Thursday, 6 March 2025

Volume 782

Sitting date: 6 March 2025

THURSDAY, 6 MARCH 2025

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

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

Visitors

Sweden—Riksdag Friends of New Zealand Parliamentary Group

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, I’m sure that members would wish to welcome members of the Swedish Riksdag Friends of New Zealand Parliamentary Group, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do we have the Leader of the House?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Sorry—too many papers. Next week, the House will consider the third readings—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Not paying attention—wake up.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Does the House want to hear?

Tangi Utikere: Well, we waited long enough.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, we will hear now, thank you. [Interruption] We will hear now, thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the third readings of the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill. On Wednesday morning, there will be extended hours for Government business, and the afternoon will be a members’ day. The general debate will be replaced by the debate on the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s (FEC’s) report on the Budget Policy Statement. On Thursday afternoon, there will be a special debate on the FEC’s inquiry into climate adaptation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I’m just wondering if the legislative programme will be better organised than the Deputy Leader of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s free to choose whether she answers that question or not.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Well, in terms of the regulatory systems bills, I hope the Opposition have more to say in the committee stage.

Hon Members: Oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, time for order. [Interruption] Order!

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered for presentation. Four select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

2023-24 annual reviews of the Department of Internal Affairs, Digital Executive Board, and Taumata Arowai

2023-24 annual reviews of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Urgent Debates Declined

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority—Appointment to Board

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Scott Willis seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the appointment of John Carnegie to the board of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Members will have different views on appointments to statutory bodies. Not every appointment with which some members disagree warrants an urgent debate. In this instance, I am not convinced that the matter warrants setting aside the business of the House today to debate it. The application is declined.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Māori Development

1. HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his appointment of Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal in light of Prebble’s comments on his resignation; if so, why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Ki te wāhanga tuatahi o tēnei pātai, āna, āna. Ki te wāhanga tuarua, i whai whakaaro mātou i ngā rārangi kōrero i raro i te ture mō Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1975, me te mea nei me āta whakaarohia, me āta tirohia hoki te hononga i waenga i te Karauna me te iwi Māori, tae atu rā ki ngā pūmanawa me ngā pūkenga o ngā mema. Nā Mr Prebble hoki i tuku mai i tāna reta rihaina. E mihi ana ki a ia me tēnā reta, ā, hoki ora atu, e Rīhari, ki Rotomā.

[To the first part of the question, yes, absolutely. To the second part, we considered the clauses under the legislation regarding the Treaty of Waitangi 1975, and consequently the relationship between the Crown and the Māori people must be carefully considered and examined, including the talents and skills of members. Mr Prebble sent me his letter of resignation. I acknowledge him and that letter, and, Richard, safe travels to Rotomā.]

Hūhana Lyndon: What does the Waitangi Tribunal do?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Waitangi Tribunal’s role is set out very clearly in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which I suggest the member reads. It is to inquire into and make recommendations on claims that the Crown has acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hūhana Lyndon: Was he aware of Richard Prebble’s views prior to his appointment to the tribunal that there is one Treaty, despite there being both English and te reo versions which are not direct translations of each other, and, if not, why didn’t he ask him for his views before appointing him?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I was aware of some of Mr Prebble’s views prior to appointment, and he’s entitled to his own opinions and his own views.

Hūhana Lyndon: Did Māori cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we’re all aware, there are a variety of views in relations to that matter. But what I’m absolutely clear about is that there’s one thing that existed before the Treaty of Waitangi and will continue to exist after we all leave this place, is that rangatiratanga will be protected, preserved, and enhanced.

Hūhana Lyndon: How can New Zealanders, and especially Māori, trust his judgment after he appointed someone to our Waitangi Tribunal who has proven themselves historically illiterate?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I just have that question again, please? Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please repeat the question.

Hūhana Lyndon: How can New Zealanders, especially Māori, trust his judgment after he appointed someone to our Waitangi Tribunal who has proven themselves historically illiterate?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Waitangi Tribunal is not the preserve of one party, whether or not it’s the Green Party or any other party. If the use of the word “our” is to select one particular group in this House, I reject the characterisation.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a longstanding expectation in this House that members not use our free speech in this Chamber to potentially defame members of the public who don’t have the opportunity to defend themselves, and accusing someone of economic illiteracy—sorry, historic illiteracy—is a claim that, if used outside this Chamber, would be challengeable.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I’ll talk to the Clerks post this and if I come up with a different view, I’ll let you know. But at this moment, the member actually gave her point of view on what had been previously said. So I accept that at this point in time. If I get a different view post this, I’ll let you know.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If 103 years ago, a brilliant scholar in law, who got a law degree in two years flat—Sir Apirana Ngata—said that the Māori ceded sovereignty, then who in this House is so historically illiterate now?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure that that’s actually an appropriate question. The Minister does not need to answer it.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m happy to respond to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I do have a point—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: My point was it was a totally out-of-order question and inappropriate that it be attempted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I don’t think it’s something the Minister needs to answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With the greatest of respect, Madam Chair, did I name anyone? No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which is a qualifier for your kind of judgment which was improperly made, and therefore I’m asking you to review your decision.

Hūhana Lyndon: Does he acknowledge that his appointment of Prebble to the tribunal, only for him to immediately resign and make a political stunt, makes a mockery of the institution itself?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The appointment of the Hon Richard Prebble followed due process. Mr Prebble has resigned. I have accepted his resignation and I wish him well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just have a note in front of me that said the public do have a right of response—Standing Order 160/1. Public figures are subject to criticism in the House. Thank you.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I thank the member for that very, very, very clever question. The answer is yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Thank you. Does he agree with Nicola Willis that she delivered new Cook Strait ferries on 11 December 2024; if so, why was Winston Peters subsequently dispatched on a global search for replacements, including meeting with the company who was contracted to build those ferries in the first place?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality of the matter is that the Minister of Finance inherited an absolute mess. What was meant to be $401 million for two ferries and then a total infrastructure cost under $1.4 billion, all up with the ferries, had gone from there to over $4 billion, which was a warning that Treasury gave the previous Government. So, having dealt with that, the job happened to be by chance passed on to me, and I’ve sought to rectify the matter, at a massive saving to the New Zealand people.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree that Nicola Willis was too hasty in cancelling the ferries, as reported by the New Zealand Herald?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that we will all have those sorts of criticisms being made, but the New Zealand Herald today got it massively wrong in the editorial in the second to last paragraph. I’d ask them, for goodness’ sake, to start getting their facts right for a change by reading the full story, which was told not by me, not by Nicola Willis, but by Treasury itself to Grant Robertson.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will Winston Peters prioritise negotiating the break fee with Hyundai before he enters into another contract with them, or will he pursue both negotiations concurrently?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I appreciate what the member is asking, but the so-called break fee lies as a matter between KiwiRail and Hyundai; the new issue that we’re dealing on is separate. However, in our representations, it was made very, very clear to me that, while that matter is separate, if there were to be a new deal, there would be a reconsideration of the prior settlement, to which we are not a party at the moment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many millions of healthy school lunches could Nicola Willis’ ferry break-fee have paid for?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, all I do know is that we’ve got a sort of parallel circumstance here: the Government inherited a school lunch programme unfunded, and we inherited a ferry programme unfunded as well.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many Kiwis are now out of a job thanks to the Government giving the school lunches contract to multinational corporation Compass?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don’t think anyone can answer that question on speculation, but, if the member wants to write a note or put it in written form, we’ll get an answer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When Nicola Willis said she has delivered, did she mean delivering 31,000 more people to Work and Income New Zealand, delivering 72,000 New Zealanders overseas, or delivering thousands of inedible meals into rubbish bins in schools across the country?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think when the Minister of Finance was saying, “I have delivered”, she meant the answer that came in the quarterly update this morning. We have turned the circumstances of this country’s economy around. It’s the first bright news we’ve had, and, like a big vessel out at sea, it is hard to stop. It is hard to turn an economy around—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What vessel? There’s no vessels.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we know where there is a stack of empty vessels—yes, I’m looking at them.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, the interim financial statements of the Government for the first seven months of the financial year were released by Treasury, as referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister. The statements show Crown revenue and expenditure for the financial year up to 31 January, and they also update both the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC—that is OBEGALx—and the Crown’s debt position.

Nancy Lu: What do the financial statements show about revenue and expenses?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown tax revenue for the seven months was $600 million higher than forecast in the half-year update in December, while core Crown expenses were $600 million lower than forecast. Some of that is likely to do with timing across the year, but it is interesting to compare growth and expenses in this set of accounts with a year ago. Over the seven months to January, core Crown expenses were only 2 percent higher than they were in the corresponding period a year earlier. That shows the Government’s commitment to spending constraint and turning around the poor fiscal position we inherited.

Nancy Lu: What do the financial statements show about the operating balance and debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OBEGALx deficit at seven months is $3.7 billion, which is $1.4 billion better than expected at the half-year update. Let’s see how that pans out at year end, but the improvement is a positive sign so far. Net core Crown debt is in line with forecasts, at an estimated 42.8 percent of GDP. The Government’s intention remains, in the short term, to get net debt trending down towards 40 percent of GDP, and that will involve reprioritising spending over the next few years.

Nancy Lu: What else would help get the books back in balance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The economic growth is good for wages. It is good for jobs. It is good for opportunities and living standards. It is also good for the books. Additional growth of even a quarter of a percent of nominal GDP each year would boost tax revenue by $2 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. That is why the Government is committed to removing unnecessary obstacles from the path of businesses and creating an environment in which people are rewarded for investing, for innovating, for taking risks, for employing others. We do not view business as the enemy, because we know it is not the Government that ultimately creates jobs. It is business, not Government, that generates the revenue that funds public services.

Question No. 4—Māori Development

4. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe the Waitangi Tribunal plays a critical role in holding the Government accountable for its actions or omissions that breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is empowered to inquire into and make recommendations on claims by Māori that the Crown has acted in a manner or omitted to act in a manner inconsistent with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. As an independent commission of inquiry, the tribunal provides a platform for claims to be heard, ensures historical—and herstorical—and contemporary grievances are examined, and offers recommendations to help guide the Crown in upholding its Treaty obligations. As such, I disagree with the member’s characterisation of the Waitangi Tribunal as holding the Government accountable.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with the late Moana Jackson, one of the most profound contemporary contributors to Tiriti understanding, that the Treaty is to be honoured, not settled, and, if so, does he agree that the tribunal’s work must be ongoing and, for the sake of clarity for the nation, have its power strengthened, not diminished?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I absolutely agree with the sentiment that the Crown and the Government—and, actually, everyone in this House—need to ensure that historical Treaty claims and grievances are resolved and settled. That’s why I want to mihi to Minister Goldsmith, who led the settlement of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua claims today through legislation.

Tākuta Ferris: Is it appropriate that New Zealand First are leading a Government review of the function and purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal, given their senior Ministers have been publicly hostile towards the role of the tribunal, which already has limited powers?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Ministers in this House are not responsible for individual party policies, and that member should know that. If he spent more time here and learnt the Standing Orders, he would not have asked the question in the first place.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order or are you responding to the point of order?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Responding to the point of order. Speaker’s ruling 197/5 clarifies the whole idea of supplementary questions is to make a range of political statements about an issue, not to sit there and qualify New Zealand First’s response. So what was the supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the Minister is not responsible for New Zealand First, unless it’s a Government review, and then, if it’s been decided by Government, the Minister is responsible. But he’s not responsible for a New Zealand First position.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, as I recall, it was agreed in this House—and has been agreed in this House before—that party policies which are reflected in a coalition agreement are properly able to be questioned in this House. It’s well known that the question it referred to, and the New Zealand First policy referred to, appears in the coalition agreement, and therefore the question is in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, thank you. I’ll ask Tākuta Ferris to ask that same question again. If that’s the case—and I’ll take Dr Duncan Webb’s word for it—we’ll take the question. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The review of the Waitangi Tribunal that’s articulated and set out in the coalition arrangement between New Zealand First and National is one that will be undertaken in due course. As to the allocation of responsibilities in regards to that review, that’s something that the member clearly knows more about than I do.

Tākuta Ferris: Pātai anō? [Another question?]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. You’ve got one more.

Tākuta Ferris: Ah, ka pai. What is he doing to uphold the tribunal’s recommendation that this Government abandon its coalition policy to review and potentially remove Treaty clauses from 28 pieces of legislation, as promoted by Matua Shane and “Koro Winnie”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With great respect, the member cannot come and have contempt for the procedures of this House or the plain and common sense and manners that’s required. That conclusion of his question should have ruled his question out straight away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, what—

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, speaking to the point of order.

Stuart Smith: In that question, the member referred to someone not by their proper name and it’s quite disrespectful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, yeah, he omitted the last name of the person. So, look, if you—

Stuart Smith: Well, more than that, Madam Speaker—more than that, it was a nickname. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. Look, I understand the rules of this House are that we call people by their first and last name and give them their proper titles. I don’t think this member is the first person that has actually broken that rule. So I’m going to give that member a chance to ask that question, using the correct name of the person he’s referring to.

Tākuta Ferris: Ka pai. Tēnā koe. Back to the Minister: what is he doing to uphold the tribunal’s recommendation that this Government abandon its coalition policy to review and potentially remove Treaty clauses from 28 pieces of legislation, as promoted by New Zealand First?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We have received a number of recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal, as Ministers, over the last 15 months, and those matters remain for active review.

Question No. 5—Rail

5. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: What recent announcements has he made on the Cook Strait ferries programme?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): On 4 February, the Government opened the door to alternative proposals from the market, as we leave no stone unturned in getting value for taxpayers. We’ll have much more to say about this process after Cabinet meets at the end of March.

Jenny Marcroft: How does this approach differ from the previous project, iReX?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the previous project was commissioned at $401 million for two ferries, and then there was an infrastructure cost contained in the forward proposal, which was promptly abandoned, and it went from just over $1 billion to, as Treasury forecast, over $4 billion. In this case, we’re announcing a worldwide search for shipyard partners, but we cannot speak for specific shipyards’ interest. But the reality is that commercial shipbuilders all around the world are showing an interest now, and we should be able to give the country far greater detail in a matter of weeks now.

Jenny Marcroft: What does the Government expect to announce on the ferries after Cabinet next discusses the topic?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We were very clear on 11 December 2024 that Cabinet will be considering two firm options: cost-effective infrastructure with vessels taking vehicles and passengers—that’s one—and cost-effective infrastructure with vehicles taking vehicles, passengers, and rail wagons. The second one hasn’t been worked on—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rail-enabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and that’s what we’re working on at—I beg your pardon?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rail-enabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if it’s got, as a possibility, rail wagons and passengers and vehicles, quite possibly it’s rail-enabled.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “Recent data releases are consistent with a growing New Zealand economy”; if so, what impact does inflation in international economies have on New Zealand’s growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and to the second part of the question, it depends. For example, an increase in world dairy prices would likely be good for the New Zealand economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is 31,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are two parts that we need to consider there. The first is that unemployment is running at exactly the rate that it was forecast to be when that member’s party was leading the Government prior to the election. The second part is what has changed is we now have a Minister who is dedicated to putting incentives in place so that as many people as possible who can work do work—an active welfare system. Because I am looking at members—and I’m looking at Carmel Sepuloni—who, despite record low unemployment, allowed the number of jobseeker beneficiaries to increase dramatically. What a failure.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is consumer credit defaults increasing by 42 percent consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am always concerned by New Zealanders being under financial stress, and obviously consumer credit defaults are evidence of that. But what we need to be clear about is that we had a Government that allowed inflation to be driven to 7.3 percent, that saw successive years of high inflation outside New Zealand’s target band, that saw the Reserve Bank left alone while they sprayed the money hose around to crank up interest rates at a rapid rate. That has then had a very chilling effect on the economy, and it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with economic literacy that it takes some time to turn a mess of that magnitude around.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is a 35 percent increase in liquidations for the North Island and a 67 percent rise in the South Island consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to see New Zealand businesses thrive. That’s why, from day one in office, this Government has leaned into the actions a Government can take to make this a better place to invest and grow. That is why we are better educating New Zealand kids. That is why we are reducing red tape and regulation. That’s why we’re investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure. That’s why we’re making sure our science system actually delivers commercially realisable opportunities. What I would say to any New Zealand business who is struggling is this: you’ve gone through a really tough few years, but you’ve now got a Government that’s on your side.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is building consents being down 7.2 percent consistent with a growing New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I want to see construction improving and increasing, and that’s why we are taking steps across the board to support that, including liberalising land markets, improving infrastructure funding and financing, reducing the complexity of getting a building consent, allowing people to import more easily. But fundamentally, the construction industry responds badly when interest rates are high, because they need to borrow for their construction projects. So Governments that allow inflation to get out of control so that interest rates are ratcheted up tend to find that construction drops off. That member, Barbara Edmonds, is sitting next to members of a Cabinet who allowed a historic level of damage to be delivered to the New Zealand economy, and now she has the cheek to blame us for fixing it. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. That’s quite enough.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the growing number of people on the benefit, growing company liquidations, growing numbers of New Zealanders leaving for Australia, growing consumer credit defaults, fewer homes being built, the green shoots of a growing economy or, like the ferry contract, an example of her delivery?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, they are the remnants of a failed regime, a Labour-led Government that did all it could to destroy this economy, and we on this side of the House are fixing it up.

Question No. 7—Tourism and Hospitality

7. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about boosting tourism in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): I have recently announced a range of investments and initiatives to boost tourism in New Zealand. This includes a new $3 million Regional Tourism Boost Fund that will be used to attract more international visitors to regional destinations, and a $9 million boost for infrastructure upgrades and replacements on our Great Rides cycle trails. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, and these investments are part of our tourism boost package to bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.

Joseph Mooney: Why are these investments important?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Together, the 23 Great Rides receive about a million visitors a year; of whom, around 20 percent are international visitors. With those numbers expected to continue growing, maintaining and improving these trails is a must. That’s why the $9 million boost for our Great Rides cycle trails is important, so visitors can keep enjoying the unique experience of pedalling through New Zealand’s beautiful landscapes. The Regional Tourism Boost is a chance for regional tourism organisations to secure funding for activities that boost international visitation, helping local businesses and communities thrive.

Joseph Mooney: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of these investments?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The benefits of these investments will reach beyond our cities and into our regions. Our Government’s tourism boost package is part of a bigger plan to create a thriving, resilient economy. By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. Ninety-three percent of New Zealanders agree that tourism is good for our country, and more visitors means more income for local businesses, more job opportunities for Kiwis, and a stronger, more resilient economy for all.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has she seen on these announcements?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The feedback has been fantastic. Everyone has been talking about tourism. Regional Tourism New Zealand and the Restaurant Association have welcomed the Regional Tourism Boost announcement, with the latter saying, “it’s positive to see targeted efforts to boost regional tourism,”. Inside Tourism said the $9 million Great Rides boost was crucial in maximising the Great Rides’ potential to deliver ongoing regional economic benefits. There will be more to come: 2025 is our chance to reinforce the value of tourism to a humming, vibrant country where we welcome anyone from anywhere at any time.

Question No. 8—Rail

8. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statement regarding the new Cook Strait ferries that by the end of March 2025, “We’re going to be able to announce who’s in the game, what they’re aiming for, and what the cost will be”; if so, is he on track to do so?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): I thank that very sensible member for his sensible two questions, and the answers are yes and yes.

Tangi Utikere: Has he actually received any bids yet from shipbuilders for the new Cook Strait ferries; if so, how many?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No bids have been received yet.

Tangi Utikere: Did he provide Hyundai with any assurances that a new contract signed with his Government would not fall through again; if so, what were those assurances that he gave?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I reminded Hyundai that in 1950, when their country was under attack, my country came to their aid. When their currency collapsed in 1997 under the Asian financial crisis, my country was one of the nine that underwrote its currency. It’s a thing called respect and gratitude, and that he could go forward in the future and trust my country and me.

Tangi Utikere: Is the Government currently in a formal contract dispute resolution with Hyundai, such as arbitration, and, if not, why is it taking so long to exit the existing ferries contract that Nicola Willis cancelled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that question lies with KiwiRail—that’s in charge of the process, not the Government.

Tangi Utikere: Does he have confidence that the total cost of ferries and infrastructure will come in under $2 billion?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What we have enormous confidence in is that the Treasury forecast that was given to the Labour Party and us of it passing $4 billion is not going to happen. In short, hang on, help’s on its way, and I’ll give the details shortly.

Tangi Utikere: Is it still possible that Nicola Willis’ preferred ferry replacements will be purchased, or is her delivery finally dead in the water?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that what Nicola Willis did was see a financial crisis and take the appropriate action when her predecessors had not.

Question No. 9—Mental Health

9. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister for Mental Health: What announcements has he made this week regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): On Tuesday, I visited Wellington City Mission’s Crisis Café to announce they are one of the latest recipients of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. The funding will allow the City Mission to scale up its Crisis Café to 24 hours a day, four days a week. Crisis Cafés provide an alternative place where people can go when they need support to alleviate demand on emergency departments. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to increase access to mental health and addiction services, and this is exactly what this announcement does.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other announcements has he made this week regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, a good question. Yesterday, I was in Rotorua to announce that the Rotorua community youth centre would be receiving funding from the mental health innovation fund. The trust provides free primary mental health and addiction services to young people. The funding will support an additional 560 young people as well as provide a range of courses and workshops to upskill people in the community to better support youth mental health. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to develop capacity in the mental health workforce, and this is exactly what this announcement does.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other services has the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund funded?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The innovation fund provides Government funding to match, dollar for dollar, philanthropic and other funding secured by organisations, including New Zealanders, with their mental health. In addition to the Wellington City Mission and Rotorua community youth centre, it has funded Youthline to expand its youth counselling, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation to scale up Mitey, the school-based mental health programme, and to support Mates in Construction to deliver vital suicide prevention on site. One of the criteria of the innovation fund is to deliver scalable solutions for unmet need, and this is exactly what these announcements do.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How does this fund support the Government’s mental health priorities?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, this Government is laser focused on reducing mental health wait times, training more mental health workers, and investing more in prevention and early intervention. One way of achieving this is investing more in our hard-working community and NGO mental health services, who are already making a difference on the ground. This Government is committed to getting money out of Wellington to the grassroots, and that’s what we’re doing.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe that State housing is important for growing the supply of affordable housing; if so, why is the Government opting for zero growth in State housing beyond next year?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes. However, the Opposition’s infatuation with State ownership of affordable housing is laughable. We are very comfortable and enthusiastic with community housing providers, iwi, and others providing affordable housing where suitable. This Government’s housing renaissance, led by the energetic Minister of Finance and the exemplary Minister of Housing, is focused on fixing the housing ecosystem to grow affordable housing. In relation to the second part of this question, it’s inappropriate to get ahead of the Minister of Finance’s Budget decisions.

Tamatha Paul: How many of the—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet! There’s a question being asked.

Tamatha Paul: Has the Minister seen yesterday’s poll from Public Housing Futures that shows that 72 percent of people believe the Government should address the housing crisis by building State housing at scale, and, if so, will he listen to the people and abandon their anti-growth State housing plan?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, but I have seen the tables that have seen nearly 3,000 children come out of emergency housing in the last 15 months and a reduction of 5,000 households from the social housing register. I have seen the absolute reduction in the million dollars a day that the previous Government was spending on emergency housing. Those are the tables I’ve seen. But I’m happy to get the member’s polls and materials through my office. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Does the Minister recognise that despite the tinkering to leasing and contracts, Kāinga Ora is in a much stronger position to finance new social housing at a lower cost per home than community housing providers, who face more expensive borrowing and have far smaller balance sheets than Kāinga Ora?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not going to get into the member’s fuzzy accounting and math, but what I will say is this: that I have—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I please ask the Minister to rephrase that answer without the attack back about the member’s fuzzy question. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I will ask the member to reset the question and send it back to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. I’ll ask Tamatha Paul to please repeat the question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We on this side of the House recognise that community housing providers and Māori and iwi housing providers often have better outcomes for provision of housing that is affordable than utilising Kāinga Ora. We are very proud of the recent announcements that we made to support and accelerate 400 or so homes amongst Māori housing providers, utilising funds. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Is the Minister concerned about the loss of local trade jobs and contracts across the country due to the stalling and cancellation of State housing developments, when over 10,000 construction workers lost their jobs due to that last year?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we know, we have suffered a market downturn and a cost of living crisis and an economic crisis over the last couple of years, and those are the things that the Minister of Finance is absolutely and diligently and professionally ensuring that we deal with and get housing back on track.

Tamatha Paul: How does the Government reconcile putting Kāinga Ora projects comprising of over 4,000 units under review, including over 500 in Wellington, with the overwhelming support of New Zealanders for the Government to get on with building State housing at scale?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The nature of that question demonstrates the absolute gulf between the Opposition’s view of how housing should be generated in this country. We have a view—a very strong view—that a number of players, including iwi Māori, community housing providers, and others, are in a position to activate more social and affordable housing. The Opposition, including the member who’s asked that question, has a very strong view that the Government should have a monopoly on the provision and we don’t agree with it.

Tamatha Paul: How many of those iwi Māori - led and community housing provider - led houses that he has been mentioning are a result of funding committed by this Government and not the previous Government, led by the Labour Party and the Green Party, that had already been committed to, given that Government hasn’t committed any funding to new builds beyond 2026 or the operational subsidies needed to actually run that housing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first part of the question was a question, I think.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’re very proud in ensuring that 1,500 additional social houses, income-related rent subsidy funded places, have been provided for community housing providers to deliver over the next couple of years. Actually, that’s something that we are really enthusiastic around.

Question No. 11—Trade and Investment

11. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What impacts does he think the imposition of tariffs by the Trump presidency will have on New Zealand exporters and importers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment: Rising tariffs between the major economies have the potential to drive global inflation, lower demand in some countries, and supress economic growth. While President Trump campaigned on a tariff agenda, there’s no suggestion the US is focused on or singling out New Zealand. The embassy in Washington, DC is gathering as much information as it can, while continuously making the case to the US that New Zealand’s trade is well balanced. We are monitoring developments, taking advice on everything available to us—everything is still on the table.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Who does the Minister agree with, the Todd McClay who stated on 31 January this year that exporters will do “very well” during Trump’s second term, or the Todd McClay who stated on 6 March 2025 that “A tariff on New Zealand exports … is not a good thing for New Zealand.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, of course, Todd McClay was the same man on both occasions, and on both occasions he was right. New Zealand exporters do have a great future ahead of them, and of course New Zealand has consistently opposed additional tariffs on our goods.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does she agree with the statement by Sir John Key that Trump will “be better for the economy”, and what should New Zealand KiwiSaver fund holders think about that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, I don’t take responsibility for the comments of the Rt Hon John Key.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why did the Minister state that “we will face about an extra $5 million of tariffs—plus or minus” on tariffs that have already been imposed on aluminium, iron, and steel, and how does the Minister reconcile this with Statistics New Zealand figures that show a 25 percent tariff would be about $34 million a year, based on last year’s export figures?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, obviously, I take a range of advice from my officials, and that is what informs my statements. I would like to acknowledge the member asking these questions, who, alongside other members of this House, has worked hard over many years to help secure good trading relationships between New Zealand and a network of other nations around the world. I would like to remind the member that, ultimately, our exporters are resilient and will continue to find good opportunities in a range of markets.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. That was a very clear question. The Minister had indicated an estimate of costs. Statistics New Zealand have estimated a different estimate of costs for tariffs. Whilst the Minister’s reply about our great exports is pleasant, it came nowhere near actually addressing the disparity between the Minister’s opinion and Statistics New Zealand’s statistics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think given that all of this is based on estimates, no one’s in a position to say what exactly it’s going to be, so I’m satisfied with the Minister’s answer.

Hon Damien O’Connor: If the Minister can’t get the maths right, why should exporters trust his advice at this uncertain time, considering no one in his office has contacted any US officials since President Trump’s election, and he hasn’t even contacted the Meat Industry Association about the proposed tariffs on agriculture, when the US is now our single largest meat market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, I can assure the member that this Government is working hard through all of our channels, across multiple Ministers, to ensure as strong a relationship as possible with the United States is in place in order to ensure that New Zealand’s interests can be pursued, and that absolutely includes the interests of our exporters. Minister McClay has instructed New Zealand officials in Washington, DC to engage with the new administration to ensure that they remain aware that our trade is balanced and complementary, and that US exporters predominantly enjoy lower tariff rates into New Zealand than our exporters do into the US because we have a very low-tariff regime.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request received back in my office on 28 February from the Hon Todd McClay, that states, “My office does not hold correspondence between members of my office and any United States Government officials since 5 November 2024.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The paper can be tabled.

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

Question No. 12—Women

12. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Women: What is the Government doing to support women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): How fitting to address this House on this matter with you in the Chair, Madam Speaker. I want to wish all women a very happy International Women’s Day this Saturday, and I’d like to send my personal thanks and appreciation to the women across the country, who deserve to be celebrated on this day and every day. To support women, last year I launched the first ever Government-backed gender pay gap tool kit. This helps businesses to calculate their pay gap and then an action plan tailored to their individual needs. It was designed alongside business to ensure sustainable and enduring change, and I thank those involved. I encourage members across the House, instead of carping and moaning, to get on board with it and visit the resources this International Women’s Day.

Catherine Wedd: Why is this work a priority?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The gender pay gap, of course, sits at 8.2 percent, and the Retirement Commission has found a 36 percent gap in the amount that men and women are putting into their KiwiSaver each year, which is primarily caused by the gender pay gap rather than contribution rates. Reducing that gap, of course, can lift women to economic empowerment, which is my number one priority as Minister.

Catherine Wedd: What has the engagement been like so far?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: It has been fantastic. I am very pleased to share with this House that since the day we launched it, there have been 16,000 hits to the site and 750 downloads of the workbook by individual businesses. It’s really great to hear all the positive feedback from the business community as I travel across the country sharing this resource with business and professional sectors.

Catherine Wedd: What else is the Government doing?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The Government is committed to supporting women. That is why we have increased paid parental leave by 6 percent, we have introduced the FamilyBoost payment to help meet the cost of early childhood education, and we have rolled out an extension to breast screening services to include 70- to 74-year-olds. We are all about action, not press releases and empty, hollow promises.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why did the Minister and her Government get rid of the mandatory pay transparency scheme that was introduced by the last Government, when BusinessNZ, unions, and Government stood together, in a tripartite agreement, to say that this would make the single-biggest difference to women’s pay?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I am so pleased the member has asked that question. Cabinet has not yet made a decision on a mandatory reporting system, and I note that the last Government announced it but did not fund or deliver it. So we are progressing—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear the Minister. Carry on answering—I’m just asking other people to tone down the noise.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: We are progressing a voluntary system that has been designed by the business community, including BusinessNZ, so that it works for them, and, as I’ve noted, the organic uptake has already been very encouraging.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, with respect to Jan Tinetti’s question, is it, properly, “women’s” pay or “woman’s” pay?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I thank the member for his question. Anyone who knows how to enunciate correctly in English would say “women”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It probably depends on where you grow up.

Hon Jan Tinetti: In what ways does cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce, coalition members dismissing causes for the gender pay gap, and making derisive comments about women count as the Government supporting women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: This Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act 1972. As the Minister for Women, as that member will well know, I am not responsible for pay equity legislation, but I advocate very strongly on behalf of women, and I am proudly a very squeaky wheel.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, that concludes oral questions, and in the tradition of the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee, I’m going to give people 30 seconds to leave the Chamber quietly.

Bills

Referendums Framework Bill

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Referendums Framework Bill.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The bill provides a generic framework which focuses on the mechanics of a referendum. It largely reproduces the same legislative framework that applies to the conduct of the general election. The bill draws on the foundations of our electoral law and does not create, nor is it specific to, any referendum. The bill’s largely modelled on the temporary legislation put in place for the two referendums held alongside the 2020 general election.

In line with coalition agreements, a separate bill is being progressed that would enable the extension of the maximum term of Parliament, subject to a binding referendum. At this stage, there is a commitment for that bill to progress to the select committee but not necessarily any further. However, the Referendums Framework Bill provides the necessary legislative framework to govern the conduct of a referendum if required at the first or second election after commencement.

Ensuring the smooth and efficient conduct of a general election and any referendum held at the time is obviously important. Our Electoral Commission needs to be able to plan appropriately. This Referendums Framework Bill provides a single set of rules to govern the conduct of any referendum held alongside the general election. It ensures that the same rules apply both for the general election and referendum as far as practical. The bill ideally needs to be passed by October this year to allow the Electoral Commission sufficient lead-in time to prepare for a referendum if there was to be one held alongside the 2026 general election.

The bill focuses on the mechanical aspects of the conduct of any referendum held with a general election—for example, it enables the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and electoral staffers for the election, provides counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the general election, and provides that the offence and penalty provisions of the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums. This bill does not include any specific referendum-related material, instead following the enactment of the relevant primary legislation for a referendum topic. An Order in Council will act as a trigger for holding a referendum alongside a particular general election.

Advertising is a key issue. To achieve an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and transparency, the bill regulates referendum advertising in much the same way as the Electoral Act regulates election advertising. These rules require promoters of referendum advertisements to place a promotive statement, to register if they intend to spend over a certain amount, and in addition, registered promoters will be required to submit a return of their expenses if they spend more than $100,000. There will be an overall limit on the amount that can be spent of just over $400,000. The bill also provides expenditure on dual advertising, covering the election and the referendum will count both to electoral and referendum advertising thresholds and limits.

The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules applying to the election, which reflects the nature of referendums. For example, there’ll be no preliminary count on any referendum vote on election day, to avoid delays for the preliminary count for the general election. Referendum results will be released with or following the official results for the general election.

The select committee process is very important. I encourage members and the public to have their say. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is another piece of—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What have you got to say?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, what I’ve got to say, Mr Goldsmith, is that this is another job that David Seymour has given Paul Goldsmith, because, yet again, the Government, which should be focused on things that are important to hard-working New Zealanders, has, in fact, been distracted by things like the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and a four-year term with bizarre select committee rules by the ACT Party. Now, the Minister of Justice and the Justice Committee, which I sit on, are very busy with some interesting and important pieces of work, but this isn’t one of them.

Hon James Meager: God’s work.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, Minister Goldsmith is not quite God; in fact, he’s far from it. I think he’s at the other end of the spectrum.

Look, sure, this bill: if you’re going to run a referendum—[Interruption] Well, you asked for it. It’s late on a Thursday—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, the members did ask for it, and the spectrum hasn’t been defined, so just carry on. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Look, if you’re going to run a referendum, we accept you’ve got to get your rules right, and in some ways, I’m curious as to why we’re doing a kind of patch-up, rather than having a long-term look at how we run referenda. If you’re going to do it, you may as well do it right, and this bill is really only aimed at a referendum that’ll happen in one of the next two elections. Yes, all of those things, like the questions around interference and promoters, donations—all the things that the Minister referred to—are appropriate, and if there’s going to be a referendum, yes, we absolutely want to make sure that it’s done with integrity, because we know that integrity around our electoral system is critical.

It’s funny that the Minister was talking about the Electoral Commission and the work that it does, including in referenda, because, at the moment, it’s under siege. It’s had a walkout from its IT department, and there are deep problems with it. We saw at the last election not only did we have a miscounting problem, where boxes of votes went missing, but we had a problem about the independence of a marae. So, yes, let’s get it right, but the integrity of the process is important.

Look, if the National Party wants to be distracted and this is the biggest thing that it wants to send to the Justice Committee, then go for it, but the fact of the matter is that this bill and the four-year term bill are not something which is going to change New Zealanders’ lives, and it’s the ACT Party wagging the dog, once again.

The four-year term bill itself is poorly drafted, but this really sits alongside of it, and we’ll take a good-faith look at both of them. We don’t have a closed mind on either of them, but it’s really just getting a bit tiresome when the legislative agenda—in justice, in particular—of the Government is run by the ACT Party.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. A standing framework for conducting referendums—and it does pain me to say that and not “referenda”, but each language has its own idiosyncratic adaptations—is much better than creating new legislation every time we want a referendum. It’s also appropriate, often, to have a referendum at the same time as a general election, but not necessarily. You would reduce costs and gain maximum participation, but sometimes holding a referendum at the same time as a general election could be much more polarising. This bill only applies to referendums at the next two elections, but why? If you’re not very sure about the legislation, perhaps a five-year review period would be more sensible. Why are referendums good for two rounds and not for longer?

There are bigger issues: when is a referendum appropriate rather than divisive, and when is it the best method of deciding an important question? The multiple costly local referendums on Māori wards this coalition Government is forcing on councils—costly? Yes, the dollars are dollars whether they’re ratepayers’ dollars or taxpayers’ dollars. Those aren’t designed to promote local engagement. They’re not designed to be deliberative democracy. They are a simplistic lever for rednecks deciding on rural wards, but large wards? They’re not appropriate for a referendum, and I say deciding on Māori representation is not appropriate in a referendum, either. Maybe we could look at whether being a republic or a colonial monarchy is appropriate, but you wouldn’t do that without a very serious conversation first.

That’s what I’m concerned about: going straight to a referendum. A referendum should be a full stop after a deep conversation, not the first binary yes/no, “let me go with my gut feel”, which is not a great way of doing democracy.

As the Minister said, the bill does allow for advertising for referenda, but, again, this Government has not listened to the Independent Electoral Review. Is the balance between free speech and undue influence correct? Why do we allow overseas promoters to influence democratic outcomes in our country? Do we want large corporates to influence referendum outcomes? And are the amounts for disclosure and for total spend correct?

I understand that the Taxpayers’ Union or Greenpeace or Forest & Bird could each spend up to $406,000 on their election campaigning, and a further $406,000 on referendum adverts. The report of the Independent Electoral Review, which some of you don’t seem to have read, recommended tighter controls both on total spend and on recording where donations came from. The Green Party would go further and say that only registered voters should be involved in donating to those causes. Those points about general elections should equally apply to referendums.

In conclusion, a referendum is at the very low end on the scale—or the spectrum, if Madam Speaker prefers—of participatory democracy. Citizens don’t define the question. They don’t even refine the question, and there’s no opportunity to come towards a consensus. However, if there are going to be referenda, we need a framework, so we will be supporting this bill.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Haven’t we heard some colourful oratory this afternoon? I wrote it down, because I have a propensity to misquote people: “It’s simple levers for rednecks.” Try and reconcile that, everyone here today, this afternoon—“levers for rednecks”. Gracious me! The idea that we would have a discussion about framing up a four-year reality, whatever it looks like, in a piece of legislation; having a referendum, or a referenda—whichever way you want to frame it—and inviting New Zealand to have its say, and they’re “rednecks”—gracious me! Unbelievable.

Respectfully—and we are a House of privilege here—that is, for me, personally, a pretty dumb remark. Gracious me! This is involving democracy—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just pull back on that remark about calling a—I know you were speaking to the remark and not the member—

MARK CAMERON: No, I was certainly not addressing the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —but it’s a freefall—yeah.

MARK CAMERON: Well, Madam Chair, I note your addition, and I appreciate it, but the remark is not a reflection of the person who made it. I am fascinated—I will reframe it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MARK CAMERON: Gracious me! We come into this House every day to debate ideas. This is a House of contest, and yet that member referenced those outside the House, who don’t have the luxury of privilege, as being a certain kind of people.

Duncan Webb, or, if I may, “Negative Nelly” over there—“It’s all doom and gloom.” I actually think this is a great piece of legislation. How many referendums would New Zealand and New Zealanders want to be engaged with? Look, our mates on the left, who wanted a conversation about cannabis—did they instantly forget that part of our history, and anything else that might have come up. It could be something to do with alcohol, which is often a controversial thing. We take New Zealanders on a journey and we represent their interests, and we certainly share the ideas from outside the four walls of this building.

Incidentally, the Treaty principles bill—that’s come up in the House, so I’ll reference it. Having a bill where we can have a framework that acknowledges New Zealand in a referendum process, this cyclical reality where we have two election cycles and we loop it all in for when we have a general election so New Zealand can have a say—and this obviously ties into the previous bill, the four-year term bill. Why would we not want to engage with New Zealand in this instance?

I think, tying off in this first reading—and I don’t want to over-litigate the complexities of the bill, because it’s not overly complex; you can all read it—the wider point is that we’re taking New Zealanders outside of this building on the journey so that they can have a say on very salient issues to them. Whether it’s cannabis or it could be abortion reform, or it could be all manner of things, there’s nothing wrong with having a four-year rolling maul, you might say, that allows us to have referendums. And, by the way, I’d just remind that member that most New Zealanders are not negative; they’re positive, and they’re certainly not rednecks.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. Look, it was a bit of a struggle to think of what to say about this bill, because it’s actually a relatively mechanistic bill and it really just allows for the design, the management, and the running of referenda in the next two elections alongside the elections themselves, using the same personnel, using the same procedures, the same eligibility for election, and so on.

That’s not particularly exciting in itself, but what we’ve heard in the debate from the Opposition—or at least from one part of the Opposition—does get a little bit exciting, it does open up a debate, because what they have said is that they, essentially, do not believe that there’s much value in the public as a whole engaging in a referendum question. I find that quite remarkable. Some of the most successful—and I’m going to pick one particular country because I often talk about them, the Swiss; they use referenda all the time, and, actually, it doesn’t seem to have done them a whole lot of harm and they seem to manage that really, really well.

To call referenda the lowest form or the low end of participatory democracy; just assuming that there’ll be nothing, there’ll be no lead-in in conversation, no lead-in debate, no lead-in information going into people having to say, “Yes, we support this.” or “No, we don’t.” That never happens. You look at the debates around all the issues that have been before our country in terms of referenda and there has been extensive debate—extensive debate. People care about those things very deeply, particularly where they’re citizens initiated referenda. They care about those things. They care about those very deeply.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Which one? Name one!

ANDY FOSTER: Well, all of them.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: But which one? Name one!

ANDY FOSTER: I’m not going to name one of them.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can’t name one!

ANDY FOSTER: I can pick dozens. I can pick dozens of them.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can’t name one.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, I could. Honestly, I could pick dozens of them, but that’s not the point. The point is that people debate these things with passion. At least we’ve got Duncan Webb sort of—now he’s getting himself up and vaguely interested.

The point is that people do get engaged with these things. Take the cannabis referendum, take the firefighters referendum, take the number of MPs—there are a whole range of them. People get engaged with these things and we have extensive debate, extensive information about those, and the people of New Zealand come to a decision about them. Actually, rather than being, as the Green Party said, the low end of the spectrum in terms of participatory democracy, I think that is very much the high end of it because that means that we all—we all—get to have a say about something. We don’t say to the Parliament, “It’s your call.”; we say, “It’s our call.”

Sometimes they’re binding: MMP. Well, it wasn’t a citizens initiated one, but MMP was a response to the public of New Zealand saying they had concerns about the unbridled power—in fact, I mentioned unbridled power yesterday—being exercised by this place or by the executive within this place, and they wanted to respond to that, and they did, and they’ve changed the way in which our Government is elected and run. That is very, very important. There was a huge debate about that. We can all remember the huge debate that was around that, and that was significant, so I could not disagree more with the Green Party. Effectively, I would say that the Green Party here is being anti-democratic. This is a party which tries to pride itself on its own democratic processes within its own party, and yet here they are saying that the public of New Zealand being able to vote on something is in a way anti-democratic. I think that is appalling. I think it’s very, very sad.

Look, the other thing I would like to mention is just to say that this, to me, is a response. It sits alongside the four-year term bill. I think Duncan Webb said that a four-year term is a distraction—I think it was the word that he used. Well, look, I don’t agree. I think, over time—and we had a good debate about this yesterday—just about every person in the leadership role in this country has said that a four-year term makes a lot more sense than a three-year term. It is something which we should be putting in front of the public. It is something that we have two slightly different coalition agreement components to and said that we would do that. We’ve got support pretty much around the House, and that is something which we should be going to the public to decide on. The way in which people get elected is the decision for the public, not the decision for parliamentarians, and I commend this bill to the House to support the other bill.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tū ana au ki te tuku i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te pire e whai ake nei.

[Greetings to the Speaker. Greetings to us all. I stand to deliver Te Pāti Māori’s thoughts about the following bill.]

Te Pāti Māori supports the essence of this bill, because we support giving power to the people to decide on our laws in some situations. What we do not support is allowing the majority to decide the rights of minorities and dismissing the constitutional rights of te iwi Māori through Te Tiriti o Waitangi along the way. We do not support the tyranny of the majority, as described by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in his submission as part of the King’s Counsel submission against the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. That tyranny of the majority has been weaponised against te iwi Māori over and over and over again.

Last year, the Government passed a law that would force almost all of our Māori wards to be put to a referendum. These seats are necessary to promote unapologetic and unrestrained voices of tangata whenua, those people, as Te Tiriti partners in local government. Their existence should not be subject to a referendum where the majority of voters are not Māori. The ACT Party wants to put the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to a referendum. They’ve made up their own meaning for the Treaty, a novel one at that, a meaning that suits their desire to open up Aotearoa to corporate exploitation, and they want to ask the public whether or not they agree with the principles—principles which have no basis. These are the dangers of a referendum.

They’ve made up principles out of thin air, and asking the voting public to tick “Yes” or “No” without providing any information—these are the dangers of a referendum. Āe, those are the dangers of a referendum. Referendums can be used to take away our voices and take away our rights at the whim of the public, the ignorance or otherwise of the public, and if there are no cautions put in place to raise the skill of the public to make a good decision, then referendums are very dangerous things.

These are the dangers of referendums for tangata whenua. These are the dangers that referendums pose to the rights imparted to the Government through Te Tiriti o Waitangi and every other citizen in the country. We cannot have referendums that victimise minorities or rewrite history and, sadly, recent history has shown us that these are the only reasons that the Government will use a referendum.

We cannot support the bill in the context of where we are today. Referendums have not been on our side since the establishment of Parliament in 1845 and, unfortunately, despite the apologies of the Crown to te iwi Māori, as we listened to, all just graciously politely listened to, this morning, agreed to this morning—despite those apologies to te iwi Māori, we continue to see the promotion of ideas and bills that run straight over the top of Māori constitutional rights, constitutional rights in our own country.

These are the dangers of referendums in 2025, referendums of the ignorant. These are the dangers of those things.

Hon Member: So you don’t support referendums, but you support this bill?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Well, you obviously haven’t been following the whole speech, bro. These are the dangers of referendums, and this is our position.

We agreed to share this country in 1840. Our tīpuna committed to sharing it and, unfortunately, we’re still here waiting for the Crown to come around to honouring their commitments. Kia ora tātou.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thanks, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I think that the detail of the bill is pretty straightforward, and it’s laid out for the Justice Committee to do its good work and ensure that we get it through and bring it back to the House.

What concerns me, though, is some of the speeches that we’ve heard in this House already in this first reading. It was surprising—had to follow along somehow—the Greens’ contribution around the idea of referendums and that we should only have them after we have had a big discussion about the thing we’re going to take to referendum. It was surprising to me when I looked at Morning Report on 25 February and it says, “The Green Party says it backs the idea of a four-year parliamentary term, but with caveats.” Had they decided that after a big kōrero with the whole of New Zealand before they put the full stop on their policy, or were they going to take it to a referendum? I’m confused.

Then we had a conversation that sounds like Te Pāti Māori will only agree with New Zealanders that vote for them. I’m not sure about you, Madam Speaker, or the rest of the House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can’t bring me into the debate, Mr Bates.

CARL BATES: Fair call, Madam Speaker, I won’t bring you into the debate. All members of this House, I’m sure, got votes from Māori voters across New Zealand, so I’m looking forward to the day that they recognise that there are other views than their own. I think this referendum process, should it be utilised, will give us the opportunity to see the view of wider New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On this side of the House, in the Labour benches, we’re supporting this bill today to select committee. The reason is that it’s very clear that this is a companion bill to the four-year term bill. If that is, in fact, going to happen, it’s an extremely important constitutional event and it’s really incumbent on this House to make sure that if there is going to be a referendum on that issue, it has to be done properly and we have to give the people of New Zealand every opportunity to engage properly and be part of that decision-making process.

I do want to say at the same time that this is a Government led by a Prime Minister who wants to say yes all the time. The problem for his party is that the things he’s mostly saying yes to are ACT’s policy proposals. Increasingly, this House and the legislative agenda in this Parliament is dominated by ACT’s political programme. We saw the Treaty principles bill really suck up the oxygen in this place for weeks and weeks on end. We had tens of thousands of people marching in the street for a bauble of the coalition negotiations which was to take the Treaty principles bill to select committee. Really, we’re debating this bill today only because it is the companion piece to the four-year term bill that we’ll be discussing shortly. This is really part of ACT’s programme, but it is important, nevertheless, that if referenda are going to be used for things like the four-year term, they have to be done properly.

What does the bill do? It provides a legal framework to make sure that referenda are carried out in a way that is transparent, well-organised, and fair. The bill, which I think, really, at first reading, gets the tick, deals with the really important elements of holding a referendum: ensuring broad public participation, making sure the results are binding and are respected, clear and neutral questions in the referendum that avoid ambiguity and bias, public education campaigns to support the referendum, and financial transparency.

There’s significant debate to be had about the role of referenda in our political system. Colleagues across the House have raised some of those questions. Personally, I’m not a fan of too many referenda. I think that our representative democracy should, if working well, be able to deliberate, build consensus, and make good decisions for the future of the country. But there are things from time to time, like some of the great conscience issues that this House has dealt with in recent years, and constitutional issues, where it can actually be reduced to a clear binary choice: yes or no. It’s very important when those things happen to make sure that the public have a say about the rules of engagement in our democracy. I think the four-year term is one of those things.

I will add as a post-script that there are some eyebrow-raising elements of the four-year term bill, and we’ll have a chance to get into those in detail, but the idea that you would give future Governments the responsibility to have to choose between the three-year or a four-year term and some consequent adjustments to the select committee process every time the Government changes, every time there’s a new parliamentary term, is gaga in my view. I cannot imagine who thought it was a good idea to draft a bill that did that. Having said that, I think there is a lot of support around this Parliament and around the country for the idea of a four-year term. I hope that, through that legislative process, we’ll at least get a chance to think about it, debate it in this House, and hopefully come up with something that’s a bit more grounded and a bit more sensible.

Labour supports this bill because we believe it is essential that, if there is going to be a referendum on the four-year term, it has to be done properly to do justice to our democracy and to the people of New Zealand.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a reminder for those listening from home and really struggling to cope with what they’re hearing, we’re on the first reading of the Referendums Framework Bill. It’s a bill that the National Party and this side of the House supports. Welcome, Mr Speaker, to the Chair.

It’s very interesting. The feeling that I’ve been getting listening to some of our colleagues across the House is that there seems to be a problem with us multitasking, but on this side of the House, the Government, we have no problem multitasking. Someone made the comment on the other side of the House that we on the Justice Committee, which I’m so proud and privileged to be part of, should be focusing on things that matter—I’m paraphrasing here. Look, the fact is, to us here on this side of the House, the Gangs Act is a law that really mattered, and we focused on that and we got that done, much to the happiness of people in South Auckland that are feeling a lot safer. The Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill—that’s something that we passed into law through the Justice Committee while we were multitasking, and something that I’m very proud of because it means that people committing crimes no longer have a “get out of jail free” card, an endless one that keeps going and going. Currently, we are working on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. This is multitasking, and this is what people that are used to multitasking can do.

What this bill will do, Mr Speaker, as you may know, is, essentially, strengthen consequences for when those people are going out to the shops, smashing up the dairies, smashing up other shops in South Auckland, in Takanini. They’re not going to get away with an 80 percent discount anymore when we pass this law. We have no problem multitasking on this side of the House. We commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And, gosh, talk about multitasking! The member who has just resumed her seat, Rima Nakhle, managed to talk mostly about something that was completely irrelevant. I congratulate her for sneaking that one in. Unfortunately, what we’re here to do, in a proper sense, however, is talk about this particular bill, the Referendums Framework Bill.

As has been said by my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, we will be supporting the bill, because we have to, essentially. It is important, if you’re going to do something, that the framework and the scaffolding is there to support that so it can be done well. What’s at stake is our democracy, our reputation for being a good democracy, and all of the mechanisms by which our citizens, including ourselves, need to be able to trust those processes. As we have heard today, when we think about referendums, it does conjure up some deeply held thoughts on the rightness or the wrongness, so to speak, of using this within our democracy, but it is simply a tool, and, like all tools, it is a good tool for not depending on the scaffolding around it and depending on the good faith of the actors involved in utilising such a tool.

In this particular example, we find ourselves introducing this bill as a means by which to support the piece of legislation that the ACT Party has brought to this House regarding the four-year term, the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill. It does strike me that, yet again, here we are in this House talking about another piece of ACT legislation, and it does conjure up the visuals of the tail wagging the dog. If you create a vacuum, as the National Party have, if you create a vacuum and there’s a little bit of a lull in legislative ideas, all of a sudden you’ve got to plug that with the old ACT Party suggestions. But that’s all right—that’s all right. We just don’t think it’s a priority, but it’s here before us now, so this is what we’re dealing with—of all the things we could be talking about, when the Government talks about its priorities and the things that are important to New Zealanders. Never mind!

As has already been discussed as well, we do have some concerns about the larger bill that this particular bill supports, in so far as the messiness of the four-year term. Again, my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford talked about some of the examples of how the three- versus four-year term—which, on the surface, when I heard it in the media, I kind of thought, “Well, that’s relatively novel.” Then, as more details came out about the Government being able to opt in or opt out, we looked at the fiasco and the debacle in terms of this Government being able to form a Government after the last election and the sheer amount of time that that took—and you add another level of complexity about taking that coalition and then being able to choose whether they would have a three- or a four-year term and the ramifications of how the select committees would work post that decision—and all together that’s quite a substantial amount of time. We hear, time and time again, not just in this House but throughout our engagement with people from all walks of life, that certainty is such an important part of being able to function properly. This bill certainly doesn’t create that.

What it does do, though, is it governs the basic conduct of referenda, and that is necessary if we’re going to go down this pathway. It allows the legislative framework and the regulatory rules governing the electoral process to be, essentially, consistent, efficient, and there is some precedent from 2020, when a similar bill was passed to regulate the referendum associated with the 2020 general election. Obviously, that Act was then automatically repealed in 2022. Given the potential for a new referendum, this bill is necessary. With regard to parliamentary time-management, however, it is, as I said, frustrating that Parliament’s time is being consumed by yet another ACT Party pet project when some more pressing things should be done. I think, when all is said and done, that is quite illustrative of this current Government, and it’s no wonder that the tail continues to wag the dog.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It seems that the debate has been taken offtrack, and I’m keen to bring it back on track. Members have talked about a variety of different subjects, but this is a really generic bill. There have been complaints made from the other side about priorities and bringing legislation to the House, and things like that, yet they’re supporting the legislation, so you can see the hypocrisy there.

The bill is very, very generic, and it says, “The bill provides the legislative framework to hold a referendum on the term length of Parliament.” That’s it. That’s all it’s doing. We in the National Party are supporting this bill to the select committee, just like we have done already for the four-year term legislation.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I eagerly—eagerly—await consultation on this bill, and the four-year term bill as well, and seeing what the feedback is from the general public in New Zealand, whether they are happy with the legislation as it is or whether they would like changes made to it in engaging and consulting on it through the legislative process at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Referendums Framework Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Customer and Product Data Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 February.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Customer and Product Data Bill. This bill was considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and, as the chair of that select committee, I want to, firstly, thank all individuals and organisations who submitted on this bill. We received 40 submissions, and we were fortunate to hear from 15 submitters. I also want to thank the staff on the committee. I also want to thank the advisers for their help, and of course all of the committee members.

As we know, this bill is about providing that overarching, economy-wide framework to allow greater access to and sharing of consumer and product data with businesses. The ultimate goal of this bill is to promote innovation and competition. When we talk about data, there were certain things that we wanted to keep in mind when we were considering this bill in the select committee process. We wanted to see that there was certainty given to consumers—because it’s their data—for their rights, and also that there are enough obligations on data holders. We wanted to see that the bill was balanced in terms of providing the protections for consumers, but, on the other hand, that it was not putting in too many restrictions and liabilities which would make it impossible for this framework to work in a practical manner, or would create too many legal or other kind of implications.

In the select committee, we considered a lot of things. We wanted to see that this bill was focused on benefiting customers. When the bill was sent to the select committee, one of the clauses—that is, clause 3(1)(a), which sets out that the bill’s purpose is to establish a consumer data rights framework—stated that one purpose was to “realise the value of certain data for the benefit of individuals, organisations, and society;”, and the select committee recommended that it should be referring to benefiting “customers”. That was clarifying that the focus is actually the customer. Of course they control the data, but they should be the party that is benefiting from sharing that data.

Data holders are when the consumer request is to share that data with third parties, and here, when we talked about third parties, it was really important for us to see that there is that right kind of balance so that the third parties have the obligation to keep that data secure, and also the application process to become those approved third parties is actually going to be practically workable. As an example, one of the requirements in the bill was that a company or business led by a director and senior managers should be of good character. We made an amendment that would require the applicants’ director and senior managers to be of good character, and also that the applicant must have adequate security safeguards in relation to data that may be provided to them.

When we talk about data, sometimes data is not used in the form that it is provided in—the raw form—and sometimes the data is extracted and data is transformed, and we wanted to see how regulations around derived data are going to work. Changes were made to ensure that it’s not too restrictive. We do want people to have confidence when they share their data, but, on the other hand, we also want to make sure that it’s not too restrictive—that would actually not lead to the innovation or competition that we are hoping to see once this economy-wide framework is put in place.

There are liabilities, of course, for data holders in there, but there were certain circumstances discussed in the select committee where we thought that the liability of data holders was not fair. The example was if a hacker poses themselves as an approved third party, and in that situation, because they have stolen the credentials of that third party, the data holder is, apparently, complying, and in that situation, we in the select committee thought it would be unfair for the data holder to be liable. That was quite a good discussion in the select committee process, and we concluded that the data holder in that kind of situation should not be liable under the Privacy Act contract, or other obligations for disclosing customer data.

Now, when we talk about data or when we talk about benefit because of the data, or any of those things, there can be situations where people are actually forced to take that action, and we wanted to see that people are covered for that kind of situation where people are forced to provide their data. In that kind of situation, it is quite possible that the person who actually owns the data—the consumer—will not benefit, but someone else is going to benefit, and they might be authorising transfer of that data because of some kind of threat. We wanted to see that the duty of care—the customer care—is not just sitting with the data holder but is also sitting with the third party, because the third parties, if they’re interacting with the consumer, would know somehow the situation of the requester, and if they feel that there is some kind of threat or if there is some kind of pressure and it’s because of that pressure that they are providing that authorisation, then the responsibility should sit with that third party, as well.

Overall, we can say that the select committee worked really hard to improve this bill, and the bill has been reported back in a much improved way—this version looks much, much improved. There were some other recommendations made by the advisers which were discussed by the select committee and which the select committee could not agree to, because it’s a split committee—some members agreed; some members didn’t agree. I just wanted to note that all recommendations made by the advisers were not included in the version that has been reported back to the House. With that, we support the second reading of this bill. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the bill. I want to also thank the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I was also part of that committee, and I’d like to compliment her on the very structured way in which she chairs our select committee. Thank you for that; we always seem to be doing everything on time.

Now, I would also like to thank all of the staffers who helped us to understand this bill, because it’s a very technical bill. When the parliamentary staff came in and explained things to us and would answer our questions, a part of me would think to myself, “Please respond as if I’m an 8-year-old so that I can understand it.”, and they were very, very good. I mean, it was such a technical bill in some parts, and they were so patient and tolerant and explained everything to us very quickly so that we could make informed decisions.

As already mentioned, there were 40 submitters—probably more than I thought there would be; however, as we got into listening to the submissions, I could understand why it was important that they make their submission. One of the areas that was important to look at was privacy, to ensure that privacy wasn’t breached. There were some larger organisations like Xero and banks, and there were also some smaller submitters.

Part of me made the wrong assumption of “Well, how would a small business feel about a bill like this?”, but, actually, the response from small business came back and said, “You know, this is our data. Customers should be able to share their data with whomever they like in a timely manner.” That was really good to hear; that, overall, no matter whether it was an extraordinarily large business or a small business, they were very much in favour of being able to share their information to a third party so that they could then have the information required to make informed decisions.

I think I shared, last week, how the transfer of data over the years has changed. We used to carry things in boxes, and then it was spreadsheets. I don’t mind a spreadsheet, but many people don’t like spreadsheets and numbers, so they want to be able to hand everything over and say to someone else, “Please give me the information that I need so that I can make the decisions I need.”, and this is what this bill does. It’s common sense, but, yes, we did need to take a look at the issue of privacy, for example, to ensure that there was nothing breached there.

It’s a very technical bill. I don’t want to go into the detail of some of those technicalities, but in order to be able to explain to everyone out there who is listening, it is about being able to have your data transferred safely to another organisation so that you can make decisions yourself with the right information. On that note, I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party also in support of the Customer and Product Data Bill. Like many have mentioned already, I think the bill does strengthen the laws that protect against anti-competitive behaviour, it does allow greater customer control over the data, and also potentially allows for innovation of new products.

I think, more broadly speaking, everyone in this House recognises the fact that data, and particularly big data, is currently something that the tech industry and businesses are developing and evolving at a rate that’s much faster than what legislation and what the legislative process sometimes may allow for. We are seeing that both domestically as well as internationally through various trade deals, for example.

In terms of this particular bill, there are a couple of things that I would like to raise in addition to what has already been raised by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March on this bill. I think I want to get into some of the more technical elements of this bill. Some of these will be discussed further as part of the committee stage, and I will look forward to the opportunity to engage with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs on this bill.

I think the first thing is in terms of the conversation that’s been had between the Economic, Development, Science and Innovation Committee and also the Regulations Review Committee around the understanding of why it is needed for there to be both two separate forms of secondary legislation to do the same thing that is required. For this one—we’re looking at clause 126(1)(f) and (g)—I think the decision that was made as part of the select committee process is that the regulation or the standards—whether it is a regulation or whether it’s a standard, it actually provides different things. Whereas a regulation is made for specific requirements, the standards may allow for other things, such as particular businesses or certain industries may contain standards for a range of matters, and it allows a different level of flexibility, which is sufficient. I think it would also be good to tease out some of those examples as we look at this bill in the committee stage.

One of the key elements of this bill is the privacy provisions that have been given. I think this is where we are looking at greater control over a person’s data that has been granted—I think particularly with the part around the complaints and being able to make those kind of allegations against the use of personal data as part of Parts 5 and 6 of the Privacy Act 2020. I think also when we’re looking at some of these, in terms of the privacy component, it’s also interesting to see that the bill introduces provisions for both civil remedies as well as criminal offences. I think there is also room for scope in looking at how customers’ data is used by businesses both domestically but, honestly, how our data is being used through algorithm, etc., through AI being used by overseas tech companies as well. I think that is a really important part of when we’re looking at data protection and the use of consumer data.

This also again ties into my next point, and this is more of a mixed bag. On one hand, from a Te Tiriti perspective, you know, we are really heartened to see that, as part of the process that was originally done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Te Kāhui Raraunga was consulted as part of Mana Raraunga data sovereignty. I think that is something that is really, really important to mention and I think it’s important to have their contribution into it. However, we are a little bit concerned and a little bit perplexed, and we’d love to tease this out more at the committee stage as well, about why upon further discussion the Minister chose not to include the consultation of iwi, hapū, and whānau Māori before making regulation a standard that really affects their data sovereignty in this sort of stage.

Part of the reason that was given was that the consultation will not add anything substantive or would be inconsistent with similar provisions in other Acts, but I think when we’re looking at something like this, there’s actually a real opportunity for us to look at something that is new, that is inclusive, that does actually look at tino rangatiratanga from the position of data, from a Te Tiriti perspective. I think that is something worth looking into as well.

To finish, we do support this bill. We think it does give greater control for the people of Aotearoa, and we look forward to the committee stage.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Customer and Product Data Bill. We had a very engaging and interesting discussion about this bill. We had quite a good range of submissions from a variety of stakeholders, and they were very useful contributions that they made, and I’d just like to thank the other members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—hello, everyone over there. It was a very—

Dr Hamish Campbell: What about me?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, you weren’t actually there, Dr Campbell. It was actually very engaging, and, all around, we all understood the utility of this for customers.

The idea is that we can improve competition, which helps to drive economic development and growth. By having competition, we can drive down prices and make things more convenient for people, so that’s what it means for people at home. It means better access to information and that they can swap banks more easily and they can understand their electricity bills and how they work. Those are the kinds of outcomes that we’re hoping to see from this for people at home. This bill will introduce across whole sectors a customer data and product right. That means that behind this legislation, there will be secondary legislation that will set out all of the parameters, with all the detailed rules and standards that will enable this to happen, and the people that are writing those standards and preparing all of that will be designated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

During the process, we did actually end up making, as a result of many of the submissions and many of the discussions that we had, a number of changes to the original legislation that I think were actually very useful. As previous speakers have discussed, there was a mention of a topic called derived data. Basically, derived data is where the raw numbers are taken by a company and turned into a story or information, using their intellectual power to change that information and make it a more usable product. If that was not allowed to be exchanged, if there were some prohibitions on that, or if there were some problems caused by having derived data being part of it, people might not want to participate, and it might actually hold things up. We decided to remove that.

We heard some of the experiences that happened in Australia, where there’s been less valuable uptake of a similar kind of approach in their jurisdiction. Part of that was because of a lack of confidence in the system around trust and privacy, and because we have a Privacy Commissioner and we have quite robust privacy law in New Zealand, we were able to make ourselves very comfortable that privacy would not be breached and that all of the elements of privacy law would actually apply and protect people within this framework as well.

However, there were potential fish-hooks that we saw, and that’s why we also decided that it would be very helpful to point out that if there were breaches of privacy that had happened accidentally whilst people were carrying out exchanges of data that they believed to be done in good faith and in accordance with the regulations and rules, but later it transpired that it was some sort of fraud or it was some sort of undetected problem, it shouldn’t be the responsibility or the liability of the person providing that information if they had done so following all the rules, and we thought that that was a very sensible approach. Part of the reason for some of that leniency is that if there are bad actors within this framework, the penalties are actually quite steep. They’re steeper than if you breach the privacy law, for example, because we see that breaches under this would be constructive and quite significant malice, and, therefore, there are very steep penalties associated with it. Therefore, we need to have some flexibility around accidental disclosures when people are acting within the law.

I think that this was a very robust process. I think it underscores the importance of putting consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to their data, and it creates greater control, it promotes competition, and it is fostering innovation. Actually, it marks a really significant milestone in advancing New Zealand’s economy, and I’m sure that as we see the passage of the bill going through, customers and businesses can reap the benefits of having a more fair and transparent data ecosystem.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thanks. I’d like to compliment the last speaker, Dr Vanessa Weenink, because she has framed up some things and ruined my speech. I think those were very fair portrayals of the issues that we had in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. This is a bill that is really responding to a very changing world, and there will need to be reconsideration. The Labour Party was concerned that perhaps there wasn’t sufficient emphasis on the rights of the consumer at the heart of the bill, so it may be that that proves to be correct, and we would need a little bit of strengthening later.

I want to explain for the public why this is such an important bill. There has been a tendency of our big entities to hold information like this for anti-competitive purpose. The little players that come in and disrupt and do a good job of really challenging that competition and giving us cheaper prices couldn’t actually access the information they needed. While there are really important concerns around privacy, our job was to make sure that those privacy concerns were addressed and we protected the public, but also the consumer got the benefit of a system that was more open.

That’s a really important difference in our society, from one perhaps 50 years ago. Information is flowing, and when it stops flowing and when we have these kinds of anti-competitive actions, we end up in a really—really, it’s the consumer who misses out. It’s very important to things like the price of electricity, and it’s very important to the prices that we pay in our banks, our interest rates, and all the fees we pay, that that information—that is our information; it’s about our experience as a consumer, the rates we pay in the situation we are and what we’re doing—is something that we have free access to and we can pass on to another player in the market.

It’s really good that what has happened here is we’ve had pretty much consensus, I think, across the House that this is an area where we need to update our law and we need to look at the situation in places like Australia, which we have done, and make sure that we’re learning lessons as we go along, getting the balance right where others perhaps have tried earlier and they’ve fallen a little bit short in some ways. We tried to do that on this committee, learn those lessons and do our best to provide a decent law in this area. We still, in the Labour Party, want to make sure that the consumer was more at the heart of this legislation, and so that view has been expressed. Basically, that’s our job in the Opposition: to keep the feet to the fire in that regard.

This has been a piece of work that involved more than one Government, really, because Dr Duncan Webb initiated this work, then we had—and very much associated with the open banking work, I think, that Dr David Clark was involved with—Arena Williams pick up the bill as a member’s bill, and then Minister Bayly pick up the work as well. This is very much recognised by this Parliament as an important empowering Act for customers, and those are everyday New Zealanders. I hope that the work we’ve done means that the prices of these things will come down.

Now, in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we’re also really concerned about building up our economy, and I am very interested in companies like Xero, which have really worked in a new way and have harnessed the information that they’ve been able to get to build really a very new product in New Zealand that has gone international. It’s been an extremely successful operation. We listened to those people in this committee. I learned things from them, and I fully intend to have my ears open to the experiences of those newer companies that have come into the market and have experienced some of this actually quite anti-competitive behaviour by players that want to hold their space and hold their profits to themselves. I was keen to hear from them.

I know there are other players on the market that will be interested in this. In fact, this is, I think—while it’s a bill here now, this area is one that’s incredibly important. We should all have our ears open in this Parliament to the experience that consumers have under this. Also, the experience of players like Xero, of other new start-ups in the industry, because they’re going to be the people that tell us whether this is working well or whether, in fact, we need to tweak the bill.

I’m not going to talk about derived data. It’s one of those things that I think we’ve done our best on to try and liberalise from the place where Australia had got to and slowed things up. But I thought I’d just reassure the public that what we came across—and I think this was said by my colleague across the House—our own, better settings in terms of privacy in New Zealand. It was really clear that the privacy regime that we already run really answered some of that need that we have. If you are giving your data into these situations, you can rest assured there still must be adequate security, there still must be adequate consent, you must know where your data is going. That’s something that’s really important, that you actually aren’t just throwing this information in and not being able to control where it goes, and that there are remedies for that under our Privacy Act.

Now, we were concerned that the levels of penalties might not be high enough. They are not always going to be sufficient. We’ve put that in our report. We’ll be watching that space, because it’s very important that penalties are not worth breaking. I’ve seen that a number of times in the House and in other areas where actually there is an economic calculation that goes on, that it is better to break the law and pay the penalty because they still make a giant profit. That sort of thing, we’re going to have to watch, and that sort of thing I would really ask everyone to consider whether we in fact do a review of penalties across the whole of our institutions with regard to that.

I think it’s time to look at whether we’ve got the settings right because of that kind of practice of calculation that goes on. Those are the sorts of things that undermine the law and really hurt the New Zealand consumer and the ordinary New Zealander. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It’s my honour to rise and speak in support of the Customer and Product Data Bill in this second reading.

It is always good to see that there’s agreement across the House when it comes to an issue of data, because we live in a world obsessed with data. Let’s be honest, we’re not just passive observers of data; we’re actually walking, talking, breathing data generators. Every step we take, every purchase we make, every word we type, every heart palpitation—it all creates data, so it is very important that we have rules and regulations that we can then use our data.

This data, which is actually our data and it fuels a whole range of algorithms that actually shape our everyday lives, dictates what we see online, what products we’re offered, and what opportunities are presented to us. Yet how much control do we truly have over this? Too often our data is locked away in corporate silos, used to predict our behaviour to sell us things that we may not need, but how many times can we actually use the data for our benefit? We’ve heard from the other side about how we need to open it up so we can actually stop some anti-competitive behaviour.

I think a prime example is if we look at Consumer New Zealand, recently they found that Kiwis saved an average of $524 per year by changing their electricity, but despite the acute cost of living pressure, only 10 percent of households actually changed their provider in the last 12 months. This tells us there’s actually barriers when it comes to comparing plans and switching providers and suggests those barriers and the friction is literally just too high.

Under the existing rules, consumers can request access to their electricity consumption data for free, up to four times a year, and retailers must provide that information within five working days, but in a modern, digital, on-demand economy, this is a cumbersome process which is totally out of touch. Of course, we want to make sure that our consumers can get the best deal, whether it be in electricity, where every time we hop in the hot shower, the electricity retailers probably know there’s a spike in electricity. We need to be able to make sure that we can be able to actually utilise that data when we go to a competitor retailer and say, “Well, actually, this plan works for us best.” It’s either that or with our cellular providers. Of course, there’s a lot of confusion with the different plans, so it’s very important that we can actually do that.

Of course, there is the kind of cliché that data is the new oil, but I actually think that’s a little bit overused, because data is not like oil. It’s not finite; it can be reused. There’s no harm for some of these companies to give us, the consumer, some of this information or access to our data so we can make really informed choices. That’s what it’s about, so the customer can make informed choices.

I do want to acknowledge the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. At that stage, I wasn’t a member of that select committee. I am now. They’ve done a good job—

Tim Costley: They’re lucky to have you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Thank you—thank you. They are lucky to have me! They had 40 submitters come. As we’ve heard, there were issues around privacy. There were issues around derived data. These things are all very important. I actually have, in my past, worked in the data-science field as well, and I think it’s really important—the insights we can actually get from data, whether it be from our phones, whether it be from some of our behaviours. It’s all very important.

I think we deserve better. We deserve access to our data. We deserve to understand how we can use it. We want to be able to control it. We want to be able to leverage it for our own benefits. This is what this bill is really about. It’s not about paranoia; it’s about empowerment. Of course, making sure that we have a competitive industry—especially in Christchurch, we have some amazing start-ups that are just eager to get their hands on some of this data so they can really, really make some good products, whether it be in fintech, whether it be in the health space. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House, and let’s champion data portability.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Labour is supporting this bill, with reservations. I will detail some of those reservations, but I just want to start by saying something about competition policy.

One of the really painful things in this country for so long has been the economy too often looks like it’s a company town; it’s run by duopolies and oligopolies. One of the most egregious is the banking sector. Every year, they funnel away multiple billions of dollars that get shipped across the Tasman at the expense of New Zealand homeowners and businesses. We need to do something about it. It is so past time that we tackle it. The two big ideas that are out there are: trying to find a properly capitalised disruptor in the banking sector that can hold the others to account, but the other really powerful idea in this space is open banking. A lot of us have pinned our hopes that open banking will finally inject enough competitive tension into the banking market that Kiwis will start to get a better deal from particularly the big Aussie banks.

For my part, I really hope that this bill that we’re debating today achieves that, and that the Customer and Product Data Bill will have the effect through allowing customers to have much better transparency and direct access to interest-rate information and their own data, held by the banks, with sufficient portability that they can pick up their accounts and take it to another bank quickly, simply, and easily, and that that applied en masse across the whole market will make it much more competitive. That’s my personal wish: that the bill that we’re debating today succeeds in that respect. I think that the same dynamics we can see so clearly in the banking sector really can be observed in many other industries and sectors.

I want to acknowledge the work that was done. Really, the initial, kind of, heavy lifting and policy work that supported this bill was done by the Hon David Clark and the Hon Duncan Webb as Ministers in the last Government. My colleague Arena Williams had a bill similar to this, and very close in the intent and the direction, as a member’s bill in this Parliament. We’re really glad that the recently former Minister Andrew Bayly has picked it up and brought this bill to the House.

Two really important main ideas here. One is the right of consumers to have access to and to control the data that is held on them by businesses. Colleagues around the House have commented on just how extensive that data is in the modern economy. There’s a rights question about the consumers having control of and access to the data that their business, their custom generates. Secondly, it’s the economic development potential of spurring competition in multiple industries by allowing consumers to have their data and, if they’re not happy with the business that they’re currently with, to pick up the data and walk down the road to another business and send a message that way. Those two things are really tightly linked together. I hope that we’ll see some positive effects.

I want to just touch, briefly, in the time remaining, on the reservations that Labour has. I know that my colleagues will have a lot to say at the committee stage when the House gets to it. We feel that there was missed opportunity, that the bill could have been much tougher and clearer on focusing on the consumer benefit, and that’s spelt out in the purpose clause of the bill. Colleagues have mentioned this question of derived data and how there are restrictions associated with derived data like those in the Australian regime. We think that this bill, the version that’s come back to the House, could have gone further in clearing out those restrictions. It doesn’t go far enough. Thirdly, penalties and dispute resolution. We think there could have been stronger penalties in favour of consumers.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I’m very supportive of this bill. Great to see it moving through. Great to see some progress, and we just heard about the importance of things like open banking and open electricity markets. We want to see more competition in the market. That’s one of those underlying values that is driving a lot of the policy of this Government, and it’s been great to see colleagues like Cameron Brewer, like Ryan Hamilton, really holding the feet to the fire of those big four Australian banks, to see a better result for Kiwis who deserve it.

This is another piece of the puzzle. This is another important piece of the puzzle as we move towards things like open banking markets. If we think back to December, when this bill was introduced to the House, New Zealand had nothing in this way, no mandatory data standards, unlike Australia, unlike the UK, and unlike the EU, who all had or were on short finals to having—sorry, were very close to having, to use normal language—data standards. That’s an important step, that we take this.

I did just want to touch on some of those things because I think that, often, when we hear about this, we think, “Do we want more companies to have access to our data?” But, of course, this is entirely opt-in. There are some great benefits that have been identified of what a consumer data right could have—for example, tools like access to budgeting, access to payments by third party providers on your behalf, making it easier for consumers, for customers to shop around or to switch between companies. I think they’re really important tools that we want to have people able to opt into.

Of course, this is the second reading, and it’d be worth reflecting on some of the points that came out of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. There were relatively minor changes. It’s great to see unanimous support across the House for the bill. I do note a couple of provisions that have been removed around concerns that it might have made the tool a little harder. It could have added some unnecessary costs around compliance and ultimately reduce the adoption of this regime, because we want to see more adoption.

It’s pleasing to see signals that this might not just apply, for example, in the banking sector, to just to the big four, but it could be broader than that and enable other players into the market. I think that’s good for consumers and a good step forward.

A couple of minor additions have come through at the select committee. Particularly, I’m thinking around new clauses 96A to 96H around the development of standards. When the bill was introduced, requiring standards to set the technical rules for making, receiving, and responding to requests for data, there was a lack of, maybe, clarity around the detail about how the contents of those standards would be set, and so these additional new clauses in that section 96 just bring some clarity to that. It says how the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment can do that. It also reinforces what we always wanted, which was that stakeholder-led approach. These are relatively minor standards. It maintains that unanimous support.

This is good for consumers. We are really conscious of the pressure on the cost of living for Kiwis. It’s been a tough few years with high inflation, with high cost of living, and with a struggling economy, but we are focused as a Government on rebuilding that economy, on going for growth, and on making life a little better for consumers, for everyday Kiwis. This bill is just one piece in that strategy of going for growth, and I’m pleased to commend it to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Customer and Product Data Bill here, at its second reading. I’m also lucky enough to be a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and it’s been good to hear from a number of former members and current members of that select committee as we have discussed this bill today. The Labour Party are giving our broad support to the bill, but also acknowledging that it does fall short and that there are opportunities that have been missed in its current form. Now, when we empower consumers, there are three things that can happen: we can increase competition, we can drive innovation, and we can create fairer outcomes for consumers.

It’s probably good to start with a little bit of bill history. Under Labour, this was the Consumer Data Rights Bill, and it’s shifted to become the Customer and Product Data Bill. One of the important changes that we see in there we’ll find in the purpose clause, where it’s detailed as being “individuals, organisations, and society;”. It feels very broad—too broad—and it doesn’t actually prioritise consumers, which was the original intent of the bill. We really need to focus on consumers if we’re going to ensure that the bill achieves its stated goals, and those goals—I’ll state again—are increasing competition, driving innovation, and creating fairer outcomes for consumers.

I thought it would be good to look at an element of the ministerial statement that was released at the time that the then Minister Bayly started work in this space. It reads, “Every New Zealander relies on banking and electricity. These are foundational services for our lives and our wellbeing but also for our economy. However, at the moment, banks and electricity companies are operating inside a walled garden, with both sectors dominated by a handful of large, profitable companies that face little competition. New entrants face high barriers to entry and, as a result, consumers do not benefit from innovative new products and services. As part of the Government’s ambitious agenda”—I’m not sure I agree with that—“to drive better competition, we are supporting the roll-out of open banking and open electricity, which will better level the playing field between established companies and start-ups.”, and the portion I’m reading finishes by saying that “The first step was the introduction of the Customer and Product Data Bill, which establishes an economy-wide legislative framework for secure data sharing. The next step, which we are progressing at pace, is the development of regulations which will create the rules for how a consumer data regime will work for different sectors.”

What should we expect to get from increased competition? That’s a good question, and a member who spoke just earlier talked about the potential for lowering power bills and better pricing for consumers. The average New Zealander, if they look to switch power companies—and the member stated the figure correctly—can save up to $524 per year. Now, that’s a significant amount of money that would be of advantage to a consumer.

I will just take a moment to talk a little bit about derived data. What I wanted to talk about in the derived data space was a watermelon, which may seem like a very strange example of derived data, but bear with me.

On 5 February—so the beginning of last month, the day before Waitangi Day—I was very lucky to be in Waitangi and to purchase a very large watermelon from a vendor on the side of the road. The watermelon weighed 11.3 kilograms, and I transported that watermelon on an ATR aircraft from Kerikeri Airport to Auckland, where I then transitioned through the airport and on to a larger Air New Zealand aircraft and flew from Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—to Ōtautahi.

Once I arrived there, I was able to transfer the watermelon, which hadn’t reduced in weight, into my private motor vehicle and travel to Akaroa to attend Waitangi Day events at Ōnuku Marae. Once those were completed, myself and the watermelon—still in my possession—travelled to Ōrua Paeroa, also known as New Brighton, to meet a hīkoi of more than 2,500 people, who had walked, from the central city of Christchurch, the 9.9 kilometres to the New Brighton Pier. The watermelon did not come out of my vehicle at that point in time, but it did, in fact, come out of my vehicle on 10 February, where it was presented at a birthday celebration for my mother, at a picnic.

Now, there’s a lot of numbers and a lot of data that can be derived from that story, but I think the most important part of that story is that a watermelon is able to attend more events for Waitangi Day than the Prime Minister of this country, and I think that that is something that we should reflect on and wonder about at length.

I allowed a small amount of time there for you to do that; you’re welcome to do the rest on your own. But I—

Dr Tracey McLellan: I thought that was for applause!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It was definitely not for applause—just to clarify for that member who asked that question.

Getting back to the bill—and thank you for indulging me, Mr Speaker—I think it’s also important to hear from some experts, one of those being Digital Identity New Zealand. They make some really valid points in their submission, and I’m just going to step through some of them here.

Digital Identity New Zealand fully support the bill’s goals to unlock the value of customer data that fosters competition and innovation. However, their submission highlighted specific areas where the proposed rules could and, in my opinion, should be enhanced to better achieve these objectives. Digital Identity New Zealand appreciates the bill’s focus on giving customers control over their data, which can drive a more dynamic and competitive marketplace. However, they raise concerns around the prioritisation of the banking and electricity sectors, believing that a much broader scope of competitive third-party providers is essential for success. Additionally, affordability is crucial as the cost of third-party services could hinder widespread adoption.

A further point they raise is around data security and privacy. Maintaining data security is a key focus for Digital Identity New Zealand. While the bill requires a transparency from data holders and accredited requesters, the important point here is that they recommend aligning with the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 to safeguard consumers’ data without unnecessarily disclosing sensitive information. That is a point I think everybody would agree with. The last thing we want to see here is significant breaches of data. This recommendation from Digital Identity New Zealand would ensure that robust protection and, really importantly, that trust that New Zealanders deserve to have.

Now, a number of members have also spoken about learning from Australia’s open banking journey, and Digital Identity New Zealand go into that as well, speaking about the slow uptake of open banking and cautioning against an overreliance on the Digital Identity Services Trust framework as being a singular solution, recommending instead a more holistic approach. Whilst Digital Identity New Zealand supported the general direction indicated in the discussion paper, it did consider that not enough attention is being directed to the reasons behind the slow take-up in Australia, nor to the unintended consequences which may arise from its seemingly overreliance on the Digital Identity Services Trust framework as the magic bullet to resolve all the digital identity verification, attribute exchange, and consent.

In finishing, I had stated at the beginning that Labour has broad support for this bill but believes that it does fall short. I’ll conclude by saying that companies know a lot about us from our consumption of their services, and the point of this bill should be that consumers should benefit from that knowledge. This bill does not go far enough. It could and it should, but it doesn’t. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you to the member. I’m now hungry for watermelon.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Credit to the previous speaker, Reuben Davidson: he has an artform of being able to turn really interesting and fascinating legislation into the most bland, boring 10 minutes of monotone drivel—absolute drivel.

Reuben Davidson: The Ayes have it!

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, the Ayes do have it. I would point out to the member that 10 minutes is not a target; you don’t have to hit it. You just have to contribute and then sit down and we’ll get on with our legislation. That’s all you’ve got to do. It’s the only target—it’s the only target. They weren’t particularly good in Government with hitting targets, but they could learn something in Opposition.

It has been interesting to listen through the debate. I wasn’t part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that considered this legislation. But just speaking quickly to my colleague Vanessa Weenink, she said that, actually, during the select committee process it was really fascinating. The different conversations, the different submissions, the conversations had around the select committee table on this piece of legislation were interesting. It did pique my interest. I had a look through some of the information provided by the Parliamentary Library. I could see that if people and consumers in New Zealand looked for alternative energy or electricity providers, there were significant savings that they could make, but it was so difficult for them to do so, or so many weren’t interested in doing it, that they just took the “couldn’t be bothered” task.

Actually, if you look, if you were to change your electricity provider and to shop around, you would, on average, save $524 a year. But only about 10 percent of people in New Zealand take up that option. So this legislation enables Kiwis to have the ability to do that a lot more easily by the sharing of their data and greater access to their customer and product data, and therefore I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Bills

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

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 February.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had finished debating Part 1 and we were about to come to Part 2. Associate Minister of Justice McKee has just asked me whether she can clarify something that she spoke to in Part 1.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to clarify a couple of statements that I made during Part 1. This was as I was reading through the Hansard last night. I answered a couple of questions in relation to a Labour member’s tabled amendment 12.30.02. When looking at the Hansard, I hadn’t said anything wrong, but I got confused at what I said, so I just want to clarify.

The tabled amendment 12.30.02, in the name of Ginny Andersen, relates to the deletion of section 38XJ(2), and I had answered that member, and I had answered another member, and I just want to clarify that I do not support the removal of section 38XJ(2), because it’s the section that qualifies 38XJ(1) and it’s essential for removing uncertainty for volunteers. I hope that that clarifies the previous messages.

Part 2 Other matters

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, members. We now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 11 to 23, “Other matters”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want, if possible, to clarify something that occurred—like the Minister—the last time we were there.

At the very end of the previous debate in the committee stage, Associate Minister of Justice McKee stated right at the end that two clubs have actually shut down and a series of individuals came to her—so as a result of the last changes, clubs shut down. I wanted to know if she’s able to provide the names of the two clubs that closed. Also, she stated others who indicated they were going to close, and I want to know whether they actually did close or not. There is a possibility that those clubs did close, but I think if she’s stating that in the Chamber, it would be good to know what the names of those clubs that closed are.

When I was the police Minister, I did get advice stating that small clubs were not worried about being inspected for safety compliance, but they were concerned that they were so small, with dwindling memberships, that they might not have enough members to meet the legal requirement to become an incorporated society because they have to have a minimum of 10 members. Just to clarify that, it would be good to know: what are the two clubs that the Minister said have closed?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s just advised that a written parliamentary question would be a good opportunity for that question. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Right—so she doesn’t have that information to hand?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Not on me, no.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Do we have questions on Part 2?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Yeah, I do, actually, thank you very much. I’ll continue with the next point.

I’d like to raise a question with Associate Minister of Justice McKee in relation to the regulation-making powers. The last power is referred to in amended section 74A(1), in clause 13, going to now the responsible Minister in this case, which is the Associate Minister. Under new section 74(3) and (4), in clause 12, there are recommendations for the responsible Minister to be satisfied that the Secretary for Justice has undertaken requisite consultation, which now includes consultation with the Police. The changes reflect that the principal Act is now administered not by Police but by the Ministry of Justice and acknowledge the continued interest of Police. The amendments to new sections 74(5), 74A(1), and 74D(1) replace references to the Minister of Police with references to the responsible Minister—the Associate Minister—in the principal Act.

What would be interesting to know in particular is the point in section 74A(1), which gives specific powers to the Minister to make Orders in Council regarding prohibited definitions—so prohibited weapons is the term used for military-style semi-automatic weapons. The title of section 74A(1) has the words “(Order in Council relating to definitions of prohibited firearm and prohibited magazine, and declaring prohibited ammunition)”, so, effectively, this would mean that the responsible Minister could, without any consultation with the public or communities, change the definition of what is in fact a prohibited weapon in New Zealand. This is likely to be problematic, we think in the Labour Party, that people are not made aware of this and it can be done simply by an Order in Council without public consultation.

I would like the Minister to respond to the view on this side of the Chamber that there is absolutely no mandate to weaken our gun laws this way, particularly considering the recent history in New Zealand of 15 March which used one of these prohibited weapons. We are, in fact, less than two years away from the sixth anniversary of a mass shooting which used exactly one of these firearms. I would like the Minister to speak to the fact on whether she intends to use section 74A(1) in order to change the definition of prohibited weapons in New Zealand. And if she does intend to do so, what is the consultation with communities around New Zealand if she proposes to make this change?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. The assertations that the member Ginny Andersen is making that I as a Minister would have sole control over making changes by Order in Council by myself is simply incorrect. I’m not quite sure what happened when that member was a Minister, maybe perhaps the large numbers of Orders in Council that went through under the previous Government without consultation is the reason why there is fear about what’s going on, when, in actual fact, there does not need to be such fear.

This Government has made it very clear what the firearms reform regime is going to look like. We have been very open with the New Zealand public and encouraged them to be a part of the solution as we change and modernise the firearms laws through reform that we have clearly outlined. I was hoping that the member would be aware that no one member of Parliament can make changes by Order in Council; they actually need the votes of the Cabinet behind them to do so.

The reason for these changes is because we are, as we have forecast throughout the election campaign, removing the Firearms Safety Authority from the New Zealand Police, and putting them into an independent agency, allowing New Zealand Police to focus on enforcement of our firearm laws. Part of the reason why we have included police as part of the consultation in section 74 of the Arms Act, amended by clause 12 of the bill, is because we need to ensure that the communication between police and the agency continue and that any potential changes that are made by way of Order in Council are ones that are going to help New Zealand Police, not hinder them.

In relation to these particular clauses and the changes that we are making, these changes that we are making right now here, through this piece of legislation, are to allow the Ministry of Justice to start the transfer of the Firearms Safety Authority away from New Zealand Police.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Maybe Associate Minister of Justice McKee didn’t hear me. I appreciate what the Order in Council process is, and I appreciate that that goes to Cabinet, but I wanted to know what consultation would be taken with New Zealand communities. Many of the processes through the four stages of firearms reforms have taken place with a list that has been hand-picked by the Minister’s office, who have gone and asked people for their views. These have predominantly come from the firearms community, and they have ignored large parts of the community who also have a vested interest in firearms safety.

With this legislation, with this section, section 74A(1), in clause 13, she is giving herself the power to determine what is a prohibited weapon in New Zealand, nearly six years after we lost 51 lives on 15 March with the same prohibited weapon, and I’ve asked today what is the consultation process that she will undertake before, once again, making military-style semi-automatic weapons available to be used in New Zealand.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): The member is once again making a whole lot of assumptions that actually have nothing to do with this piece of legislation that’s in front of us now. I have clearly explained the reason why we are making the changes, and it does not say in the bill that we are removing this and giving it to the Hon Nicole McKee. It says that we are giving it to the Minister in charge of the legislation, or the Minister that will be in charge of the legislation. That may not even necessarily be me in the future. It may come under the Minister of Justice or it may come under the Minister of Internal Affairs.

I think if we look into the long range about modernising the Act, this is the first stage. When it comes to consultation, we have just closed a public consultation asking New Zealanders what they would like to see in the Arms Act. This went out to everyone, where everyone has had that opportunity. As we start to reform what will be a new Arms Act, again, we will be going out to all of New Zealand, because this is what we did in 1983 when we established the Arms Act 1983. That was after two years of consultation with everybody, where everyone got to have a say about what they would like to see. We have opened that up. Now, the reason why we went to targeted consultation for shooting clubs and ranges was also made very public at the time that we did it. It was a coalition commitment to remove the entirety of Part 6, everything to do with clubs and ranges.

When going through this and speaking with officials, I realised that there were aspects of Part 6 which we needed to keep there because it related and was influential to public safety. Now, when we talk about what we’re doing in the firearms reforms, we’ve made it very clear and very public that public safety, good regulation that people can live by, and compliance are the three main things that we’re going to be looking at as we start to reform the firearms Act. The Arms Act, the rewrite itself—a bill will be available at some stage soon, one would hope, once we’ve gone through the consultation which has just recently closed. I thank all the members of the public who have been a part of that and have given their submissions to the Ministry of Justice.

Moving forward, this is a positive thing for New Zealand because the reality is that we have had clubs close, we have had ranges close as a result of that, and it’s important that we support the maintenance of clubs and ranges as safe places for people to go to learn about firearm safety, to be educated on firearm safety, and to not be down at the riverbank trying to sight-in their hunting rifles with no oversight whatsoever. There has been an 18 percent increase in firearms charges since 2018. I’ve had barristers tell me that the law is unworkable, that there are conflicts within it. This bill here is a part of fixing some of those irregularities, and none of it relates to interference with public safety. In fact, by keeping these ranges and supporting these ranges and these clubs to continue to operate, we are increasing public safety.

As we work through the whole Arms Act rewrite, everybody will be invited to submit and also be a part of that process. In this regard, I’m fulfilling our commitment that we made to the voters that voted us in. I haven’t gone as far as we said we would, in the interests of public safety, and I stand by the decisions that have been made today.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like it recorded that Associate Minister of Justice McKee did not respond to what the consultation period was for reintroducing prohibited weapons. That was not responded to.

Hon Nicole McKee: It’s got nothing to do with this bill.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: My question—it is in this bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member can record that, but the Minister talked about a previous consultation and talked about two years. She has said she may or may not be responsible for future consultations, so it’s a bit difficult to put her in the position of expecting her to know something that may happen in the future.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister is in relation to amended section 74A(1), inserted by clause 13, as to why it’s in this tranche of legislation. The Minister has spoken about the consultation that has just closed, which is in the wider review of firearms legislation—to look at things like if the legislation is up to date and the role of the Firearms Registry. There has been significant commentary from experts, from media, and those who are directly affected that this section here, which transfers power from the Minister of Police and from Police to the Associate Minister of Justice and Justice, that that would have better belonged or fitted in a bill that is about the entire reform of firearms legislation. This bill we’re discussing now is about gun ranges, about regulating gun ranges, and it’s about winding back all of the changes that were brought in under Part 6 when the last Government was in power, post - 15 March.

There is quite a wide gap between the subject matter we are dealing with here and the transfer of power from one Minister to the other, because it’s a very significant change to shift the responsibility of firearms, which has always sat with Police. It sat with Police for some very good reasons. It’s because our police officers on the front line are the first ones to turn up when someone’s gone rogue with a gun. It’s them who put their lives on the line every single day and need to have real-time intelligence and real-time information. It is the Minister of Police who has always had oversight over their wellbeing and their safety. Quite rightly, the Police Association have been calling out, and front-line officers have been calling out, and they are very concerned that there is a transfer of power from the police Minister to the Associate Minister of Justice. And why is it being done under a bill that’s about deregulating gun ranges? It should have been in the consultation around the overarching firearms reform. We should have had that question in the consultation that’s just closed.

If this was actually a genuine process that was going out and discussing with our community who are at most risk from being embroiled in firearms and having to face those risks and dangers on a daily basis, we should have been consulting with police officers and with the Police Association as to whether this is a good idea to simply shift responsibility of the Arms Act from Police to Justice. I appreciate that that might be a coalition agreement and that that was something to get ticked off as quickly as possible, but that’s not a sufficient answer. There needs to be some good rigour in terms of the policy decisions that were taken by this Minister. If that is directly impacting upon front-line safety, I think that we deserve to have a clear answer as to why the power to make such determinations around firearms is sitting in an Act about gun ranges and not in the wider reform about the Arms Act.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I don’t know how many other ways to say it: the Firearms Safety Authority is being removed from the New Zealand Police. They’re being put into a different agency. Usually when you do that you make sure that the Minister in charge of that agency has some say over what’s going to happen. The changes are happening now because the Ministry of Justice—who may not be the end home carer for the Arms Act—needs to make policy changes, administrative changes, be able to have the ability to do that as we work through the other phases. It is logical that we put that in there now.

What the member, Ginny Andersen, is trying to tell the New Zealand public is that there is some sort of bad thing that I’m going to do in the background and the whole reason for making the changes is not because it’s an effective, efficient way to remove and drop into a new agency the Firearms Safety Authority but because I have some underhand thing that I want to do. The reality is, I have not said anything—but everybody else has—about what the intent is, when the intent, as I laid out just earlier, is to have firearms legislation which improves public safety, which has good regulation that is readable and enforceable, and also increases compliance. This is not a “Nicole McKee Bill” because “she is wanting to something underhand to the New Zealand public.” This is about creating good regulation.

The reality is, if we’re going to do it and do it well, we need to make sure that there is good information-sharing arrangements between New Zealand Police and the new home agency for the Firearms Safety Authority. We do that before we start to make the changes, otherwise we could compromise the safety of our front-liners. I make no apology for putting that into this bill, because that allows the Ministry of Justice to get on with their work, and while they do that they can ensure the safety of our front-liners while they work through the process of the exchange. There is nothing underhand here. This is a good legislative process. I guess it’s something that, perhaps, that the other side have not been aware of, because the last set of changes that were made were so rushed—

Glen Bennett: Public concern.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —that we are having to clear it up. When I just hear someone yell out “public concern”, I’m not surprised that there’s public concern when what we hear coming from the other side and out through the media actually doesn’t tell the country what is happening.

Glen Bennett: Your constituents.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I’m also being yelled at that it’s my constituents, a quarter of a million of them. It’s like the retailers that are out there in New Zealand. There are quarter of a million of them, but do we just ignore them? Every person in a democratic society should have a voice and they should be heard. That means—whether they’re licensed firearm owners or not—they should have a say in the way that they’re regulated, as we would do for other members of our society when we make bills, or laws and Acts, that will affect them.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve just joined this debate, but I’ve had a bit of history with the Arms Act changes, particularly following 15 March. At the time, I was working for the Minister of Police and was in his office when the call came through from Police National Headquarters around the incidents that were happening down in Christchurch at the time. It became the start of a very big chapter of some very swift changes with the first bill, which were to restrict military-style semi-automatics, and that was the start, really, of what was the second tranche of the Arms Act reforms, which did go through a longer select committee period.

I just have one quick question for Associate Minister of Justice McKee first, before I take another call—if that’s possible. I’m trying to ascertain from the ministerial statement the changes for this particular bill—to the Minister: are these changes that you’re putting through now because of 15 March, the first tranche of Arms Act reforms; or was it the second tranche? I just wanted to understand that context first, before I take another call.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): There are four phases in our firearms reform. The entire idea is that we have an Arms Act that is broken, that is not workable; it has been a concoction of a whole lot of legislative changes. In fact, I liken the Arms Act to being something like the Resource Management Act, where you have a piece of legislation that people have put things on top of and it’s grown out of proportion and is now unworkable.

This is the reason why we are doing these changes. The other side have said that it’s because of 15 March that I’m in here making these changes. Actually, that’s what brought me to Parliament: the fact that we had legislation that I could see was not workable. I wanted to be able to make a positive change for New Zealand and make sure that we have legislation in our future that will increase public safety, have good regulations, and also encourage compliance.

The changes that we are making are about modernising the legislation. This is one part. We will finish the modernising of it when we do the Arms Act rewrite, but the changes that we have made here today—or we’re about to make—in this piece of legislation do not affect public safety. It’s about taking away some of the doubling of some of the work that volunteers have to do. It’s about making sure that we can support clubs and their ranges to be able to open and to operate. With that, this is phase two. Phase four is the Arms Act rewrite, and this will be about a whole regime of modernisation.

I encourage all members across the House who—I have invited members into my office to say to them, and I will restate it again: if you have issues with the Arms Act, come and talk to me, because, across the House, we need to have a piece of better legislation for New Zealanders, to keep all of us safe. I will always have an open-door policy so that members of the Opposition can come and speak to me about what their concerns are and what they think needs to be addressed, so that we can try and work it out and get some support. You may not support the changes in the bill, but at least have the conversations so that we can address the concerns.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is Tamatha Paul wanting to take a call?

Tamatha Paul: Yeah, I’d love to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’m going to take a call from Tamatha Paul, but what I’m going to make very clear at this stage is that we are dealing with a very small part of the bill, which is Part 2, and it’s very administrative. I’m finding that the Minister should not be having to go back now and answer questions on the what and the why, which are all part of Part 1. I’d like people to be very specific about what clause they’re looking at in Part 2 when they ask their questions. Thank you.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate you allowing me to take a call on this, because I haven’t been engaged in the previous committee of the whole House phase of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine, but you can’t go back to Part 1. It must be on Part 2.

TAMATHA PAUL: I wanted to ask a question based on some of the answers that Associate Minister of Justice McKee gave just now in this session, if that’s OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as they weren’t related to the what and the why. They need to relate to Part 2 and the administration.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, that’s cool. The first part of my question is around the separating of functions out from the New Zealand Police into the Minister’s jurisdiction, which was brought up by the member Ginny Andersen over there. I’m just trying to understand this some more because, to a layperson who isn’t involved in this area, it seems a bit confusing that you have the police who are in charge of licensing people and making sure that people that get their licences pass all their checks—that they’re of sound mind and are able to safely possess a firearm.

I’ve also been thinking, because a lot of the comments have been around 15 March and what happened there, and we know, thanks to the royal commission of inquiry, where the loopholes were and what went wrong—I’m wondering why we would separate out these kinds of regulations and operations from the police when they also hold lots of important intelligence around the actions and maybe offences or patterns that they’ve observed of people within their community that they might consider when they’re granting somebody a firearms licence. I’m keen to dig into that around why we would separate out this regulation from the New Zealand Police.

The other question that I had was in regard to 15 March and comments that the Minister made when the previous Government was undergoing firearms reviews following the 15 March terrorist attack. The Minister was on record making comments accusing the Government of not waiting for the recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry. I’m confused as to why this—

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to ask for the Chair’s clarification. Is it appropriate for somebody questioning the Minister in the chair to refer to the Minister as “the Minister” when describing actions and things that happened before the member was elected and before the Minister became a Minister as if the Minister had said it? Just a bit of clarification from the Chair in relation to the member’s question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, the questions are really related to what the Minister is doing here, today, in this piece of legislation, in Part 2, related to part events. It’s not particularly appropriate what a Minister said prior to this—this is about Part 2 of the bill.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and if the member over there would hold his horses and let me finish my question, you’d see that it’s actually related to the inquiry that is still continuing to this day.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, well, we’ve closed the point of order now and I’ve ruled on the point of order, so let’s come to the particular clauses and the questions on Part 2. Thank you.

TAMATHA PAUL: Thanks, Madam Chair. To continue what I was saying before in relation to how it is relevant today, my question is why the same rationale isn’t applied by the Minister in the sense that the second phase of the royal commission of inquiry is continuing right now and there is a particular focus in that inquiry on firearms.

My question to the Minister is why not apply the same advice—which she herself has given in the past—to wait for the recommendations of the inquiry that is happening actively right now, and take her own advice and apply that to these changes, about which, from my short listening of the arguments that have been made today, there doesn’t seem to be a really clear rationale behind the bill, and in this session there has been constant referral to the fact that shooting ranges and clubs have closed down.

By my reading of things, there have been two closed down out of about 500 shooting clubs and ranges, so I don’t think that that justifies the bill in front of us. Not to mention that those clubs closed down not because of regulatory requirements but for other reasons—which you would know if you’d read the reports as well.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the first instance, there is no other royal commission of inquiry stage 2. There is no royal commission of inquiry stage 2—

Tamatha Paul: It’s the coronial inquiry.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Then that’s not what you said, and as it’s a coronial inquiry that has still not delivered its decision, it is not something that should be discussed within this House, because a decision is still pending.

In relation to the member’s first question that she asked—and the royal commission of inquiry did talk about having a separate entity to be able to do the licensing. When you remove that entity, which was not separate—it was under Police, staffed by Police, funded by Police, who report to Police, so it wasn’t separate, it wasn’t independent. We’re going to remove that. In order to make these changes that are in Part 2, we have to make the changes in order to get the policy work under way. It’s not uncommon; it happens all the time.

If people are worried that by uplifting the Firearms Safety Authority and putting it under another agency, we stop communicating with Police and that we don’t have this line of discussion open, then that is a very sad state of affairs for New Zealand, if we ever got to that point. The whole reason—and I’m reiterating this because I’ve said it several times here—that we are moving the Firearms Safety Authority is to increase trust and confidence back into a system that is incredibly broken and has no trust. It does not mean that New Zealand Police will be left on the outside. New Zealand Police have a very important role to play with the licensing system, with the enforcement.

At the moment, they do the policy, they do the administration, they do the enforcement, they do all the licensing—they do everything; they’re a one-stop shop. That is not their core business. Their core business is enforcement, and in order to allow them to get on with their core business and be able to allow the separation to occur, we have Part 2, and Part 2 then gives the ability for the Minister, or responsible Minister in charge of the Act, to make policy decisions on policy, regulations, and administration.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Part 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3. Clauses 1 to 3 are “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Can I take a call on my amendment that’s been tabled in relation to the commencement date of this legislation? We received in the Justice Committee quite a lot of information from officials that the current commencement date in this legislation is insufficient for them to be able to do all the necessary changes that are required. What my amendment does is it makes a change to replace the three-month commencement date proposed in clause 2 with one year. That’s exactly what Police asked for in select committee.

The amendment to the commencement of this Act is really intended to delay its implementation until the current Arms Act rewrite is complete, so that the oversight of shooting clubs and ranges is considered within the broader context of the wider firearms regulatory system. We’ve already heard Associate Minister of Justice McKee say that all of the changes that we’ve just voted on are to set things up so that the Firearms Registry can be transferred, and so she’s just said that. There’s no outcome from the review on that Firearms Registry. There is no business case that’s been made public on the review of the Firearms Registry. It’s unclear whether Cabinet has signed it off. It’s unclear what IT system would be needed to host such an agency. It’s very unclear as to how much that would cost. It’s also unclear whether the finance Minister has given approval for this to happen. My change here, by pushing it out for a year, would actually give the New Zealand public the opportunity to have all of those questions, that are fundamental.

We have the Minister of Police, who has publicly said, out on the tiles, that the Firearms Registry is going nowhere. He has said that on the record, on the news. We’ve got the Minister of Police speaking with a completely different position to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicole McKee, right now about the future of the Firearms Registry. If we are, right now, passing legislation that does, as the Minister has stated, transfer all the powers from police to justice, with her presiding as the Associate Minister, I believe that we should understand why we can’t delay that for a year, why we can’t have those answers about what happened for the review of the Firearms Registry, and, also, what is the information that’s been done about the cost to the New Zealand taxpayer of taking it out of Police.

We know that real-time information is absolutely critical to the lives of our front-line officers about where firearms are, and taking that away from Police is endangering the lives of our front line. I think it is only right—

Hon Nicole McKee: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Nicole McKee.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is about extending a date from three months to one year. I’ve been advised that three months is fine. I have no need to extend it by a year. By the way, this is about the transfer of the Firearms Safety Authority, not about the registry.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. It’s interesting to listen to Associate Minister of Justice McKee’s narrative on this. As has been spoken about in previous calls, there is concern around the rush that the previous Government made around firearms reform.

My brief question to the Minister is: why the rush? Why the rush? Why not consider my colleague’s amendment to make it one year? As I look at the commencement date of three months, and as I was listening to the earlier debate, my concern is the fact of bringing the community with us. What I’ve picked up through every single call in the committee stage from the Minister has been around the fact that the previous Government didn’t take the community with them. When I look at the three months—and I think it’s reasonable to add another nine months on to that to make it a year. It would actually make sense because (1) it’s bringing the community with us, and (2) it’s because of the concerns that have been raised in previous calls around the ministerial oversight and the challenge that has because of history.

My question to the Minister is: why would she not consider an extension to the commencement date, it being the fact that it’s actually, I guess, following on in the footsteps that she has been talking about so often around how everything’s been too rushed? Let’s slow it down and let’s actually give it time to embed, understand—as my colleague has talked about—the cost to move it, what it’s going to look like for the police, and what it’s going to look like in terms of the arms register.

I think we need to seriously consider this amendment, and not ignore it just because it’s an Opposition amendment but actually consider the fact they’re adding nine months on and giving us time as a community to move forward; that it’s not seen as being rushed, because the Minister keeps going on that our Government rushed things. I’d like some feedback on that, please.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): It can be done within three months. There is absolutely no need to extend it. These are changes that can be made easily, and we’re doing it in three months.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call in this session, and I appreciate it. I’d like to ask Associate Minister of Justice McKee whether there has been any consideration to changing the title of this bill.

I note that we were discussing, in new section 74(4)(b) in clause 12(1) under Part 2, the phrase “done everything reasonable to consult other [people]”, and I would like to also congratulate the Minister on being very effective at getting some people to submit on this bill, because, as a firearms owner, I do get a lot of correspondence. One of the bits of correspondence I got was from a pro-gun lobby that suggested—my wording—in a submission that “I object to my personal information being released as part of an Official Information Act request. I object to this due to concerns around my data and identity security”, etc.

As a suggestion, I think that the title of Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2024 could be changed. I would suggest that we could simply alter it to call it the “Pro-gun Amendment Bill” to describe what it actually is and who has been consulted on this and who has been listened to on this, because, as a firearms owner, I like clarity and I like people to speak directly, and I think that’s exactly what it is. I’d like to the Minister to respond to whether the Minister would be open to changing the title of this bill. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Debate—Use of the Term “Misinformation”

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually want to bring, Madam Chair, to you a conversation, a point of order in the previous session of this bill that the Hon Kieran McAnulty raised, regarding in terms of a clear ruling and elucidation around one of the terms that the Minister used around misinformation.

I was very grateful that the Chair was the same Chair as the one we had before. If you remember, in the previous session on this bill the Minister specifically used the term “the pure amount of misinformation that has just been read out on what this bill does”. I understand that there’s some elucidation on the term “misinformation”, but I want to get clarification from you, Madam Chair, on Speakers’ ruling 48/1, which states “but must not accuse another member of making a statement that member knew to be incorrect.”

If we take “misinformation” as something that is incorrect, and if we take the verb that was used—that being “read out”—as someone knowingly doing or performing an action, I want to get a clarification from the Chair on whether that is considered out of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, at this point, I did undertake, about this time last week, to give a clarification on that, and I do have clarification that was, ultimately, sent to Kieran McAnulty. I don’t have the power to be able to just do it off the bat until someone asks the question, so I really appreciate the member asking that question. I understand you may have had it in writing as well, at this point?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No, not yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’ll check up on that.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Really, this was the information that went to the Hon Kieran McAnulty: you raised concerns about the use of the term “misinformation” in debate and whether an accusation of misinformation is the same as accusing a member of lying and therefore out of order.

Members often disagree about whether information is correct or not. In fact, that is a vitally important part of our democracy: for members to be able to share their opinions about what is correct or incorrect. It is particularly common when members have differing views on a policy or the effect of a piece of legislation. Saying that a member is misinformed or inaccurate or incorrect is completely in order as an opinion. This is a clear line crossed when a member accuses another of lying or deliberately misleading the House with their statements.

The use of the word “liar” is the only word that’s always out of order when used to describe a member—Speaker’s ruling 57/4. Knowingly spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation is deliberately deceptive. An accusation of knowing something is misinformation or disinformation and saying it anyway is an accusation of intentionally misleading the House and should be raised as a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity. If it is raised as an accusation in debate, it is out of order and the member will be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Context is important, however, and using a word in one context may be acceptable and not acceptable in another context. That is the advice that I’ve been given, thank you.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can speak to the point of order.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much for that elucidation. I think it is really helpful for the House to get that sense, to get that clarity, but I think, in light of what you have just read out, I wonder if implying that misinformation has been read out is a sense of referring to a member as deliberately misleading.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I think if anyone’s referring to a member deliberately misleading, the course of action was in here [Gestures to paper] and you can actually—I’ll get the exact words around privilege, but it’s, basically, saying that you can take a privileges—I’m just trying to get the right sentence where it’s said. “Knowingly spreading misinformation or spreading disinformation is deliberately deceptive. An accusation of knowing something is misinformation or disinformation and saying it anyway is an accusation of intentionally misleading the House and should be raised as a matter of privilege.” Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Speaking to the point of order—thank you very much, Madam Chair. When we were just now speaking about the Firearms Safety Authority, Associate Minister of Justice McKee just said that there was no trust, or low trust, in that system. There is clear evidence that’s available through the Firearms Safety Authority that surveys of licence holders show strong and growing trust in the Firearms Safety Authority. Is that a matter of privilege?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, so I think at this point we should absolutely stop, because I’m sure that one member can make one case for what the level of trust is and another member can make another case. I don’t believe the Minister was intending to mislead anybody in that particular situation. If that member believes the opposite, I’ve just given that member the course of action.

Bills

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

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 to 3 (continued)

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 5 March.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, we were up to call No. 11, and it’s a Labour Party call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. District Court judges—where would we be without them?

Hon Member: Where would we be?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Where would we be? The Labour Party—as I was going to say, discussed last night, but it was in fact this morning because today has felt like a very long day—is going to support this bill, but we do have some comments to make about it.

The primary justification for increasing the number of judges by one is to alleviate the court backlog. That seems like a very noble ambition. Obviously, there would be several other ways in which we might see this Government taking action to try and alleviate the court backlog. We don’t see that, but we do see this before us.

The fact that it’s one additional judge feels like a bit of an oxymoron, really, because we’ve heard this Government go on ad nauseam about the fact that they—well, they talk a lot about being tough on crime, and they talk a lot about all of these measures that they’re introducing to somehow signify that they’re being tough on crime. Yet at the end of all of that, and some sort of natural sequelae—you know, what will that mean on our judiciary and on the pressure on our judges? “We’ll just chuck one extra judge in there and that should do it.” It doesn’t really add up, and it doesn’t feel particularly congruent that all of this tough on crime is going to result in one extra District Court judge. But so be it. We have no objection to the fact that that is what is before us today.

It’s just one of those things where you think, “Gosh, is this a good use of our time?” I suppose it could be worse, though, as someone said earlier. You know, if we’re in this House talking about little things that by definition and technically possibly need to be done as a matter of course, then at least they’re not doing things that actually cause harm, and we’re not spending our time here today talking about that.

When we think about the bottlenecks in the court system and what are the various different ways this Government could have or might have chosen to address those, there are several, but it’s probably outside the scope of this particular bill before us today. It does kind of seem like a bit of a symbolic fix, really. Earlier on, my colleague the member for Ōhāriu, Greg O’Connor, who has a very long history in the justice area—

Tom Rutherford: Animated.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: —through various iterations, gave what was recalled as an animated speech with hand gestures, if I remember correctly, and walked us through the realities of what it is to actually be a judge.

To sum that up somewhat—because I’m not going to try and replicate his animism—he wanted us to focus on the fact that the name was written on the tin, and it is to judge. To do so therefore requires the appropriate allowance of discretion—the appropriate allowance of trust, even—the appropriate esteem in which we used to hold our judges in, in so far as taking in the complexities of the situations and the people they see before them. It is a shame that this current Government seems to be quite intent on watering that down and nullifying, somewhat, that esteemed history of judges. But we’re going to get one extra, so that’s something that we should at least be grateful for.

I think that when I say it’s a symbolic fix, it is a little bit ironic as well, given that the aforementioned measures that this previous Government is taking in the justice space all in all, in terms of their endeavour to be tough on crime, is largely symbolic in and of itself. We’re happy that there’s an extra judge. We see no complications in this bill apart from the fact that it feels a little bit incongruent and a little bit unnecessary, but we do commend it to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It really is a pleasure to be the final speaker as we’re ending the third reading for this bill before it becomes law—the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, increasing the total number of District Court judges by one to 183. It’s a pleasure because, in essence, as our Minister Paul Goldsmith said earlier, this is part of our wider objective to restore consequences of crime and also support the victims first. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Social workers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable populations across New Zealand, including children and marginalised communities. They support their communities to ensure people receive the assistance that they need to live safe and fulfilling lives. This Government wants to empower and support this critical workforce to meet the diverse and evolving needs of our communities. The bill seeks to amend the Social Workers Registration Act 2003 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations carried out under the Act. It highlights our Government’s commitment to enhancing the social work profession and is a way to ensure that social workers are supported and regulated to serve our communities, importantly safely and effectively.

The Act protects the public by ensuring that social workers are registered, competent, accountable, and follow professional standards. This ensures social workers have the necessary level of professionalism to deliver appropriate care and service to their communities and is an important part in keeping our most vulnerable people and children safe. The Act establishes the Social Workers Registration Board as a regulatory authority for overseeing social worker registration. The Act also mandates the board to conduct a review of both its operations and the operation of the Act at least every five years. This bill responds to the board’s 2020 review of the Act. The 16 minor policy changes and technical amendments will strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of operations under the Act, as well as address inconsistencies that have crept in over time. The first reading and select committee process showed a good level of support for these proposals.

I’d like to use this opportunity to remind the House of the six key policy amendments in this bill and the rationale behind them. Firstly, one amendment seeks to broaden interim suspension grounds, allowing action when a formal investigation is considered but not yet started. This change prioritises public safety by addressing concerns about a social worker’s professionalism or practice, while ensuring suspensions meet specific criteria to maintain fairness.

Another amendment would allow for the extension of interim suppressions to allow sufficient time for an investigation to be completed. Currently, suspended social workers receive notices every 10 days, even if there is no change to their status. This amendment streamlines communications while ensuring the correct process continues.

The bill also seeks to enhance the board’s professional conduct committee’s flexibility by allowing it to combine available outcomes rather than it just being limited to one per case, ensuring it can handle complex cases effectively. To improve efficiency, another amendment would allow the board to delegate registration functions, freeing members to focus on governance responsibilities and reducing delays for applicants seeking registration.

The fifth proposed amendment would clarify the board’s role in monitoring prescribed qualifications. While already implied, this change makes it explicit in law, ensuring there is no ambiguity about the board’s responsibility.

Finally, the bill seeks to transfer the power to investigate individuals falsely claiming to be registered social workers, or practising without the authority, from the Ministry of Social Development to the board.

On behalf of the Government, I want to thank Social Services and Community Committee members for their review of the proposed amendments and commentary across the House. I note the committee raised that extending suspension notice periods may create uncertainty for suspended social workers. As mentioned before, this amendment is about reducing the administrative burden on the board as well as removing excessive communication when there has been no change in the status for suspended social workers. I want to reassure you across the House that the notice period this amendment updates is not tied to the investigation. When the board has sufficient information to believe that a social worker is safe to return to practice, they can lift an interim suppression, even when an investigation is ongoing.

I want to thank the five submitters who took the time to share their perspectives on this bill. Your input is invaluable and has been very helpful as part of developing this bill. It was encouraging to hear submitters express their support for key amendments in the bill, particularly those that aim to strengthen public safety provisions, update language to be gender-neutral, and create greater flexibility in tribunal membership.

I also want to address some of the concerns raised by submitters. One submitter raised concerns that the amendments might increase social workers’ fees and costs for tertiary providers. However, the board assures us that these minor technical changes won’t directly affect costs. Another concern was regarding the amendments to broaden interim suppression grounds so that a social worker could face an interim suspension if a police or other investigation is likely. The submitter highlighted that this could lead to arbitrary suspensions and suggested stronger evidence requirements to be introduced. The Act already strikes a careful balance between ensuring public safety and minimising unnecessary disruption to the workforce, and existing safeguards within the Act will continue to prevent arbitrary suspensions, even with the introduction of this amendment. The select committee carefully considered these concerns, along with the other points raised in submissions, and ultimately determined that changes to the proposed amendments were not necessary.

Officials have identified one technical adjustment to the bill. This change aims to ensure the smooth transfer of the investigative function from the Ministry of Social Development to the board. This change will prevent unnecessary disruption for those currently under investigation and enable the board to carry out the function effectively from the transfer date.

While workforce shortages are out of scope of this bill, they remain a significant concern and an important issue, echoed by our submitters during the select committee process. I am very aware of the challenges this presents not just for the workforce but, importantly, for the communities across our country in which they serve. That is why Minister Upston in this instance has made her expectations to the board very clear: that developing a robust strategy must be a priority. The strategy will focus on mitigating workforce shortages and ensuring we have a resilient and well-supported social worker workforce.

Although at face value this bill makes minor amendments to operations under the Act, the cumulative changes of these changes is important, and it is an important step in ensuring the Act remains fit for purpose. It demonstrates that this Government is committed and is a strong and sustainable supporter of our social worker workforce. Importantly, we are committed to ensure public safety. I commend this bill to the House.

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

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As I listened to the Minister of Revenue’s comments there, it is interesting just to consider the work of our social workers throughout New Zealand, and the important role that they play in every single part of society. Often, we consider social workers to be those who work for Oranga Tamariki, but, actually, it goes far further than that. As we consider the second reading as it’s come back from the Social Services and Community Committee, I think it’s really important for us to acknowledge the social workers throughout our society, in every part of our community. We think of in our schools and the work that many social workers to do support our young tamariki, our rangatahi.

We think of our hospitals and our healthcare centres, where social workers are so crucially involved. I had an example of that several years ago in Taranaki Base Hospital. My old neighbour was a little bit older and had been struggling with his health, and I’d tried to support him into a rest home. There was no way he was going to move, because he was stubborn and he liked his own home, and rightly so. Why would he want to move out of that? But several falls later, we were in A & E, and it wasn’t until the social worker at the hospital actually came down and sat with myself and Jim and talked through why he should consider this, and gave him options and didn’t direct him to do anything, but it came to the place where he actually made the right decision, I believe, because he needed better care. It was a social worker within our hospital system that supported myself and supported my friend through that, and I say thank you.

They’re also obviously with our young people in Oranga Tamariki, Open Home Foundation, and many other youth and child organisations. They’re in our rainbow community in terms of social workers who are working across our rainbow whānau, whether it be in RainbowYOUTH or OutLine and other spaces. Then there’s also community groups in our Māori iwi space, and we think of marae that actually have social workers in some parts of the country. I think of Tu Tama Wahine O Taranaki, an organisation in my community, who have been committed for more than 40 years in terms of doing the hard social work of family violence, the hard work of working with violent men, the hard work of working with wāhine, the hard work to actually find solutions and find hope and find liberation. We must say thank you to our social workers, who do so much for our communities and who do so much to build the social cohesion, whether it be in families, whether it be iwi hapū, whether it be in health, whether it be education, and all the other places I missed.

We do support this piece of legislation. It’s something that was reviewed five years ago, and it’s a five-yearly process that it goes through. I think and know that we need to continue to develop this legislation and, as we review it time after time, we need to strengthen it. I really believe, as I look through the legislation that is before us, it is another step in terms of ensuring—whether it be about accountability, whether it be around the protection not only of the social workers themselves but the people they’re working with, and the Minister made that clear in terms of checks and balances, and it’s important.

We need to make sure there is accountability, because our social workers are working so often with our most vulnerable, and we need to know that they are registered. We need to know that they have the skills not only to protect the people they work with but to protect themselves, because there are dynamic and volatile situations that they are so often in.

We have concerns, obviously, with what we believe the Government is doing, which is stripping away many of those social connections and the access. There was a report that was out not too long ago around restructuring and the work that was going on in Oranga Tamariki. It was pulling, actually, social workers away from the front line in terms of how they were operating, so we must be concerned.

As we support this legislation going forward, we support it with caution and with concern, but we always support it with the fact of having the community at our heart in what is going on. I won’t go on any further, but just to say let us be careful. I mean, the dream and the hope would be that social workers wouldn’t be needed in our communities, but it is just a reality. Let us make sure that we have the best systems, the best checks, and the best balances in place to make sure that our communities bring redemption, bring possibility, and enrich the lives of those who need it, whether it be in our hospitals, in our schools, in our child centres, or wherever it is. We commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are supporting this bill. I, too, want to pay tribute to all the social workers across Aotearoa, who are doing their best to support our communities, and I want to acknowledge, as well, the tertiary institutions that they train under.

This bill in and of itself is not radical, but it does include some practical changes such as broadening the scope of grounds for interim suspension where an investigation under the Social Workers Registration Act, under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act, or a criminal proceeding is “reasonably contemplated”, not just under way. The stuff around changing the extension period of interim suspension so that the suspension can be tied to the completion of investigation of medical examination, as well as other issues relating to the accountability that social workers face and issues relating to, for example, the cap on the number of social workers on the social workers disciplinary tribunal.

I think, to me, this raises a few really important issues, particularly having seen social workers at the front lines working with people on the benefit and supporting them to get their legal entitlements. Many of our social workers that are going through our tertiary institutions and then going to work themselves come from—many of them—lived experience backgrounds. In many of those cases, that means low-income communities. Having given guest lectures to social work students in the past, prior to becoming an MP, it was really clear that many of the challenges of the people who social workers face were faced by social workers themselves, including in their training. Many of them that are deployed in the field end up working on low wages and with high workloads. When we have a combination of those things, we actually create a recipe for the very same things this bill is trying to address, right, which are some of the mechanisms relating to accountability.

What this means is that, I guess, if what the Government is trying to do in this bill is improve some of those accountability mechanisms relating to conduct, for example, and how we deal with those, I think there’s also a need to then look at the working conditions in the training that we provide to social workers. I think, to me, we are then addressing the accountability mechanisms that happen once a social worker actually, for example, misbehaves or does something that isn’t right. Those mechanisms should absolutely be refined, and I think, to me, you know, it’s been a constructive experience at the Social Services and Community Committee trying to address those things.

If we want to set social workers up to be their best selves and to unlock their full potential, I think, to me, then this Government needs to continue looking at what other levers exist to them to make sure that the content of this bill isn’t just an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. To me, that includes issues around making sure that when social workers are doing their placements, they’re actually adequately supported and remunerated for their work. I say this because when I was a field educator for social workers in my previous employment, many of them would be having to work multiple jobs on top of their placement. What that means is that, when they’re doing their placement, they’re actually probably more worried about paying their bills than actually absorbing the knowledge that then prevents them from actually making the kinds of mistakes that land them in the sorts of situations—or potentially lands them suspended—which is something that this bill is trying to improve upon.

Again, I think we can all make speeches and sort of talk about—particularly from the Government side, who currently hold the levers—acknowledging the amazing work social workers do, but until they are supported to be their best selves, we are putting them in situations where they are more likely to make errors, often because of the stress they face.

We support this bill. We support the work the select committee did to look at the components of this bill, but, you know, I just want to say that our social workers deserve more than our thanks. They deserve bread and roses and the world, because, for many of them, what they are doing, it’s often, for example, stopping—they’re the conduit between communities and our Government agencies.

I think some of the stuff in the bill relating to, for example, creating more flexibility in relationship to the duration of suspension, you know, in relationship to particularly the provision around changing the extension period for in-term suspensions to tie it to periods that are reasonable and necessary for the board to complete a formal investigation and or medical examination—that specific provision I think is great, but it doesn’t look at the upstream effect and the upstream things we should be targeting.

Again, this bill is relatively minor, and it provides technical amendments, but I think, like with other bills, we have to look at it in the ecosystem of what else is happening in the field that our social workers are doing. I’ll give an example: the changes to emergency housing where you’re now likely to see more people rejected for emergency housing. That in and of itself puts pressure on our social workers, and that in practice actually means social workers will end up finding themselves working with people in situations of distress. They’ll be working with community members who may be facing chronic homelessness, who may then ask the question, “What am I to do and how am I supposed to be supported?” Those social workers, who are often on low wages and come from low-income backgrounds, many of them—from my own experiences—will then be facing additional stresses, which increases the chances of them doing something that may land them in the very same disciplinary spaces that this bill is improving.

I think, again, the Government needs to take a step back themselves and look at the broader legislative ecosystem that they’re creating this term and ask themselves the question: are we actually putting more pressure on social workers, or are we relieving them of the pressure to ensure that they can be their best selves? Personally, I think it’s the former, and that to me raises concerns about why this bill is taking priority over other issues that could improve the conditions that our social workers are in and prevent them from making mistakes.

Paid placements is something I referenced earlier. We have heard petitions on these issues in our select committees, calling for paid placements to be put in place so that not just social workers but other professions can fully unlock their potential, and, more importantly, so that we can also diversify our professions. There have been lots of calls and previous debates on, for example, the experience pathway as a tool to increase the diversity of the social work profession. When we are able to do that, we also actually prevent conditions in which a social worker who may not have the cultural competency is making mistakes with someone they’re walking alongside with and that ends up landing that person in disciplinary spaces.

Again, we support the measures included in this bill, because we none the less acknowledge that those very mechanisms of accountability could always be improved upon, but without looking upstream, I think the Government is just looking down the cliff instead of doing the necessary and systemic changes so that people don’t need a social worker in the first place, and that those social workers, when they are needed, are well remunerated, well supported, and well trained.

Simon Court: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day—sorry, Mr Court. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 March 2025.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.