the latest technology and the latest understanding. Like many would understand and appreciate, the way that we construct primary legislation in this particular House requires this House to actually make those kinds of changes to the law, so the regulatory systems bills are an important element of our legislative infrastructure and process.

In saying that, these two bills—one of them the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and the other one, the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill—were reviewed by two separate select committees, one by the Education and Workforce Committee and the other by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Again, I want to echo the previous speakers in thanking those committee members for the work that they’ve done in order to get the bills through the select committee and to the House for second reading.

In terms of my comment, I think I would like to start first with the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and part of that regulatory system. Granted, there are other important amendments here in terms of the amendments to the Electricity Act and also the Gas Act in terms of the updating of provisions and safety around equipment safety, particularly from a workplace health and safety perspective, but I think, like many, one of the things I would like to focus on is the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. I think, as we heard from some of the speakers, although it’s really, really important that we have allowed us to have a much more, I guess, improved process for making complaints and also for requests from unlicensed immigration advisers, one of the things that we must address is in terms of what do we do in the context of unlicensed immigration advisers offshore.

Mr Speaker, as you would appreciate, when we are looking at immigration advisers, particularly those who are registered with the Immigration Advisers Authority—IAA—there are certain provisions that we need to put in place, but one of the things we are seeing to be a continuous loophole in this particular element is around the requirement for offshore advisers, particularly for student visas, to have a licence and registration, and also in terms of accountability to Aotearoa when it comes to supporting international students as part of their international education journey. This is something that we’ve seen in other countries like Australia that have addressed that particular loophole. Offshore advisers for student visas must be registered with an Australian authority, but it is, as far as my understanding, still not entirely the case here in Aotearoa, and I think that is something that we could potentially see improvements on further down the track when it comes to the accountability of immigration advisers overall.

In terms of the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, I think one of the key focuses in this area—and, like I mentioned, there are many other things that have been mentioned, but I think one of the things that I echo in terms of the submission done by the Regulations Review Committee is around the ability for the Regulations Review Committee to actually be able to scrutinise as part of the bill as well. Again, Mr Speaker, as you would appreciate, when we’re looking at a regulatory systems bill, one of the key functions of that and one of the key sort of, I guess, ways that our primary and secondary legislation operate is that within this piece of primary legislation, it also touches on a lot of secondary legislation as well.

I think in particular when we’re looking at Amendment Papers to incorporate from the Minister for Media and Communications and amendments to the Telecommunications Act, one of the requests that was made—and I think this is continuously a reminder for us—is how we can incorporate the whole thing. But, with that, we support this bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Who are we mere mortals from the Finance and Expenditure Committee to argue with the decisions and the work done by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on this Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill. Can I just remind the House that that committee has reviewed the bill conscientiously, diligently, and has recommended it be passed with all amendments unanimously. For those tuning in to Parliament TV at the very exciting end of the night, this is an omnibus bill that amends 24 Acts.

Dan Bidois: What’s that?

CAMERON BREWER: And, Mr Bidois, I am happy to read out those 24 Acts of statute—

David MacLeod: No, no.

CAMERON BREWER: —but Mr MacLeod has said no, thank you. They are available on the parliamentary website.

This is an omnibus bill amending 24 Acts of Parliament. It is part of our regulatory systems bill framework. It’s aimed at making technical and regulatory improvements across multiple sectors in a timely and cost-effective manner. If you’re still interested, it’s all on the parliamentary website. In the meantime, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sparks are really flying in the House tonight! [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I know—I know! [Interruption] Calm down, everybody—calm down!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: One of the more hotly contested bills we’ve had to consider! I serve on the Education and Workforce Committee. It’s my privilege to review bills like this very exciting omnibus legislation that the member who spoke before, Cameron Brewer, described. I wanted to just make, in my contribution, a couple of brief comments about the part of the bill that deals with amendments to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act. These bills are really just kind of legislative housekeeping, and in this case they allow a number of different regulatory Acts to be fine-tuned so that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Government department that is responsible for administering this particular clutch of laws, has an easier job of administering and carrying out its task.

I wanted to first just say a little bit about the context around licensed immigration advisers and why it’s important that the regulatory framework actually works and can be administered. As Ricardo Menéndez March commented before, we’ve built an immigration system that is complex, and often, for migrants and people who are trying to navigate that immigration system, it’s a very tough ask. They’re often people who, in many cases, may not have English as their first language; they may not be schooled in the ways of New Zealand bureaucracy and actually working their way through the Immigration Act, and the whole system of immigration can be very challenging. They go looking for support; they go looking for advice from people who have experience and expertise to help them.

I’m one of those members in this House that does a lot of immigration advocacy in my work as a local MP and, having been an Associate Minister, I have a particular kind of interest in the way our immigration system works. Hardly a week would go by without someone coming to my office, seeking assistance and seeking immigration advice, who hasn’t fallen foul of an unlicensed immigration adviser who has given them bad advice, who’s often taken large amounts of money off them, and who might have their passport sitting in a cupboard with 300 other passports in their spare room. This is not uncommon. These, often rogue, unlicensed immigration advisers wreak havoc with some very vulnerable members of our community who are trying to make sense and do their best, for instance, to regularise their status or apply for a particular visa. It’s really important that the regulatory framework works; that it’s able to weed out, detect, and appropriately punish people who break the law, unlicensed advisers who give advice. There’s a really strong public interest that this works well. There are a number of classes of people who are exempt from these requirements. Members of Parliament happen to be one of them; lawyers are another.

The bill makes a number of amendments. Some of them are quite small. For example, it enables Immigration New Zealand to decline or refuse to accept applications from unlicensed immigration advisers where they’ve already been automatically accepted by an electronic system in error. There’s a list—and I won’t go through them—of very small nuances where the regulations are just having the kinks ironed out.

One of the more substantive discussions about this section of the bill that we had was the question of removing the 12-month stand-down period preventing former staff of Immigration New Zealand from being licensed as immigration advisers. A couple of colleagues have already made reference to this—when the Act was passed back in 2007, there was a view that people who’d worked for Immigration New Zealand might have been privy to inside information or have relationships, friendships with colleagues who were still working for the department that might give them an unfair advantage commercially if they’re working as an immigration adviser, or access to information that they shouldn’t, in normal circumstances, be privy to.

The strong advice of the officials, which I think influenced members on the committee, was that, in fact, the people that we’re trying to protect with this legislation—members of the public—actually had the most to gain from having access to advisers who might have very fresh experience and knowledge of the inner workings of Immigration New Zealand, having been working for the department, and that there are a number of codes of conduct, Public Service codes of conduct and others, that govern the treatment of privileged information and that they provide sufficient protection.

I’ll leave it there. Labour is supporting this bill and the committee was unanimous in recommending that the bill proceed. We made a number of pretty minor amendments and improvements, but Labour is happy to support the bill.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We do love a good omnibus bill, and as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee said, this legislation covers 24 Acts. It’s like a big bus with 24 passengers on it. Not only are we into productivity and efficiency but we’re into public transport too! We like a good omnibus bill. Also, on the subject, happy birthday to the member for Ōtaki, Tim Costley, today.

I’d like to pick up the last comments of the previous member there, the Hon Phil Twyford, that this is about fine-tuning. When you’re trying to tune a radio and you’re a just a few clicks out, when you hear it, it’s that sweet sound, and if you’re in Hamilton or the mighty Waikato, you go to 97.8 or The Rock 93FM, or maybe ZB 97FM. But, hey, Mr Speaker, it’s about fine-tuning. We’ve got a lot more fine-tuning to do in the next 18 months, but, for now, I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but I want to talk, first of all, about the impact of the work done by my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee, because I was listening very carefully to what the Hon Phil Twyford just said, and it resonated in my own electorate.

Immigration is one of the things that is very important if you’re a local MP. You really do see people who are at sea; they are vulnerable. It is a really difficult thing to come in and work out who are the people you can trust in a new country, so this work is incredibly important. I totally take the point that the advisers made, and it has been turned into legislation, that a workforce that understands the intricacies of immigration—which has to be a careful system, because it’s a big-stakes thing for everyone. It is really important that that workforce can become our trusted advisers. It’s good for those people too, because it’s a career path, but it’s also the people who are most likely going to be able to do things efficiently and effectively for our migrants.

I do share the concern over unlicensed agents, and I have seen those cases where there has been far too much money spent on doing things, like applying, in a way which in fact somebody could have done without spending any money at all. I think most recently the bill I saw for that was $5,000, and it was something that, in fact, there was no need to have anyone involved in at all, and it was actually a misdirected application. It’s a really important thing, and I commend my colleagues for doing that work and putting it into this legislation.

I also wanted to talk about the employment changes here, the issue about copies of agreements and copies of terms and conditions being held but also being available—so held by an employer—as it’s not something that always happens. Again, I practised in that area, and quite often people didn’t have access to their employment agreement, and it’s very undermining when you need to really make sure that people are communicating well, that they know their rights, if in fact the agreement has not been kept or has not actually been given up. That’s another thing I think is a really practical change.

Finally, I don’t want to go through and list 24 Acts; I think that can be really unhelpful for the public. I do want to reassure the public that these bills are taken really seriously, and people do go through them in quite a lot of detail. It is really helpful when submitters come along who point things out. I take the point made by the New Zealand First speaker tonight that we had, in our committee, Sue Chetwin come along on the Charities Act. She’s a very renowned and expert person in that area. It was great to hear what she had to say, and we do absolutely listen.

I also wanted to make the point that I was interested in one of the amendments there, which was a cooperation between the Financial Markets Authority and the Commerce Commission (ComCom). This is an area I think that New Zealand’s going to have to get right. We’re improving it, and we need to do a lot more in the area of communication between our organisations, and synchronisation of what they’re doing. This is about the passing of information and the working together to deal with the situations which have arisen in what’s called a “standard contract”—an unfair term in a standard contract. There’s nothing short of exploitation going on in those situations, so it’s really important that our agencies, like the Financial Markets Authority and ComCom, work on those together, where both should be applicable. I’m pleased to see that.

Finally, I’ve got 30 seconds and I want to do a shout-out to Ricardo Menéndez March, because recently, in this House, we had an allegation or a kind of abuse about whether he was a migrant. The fact that he’s on a committee, listening to the stories and the law that changes if you’re a migrant, is really helpful. One of the wonderful things about this House is people come in from every walk of life, and they get to participate, and they get to bring their experience and their vulnerability here. I commend the bill to the House.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to also contribute to the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill.

I’ve counted: there are over 20 different changes to the Acts and a long list of amendments. This legislation is really about improving our regulatory framework, making laws in New Zealand more efficient, more up to date, more modernised, reducing the red tape, reducing administrative burdens—for who? Again, coming back to the topic, the core message in my debates tonight in this House on the last bill and also on this legislation is that we are lawmakers in New Zealand making laws for New Zealanders.

All we want to do is to make sure that the laws read efficient, are performing efficiently, because efficient regulation is good for economic growth, which is exactly what we do as the National-led Government—we promote growth, because growth means better wealth for the country, better wealth for our families, better wealth for all New Zealanders. Because of that, I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to acknowledge at the start of my contribution today, the passing of a very close family friend Gabrielle Rikihana of Ngāti Raukawa, who passed away at 97 on Sunday. I just want to acknowledge her. Moe mai rā, e te whaea.

I was privileged to be able to participate in the select committee process around this particular bill. I think, as you would have seen from the contributions tonight, we took this process very seriously. Even though this particular reading is unusual in the sense that it’s the reading of two bills together, there’s been, I think, effective scrutiny on both of those bills and of the different components of those bills.

You would have heard my colleague Phil Twyford speak about the immigration aspects of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill, and my colleague Glen Bennett speak about the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill. The part that I want to focus on is the workforce elements of the immigration and workforce regulatory systems amendment bill—and I haven’t read out the title exactly, but I think you understand what I mean, Mr Speaker.

The three aspects that I wanted to cover in this bill were, first of all, the changes in relation to employment agreements, and this was a change that is made by the bill that my colleague Helen White mentioned, which was an attempt to make sure that it wasn’t just the employer or the employee that had a copy of the employment agreement but it was, in fact, both parties. I think that’s an objective that is helpful for everyone because it means that everyone has a copy of the written agreements.

At the same time, we did scrutinise this quite intensively at select committee and we did make a few changes to this particular provision to make sure that this provision was fit for purpose. It also wasn’t clear in the original drafting of the bill that it wasn’t meant to be as if only the employer was to hold a copy of the agreement. I think it’s a point of fairness that both parties do have access to that as well, and just also to make sure that it was not only the individual employment agreement but also the terms and conditions as well.

I think that was a beneficial discussion that we did have at select committee, and discussions around the fact that you can be an employee when you’re an intending employee, which is quite a technical point but one that I think was very elucidating for members of the committee to realise that when you do receive an employment offer, you do actually fit the definition of “employee” under the Employment Relations Act, even though you haven’t started a job. That was a helpful discussion that we had.

One point of disappointment that I do have is that, in the updated legislative statement, those very good changes are not reflected. There are the changes to the Electricity Act and the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act but not the changes to the Employment Relations Act, but we did, in fact, make them and I just wanted to note that for the record there as well.

The second area that I wanted to cover was the amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act. These are, as other members have stated, pragmatic changes that will make the Health and Safety at Work Act work more effectively. The point I really want to make about this is not necessarily the individual provisions, which are helpful in terms of returning levies, are helpful in terms of mine operations, are helpful in terms of the distinction between a tourist mine and a working mine—all of these are sensible changes that have been scrutinised and are included in this bill.

Overall, a message to my colleagues over the other side of the House, especially those in the National Party: I think health and safety is an area that we really should be working on in a bipartisan manner. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest that we have these very, very important fundamental rules about how people conduct business that change every time we have a change of Government. That has been what has happened to date. The National Party brought in the Health and Safety at Work Act. We, as the Labour Government, fundamentally supported that. There is now a review which is happening, led by the Minister, into this area of work.

My plea to you, really, is: let us not lose the benefits of a bipartisan approach to health and safety. Our objectives are the same. We don’t want people to be injured at work; we want people to come home safe from work. So, please, in this review, can we work together to make sure that these objectives are upheld. There’s a lot of agreement. Unions agree. Businesses agree. This is a really good example of how agreement can work in practice. If there are people on the other side of the House listening, that is my plea on behalf of, I think, New Zealanders—

Todd Stephenson: I don’t think we’re on a health and safety bill.

CAMILLA BELICH: —who would appreciate that as well. Hopefully, my ACT colleagues can pass that on to the Minister too.

The last part that I wanted to mention was the changes to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. This is a really interesting part of the bill that we did scrutinise a lot, extensively at select committee, which is, essentially, something that people may not know about—and if they do know about it, it might be because they’ve gone through a very difficult time in their life—and that is the fact that New Zealanders are entitled to a pre-term baby payment, and that is when your baby is born prematurely before 37 weeks, you can have up to 13 weeks’ pre-term baby payment in addition to your paid parental leave. That is, really, to acknowledge the fact that people who have had a baby prematurely face additional challenges during an extremely stressful time—if not one of the most stressful times—for people in their lives, when they do have a baby arriving prematurely. These pre-term baby payments kick in at around 24 weeks. Anyone who has known anyone who’s had a baby that early will know it’s a very, very difficult time. The parental leave provisions that we have follow from the pre-term baby payment.

The effective purpose of this change in Part 7 of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill is to make it really clear that those do follow on from one another, and the pre-term baby payment, for how many weeks you’re entitled to it, you will be entitled to that first, and then, after that, you will be entitled to parental leave around about the effective due date of your baby. This is a really important entitlement that New Zealanders have for support at a really difficult time, and a really important clarification as to how those rights work.

I really hope that people in this House, and people who are interested in the workings of this bill, do discuss and advertise the fact that that is the case, because it might be that people are unaware, and it’s an additional stress that you don’t need at the time of having a baby prematurely, to feel that you maybe won’t be entitled to payment for that period of time to parental leave - equivalent payment, or that because your baby has arrived early, perhaps your time that you’d planned to take off work will be significantly changed. These, essentially, clarify what should have been implemented, but there was sufficient doubt as to whether that was currently being correctly implemented, that advisers through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment told us that this would be a beneficial change to put in, and it’s one that I am very happy to see. That’s another example of, I think, a really good change that is in this particular bill.

Those are the three areas that I really wanted to highlight. As I said, colleagues have highlighted other aspects of these bills, in relation to immigration and economic development. Those, I think, in relation to workforce, as the spokesperson for workforce relations and safety, were what I really wanted to highlight. On behalf of myself and the party, I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): As the last speaker in this debate, it is my pleasure to round off this discussion we’re having on a riveting set of bills this evening. As a former member of the hard-working Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it was my pleasure to help review the details of one of these bills. My colleague Cameron Brewer mentioned that the legislation before us is omnibus legislation; over 20 Acts are going to be changed, as a result of this.

As we know, not all change is, you know, sexy retail change that we go out and campaign on. A lot of it is around marginal tweaks to regulations that help improve people’s daily lives, and that is what these bills seek to do: to make very small tweaks to regulations so that people can go about their lives in a daily manner more efficiently, more effectively, without cumbersome regulations.

Without taking up much more time of the House—because I don’t think any of us will be rushing out the door to speak about this bill in particular—I do want to acknowledge the select committees for their work in this, the officials, and the Ministers responsible for bringing this bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 16, “Amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just signalling—to Madam Chair as well—that I’ve got a number of amendments to this particular bill but also that the bill has the potential to be quite complex in terms of the ramifications of the relationship with both the Sentencing Act and also the Crimes Act, and also in terms of the wider scope of the aggravating and mitigating factor—which, granted, is some of the bedrock of our Sentencing Act and our sentencing procedures in Aotearoa. I’m just signalling to the Chair that we will be going through section by section.

I want to start by asking the Minister—starting with clause 4, section 4 amended, in terms of interpretation. This is specifically in reference to the remorse mitigating factors. Now, understanding we’ve had some discussions around this and some clarifications around this during the committee stage—and we can see this amendment that’s been done as part of the select committee stage—I’m curious in terms of the remorse mitigating factors and particularly with (b) excluding “anything described in section 10”. I want to check with the Minister whether either the Minister or any of the officials have done any form of modelling around what the possibilities are of it punishing people on a lower socio-economic status more than people on a higher economic and social status.

I’m sure the Minister is aware, in section 10 of the Sentencing Act, it is to do with expressions of remorse, which could be both in terms of actions and also in terms of finance or in terms of, I guess, other forms of financial reparation. So, I guess—excluding section 10 as part of the 40 percent cap—would the Minister consider, or could the Minister provide clarification on, whether that could be a possibility that people who could afford to pay the victim are able to, essentially, get a higher percentage of discount than people who do not have access to that particular source? Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in the Minister’s comments on the kind of underpinning policy of this Act. I’m aware that, in terms of sentencing principles in the Act, the Minister has suggested an Amendment Paper—and, in particular, an Amendment Paper which sees an additional aggravating factor as posting online. That’s clause 5A, which replaces, I think, section 9A of the principal Act.

I’m just interested in his views. Whilst in fact that’s probably unobjectionable—which is a rare thing from this Minister, but there you go—I’m interested in his views of what other factors should be taken into account given this Government’s so-called victim-centric approach. I know there’s an Amendment Paper on the Table that my colleague will speak to, I’m sure, but in terms of placing greater weight on the views of victims, I’d be interested in his views on that. That’s clause 5 of the bill. I’d be interested in his views there.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I’d like to know from the Minister about the issue of the guilty plea, because I can see a statement that is about these actual discounts—things like guilty pleas and youth pleas—and a kind of attempt to make a hard and fast rule in those situations.

Now, my experience with people who are young is that they’re actually developing so much that you might get a remorseful plea at a later time in their maturity that means a lot more than the one that happened before. My understanding is, under this new rule, the judge’s discretion to look at the person before them and to think “That person there has developed some common sense, some true remorse, and has appreciated what they’ve done” may actually be constrained in terms of finding an appropriate pathway for that person. I’m very interested in those particular things. We’ve got a guilty plea discount. We’ve got a youth discount. Are those factors sufficiently flexible in this situation?

Now, I do understand that there is absolutely a scepticism when people continually say they’re sorry and demonstrate remorse, but there’s also the real thing. I would like to know, from the Minister, what flexibility has been built into the system when a judge—who, after all, we pay a lot of money because they’ve been there around the block a few times and they’ve seen this—sees somebody in front of them who is perhaps young—perhaps they’re not young; there are other reasons. For example, they may have had real issues with addiction which they have overcome. They’re seeing someone who for some reason has come through a crisis—and the crisis may have contained offending, which is not an excuse; it’s just a reality—and they’re in that position there where they actually—that’s when remorse matters; that’s when their age matters, etc.

I’d like to know from the Minister: what is the story with that? How are they going to have sufficient flexibility for us not to have an unjust and just stupid outcome—just a silly, damaging outcome—to both the victim and to the perpetrator?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister seeks some advice to my earlier question, I think this is something that I want to pick up on—what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has mentioned in terms of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 224. I have a number of questions to this Amendment Paper.

I guess the first thing is—understanding that this Amendment Paper is in response to the abuse in State care and faith-based care report—I wanted to check with the Minister what the reason was behind the Amendment Paper coming to the House so late, when my understanding is it was brought to Cabinet in November 2024, and in terms of what some of the recommendations are. The thing is, if the Minister had brought it to Cabinet early in November, we actually could have incorporated the Amendment Paper as part of our discussion in select committee, and there might have been opportunities for people to be able to submit on that. I wanted to know: is there a rationale behind why this Amendment Paper was introduced so late?

I guess the second part, in terms of the delay in terms of this Amendment Paper as well, is whether the Minister has sought advice from the office of the Attorney-General, as all Amendment Papers should. One of the things I am interested in, and also have observed repeatedly, is that, particularly within the justice portfolio, there has been a reoccurring habit of Ministers introducing Amendment Papers during or just before the committee stage without going through the select committee process. I would like to know what sort of recommendations, or what sort of clarifications, the Minister’s able to provide on having to do that over and over. We’ve seen that with the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, we’ve seen that with the three-strikes legislation, and we’re now seeing that with this bill as well, where a kind of reasonably substantial Amendment Paper is dropped sort of last minute. That’s my second question.

My third question is around the rationale behind why the Minister decided to only take up two of the recommendations from this abuse in State care report and not the third one around potentially considering the mitigating factors—sorry, not in terms of mitigating factors but taking past convictions or convictions as a result of the abuse in State care into consideration when we’re looking at section 9(1)(j) of the Sentencing Act, because that was something that was in the recommendations. My understanding from the Minister is that that would be hard to implement, but also, at the same time, with what we’re seeing as a lack of emphasis and priority being placed on cultural reports, how would the Minister ensure that, if the Minister doesn’t take that particular recommendation on board—citing that it’s already existing in the current legislation or it’s going to provide additional complexity? How will we be able to have the confidence that that particular recommendation from that report will be taken on board and that for people who are convicted or have previous convictions as a result of their abuse in State care, their voices will be listened to as part of their aggravating factors being applied under section 9(1)(j)?

Those are my three questions. The first one is: if this was brought to Cabinet in November 2024, was there a reason why the Amendment Paper itself was brought so late to the House and didn’t get a chance for public to submit or have a say on it? Has the Minister sought advice from the Attorney-General on this particular Amendment Paper—because we are seeing that worrying trend of substantial Amendment Papers being dropped just before or even during committee stage. Finally, the rationale behind not taking up the third recommendation from the abuse in State care and faith-based care recommendations—how is the Minister going to address the fact that we are not seeing that emphasis being placed on cultural reports? What effect would that have in terms of the Minister not including that recommendation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Look, I want to start by thanking members for their questions. This is an important part of the legislative process—that we work our way through the proposed legislation.

For people tuning in to this debate, the broader issue is that Parliament, generally, when it comes to sentencing laws, sets a maximum sentence, whether it’s for murder or for aggravated assault or various other things in the Crimes Act. Then judges in New Zealand have discretion beneath that maximum; there is a kind of rule of thumb as a starting point, which is often guided by Court of Appeal decisions. Then judges have been in the habit of listing a number of discounts applied to that starting point to get to the final sentence.

That’s how the system works. It’s not set in stone that it has to work that way, and people will say, “Well, Parliament shouldn’t interfere with the independence of judges.” It’s perfectly within the realms of possibility that the Parliament, instead of having maximum sentences, could have minimum sentences, or they could have compulsory sentences; Parliament could do any approach that it likes. All around the world people have different approaches. The feedback and the concern that we’ve had across the community is that there has been an excessive use of discounts in recent times.

I don’t refer to any particular cases, because that’s definitely for the courts to decide, but, overall, in sentencing policy, this Government wants to send a clearer message that we want to have real consequences for crime. We’re not comfortable with very significant discounts applied, so that people are convicted of serious crimes and then, through a series of discounts, end up with home detention or something like that, in particular circumstances. That’s why we’ve brought in this legislation, which ultimately limits the ability of judges to have discounts of more than 40 percent.

People tuning in will say, “Well, 40 percent, that’s quite a lot. Why are we allowing that much discretion?” Of course, an important part of that is recognising the guilty plea, and, for the functioning of the courts, the best thing we can do for victims of crime, other than doing everything we can to avoid them being victims of crime in the first place, is to at least be able to deliver timely justice and not have the court process dragging out for years and years, re-traumatising victims. A guilty plea, which avoids all that process and deals with the situation in a faster manner, is a good thing and is something that should be acknowledged within the sentencing, and so that—up to 25 percent—is important.

One of the most important things we’re doing in this legislation, though, is recognising that that full discount shouldn’t be offered if people wait till the very last minute—to the morning of the case—to plead guilty, because that still creates an enormous amount of stress for the system and the victims, and so there should be a sliding scale. If you plead guilty at the first opportunity, yes, you get a significant discount; if it’s later in the time, you get a less significant one.

Now, just quickly addressing some of the issues raised by our friend from the Greens in terms of Amendment Papers being delivered late in the process: yes, this is an extremely busy Government. We’ve got a lot on our legislative agenda—a lot going on—and the blockage in the pipeline to getting even more done is working our way through all the pieces of legislation and the policy advice. Sometimes, in an imperfect world, we have an opportunity with a piece of legislation before the House on a particular topic to add a couple of things to it, and we take that opportunity rather than starting a whole new process with a separate piece of legislation.

When it came to some of the recommendations of the royal commission, in terms of State abuse, we saw that as an opportunity to introduce an amendment, recognising one of the recommendations there. Now, we didn’t take all the recommendations. In terms of recognising the background of people who have been in State care independently, we think there are many opportunities within the existing law for judges to recognise the background circumstances of the perpetrators of crime, and so we didn’t think any additional reference was required in that regard.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, we accept that it is open to the Government to signal penalties in a particular way. If it’s the view of this Government—and it clearly is—that the judges have been perhaps a little light, then it’s certainly part of our democratic process that that can be done, even though, on this side of the House, we might not agree with everything there. In doing this, Minister, there is a risk that you’re introducing a whole lot of new concepts and approaches, which is quite disruptive to the sentencing process. Throughout this committee stage, I’m keen to just explore some of that.

Whilst you’ve given a policy overview of the approach, I’m keen to kind of dig down. One of the brand new concepts that this bill I think almost by accident has introduced is a distinction between a mitigating factor of the circumstances of the offence and a personal mitigating factor. You’ve got this brand new definition in section 4, which sets out a personal mitigating factor. I’ll come to starting points later. This is critical to the sentencing process because the discounts that are limited by your reforms are limited in respect of personal mitigating factors.

You’ve got a crime which is committed, and it might be a serious premeditated assault on an unsuspecting person. Now, they’re not personal. What a personal mitigating factor appears to be is factors about the offender which can be taken into account in lowering the sentence, so it might be youth; it might be mental impairment. Whether they pleaded guilty is another one there that’s listed. One of the problems is you get a degree of uncertainty. You go to replacement section 4(a)(vi), inserted by clause 4, “any evidence of the offender’s previous good character”, and then paragraph (b), “a mitigating factor under section 9(4)(a)”—which is itself open-ended—“that the court considers is personal to the offender”.

This is very relevant. The Government’s intention is Parliament’s intention. In having a personal mitigating factor, exactly what is meant by it? What isn’t a personal mitigating factor? The fact the offender was responding to a threat or physical assault him or herself, is that a personal mitigating factor, or is that a factor about the offence itself? The fact that the person was hungry and stole food, is that a personal mitigating factor, or is that just a factor about the circumstances of the offence? This is actually a critical point.

Now, whilst a shoplifting offence probably isn’t going to raise too many issues, when we get into issues of a murder, there is the old provocation offence, where someone is so incensed with a set of circumstances they find that they react in an angry and uncontrolled manner. That is a factor of the offence that the judge can take into account. I guess I’m asking you, Minister, a factor like that, is that a personal mitigating factor, which is capped in terms of what can be taken into account, or is it a circumstance about the offence, which is not capped and where the judge can address the starting point of the sentencing process? That’s a critical point that I think really requires your clarification.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has raised a lot of really, really important points. Because, again, let’s not forget that, from a criminal law perspective, the interaction between the Crimes Act 1961 and the Sentencing Act 2002 forms the very foundation of our criminal law system. In terms of getting these sorts of clarifications from the Minister, it’s absolutely crucial in guiding the way that we do look at criminal law cases going forward.

Now, I just want to pick up on something the Minister said before—and a thankyou to the Minister for providing both the background but also answers to some of my questions. There are two things I want to pick up on first that the Minister said. The first one is that the Government has a lot of bills to get through and gives the impression that if an Amendment Paper is late, it’s late, but I just also want to raise the same concern and warning that the Attorney-General has raised last year in terms of speeding through legislation without proper consultation and proper view.

I think the other thing that I asked the Minister specifically regarding not taking on the third recommendation from the report of abuse in State care and faith-based care is around the fact that if the existing section 9(1)(j) of the Sentencing Act is already sufficient, how would we address the general concern that communities—and particularly victims of abuse in State care and faith-based care—have around the defunding and also the lack of prioritisation being placed on section 27 cultural reports? My question was specifically on the weight of section 27 reports that is going to be placed on the existing section 9(1)(j), from the Minister’s perspective.

Now, going on to what the Minister mentioned before in terms of the broader discount concern, and I hear from the Minister that there are concerns about the fact that people might perceive that the way that we discount is potentially loose or potentially too weak, but I wanted to check from the Minister, because during the select committee stage, we heard from legal experts who are in these areas—and not just the New Zealand Law Society but also Community Law and other aspects and facets of law and the legal profession; people who work in this field and are experts within this field. I want to check with the Minister: how has the Minister consulted with experts in the field, and do they share the same concern that the Minister’s just expressed in terms of discount concerns?

Based on the departmental report, it doesn’t seem like the legal profession experts in this field share that same concern. Judging by what is present in terms of both the regulatory impact statement and the supplementary analysis, we are seeing that the limitations being placed and the narrow scope of the bill meant that officials couldn’t actually consult more widely. In fact, in the supplementary report that was mentioned specifically on the two new aggravating factors that were mentioned, there is the fact that the ministry has been unable to assess the potential impact the inclusion of the aggravating factors could have on sentencing. Had officials had time, they would have done X, Y, and Z.

I want to check with the Minister: who are these people who expressed concerns about the fact that the current discount is too high?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, obviously there’s a wide range of opinions across society around sentencing law. For example, when we went to see members of the Sandringham Business Association in Auckland and people operating in the retail space, on many, many occasions it has been expressed to me the deep frustration of people who are just trying to make a living running a business or a dairy or any kind of retail business and find that they’re being attacked physically, and then, if someone is finally actually held to account and convicted in a court, reading the very long list of discounts offered so that the sentence ends up—and it’s always a question of judgment, but they feel it is—very far removed certainly from the maximum sentence, and maybe a home detention or some such outcome for a violent assault. There have been many, many people who have been concerned about the message that society is sending in terms of the seriousness of the consequences for convictions.

Now, obviously it’s not the role of Parliament or the executive to critique or to interfere with individual cases and individual judgments made by the court, and I don’t do that, but it is very much the appropriate space for Parliament and the Government of the day to consider the messages that it sends in the Sentencing Act. The primary message that we’re wanting to send through this legislation is that Parliament wants to see a more judicious approach taken to discounts. We don’t want to see repeated discounts offered for remorse. You can be remorseful, of course. Everybody understands that people can be remorseful, but we’re not so convinced if it is many times. You can get a discount for being young, but not many times.

I think, frankly, one of the things that’s been of interest to people has been the recent reporting of many court cases in the open justice media approach that’s been taken over the past few years, and people have seen many instances where significant discounts of sometimes up to 60 or 70 percent on the starting point have been offered. There’s been widespread public concern. If I think back to the election of late 2023, the number one issue that was consistently raised on the doorsteps was the cost of living and people concerned about that, but a fairly consistent number two, particularly in Auckland and Waikato and—

Rima Nakhle: Takanini.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Takanini—certainly in Takanini—was real concern around law and order in the community, and people wanting to see a stronger message.

There’s a philosophical thing that comes into it, and we had a sense that the previous administration did offer up a lot of excuses for crime and a culture of excuses for criminal behaviour. We wanted to send a message that was much more focused on the needs of the victims of crime, and the sentencing element, of course, is only one part of that. We have to locate that in the broader context: sending a clear message, holding people to account, and taking those worst serious repeat offenders out of circulation for longer is part of the response. An equally important part of the response is better rehabilitation and dealing with the long-term drivers of crime, and the Government’s equally interested in that.

When it comes to the broader justice response, the sentencing element is one element of it, but it’s not the total response, because I think everybody in this House recognises the importance of dealing with some of the broader long-term social issues that we face as a country.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair—I know I beat my colleague Tracey McLellan to her feet there. Look—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I didn’t see you. You might have to call louder.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Minister of Justice has given a couple of good speeches on sentencing policy from the Government’s perspective, but he hasn’t answered some of the really detailed questions.

My earlier question was in respect of personal mitigating factors, and I gave him some examples, but the critical one was: is a degree of lack of control due to being taunted, for example—or provoked, to use the old language—a personal mitigating factor, or is it a mitigating factor that goes to the overall offence? Is it a mitigating factor that can be discounted only to 40 percent, or is it one which goes to starting point, which apparently can be discounted without limit. That’s really important. Great policy speak, but, Minister, we’d really appreciate it if you could answer the really detailed questions that are appropriate in a committee stage.

My next question is about remorse. And I get it, right? The judges already are sceptical of repeated cases of “I’m sorry. I’m terribly remorseful about this.”, and rightly so. This Government said you can only play the remorse card once. I can understand what’s behind that, but we’ve got a tricky situation, because, on the one hand, you’re like, “We don’t believe you’re sorry enough to give you a discount.”, but on the other hand, we don’t want to disadvantage victims.

This is in clause 4, which amends the interpretation section and talks about what a “remorse mitigating factor” is. It identifies the mitigating factor in section 9(2)(f), which identifies remorse, but it excludes anything described in section 10. It’s that distinction which is important, Minister, because the section 10 distinction is people who show they’re sorry, not by saying it but by doing something. This runs into a problem because, if you’re Whittall from Pike River and you’ve got $4 million of insurance to show you’re sorry, then all of a sudden that can become very helpful indeed, but if you don’t have means and you can’t show in a tangible way how sorry you are by an offer of compensation, and you’re not equipped to go and rebuild the fence that you smashed down, or whatever it might be, then it doesn’t matter how sorry you are.

One of the questions I have in terms of this section 10 provision is: what space is there for people who can’t make financial recompense? It looks dangerously like you get a discount for paying to be sorry, but not a discount where you can’t pay for being sorry. That’s deeply problematic because we don’t want justice that you can buy and sell. Please explain in respect of saying, “No, we don’t believe you’re sorry if you say sorry twice, but we will believe you’re sorry if you’ll pay for being sorry twice.”—that’s actually a deep policy question about who the justice system serves and whether it is tilted in favour of people who have money, and against those who don’t.

Referring to my earlier question about provocation, I would really like an answer on that, and I’m sure there’ll be courts later down the track that would like an answer on that. Secondly, what are we doing about people being able buy their remorse discount?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In terms of the personal mitigating factors which are included in the cap, they are things such as the age of the offender or whether they pleaded guilty, whether the offender has taken steps during proceedings to shorten the proceedings or reduce their cost, evidence of the offender’s good character—those elements. Some of the things that are not included in the cap, because they’re not relating to the personal circumstances, are things such as the offender having spent time on bail with an electronic monitoring (EM) condition, as defined in section 3.

That would be one example. Another one would be any adverse effect on the offender of a delay in the disposition caused by a failure by the prosecution’s part. That would be another thing where that wouldn’t have to be included in the cap. The conduct of the victim is not included in the cap, and that’s an element there. There is a range of things that we’ve included in and excluded from the cap, particularly things, like I say, such as time already served on EM bail.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I must say that answer from the Minister isn’t totally satisfactory, because my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has just said, and given several examples to highlight the fact, that it’s actually a deep and heavy kind of policy question and one that requires a requisite amount of analysis, let alone familiarity. I think, certainly, my other colleagues have mentioned the fact that this is the stage where we need to have those answers, in terms of what was the rationale, what was the thinking behind it.

When we look at this section and, as other people have said, the very deliberate parcelling out of mitigating factors relating to the offence versus relating to the person—which, by definition, is deeply personal, and therefore, by further definition, is undoubtedly complex because people are complex—the Minister’s account of that, notwithstanding the fact that we still haven’t heard anything specific or concrete about provocation, doesn’t really feel as if it’s as weighty as what one would imagine answers to be.

The Minister in his previous response and his contribution talked a lot and spent the majority of his time mentioning messaging and sending messages. This isn’t simple PR; this is a piece of legislation that has potentially quite profound effects on actual people. Whilst I appreciate the Government’s intentionality, or rather their basic intention to signal to people that somehow this Government is tough on crime or is going to be tough on crime and do things to be tougher on crime, this doesn’t really feel like a very nuanced or a very well-thought-out example of doing that, mainly because, as colleagues have pointed out, there seem to be several holes, several inconsistencies, and we’re just trying to get to grips with what ties those things together to make a little bit of a more cogent theory behind what is happening.

Now, if we look, as others have, at the remorse and the age angles, in particular, as personal mitigating factors—and I trust that the Minister will endeavour to answer a little bit more fully those questions that have already been asked. The one “that the offender has taken steps during the proceedings (other than steps to comply with procedural requirements) to shorten the proceedings or reduce their cost” is a very specific example that’s not terribly personal, that the Minister might like to just provide a little bit more information about in terms of, as a rather dry clause, what the thinking was behind that.

I also note that, as I said, whilst the Minister has said on numerous occasions that this mainly and primarily is about signalling and sending messages, in terms of how that, then, interacts—because crime isn’t linear; it’s cyclical, as we all know. He mentioned rehabilitation and sentencing and only being one tool in the tool box, so to speak, and, therefore, rehabilitation and various other factors impact that crime cycle, but he didn’t really mention anything to do with drivers of crime and how these measures in here, in relation to these personal mitigating factors—and if they’re not able to be given the weight that they should be or they’re not being able to be used as they could be as part of that breaking the cycle of crime or that readiness for future rehabilitation, should that involve sentencing that lends itself to that.

Can the Minister quite specifically look at section 4(a)(v), and I just want to know a little bit more about what the specifics are around shortening the proceedings or reducing their cost, whilst we’re waiting on, perhaps, the Minister to take some further advice around provocation and some more advice around just providing a little bit more fulsome answers in relation to remorse and age and how those things interact or not in this process.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. While the Minister of Justice ponders Dr Tracey McLellan’s questions, I just want to throw a few more questions to the Minister. Again, we are looking at something that’s partly getting into the nitty-gritty of the bill itself. The Minister has expressed some of the policy intent, which would also need to be questioned, as well as some of the fundamental elements of statutory interpretation of the bill itself.

I think the first thing I want to pick up on was what the Minister mentioned before. I think it is absolutely crucial that when we do look at bills like this and we look at sentencing, victims’ voices are placed in a position and they are taken into consideration, and from our perspective, you know, that’s one of the fundamental requirements when it comes to restorative justice.

However, when we’re looking at clause 5—I guess a clarification, because the current section 8(f) of the Sentencing Act already has elements that talk about taking into consideration the victim as part of the sentencing, but this particular bill does clarify and divide that into two separate elements. We’re looking at new section 8(f)(ii) “concerning the interests of the victim”. Now, the Minister has mentioned before that when we’re looking at the people that the Minister has spoken to, which—the Minister didn’t mention any particular legal bodies or lawyers around that, other than businesses and local community, which, arguably, is incredibly important in the context when we’re looking at this bill.

One of the things we did see that’s been submitted on is that when we do take the victims’ interest into consideration, it should be one that is restorative in nature and not punitive in nature. One of the submitters from community law does mention whether the wording will allow victims to seek a particular and vengeful punishment for the offender and make, actually, things worse for both parties.

I wondered, first of all, if the Minister would consider my Amendment Paper which inserts the new word “restorative” as part of that considering of the restorative interest of the victim, just so that there are clarifications that we’re not seeing the mentality of an eye for an eye, which, let’s be honest, unless the Minister has data that could shed light otherwise, is not something that’s beneficial to anyone. That’s my first question, around clause 5.

My second question is around clause 6. I’m going to first ask a question from the context of statutory interpretation. Now, in this bill, we’ve introduced a new cross-heading, which is new section 9(1AAA), just above clause 6(1), that, basically, talks about adult offenders actually committing, etc., but this will sit above, presumably, section 9(1).

The problem with that is that, if you’re looking at it from the context of statutory interpretation when it comes to aggravating factors, section 9(1) is empowered by the heading—let me just quickly find it—that “In sentencing or otherwise dealing with offender the court must take into [consideration] the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:”. By putting a cross-heading above that, I’m not entirely sure what the Minister wants to do with that. Is that something the court should consider? Is that applicable to the entirety of section 9(1)? Is that just for the purpose of this bill? Either of those could be possible, so I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister.

On top of that, it specifically used the term “adult”. Now, “adult” is not defined in any part of this bill, nor is it defined in the Sentencing Act, so it will also be important for the Minister to define: what does the Minister consider “adult” to be? That actually is a clarification that’s important. It could be as simple as 18 years and over, or 25 years and over—that’s perfectly reasonable—but the clarification is needed.

I do have more questions for the Minister on clause 6, but I’ll wait to hear from the Minister on my current questions first.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The member raised a multitude of points on that, and I’ll pick up on one in relation to the message being sent through sentencing.

He’s referred to the possible interest in punitive responses and also a focus on rehabilitation in sentencing and a desire to—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Restorative.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and of restorative intent. Both of those are important. I think that the other element that we sometimes lose sight of is that one of the purposes of the Sentencing Act is for society to denounce the act that’s carried out. There have been cases, many examples, of people who were convicted of very serious crimes, such as raping multiple people, ending up with very short prison sentences or, indeed, no prison sentences, and time on home detention. From a victim’s point of view, there is a reasonable question of doubt as to whether that outcome—and we all know the difficulties of achieving convictions in such cases and all the pressure on the victim and the horror of that process, to go through all that and the consequences to be what some people would regard as very lenient. There’s a question about whether society is effectively denouncing the act that has taken place.

It’s the same with many instances of violent crime, again, being dealt with in a manner where many reasonable people would look at it and conclude, “Well, actually, from what the consequences of that are, society is not, effectively, denouncing the act and sending a very clear message that we do not tolerate that activity and there will be consequences for it.” I think that’s broadly what people are looking for in sentencing reform: a clearer message from society about what we do tolerate and what we won’t tolerate and where there will be significant consequences for certain actions. By limiting the overall discount, that’s what we’re hoping to achieve.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I’d actually like to take that point up, and it very much resonates with what I want to talk to the Minister about.

The issue over aggravating factors is that you’re adding factors, you’re selecting things that are particularly heinous, and while I accept that there’s a real role for punitive action when we are sentencing people for things they’ve done that are wrong and sometimes evil, there’s a whole lot of things that just don’t get on the list and yet they’re harming people enormously. My colleague raised the issue over whether you could buy your way out of a punishment, which hasn’t been answered yet. I ask you about the selection of those aggravating factors, because my understanding is that we are not punishing anybody who’s involved in any white-collar crime whatsoever. We don’t punish a whole lot of people who actually end up on home detention in situations where they’re in mansions.

Now, I’ve seen that happen in my career. I have been in Cin Cin when Mark Lyons came in while he was away, when he shouldn’t have been in Cin Cin at all. He was there, and he was repeatedly given softer sentences, and nobody asked, “What background did that man come from? What privilege did he have?” Was it something where, in fact, his crimes were hurting people enormously and he should have, in fact, been better off—in fact, we all would have been better off—if he’d been inside at that earlier point, including probably him?

These are real things—they’re not made-up—and I want to know from the Minister what kind of advice did he get about the proportionality of the crimes that he chose to target. It doesn’t mean they’re not important. I am from the area of Sandringham. I want to make sure that people do not ram-raid and that shopkeepers in my area feel safe. I am not disputing that those are very important things, but when somebody scams somebody, when they scam a whole lot of older people, they really hurt them. They hurt their families, they often cause suicide, they often cause deep, deep pain, and none of that is reflected on this list. What was it that the Minister decided to ask advice about, about what things should be on that list?

I heard the Minister talk about that kind of blue-skies approach and looking at the way that judges were making decisions. Where is the consideration of something like the obvious injustice when somebody goes and does their home detention in a beautiful mansion in Parnell and somebody else is doing their home detention in a little flat with a bracelet and poverty all around them and not a lot to do? Those are very different things. Yet how come they don’t get on the list? How come we don’t seek to punish and send those signals when it involves moneyed people, when it involves privilege? If you’ve committed a crime and you’ve had every privilege that our society can give you, including private schools and money—if you have committed crimes—surely you go to the top of the list? Surely, if you have taken people’s hard-earned money in society, including in Sandringham, and you have caused enormous damage, you should be on the list?

Where is, on the list, the people who are involved in drug crimes or involved in much more serious things? That’s what I want to know. What proportionality, what justice, are we bringing, when we hand pick a few things that just happen to target a group of people who always seem to be in the firing line and we ignore and we are blind to the real harm that others are causing? We do seem to be complicit. Where is it that you are doing that?

I’d also really still like an answer to my question about what happens if you have somebody who has had addiction and they are actually truly remorseful, they have developed—what happens then if they’ve already used up their chance in the depths of that addiction?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): If the member is making the case for tougher consequences for white-collar criminals and people who perpetrate fraud against other New Zealanders, I wholeheartedly agree with her. They are broadly captured by this legislation, which is not limited to certain crimes; it covers all the crimes in the Crimes Act. I absolutely agree that one of the fastest growing areas of crime in our communities is fraud. I think all of us in the House will know of individuals whose lives have been capsized by fraudulent behaviour, where they’ve lost substantial sums of money, and so the limitation on discounts for that kind of offending applies equally.

In terms of the aggravating factors, yes, one which has been included in this legislation is in relation to the special vulnerability of victims such as dairy owners, who are often working alone or living upstairs from the building. We, as a Government, decided that it was important to particularly draw attention to people where particularly their family are living upstairs or out the back of a retail premises and are subjected to a ram raid in the middle of the night, and the horror that that brings to that family. We wanted to recognise that.

Yes, of course, a case can be made for many, many instances for aggravating factors, and so, yes, one can’t do it for everything, but certainly, the broad message that this Government is sending, and this Parliament, hopefully, if they support this legislation, is that we want to have firmer consequences for a wide range of criminal offending.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got two points. The first is in respect of clause 5 of the bill, section 8 amended. There’s an Amendment Paper on the Table—it’s actually in the name of Helen White, but I’ve asked her and she said I’m allowed to speak to it. It’s around the views of victims. We support the place of victims in the criminal justice system being enhanced. We’re concerned that this Government is saying it but really paying lip service to it. This Amendment Paper, which touches on sentencing principles, makes two suggestions. That is that the sentencing court should be taking into account the views of the victim—now, not giving them a right of veto, but giving weight to the views of the victim in respect of the appropriateness of any sentence, including any sentence indication.

Now, victims’ views are taken into account by way of victim impact statements. The current proposed amendments go some way to identifying the victim’s needs, but this would actually give genuine victim voice. Sentencing indications are quite well known. It’s quite common for a defendant to go to court and say, “Can you tell me what I might get and that might influence my plea.” It’s kind of a bit transactional, but I get it. Of course, if they say, “Oh, look, home detention is likely.”, then they might plead guilty—particularly if they live in Parnell—but if the victim says, “Home detention does not reflect my family’s anguish at the loss that we’ve suffered.”, then it strikes me that that’s a relevant consideration. That’s the first part of that. The second is the views of the victim concerning any restorative steps taken by the offender—for example, an apology, compensation, or non-financial redress. I know we’ve discussed rewards, but this is somewhat different. If the victim has met with the offender or undertaken a process and says, “I was in the room and we discussed everything and I have a degree of forgiveness or understanding and that should impact the sentence.”, then that strikes me as highly relevant. I’m inviting the Minister to seriously consider that.

The second thing—and I’m saying this now, and I’ll tell you why I’m saying it now, because I’m kind of jumping ahead of myself. It’s so that—because I suspect we’ll go over the adjournment—the Minister can think carefully about this and come back with a genuine answer, and it’s this: the 40 percent, where does it start? If you take a crime such as ill treatment of a child or vulnerable adult, it has a maximum 10-year sentence. What’s the maximum discount that we can get off that? Does it mean that the maximum discount is 40 percent of 10 years or does it mean that the judge does an initial exercise about the offence and finds this magical thing called “the starting point”—whatever that means—and then it’s 40 percent of that. The starting point could itself be five years for that particular offence, so is the discount 40 percent of five years in that case or 40 percent of 10 years?

It’s actually a question that goes to the very heart of this. There is no reform that will be more scrutinised by the courts than sentencing reform, because it’s all that it’s about. It’s about what courts do. The courts and lawyers and defendants and prosecutors need to know where this discount starts. Does it start from the 10 years, which ends up with a six-year sentence? Or does it start at this other magical place where the judges toss up the considerations which are not pertinent to offenders and might arrive at, say, five years, which means you’ll get a maximum two-year discount, in which case it would be a three-year sentence. There is nothing more important that will happen in this debate.

I’m not going to even dream that the Minister would answer that immediately, but I would desperately like an answer to that question in the course of this committee of the whole House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I sort of got a response from the Minister of Justice, but not very clearly in terms of the statutory interpretation question asked in terms of the cross-heading above clause 6(1) and also in terms of the definition of “adult”. I think a response for that would be very helpful.

I know that Dr Tracey McLellan and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb are also waiting for some of the questions that they have been asking as well, but I want to actually pick up on clause 6(1), and particularly the newly introduced paragraph after section 9(1)(ca), section 9(1)(cb), which talks about what I find one of the most complex and one of the most interesting parts of the Crimes Act—which is section 66—around party liability.

The Minister has introduced party liability, particularly when we’re looking at section 66(1)(b), (c), and (d). As the Minister would know, section 66(1)(a) is the person actually performing the offending—or is actually the one who is offending—as opposed to the rest of them, being a party to it. I want to check with the Minister on two things when it comes to party liability—understanding there is a lot of work being done with party liability.

The first thing is around the concept of withdrawal when it comes to party liability. Now, this was a big deal in 2014 in the Ahsin v R case. In this particular case, you had two women, Jamie Ahsin and Raeleen Rameka, who encouraged, initially, in the first part of the process, but then withdrew and backed off in the second part. This went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The majority—when we get to some of the higher courts—discussed that the recognition of withdrawal must be as a true defence, not necessarily that you’re just kind of backing off halfway, and was unable to negate the element of section 66 because it cannot undo the complete actus reus at the point of participation.

Now, this is a really important thing. I understand the intention of why the Minister would like to introduce something and introduce party liability as part of the aggravating factor—particularly in light of other things like ram raiding, etc., which I’m sure the Minister can tell everyone about—but the idea of being able to withdraw part-way through and then being able to be acquitted of party liability is something that the court system currently still struggles with understanding. For example, in this case, are we potentially looking at a system where the court may have to do something creative—like, where the connection had been broken and the secondary party fully neutralises the participation before the offence is committed or withdrawal would have been motivated and a majority rejects a conclusion?

All of this is an incredibly important exercise in terms of understanding party liability and how the criminal court will look at party liability. That’s my first question: what is the advice the Minister has received around the concept of withdrawal halfway through, or, when you’re looking at separate events, when party liability is applied?

The other thing around party liability is that, like I said, it already creates some legal challenges for—predominantly, in this case—women also in abusive relationships. Now, when the common law presumption for acquittal of wives who committed crimes in the presence of their husbands was removed, rightfully, there was no defence that can realistically accommodate women in such abusive relationships. While we still have some of these challenges within our current interpretation of section 66 of the Crimes Act—particularly section 66(1)(b), (c), and (d)—it is a concern that we have compounded that issue by introducing elements of that as an aggravating factor.

This would actually have unintended consequences for women who are in abusive relationships, who are unable to say no, and who have unwillingly or inadvertently participated in a crime as part of section 66, because we have no current systems for it. Like I mentioned before, there is no way for them to fully withdraw. Then, on top of that, they get aggravating factors applied as well. You are looking at people who are probably the most vulnerable of our communities being hit by both section 66 of the Crimes Act and, then, on top of that, the aggravating factor in this bill. Can I just get some clarification from the Minister around party liability? Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): We’re coming towards the end of this evening’s discussion, but, in short answer to the questions raised by Dr Duncan Webb, the discount would not be from a maximum sentence. That’s not the intention. The starting point will apply in practice. Sentencing is a judicial process based on common law, within the framework and requirements of the Sentencing Act. There’s a rule of thumb, as it were, that has come through the common law. For example, an aggravated assault might have a maximum penalty of X, but in these circumstances, at that level, with these consequences for the victim of that assault, the starting point might be X—eight years or something like that. That is the starting point from the 40 percent discount.

Now, of course, it is possible that different approaches could be made to the starting point, and if we were to discover after three years that suddenly the starting points for all the sentences suddenly halved, then Parliament and the Government would be left making different conclusions. There are many other things that Parliament could do if it felt like that message wasn’t getting through, but I have every expectation that the process—the normal process for setting a starting point—has been well established in the common law framework, and that would be the starting point for the discounts.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The time has come for me to report progress—I think my clock here is just a little bit faster than that one up there—so I will now report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting. Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.