Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Volume 782
Sitting date: 12 March 2025
WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 2025
WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 2025
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
GREG O’CONNOR (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Urgent Debates Declined
Whānau Ora—Government Changes
SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s changes to Whānau Ora. Every statement in a letter seeking an urgent debate must be authenticated. This application had no authenticating material. Speakers Arthur, Hunt, Wilson, Smith, and Mallard have all ruled that applications for urgent debates that are not accompanied by authenticating material will be declined on that ground—Speakers’ ruling 214/5, which I concur with and uphold. The application is declined.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No papers have been presented. Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of Issie Mullen-Winiata requesting that the House make it mandatory for employers to contribute to KiwiSaver for all workers under 18
petition of Kathleen Walsh requesting that the House urge the Government to urgently review the decision to downgrade maternity services at the Whakatāne Hospital.
SPEAKER: Those two petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered for presentation. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 202324 annual reviews of the New Zealand Customs Service and the Border Executive Board.
SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Rail
1. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding the Cook Strait ferries?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Yes, and by my statement that a project in 2020 with $400.1 million in Government funding and the balance coming from KiwiRail and the ports somehow blew out by billions by 2023 and the Treasury warning the last Government it was on track to go above $4 billion. We are hard at work on a cost-effective solution. It’s possible to bring new ships to New Zealand and take a pragmatic approach to infrastructure, so watch this space.
Jamie Arbuckle: What feedback has the Government had in its engagement with commercial shipyards?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are in a worldwide search for a good commercial deal. Good business people seek multiple quotes towards a competitive price, and also treat prospective partners with the utmost respect. That’s why we met with Hyundai and it’s why we directly approached many shipyards around the world. We intend to narrow our list very shortly to a selection of capable shipbuilders, and the final cost will be a massive saving to the New Zealand people.
Jamie Arbuckle: How is the work on the infrastructure element of this programme tracking?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As former Labour Minister Maharey would say, more good news. Extremely well; we have been to see CentrePort, we’re in contact with Port Marlborough and we’ll visit them directly soon, and are regularly working with KiwiRail and our new company Ferry Holdings Ltd. It was curious to see reports in the media yesterday suggesting that ports were reluctant to work with KiwiRail. In our experience, both ports and KiwiRail have worked constructively, collaboratively, and collegially to focus on cost-effective infrastructure. In a few weeks’ time, this House will see just how productive work can be when the Government is disciplined in its objectives.
Jamie Arbuckle: Who has the Government appointed to the Ferry Holdings Ltd board?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, more good news. Chris Mackenzie, with a deep operational knowledge of rail and ferries; Heather Simpson—
Hon Willie Jackson: One of your good mates.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, not Willie Jackson. No, no, no. Don’t be alarmed. It’s Heather Simpson, with strong competence in economics and the workings of Government; Greg Lowe, a qualified marine engineer and former global head of Beca; Katherine Rich, an industry body chief executive with a firm understanding of the freight supply chain and customer needs; and Captain Iain MacLeod, an experienced mariner and shipmaster who has driven ships on the Cook Strait and across the Pacific.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, “We don’t want a globalised sell-out of New Zealand, which is what many of the neo-liberals have recommended”, or is his disagreement with Winston Peters the reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been barred from speaking at his international investor summit?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to be here tomorrow, ensuring that the Government maintains control of this House. Then, in the evening, he will be on a plane to the United States to ensure that the best representation possible in our country’s interests—hopefully in a bipartisan way—is put to the American people.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Prime Minister be indicating to international investors tomorrow that his Government is open to the privatisation of school and hospital buildings?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the Prime Minister is giving a speech today setting out what the coverage and span of the two days—the 13th and 14th—will be. That should be asked of the Prime Minister because that’s covered in his speech—
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I just did.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I just say, yes, but the timing is later today. And unlike an undisciplined party, we stick to form, we stick in our lane, and we make sure that things are done chronologically and sequentially.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When the Prime Minister said on Monday that there’s $6 billion of hospital building work in the pipeline he’d be presenting to international investors tomorrow, was he indicating that the Government is open to private investors owning those hospital buildings?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister was indicating that he inherited a wrecked economy where the main mantra was borrow and hope, and that if we’re to turn this around, we need international investment and we need it now. Our job is to provide the international investors with the answers as to why New Zealand is the right place to invest. That’s why we hope to have agreement across political parties on the essentialities now brought upon us by an infrugal, wasteful, spendthrift Government.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does health Minister Simeon Brown’s statement that he wants as much elective surgery as possible to be done in private hospitals reflect Government policy?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The wisdom of Simeon Brown is that he understands one thing: the patient’s everything—the patient’s everything. How they get the operation is not helped by blind, stupid ideology.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour, “If you partially privatise corporations and allow private shareholders to own part of them, the company is much more accountable”; if so, how does he explain the mixed-ownership - model power companies decreasing their investment in new generation, increasing power prices, and withdrawing record profits following that partial privatisation?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If one has a grasp on this country’s political history, going all the way back to Dick Seddon, that was always understood to be the case.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government considering relaxing the foreign home-buyer ban as part of its bid to attract more wealthy foreign investors; if so, what happened to putting New Zealanders first?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But that’s not what the Government’s doing. So why is he speculating on something that his party was prepared to do? His party, for example, is the only one that in 2002 signed a deal with Singapore and sold that right down the drain. And I had to go across there and try and change it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister and his Government had a “good look” at my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill, as he promised me that he would do in response to my questions in this House on 11 December last year?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I believe the Prime Minister’s kept his word on that matter. And we’re also waiting for a good look at that member’s response to the 7 October violent terrorist attack that saw so many thousands of people killed or abducted at the same time. I’m still waiting to see that member’s response to that.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by Aotearoa’s vote at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2024, which called on all States to implement sanctions in response to Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory, and, if so, what is he doing about it?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such vote at the United Nations in that country’s name has ever been given. That’s what we’re doing about it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You made a ruling in this House that “Aotearoa” and “New Zealand” could be used interchangeably, so I would expect an answer to that question from the acting Prime Minister.
SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If we go to the record of the United Nations, no such country was recorded as casting a vote.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister join the Greens, Labour, and Te Pāti Māori in supporting my member’s bill to implement sanctions and trade measures against Israel for their continued, ceaseless, and violent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, just like we did against Russia for its unlawful occupation of Ukraine?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This side of the House has always believed in a two-State solution and is awaiting that member’s petition regarding the terrorist atrocity that happened in October so many years ago and until this time has only been responded to by members on this side of the House and some members of the Opposition but not by the Green Party or that member.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister commit to retaining our nuclear-free status under this Government?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ve got no idea where that question is coming from, because nowhere and anywhere in this House has a comment been made about that. [Interruption] Beg your pardon?
Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s a question. It’s about your trip to the States.
SPEAKER: Yeah, the primary question is statements and actions. If the acting Prime Minister is saying there has been no statement, there is no action, then the question doesn’t stand. You can ask another question.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker, can I have a point of order? There is a certain rudimentary training required for members of Parliament that they understand the Standing Orders and know what the parameters are. We’ve seen somebody being ruled out today, bringing a request for an urgent debate—no evidence to back it up. All the fundamentals that are laid out in the Speakers’ rulings are not even observed. That was a classic question there: no evidence to bring the question up and she just expects to get an answer.
SPEAKER: Well, I just ruled that way.
Chlöe Swarbrick: A further supplementary, Mr Speaker, as you offered me another: is the Government committed to our status as a nuclear-free Aotearoa New Zealand and a nuclear-free Pacific, and does he support Pacific efforts to revitalise the Treaty of Rarotonga to close the loopholes left for the United States to pilot nuclear submarines through the Pacific?
SPEAKER: So here is the problem with that question as well. There has to be an action or a statement by the Government to bring it back to the primary question. I did give the member another chance, but we’ll move on to Laura McClure.
Question No. 3—Agriculture
3. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about positive health outcomes for pets?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Yesterday, I announced a regulatory change to allow non-veterinarians to carry out certain dental procedures on cats and dogs when authorised by a vet. As a farmer, I know how busy vets are around the country and that we have talented vet nurses who are capable of doing subgingival procedures like teeth scaling. This change will give them the legal protection to do that. Animals’ dental health is a really good marker for overall health and so expanding the number of people that can provide this service will lead to really positive outcomes for pets. And we actually give a toss about pets over here.
SPEAKER: There are two members having a conversation that would be better carried out out of the House, and I will facilitate that for them if it continues.
Laura McClure: Why was this change necessary?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, these changes were necessary because of an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act made by the previous Government that was nothing short of a “cat-tastrophe”. It meant that surgical procedures can only be provided by a vet. Vet nurses were routinely conducting subgingival dental procedures prior to the law change. These regulations will restore that right and mean that pets who have potentially serious health concerns don’t have to wait for a vet and can be seen more quickly.
Laura McClure: How will this be “paws-itive” for pet owners? [Interruption]
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Sorry, end of the puns, I promise. The hope is that over time we will see a reduction in cost for this sort of procedure. It will still be done by trained, capable, professional, clinical staff, but not necessarily by a registered vet. But most of all, it’ll go some way to freeing up vets’ time so that they can be more available to pet owners who need them for more complex procedures. The overall ability of vets to provide services to their clients will therefore improve.
Laura McClure: How will this change support vets and vet nurses?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: This will be welcome news to vets and vet nurses. I would like to acknowledge the work of the New Zealand Veterinary Association and the New Zealand Veterinary Nurses Association who have been advocating for their sector in this area since 2021. In addition to freeing up vets’ time, I’m sure that vet nurses will be relishing the opportunity to use their skills to care for even more animals when this regulation comes into force on 10 April this year.
Question No. 4—Energy
4. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Energy: Is he concerned that two international offshore wind investors have now withdrawn or paused their New Zealand projects, citing current Government policy as their reason; if not, why not?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): No, I am confident in the work this Government is doing to enable offshore wind. When we came into office, there was no regime or legislation to enable offshore wind, but thanks to this Government, we will soon have both.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is he concerned that international investors are telling his Government that their investment is at risk because of his Government’s policies that could cost New Zealand, by PricewaterhouseCoopers’ estimations, between 5,000 and 30,000 highly skilled, well-paid jobs?
Hon SIMON WATTS: No, I’m not. We’ve actually got over 100 of those investors currently in the country telling us and telling this Government that they want to invest in this country, and we are a Government that’s going to ensure that the red and green tape that is currently in place is out of the way so that they can invest in our country and make Kiwis’ lives better.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he, the Prime Minister, or any other Minister met with Sumitomo Corporation following their letter on 11 October to the Prime Minister and other Ministers seeking reconsideration of Government policies, and, if not, why has the Government not worked to ensure international investment in New Zealand has not been paused because of their policies?
Hon SIMON WATTS: I’ve been the Minister for Energy for just under four weeks, and I haven’t had a request from that organisation to meet. But I do meet regularly with a large number of investors who are looking at opportunities to build renewable generation in this country. That is one of the single-biggest things that this country can do in order to improve livelihoods and our economy. More renewable generation will aid energy security and affordability, and grow our economy.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether his job has been exacerbated by the closure of Marsden Point, and who was responsible for doing that?
SPEAKER: That’s probably just a little bit wide of the wicket.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no—
SPEAKER: It’s got to relate to the primary—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: Just a minute—when I’m ready. I can’t knock out a question because it doesn’t relate to the primary, only to allow a question that also is very, very far wide of the wicket from the primary.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who, in question time yesterday, said, “We know we need the investment, because it’s actually capital to grow our businesses, which actually creates higher-income jobs and more jobs for people.”, and has he had a conversation with the Prime Minister to say, actually, in the case of offshore wind, it’s his Government’s policy settings that are driving away international investment that would lead to well-paid jobs in New Zealand?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I obviously always agree with our Prime Minister, but what I also agree with is the fact that this country needs more abundant and affordable energy, and this is a Government who is taking the steps to put in place the legislative regime to make that a reality. I will reinforce: we had no legislative framework in place when we came into Government, but we will do by the end of this year, and that is good for New Zealand and it’s good for the New Zealand economy.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Infrastructure New Zealand, who has pointed out the delays from this Government and the work that the previous Government had under way to establish a regulatory regime for offshore wind?
Hon SIMON WATTS: I only go back to what I noted in my primary response, which is: when we came in, that regulatory regime was not in place. You cannot build offshore wind in this country today, because the regulations are not in place. This Government is taking the action to make sure it is in place, and this Government will deliver upon that promise.
Question No. 5—Health
5. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on increasing penalties for illicit drug use?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yesterday, I announced that Cabinet has agreed to progress with stronger drug classifications to crack down on harmful substances and protect New Zealanders from the devastating impact of illicit drugs. Proposed changes include classifying three fentanyl analogues as class A drugs as part of stronger controls on 23 harmful substances, which will lead to tougher penalties for offenders. Peddlers of illicit drugs cause significant harm in our communities and inflict misery on our streets. Our Government is committed to keeping Kiwis safe from dangerous substances.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is the Government proposing to increase controls on 23 illicit drugs?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government is responding to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which recommended to limit the risk of harmful and potential misuse of drugs to include these classifications. This will enable police and Customs to take preventative action and allow harsher penalties for those caught making or possessing these drugs.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What substances besides fentanyl analogues are being more tightly controlled?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is proposing to impose stricter controls on a number of illicit substances. This includes synthetic cathinones, often marketed as bath salts; synthetic cannabinoids; and amphetamine precursors, used in the manufacture of meth. We know how important it is to reduce the impact of drug harm. Ensuring there are stronger controls in place for these harmful substances is a step towards our goal.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: When will these new drug laws come into effect?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, good news. The process to strengthen drug controls is already under way. The planned changes have been approved by Cabinet and will now be drafted as an Order in Council, tabled in Parliament, and considered by the Health Committee before again being referred back to Cabinet. If agreed, these changes will come into force by mid-year, ensuring stronger protections against harmful substances as soon as possible.
Question No. 6—Education
6. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I absolutely stand by actions to build a world-leading education system that delivers equitable and excellent outcomes for every child—in particular, this Government’s introduction of phonics checks in English and te reo Māori. So far this year, more than 800 teachers have already completed their training module, and feedback I’ve received from teachers has been extraordinarily positive. One wrote that “The phonics check is an easy-to-administer assessment that provides teachers with valuable information about a child’s phonics knowledge and their ability to blend sounds and read words. It enables teachers to target their instructions to meet their children’s needs.”
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did the Government receive official advice that its changes to the school lunch programme weren’t going to work, and, if so, why did she agree to them?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: While I am kept up to date on the broad direction of this area, this area of school lunches, as you know, is delegated to Minister Seymour, and detailed questions should be directed to Mr Seymour.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did she put in place a contingency plan in case something went wrong, such as a provider going into liquidation, and, if not, why not?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I will respond to that question by reiterating the previous answer: while I’m kept up to date on the broad direction of this area, those questions need to be directed to Minister Seymour.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When did she first find out about issues with Libelle, and when did she tell Minister Seymour, if at all?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: In answer to that question, Minister Seymour informed me of some high-level supply challenges relating to Libelle on 11 February.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that yesterday, when one subcontractor, Libelle, went into liquidation, the on-time, in-full delivery for the school lunch programme was 99.96 percent, and if that’s not a contingency plan to deal with a subcontractor—
SPEAKER: Just a question.
Hon David Seymour: —going into liquidation, I’m not sure what is.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: The answer to that question is yes.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn’t she, as Minister of Education, act when she found out that hundreds of thousands of school lunches were at risk due to Libelle’s issues?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I only found out about these issues recently. This is a delegation for Minister Seymour, and I know that these are very challenging and complex issues that he is working through, and I’ve offered him my full support in anything that he might need.
Question No. 7—Immigration
7. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent changes have been made to the Accredited Employer Work Visa to support businesses to access the skills and experience they need?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): This week, we’ve implemented a number of changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa to help support businesses access the skills and experience they need to help us grow the economy. These changes include removing the median wage threshold, reducing the minimum experience required for level 4 and 5 roles to two years, and increasing the visa duration for new applicants in level 4 to 5 roles from two to three years. This Government has listened to businesses and stakeholders from around the country, and these changes will support businesses to grow the economy so that all New Zealanders can thrive.
Carl Bates: Supplementary. [Pauses]
SPEAKER: Yeah.
Carl Bates: Why were these changes made?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: These changes were made because the success of New Zealand’s businesses is critical to growing our economy. Removing the median wage was a Government coalition agreement as it has distorted the labour market and meant that in some instances New Zealanders were being paid less than their migrant colleagues doing the same job. As Minister, it was also clear to me that some of the settings around relevant work experience and visa lengths could be improved. Our focus remains on attracting higher-skilled workers while managing migration responsibly to help Kiwi businesses expand and help grow the economy.
Carl Bates: Supplementary. [Pauses]
SPEAKER: Yeah. Just—hang on. You’re not going to have your name called. You’ve called it once. Don’t do that. Just get on with your question.
Carl Bates: What was the impact of these changes?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: These changes will support the right balance of ensuring Kiwis are prioritised for job opportunities while providing a more fit for purpose visa so New Zealanders can have access to the skills they need to grow the economy. Richard McIntyre from Federated Farmers said, “These changes are a significant step forward and will be welcome news for many farming families across New Zealand”. And it, “… will cut thousands of dollars in costs for farmers, but will also mean a lot less stress and uncertainty for both the farmer and the employee who just want to get on with … farming.”
Carl Bates: What feedback has the Minister seen?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have seen lots of positive feedback. BusinessNZ chief executive Katherine Rich said, “The changes are a positive start to what will need to be a continuing programme of refinement to immigration settings to ensure that businesses can get the skills they need to support economic recovery and growth.” And, “It is positive to see [this] Government signalling greater responsiveness to business needs…”.
Question No. 8—Science, Innovation and Technology
8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: Does he agree with the Science System Advisory Group’s finding, “Note the critical importance of the science and innovation workforce, and that actions will be needed at multiple levels to develop and retain a high calibre workforce of researchers, scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs”; if so, why?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: On behalf of the Minister, yes. That’s why we are reforming the science system so that scientists can have world-class careers right here in New Zealand. Our scientists are not just employed in Crown research institutes; we are focused on creating career pathways from universities, into the broader science, innovation, and technology industry. For example, the Government has recently announced a $20 million investment over five years for an applied PhD programme to equip students with the practical skills that they need to apply their knowledge to real-world problems within ambitious businesses.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he confirm that the 40 people in the applied technology teams at Callaghan Innovation—the very people we should be hiring more of—will still be made redundant?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can confirm is that the priority for the Government, in terms of the science system, is the commercialisation so that we can create economic growth. Economic growth, of course, means more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What consideration has the Minister given to the flow-on effects to businesses, including start-up businesses, which rely on Callaghan Innovation support and expertise, now that they may not be able to continue operating?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON On behalf of the Minister, what we do know, unfortunately, is some of the roles that were undertaken by Callaghan Innovation that were fee-for-service were actually underutilised and highly subsidised by the Government, so clearly weren’t delivering value for business.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What advice does he have for the scientists and support staff at Callaghan Innovation who have had their employment terminated and are now actively applying for jobs in the Netherlands and Australia?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, anyone who is in the position where their job has changed is, of course—it’s challenging for them as individuals. What we have to do as a Government, though, is make sure that across every Government agency, we are getting the outcomes that taxpayers are expecting. The refocusing of the science system, as I said before, was around commercialisation so that it directly leads to business and economic growth, so that we have more jobs available and we have higher wages.
Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he expect to generate “world-class careers in science” when 570 jobs have gone from the science sector since this Government took office, there are no clear career pathways for scientists at Callaghan, and our best and our brightest are now applying for jobs outside of New Zealand?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I would refute the statements that that member has made. If you think about the reshaping of the science system and the ability for scientists to gain intellectual property, they financially will benefit directly. That actually provides greater opportunities, greater career opportunities, and financial opportunities for them here in New Zealand.
Question No. 9—Prime Minister
9. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Āe.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister care about productivity or just growth, and, if so, how exactly does relying on offshore money from big corporates attending his privatisation festival address New Zealand’s productivity crisis, which is created by entrenched social inequality?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To the manifestation of a number of questions, first two questions, both the answers—tahi, rua—are āe and āe.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister agree with his statement that “We have a fair tax system”, and, if so, why has the OECD consistently said that New Zealand’s productivity and equity is hampered by “shares, land, and residential property being tax favoured”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister agrees with the statement, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it. On the second thing: the OECD’s had a lot of suggestions for this country, but if you look at it, the former Government went through this experience and decided in the opposite and, in fact, in the bonfire of inanities, the present leader of the Labour Party got rid of them.
Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that people who earn their money from work pay a higher effective tax rate than those who make money off wealth?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Being the only parties in this House that give a hoot about the working man and woman in this country: yes, we most certainly do.
Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that wealthy New Zealanders pay 9.5 percent tax on their economic income while New Zealanders who earn a salary of $80,000 pay around 29 percent?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If one is going to do the analysis from the book Das Kapital, you’ll arrive at that sort of calculation, but nobody else has.
Hon Marama Davidson: Should cleaners, caterers, and security guards working on projects procured by the Government be guaranteed a living wage; if so, why did he remove paying these workers a living wage in the new Government procurement rules?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As someone who has ensured in the last 50 years to raise the minimum wage more than any other political influence in this country, the answer to that is we’re working on it, but at the present time the wage rises are actually in excess of the inflation rises and the worker is still in front.
Question No. 10—Trade and Investment
10. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of State for Trade and Investment: What actions has the Government taken to support trade with South-east Asia?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Vietnam is a valued member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—or RCEP, as it’s commonly known—and a partner for New Zealand, and this year we are celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations. South-east Asia, of course, is home to 9 percent of the world’s population and is critical to maintaining and building New Zealand’s prosperity. Our Government has prioritised re-energising the relationship with Vietnam, and, recently, I joined the Prime Minister in a business delegation on a trade mission there to elevate our relationship. During that trip, the PM announced a major upgrade of the relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership—the highest level available with Vietnam—making New Zealand just the 10th country in the world to achieve that.
Tim van de Molen: Why is this comprehensive strategic partnership with Vietnam significant?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Vietnam is our 14th-largest trading partner and the fastest-growing economy in ASEAN, therefore providing huge opportunities to us here in New Zealand. Over the last five years, two-way trade with Vietnam has grown a substantial 40 percent, and this new partnership, of course, has potential to increase it further. In New Zealand, there are great opportunities to build on partnerships with high-value sectors like premium food and beverages, agritech, technology, innovation, and renewable energy.
Tim van de Molen: What was achieved on this trade mission?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Heaps. During the trade mission to Vietnam, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has estimated that over $130 million of potential export value over the next three years was secured across 16 export deals and commercial partnerships. It’s also been announced that the airline VietJet will be developing a new commercial route here to strengthen connectivity and build better people-to-people links. And, of course, finally, we have increased the number of Government scholarships available to Vietnamese students by 56 percent, further growing our education links with Vietnam.
Tim van de Molen: How does our partnership with Vietnam benefit New Zealanders?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Like trade partnerships with any other nation, strengthening our relationship with Vietnam is incredibly important to New Zealand’s economic future, with more opportunities for businesses here. As Vietnam gets wealthier, Vietnamese people want to buy high-quality products from around the world, and we, of course, have some of the best food and beverage producers and innovative businesses around. The more we trade with the world, the more we grow our economy, which translates to more jobs, higher incomes, and more money in the back pockets of everyday New Zealanders.
Question No. 11—Health
11. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he committed to the same health outcomes for Māori as his immediate predecessor?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): My focus, as was the focus of my predecessor, is on ensuring that all New Zealanders, including Māori, have access to timely, quality healthcare. We know that too many New Zealanders are waiting too long to be seen at emergency departments, receive first specialist assessments, and have elective surgeries. Unlike the previous Government, our approach is putting patients first and backing our health system to get health back on track. This starts with bringing back our critical health targets, which the previous Government removed, to drive better outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori.
Hon Peeni Henare: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Dr Shane Reti when he said, “I want to see iwi Māori partnership boards powered up to support the health outcomes for your whānau and your communities.”; if so, what does powering up iwi Māori partnership boards mean?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, my predecessor was very clear, about independent Māori partnership boards, that they should be providing consistent advice around health needs for Māori across the country and that these partnership boards should not be commissioning agencies.
Hon Peeni Henare: Has the Minister seen the overwhelming evidence that Māori die seven years earlier, that Māori are twice as likely to die from cardiovascular disease, and that Māori are more likely to get type 2 diabetes, and, if so, why do none of his health targets specifically address any of these issues?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the five health targets that this Government put back in place, which the last Government removed, are for all New Zealanders. Every New Zealander expects to be able to turn up to an emergency department and be able to be seen in a timely manner. All New Zealanders expect that if they require elective surgery, they’re able to receive that in a timely manner. This Government is focused on timely, quality access for all New Zealanders, which includes Māori.
Hon Peeni Henare: Supplementary. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just wait for a moment. OK.
Hon Peeni Henare: Does healthcare for all New Zealanders mean raising the life expectancy for Māori or lowering the life expectancy for non-Māori?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government’s focus is on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, for Māori and for non-Māori, and I’d just make this point to the other side: they removed health targets, and every single one went backwards for non-Māori and for Māori. All New Zealanders were worse off because of what they did when they decided to rearrange the health system in the middle of a pandemic. Shame on them.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those are actually relatively straightforward questions from Peeni Henare on a relatively—actually, a very serious topic about the fact that Māori have lower life expectancy than non-Māori. You’ll note that there’s not any political insult in the question; it’s asking for Government policy on that. Instead, we’ve just had a diatribe from the Minister about health targets and the actions of the previous Government. It’s not unreasonable to ask that he address what are straight and serious questions.
SPEAKER: The question you suggest is serious asked if the Government’s policy was to raise the life expectancy of Māori or lower the life expectancy of non-Māori. I think that, inside that, there was then enormous scope for answer. It wasn’t a totally straight-up question at all, in my opinion. However, the Minister may like to address the question that was asked. If you wanted to shorten it, I’ll give you the chance to shorten it, so we don’t get the flick at the end.
Hon Peeni Henare: Does healthcare for all New Zealanders, for this Government, mean making the life expectancy for Māori and non-Māori the same?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister give any—
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Up or down? Which one’s going to move?
SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry, start again. Please go ahead.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she’ll be interested in this question. Does the Minister give any credence to the fact that, internationally, diet is the most important thing towards longevity, as proven by populations like Japan, and we could do far more in terms of changing the Māori health outcomes by getting serious dietary change?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as members of this House know, there is a range of factors which impact on health outcomes, and it’s critically important we’re focused on them, but what I would say is we are focused on improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders.
Question No. 12—Whānau Ora
12. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: How many audits and reviews has Whānau Ora failed since its establishment in 2010, if any?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Whānau Ora: Whānau Ora commissioning arrangements, like other Government-funded initiatives, have been subject to a number of audits and reviews since their establishment in 2014. Audits and reviews do not issue passes or fails. They are conducted periodically to determine if settings are fit for purpose, delivering outcomes for New Zealand, and highlight where changes may be needed to improve these.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why has the Minister allowed the overhaul of Whānau Ora, given that there is unclarity on how many audits Whānau Ora has passed, 19 audits in 10 years, two including an Auditor-General audit and a ministerial review?
SPEAKER: I’m going to ask you to do that question again. There is far too much chatter on the Government side of the House.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sure. Why has the Minister allowed the overhaul of Whānau Ora, given the Minister doesn’t know Whānau Ora has passed 19 audits in 10 years, two including an Auditor-General review and a ministerial review?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, this is the first time in 10 years that Te Puni Kōkiri have gone to market for the supply of Whānau Ora commissioning services. This is not an overhaul; this is a re-letting of the contracts for the commissioning agencies. It should be noted that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) recommends that all Government contracts should be reviewed and re-let every four to five years. This is a normal business process.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. We’ve got a member asking pointed questions about a process in which one of the major losers appears to be a prominent member of her own political party. I just wonder if there’s any need to declare such a conflict of interest before asking such questions.
SPEAKER: Well, if it wasn’t declared and understood, the member wouldn’t have taken the point of order.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Do you want to talk about party presidents, David?
SPEAKER: Just a moment. That doesn’t help order in the House. So we’ll now go into total silence. [Interruption] Someone’s going to go, Willie. We’ll go to total silence.
Rawiri Waititi: Hey, he should have name suppression—
SPEAKER: Don’t make it hard. Total silence for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s questioning to continue.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Why has the Minister decided to completely cut and replace the current provider, the commissioning agency, given that Whānau Ora has supported over 4 million whānau since its establishment, has delivered over a million COVID-19 vaccines during the peak of the pandemic, and has provided evidence that it can get into homes that no one else can?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, let me be very clear to the House: our Government has supported and is very keen to see Whānau Ora progress and actually go wider and deliver more outcomes for Māori than it has. It is a very normal process to go to market with the services to see if the providers who are currently providing the service are the best ones available in the market. It’s a very normal process that Te Puni Kōkiri have undertaken. And as I said at the start, this is about ensuring that we deliver even greater Whānau Ora services to Māori who need it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does a provider that has banked over $100 million in profit not suggest that the taxpayers’ money has not gone for the purpose in which it was given in the first place—right?
SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s something the Minister should speculate on.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m not speculating on that at all. That is public knowledge. I just want to know whether the Minister thinks that the money given over to that provider has got to where it was given in the first place and spent for the purpose it was given.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s public knowledge.
SPEAKER: Yeah, and that is certainly a lot clearer than the implication that was in the question, which, as you know, under 371 is not allowed. But given that clarification, the Minister may make a comment.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, this is a process that Te Puni Kōkiri have run, as recommended by MBIE, that every contract that the Government has should go to market every four to five years to test the market to see if there are other providers available. They have criteria. They apply that criteria. They select those that are best positioned to deliver the service for New Zealanders.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does Minister Potaka have to say to the 1,800 kaimahi who will lose their jobs as a result of his decision?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, firstly, let me say, it is a decision that is based on criteria by Te Puni Kōkiri, and, in terms of any changes that will result from the new providers, it is too early to tell. Those contracts are being negotiated as we speak. What I do know, having had experience with the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies, is their deep commitment to serving whānau in need, and I do know that in terms of the transition, I have every confidence that they will do their best to ensure continuity of service for those who need it the most.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Minister ensure that the 540,000 whānau who currently access Whānau Ora services will not be negatively impacted by the sudden change in commissioning agencies?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I do want to say that this is a process that’s been under way for many, many months, as is what normally happens when the Government puts a contract out for tender. And I want to say again: it is absolutely important that the transition is managed well. That is why, at the Minister for Whānau Ora’s request, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Public Service Commission are working closely with Te Puni Kōkiri to manage the transition and to ensure a smooth continuity of service for the whānau receiving services.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister agree with the Auditor-General’s statement from February 2003 that “the public service needs clear expectations for progressing whānau-centred approaches where appropriate. [In addition] Te Puni Kōkiri needs a clearer and stronger mandate for broadening whānau-centred approaches.”?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, yes, and that is why the key shifts in commissioning the next round of Whānau Ora commissioning agencies are based on a greater service reach, strength in the evidence base, a data-driven investment planning, improved front-line workforce development and retention, and strengthened risk management processes. I would say that’s an improvement.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If the Minister agrees with this statement, how can he justify cutting $500,000 from Whānau Ora through last year’s Budget?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, every Minister across this Government is focused on the taxpayers who get up and go to work every day and pay tax. We have a responsibility to them to ensure that the tax they pay is spent effectively, and in every area—including Whānau Ora—we want to make sure that the services reach those who have the highest needs and the money gets to them as closely as possible.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Given that Whānau Ora is a proven success and that the Auditor-General has recommended that its whānau-centred approach should be expanded, why did the Minister decide to gut and replace the current commissioning agencies instead of increasing Whānau Ora funding to incorporate new commissioning agencies alongside the already established ones?
Rawiri Waititi: Because it was political and personal.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, there is nothing in this process that Te Puni Kōkiri have undertaken that shows that we do not support Whānau Ora—quite the opposite. I have laid out what the shifts are. We are very clear about the fact that Whānau Ora is an amazing model for delivering to whānau with the most complex and challenging lives, and it is very, very successful. That’s why we are continuing. That is why we are ensuring, in terms of this process for commissioning agencies—we want even better results and even greater outcomes for the whānau it serves.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. As usual, I hesitate to raise this, but we’ve had continual barracking from the Te Pāti Māori co-leader that the Minister’s decision was quite personal and political. That’s a direct reflection and an accusation that the Minister has acted improperly. I would have thought that’s the sort of comment that should be withdrawn for bringing down the reputation of the House.
SPEAKER: Well, I was listening, and what I could say is that it’s not unusual that there are questions raised at various times about the actions of Ministers. If we’re going to get down to a point where we are so sanitised that we can’t have interjections of any type—given that that is at the lower end of what might be said in this House, and, frankly, has been said by a number of people in this House—then I think we’d be in some sort of difficulty.
Debate on Budget Policy Statement
Debate on Budget Policy Statement
CAMERON BREWER (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024.
The Budget Policy Statement released in December set out four priorities for Budget 2025. They are: (1) lifting economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges; (2) implementing a social investment approach to drive better results from the Government’s investment in social services and thereby improve life outcomes for people with high needs; (3) keeping tight control of Government spending, while funding a limited number of high-priority Government policy commitments and cost pressures that cannot be met by reprioritisation; and (4) developing a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments.
As the Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis, said at the time, on 17 December, progress has already been made in all of these areas, and, as this Government has demonstrated with great and unprecedented urgency since January, our work across all fronts continues. As has been well-established, the Government has refocused the education system on the core skills of reading, writing, and mathematics; fast-track legislation has been introduced to speed the consenting of major projects; bureaucratic red tape is being reduced; a new agency has been established to drive social investment; Government spending has been brought back under control; and an infrastructure pipeline is being developed. More on all of this will be said in the lead-up to Budget 2025.
December’s economic and fiscal data highlighted both the scale of the challenge and the extent of the opportunity that New Zealand faces. The Finance and Expenditure Committee has now reported back on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024.
As part of our scrutiny, we heard from 12 public submitters in February and we had a hearing with the Minister of Finance and Treasury officials on 29 January. At that hearing, the Minister of Finance announced that Budget day will be Thursday, 22 February—of May. Otherwise, it’s already been—I feel like I’m reading it. Budget day will be Thursday, 22 May—for the benefit of the Hansard—2025.
She told the committee that in addition to the traditional decisions on spending and savings, Budget 2025 will also contain “several legislative and regulatory measures to encourage economic growth”. She described economic growth as “the single biggest thing that we can do to improve New Zealanders’ financial position, but also the state of the Government’s books”. The Minister made clear that it is unsustainable for the Government to grow the economy by borrowing money, noting the consequences of inflation.
The finance Minister described how economic growth is necessary for job creation, wage increases, and the sustainable funding of public services, and noted the importance of these outcomes to low-income New Zealanders. Making clear that productivity will support longer-term growth, the Minister of Finance identified five areas this Government is focused on to improve productivity: (1) education and skills; (2) regulation, including as it relates to competition; (3) overseas investment and trade; (4) science, technology, and innovation; and (5) infrastructure.
This latest policy Budget Policy Statement, or BPS, proves one thing: the Minister of Finance and the coalition Government has a plan to take New Zealand’s economy forward. Inflation is back within the target band at 2.2 percent, compared to 7 percent in December 2022 under the previous Government—2.2 percent inflation compared to over 7 percent under the last Government. In short, our Government’s economic discipline is making life more affordable for New Zealanders. In turn, lower inflation translates into lower interest rates, relieving financial pressure on households and businesses.
With the official cash rate now down to 3.75 percent, saving real money each week in mortgage payments for families across New Zealand is a reality. In fact, recently, Infometrics estimated that by the end of this year, New Zealand households will have another $45 million to spend every week due to lower mortgage interest costs. To give one example, a family with a $500,000 mortgage on a 25year term could expect to be about $180 a fortnight better off than it was a few months ago if its rate dropped from 7 percent to 5.75 percent. As we can see now, most fixed mortgage rates in New Zealand now have the magic “5” at the start of it—not at 7 percent, as we have seen a year or two or three ago. That is good news for Kiwi families, who in recent years have suffered both a cost of living crisis and the high interest rates required to bring that cost of living crisis under control.
At the same time, farmer confidence is at an all-time high—the highest since 2016, according to a recent Federated Farmers survey—with the farm-gate milk price for our 12,000 dairy farmers topping $10 this season. As well as growth, growth, growth—
Hon Members: Growth, growth.
CAMERON BREWER: —this coalition Government is focused on trade, trade, trade.
Hon Members: Trade, trade.
CAMERON BREWER: So we’ve got growth, growth, growth—
Hon Members: Growth, growth.
CAMERON BREWER: —and trade, trade, trade.
Hon Members: Trade, trade, trade.
SPEAKER: That’s enough of that.
CAMERON BREWER: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will travel to India next week, accompanied by a very large delegation. Strengthening our relationship with India is the key priority for this Government, unlike the last one.
This week—tomorrow in fact, and the next day—is New Zealand’s Infrastructure Investment Summit. The Prime Minister and key Ministers will showcase New Zealand’s infrastructure pipeline, with some exciting growth sectors, to companies—get this number—managing about $6 trillion in capital. There will be companies in that room collectively managing $6 million trillion, or $6 trillion in capital—not $6 million trillion, but $6 trillion. How much is $6 million trillion? Well, let’s not work that out, but this is $6 trillion in capital.
The Budget Policy Statement reflects the determination and directional intent of this Government. It is a road map—it is a road map—for growth and stability.
Let me just take members through one more time the five priorities of this Budget Policy Statement as we head to Budget day on 22 May 2025.
Hon Member: It’s May.
CAMERON BREWER: It’s 22 May—have we got that record straight? We are: (1) lifting economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges, (2) implementing a social investment approach to drive results from the Government’s investment in social services, (3) keeping tight control of the Government’s spending, and (4) developing a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments.
This is a Budget Policy Statement that directly addresses Kiwis’ top priorities: fixing the economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better health and education. I commend this statement to the House.
SPEAKER: I didn’t want to interrupt the member’s speech, but let me just say that the sort of general supporting commentary from around his colleagues is not going to be tolerated too much more. This is a Parliament; not a revivalist tent, so let’s just have the speaker—alone—speaking.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on this special debate on the Budget Policy Statement. I do promise no revivalism in my speech, because this actually—
SPEAKER: The roof might fall in if you did.
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Well, Mr Speaker, it will be far more mainstream, to which you and I are both accustomed. This is a serious debate and one this Parliament should take seriously, because the Budget Policy Statement and its examination at the Finance and Expenditure Committee is an important part of the parliamentary process. It is where the Government of the day sets out what the priorities for spending for the coming year will be—sets the economic context for the Budget that it’s going to deliver. Yes, it announces the date, but within a Budget Policy Statement there is a lot of detail, and it actually does reflect the priorities of the Government of the day.
I think, if we have a look at the Budget Policy Statement that was delivered and examined at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, rather than seeing a narrative of growth, growth, growth as the opposition will tell us, it is nothing more than a pretty grim read in cuts, cuts, cuts. One of the important things that a Budget Policy Statement sets out is the operating allowance. This is how much money a Government is going to have to allocate at the forthcoming Budget—what that looks like—and we can see, in the Government’s own Budget Policy Statement, on page 3 of that document, that there’s going to be a high bar for new initiatives. I think, when we say a high bar, we say an insurmountable bar. While there’s an operating allowance in the forthcoming Budget of $2.4 billion, after you take out the pre-commitments that have already been made—that is things that the Government didn’t fund in the last Budget and realised that they needed to do some political fix-ups on in between Budgets—we’re left with an operating allowance of $700 million.
I cannot emphasise to New Zealanders how low that is. That is for everything other than health. That is to fund the cost pressures that we see in education. That is to fund what we might want to see in new initiatives in health. That is to fund any increase we might like to have in the paltry allocation we’ve had to housing in the previous Budget. There are not going to be new initiatives. There is the highest of bars that has been set by the Government in this. Second, not only is there not going to be new initiatives, what this Budget Policy Statement lays absolutely bare is that there are going to be more cuts and they are going to be deeper. I read from the document where it says, “Second, savings will need to be found, beyond those already identified in the previous Budget.” What I say to New Zealanders is: brace yourself; there is more coming. You thought Budget 2024 was savage. Hot on its heels is coming Budget 2025.
What it makes absolutely clear, in case colleagues thinking of making their bids didn’t realise just how brutal this Budget was going to be, is it says, “with a small number of exceptions, government departments should expect to receive no additional funding in the Budget.” What we can see is that this is austerity laid bare. This is no new funding going in, but, worse than that, it is more cuts. If we are looking for what we need to do to fix our health system, to deal with the rising levels of homelessness that we are seeing throughout New Zealand, by once again investing in housing, you will not see it in Budget 2025. The Budget Policy Statement makes that abundantly clear. If we are looking for what we need to do to stimulate and drive growth—the kinds of initiatives that we might want to see in economic development—there will not be funding for that. That is not the kind of thing we’ll see.
We know—we just need to look at the economic indicators—just how tough it is out there. We can take our pick of figures to look at that. Net core Crown debt will peak at 46.5 percent of GDP. Last time it was this high was in 1994. And, when we come to think about the increased borrowing, let’s take our thinking back to Budget 2024 and just how irresponsible it was of a Government to borrow to fund tax cuts. That is becoming abundantly clear. We’ll see that net core Crown debt is 3.5 percentage points higher than it was forecast in the Budget. Between May and December, we’ve seen that increase, in terms of what net core Crown debt has done, so when this Government tries to blame it all on the previous Governments, it’s time for them to stand up and take responsibility for the Budgets that they have delivered.
We also see—and I think this is one of the most concerning things for us on this side of the House—what this translates to for ordinary people. Nowhere is that more debilitating than the rising number of unemployed that we are seeing in this country. That is higher in every year of the forecast, and that is what the Budget Policy Statement shows us. There are 20,000 more people forecast to be on the jobseeker benefit and support by 2026, and that is a direct response of the kinds of cuts that we saw in Budget ’24 and that we are being told to brace ourselves for in Budget 2025. Those cuts will be deeper. We are not going to see the level of spending that we need to start addressing some of these issues that New Zealand is facing.
The other, I guess, notable thing about the Budget Policy Statement, and an item that the select committee spent a substantial amount of time delving into, of course, was “OBEGALx”, the new economic measure that was introduced by the Minister of Finance. One of the reasons that we spent time talking to both the Minister of Finance and Treasury officials about it, of course, is because Treasury had advised against the introduction of this new measure, and they had advised against the introduction of this new measure because it would not allow for the continuity and ongoing comparison of the Crown account. “When you can’t make surplus, you just take some stuff out to make it better” would be the short and easy description of what OBEGALx is, and there is a reason why Treasury advised against doing this. For Treasury, the ability for us to do year-on-year comparisons and to look at the economic situation across years is an important part of how we prudently manage fiscal arrangements in New Zealand.
We heard from Treasury that their advice to the Minister was that changing those short-term indicators soon after setting them could weaken the Government’s fiscal strategy credibility, especially at the time when the fiscal outlook had deteriorated. They were particularly concerned that it was a change to those fiscal indicators in the face of a deterioration in terms of what they were projecting. Now, we know globally at the moment that modelling and projections are challenging, and we have seen that over the last five years. I think that what we have seen over the last five years is that we have seen economists and central banks struggling to understand the different factors at play. Even more alarmingly, what we also heard in the course of this hearing was just how uncertain a place the world is at the moment and how hard it is to factor in all of the moving parts that we’re seeing moving around the world. To change our fiscal indicators, and being told by Treasury that it could weaken a Government’s fiscal credibility, I think is a bold move for a Minister of Finance and for a Government to agree to do.
What New Zealanders need to see in this Budget Policy Statement is an indication that we are going to have a Budget in 2025 that will start supporting New Zealanders into work, that it will make jobs and incomes a priority, that it will make housing an absolute priority, giving people the security of the homes they need in the kinds of communities they need, and that we also make sure we are adequately funding our health system. What we needed was a Budget Policy Statement that prioritised homes, health, and communities as well as all the things New Zealanders need. But we did not see that.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Look, I know that we are in the realm of post-truth politics, but I don’t think that I have seen a clearer indication of the gap between rhetoric and reality than what we have contained within the Budget Policy Statement—the rhetoric and the promises that this Government came in on with regards to the cost of living, and the reality that is biting everyday New Zealanders as a result of the decisions that this Government had made to knowingly in its Going For Growth strategy grow inequality, grow child poverty, grow climate changing emissions, and actually de-grow the wellbeing of New Zealanders.
We have some pretty vague statements in the Budget Policy Statement, which were helpfully gone through by the chair. He stated—and it’s reflected in this Budget Policy Statement from the Minister of Finance—that the Government’s overarching goals for its term of office are to, and I quote, “build a stronger, more productive economy.” But when you really start trying to get into the granular detail, there’s just some vague gesturing towards the notion—
Hon Member: Oh, it’s coming. Hold on.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of education and skills, towards regulation, towards overseas investment—which I will come back to later, for members heckling at the moment—for science and technology, which the Government has decided to cut 400 jobs in, and also towards infrastructure.
We are understandably starting to see quite a bit of bait and switch whereby we were promised productivity but now the fixation and the rhetoric is on growth, and the question has to be “Growth for whom?” Who will benefit from this fixation from the Government? What we have in the Budget Policy Statement, and indeed the Budget itself, is a Government that is intent on crunching Government spending from approximately 34 percent of GDP to 30 percent. The Government knows full well the private spending from households and businesses is not going to fill the gap. That is one of the deepest ironies from this Government that likes to call themselves good, sound, economic managers, because the decisions that the Government has made to crunch that Government spending as a proportion of GDP and not see it filled by private investment has resulted in a deeper and longer recession, which again is hurting average New Zealanders.
Every forecast for this economy shows that things are getting worse as a result of the Government’s decisions, that they have exacerbated this recession. The Reserve Bank initially indicated that we were facing just a light downturn. Now the growth numbers continue to get worse. This time last year, the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update was projecting a 1.5 percent growth for this year, but the actual rate now is negative 0.2 percent. Meanwhile, next year’s growth of the Budget in May was projected to be 1.7 percent, but it’s now projected to be 0.5 percent. This Budget does not increase productivity—in fact, it actively, demonstrably, evidentially does the opposite.
What do we hear from the Government about what their plans currently are? Well, we’ve currently got the Prime Minister embarrassingly simping to the international companies that he’s got at his investor festival, asking them to fill the gap because the Government refuses to take responsibility for building the infrastructure that all of us ultimately rely on. That is because this Government refuses to acknowledge the reality—which I might add many Governments before it have as well—that you cannot build a productive economy on the sands of speculation. We in the Greens believe that Aotearoa New Zealand can aim a heck of a lot higher than simply hoping to have an economy which is us selling houses back and forwards to each other. This is an obvious monopoly system, and we do not live in a game of monopoly. We can indeed change the rules when they do not work for the majority of New Zealanders.
Let’s talk about that attempt at fiscal consolidation which this Government is ploughing ahead with, whereby it is deciding to do so through a process of cuts, cuts, merciless cuts after cuts, instead of fixing the tax system—that tax system, which we hear them fire up about whenever we dare to mention the reality that the institution of the Inland Revenue Department in 2023 produced a piece of work which told us that the top 311 households own more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders. To connect the dots there, that does not just happen. That is an active consequence of political decisions which have been made to see those top 311 households pay an effective tax rate less than half that of the average New Zealander, and these guys have the gall to say that they care about hard-working New Zealanders. They are further entrenching a system which sees our nurses, our firefighters, our teachers pay an effective tax rate almost double that of the wealthiest in this country.
Not only is that so deeply unfair and so deeply inequitable, but it robs us of the very productivity that they tell us that they care about. It robs us of the investment that we could be making in that infrastructure that all of us need. The fundamental problem with the economy and the tax system in Aotearoa New Zealand is that we overtax work and we under-tax—indeed oftentimes do not tax at all—wealth.
Now, the $14 billion in tax cuts which the Government ploughed ahead with were promised to boost the economy and to boost growth, but as we can see, the Government’s decisions to hand out those tax cuts have in fact only exacerbated that recession and made things far worse. New Zealanders feel it in their back pocket. Those trickle-down tax cuts are not making up for the cuts to all of the public services that all of us rely on in the increases in fees for prescriptions, for bus fares, vehicle registration fees, and otherwise.
We’re also seeing the most, I think, immediately obvious manifestation of this Government’s fixation on privatisation with regards to the failure of their cuts to the per-child cost of the school lunch programme, whereby we are seeing the little guy—those hard-working New Zealanders that they once said that they cared about—being screwed over, and multinational companies or domestic versions of those multinational companies ultimately now going bust because this programme was always set up to fail. This austerity approach whereby we cut costs, set up programmes to fail, watch them fail, then blame them for failing—New Zealanders, I believe, can see right through it.
Now, there is no wonder that every other day we’ve got a new form of distraction politics from members of this Government with their latest imported culture woke wars or whatever it is. But I think that it is far more profound that every other day in this House we have the Prime Minister get up and say in response to questions—particularly from the Greens—that rents have stabilised. The facts are clear, and I would invite the members of the Government to go and look at Statistics New Zealand—the authoritative, non-partisan agency responsible for producing the database that we make decisions upon as a country—which tells us that rents have actually increased at double what Consumers Price Index inflation is. That is not what stabilisation means. Rents are double what we are seeing of average inflation.
The fundamental point here from the Greens in this Budget Policy Statement is that different decisions can be made. While the Government has decided to fixate on, for example, mining, which is reflected in the Budget Policy Statement report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, whereby the Minister of Finance started talking about how we can apparently do this thing carefully—we have seen and we have heard from the Government that their plan for growth and mining is to go from approximately a worth of $1 billion to $2 billion. They want to increase the number of jobs from approximately 5,000 jobs to 7,000 jobs. This is worthwhile putting in context because right now the arts sector in this country—not particularly well renowned for being well resourced or supported by successive Governments—is currently worth $16 billion, i.e., 16 times the mining sector that they want to supercharge, and it currently employs 117,000 people. Far, far more than the 7,000 that they want to increase mining jobs to.
Different decisions can be made. The Greens have outlined our plan with He Ara Anamata whereby we have shown that we can reduce climate changing emissions five times faster than the Government’s plan in their emissions reduction plan. More so than that, we can reduce the cost of living and improve people’s quality of life. That fundamental decision looks like deciding to put the public good ahead of private gain. I know that that’s a scary thing for members of the Government, the notion that we collectively might look after each other and the planet that we live on, but those are the decisions that we are campaigning on, and we know resonate with everyday New Zealanders.
Just in my final remarks, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand the logic and the rationale behind this Government’s decisions, and, frankly, it’s clear at the end of the day there is none.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in this debate on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update for 2024. If people have just tuned in, we are actually not debating the Greens’ alternative Budget plan, yet they could have been confused for thinking that after the last speaker spoke so much about it.
I’d just address, actually, a couple of things in Ms Swarbrick’s remarks before I actually get on to the Budget Policy Statement. Again, she always talks about taxing unrealised gains and that’s actually not what we should be doing in New Zealand, and it’s not a wealth tax. It’s actually a capital tax you would be introducing, and what you do when you tax capital is you actually stop—
Dan Bidois: It’s a Piketty tax.
TODD STEPHENSON: Yeah, you actually remove money that we can use to invest in businesses, upskill staff, train, etc. We do not want to be taxing capital and stopping investment.
But I digress—oh, one further point, though, before I do, I do digress, because I know Ms Swarbrick is a fan of Stats New Zealand. She mentioned it in her speech. If she actually looked at the second page of the report that the Finance and Expenditure Committee—which I am a member of—has reported, she would see that Stats New Zealand did modestly upgrade GDP, real growth, and nominal growth. Now, it was only modestly, but it should be noted that it actually has been upgraded.
We were lucky enough in the Finance and Expenditure Committee to have some submissions on the Budget Policy Statement, and so I want to thank the 49 people who did written submissions and, as Mr Brewer outlined earlier, the 12 people who actually came and spoke to the committee. I want to thank them for that.
As was outlined by the chair, Mr Brewer, earlier, there were really four key things in the Budget Policy Statement around lifting economic growth, social investment approach, tight control of Government spending, and a sustainable pipeline of infrastructure projects. ACT is very proudly able to point out how we’re contributing to each of those as part of this tight coalition Government, using the different skills of our three parties to actually deliver for New Zealanders. In the economic growth through productivity, we have David Seymour, as the Minister for Regulation, dealing with bad regulations that hold back business, and we’ve had a number of announcements around that.
We are very interested in how we can use this social investment approach to actually make sure that the public services that Kiwis want and deserve are actually delivering results. Again, we’re looking at some initiatives there in relation to Pharmac.
Tight control of Government spending is, I think, a really, really important objective of the Budget Policy Statement. I do want to quote the Minister of Finance because she made some statements about that to the select committee. She said that the Government’s fiscal sustainability programme involves a high bar for any new spending. Ministers have been asked to reprioritise funding within their portfolio if they want to pursue new spending initiatives. Now, why she made those comments is we have seen over the last number of years that Government spending has got out of control. There are no proper checks and balances on what is being spent.
We want to make sure that we are getting value for money, so I know that the Minister of Finance, ably supported by her Associate Ministers, is looking at that and making sure that we are actually only delivering new initiatives and investing where we can see outcomes. That is very, very important.
Then the final one, which we’ve mentioned, was the sustainable pipeline of infrastructure investments. Again, we’ve already heard referenced in this debate the investment summit which will start tomorrow. I also want to call out to Minister Chris Bishop and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Simon Court, who have put in place frameworks to allow overseas and New Zealand investors to be the ones who can invest in the pipeline of infrastructure projects, which is one of the goals of the Budget Policy Statement.
I also do want to reflect on a couple of other things in the report that are actually in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, which we are also debating—which is this sizable document. It’s actually a very valuable and important document, and it’s worth bringing to the House’s attention some pieces of this because it is actually really interesting. If you, in fact, turn to page 8, there’s a really great graph showing the rise of inflation over a number of years, and you can actually see, when the previous Government was in place, the massive uptick in Government spending, and then the horrific, horrific increase in inflation which has really made all New Zealand households suffer.
What it does say in this official Treasury document is that with inflation slowing—again, we would say that was delivered by this Government—and spare capacity emerging in the economy, monetary policy has become less restrictive, the Reserve Bank has lowered the official cash rate 125 basis points since August, and what we’re seeing is a reduction in interest rates. The document goes on to say, “Lower interest rates will stimulate demand in time as lower debt servicing costs for mortgage holders”—so that’s everyday Kiwis out there who have a mortgage who are noticing their rates coming down, and we’ll also see more household spending and business investment. That is good news, but, again, these graphs are quite stark about the issues that we have inherited.
I also want to draw people’s attention to a page at the back, where it outlines all the fiscal risks. Again, the Minister of Finance, on 21 December 2023, put out a statement saying that she was going to ensure there were no more fiscal cliffs in the Budget documents and, in fact, in the accounts. Again, and people will be familiar with this, we found 21 projects left from the previous Government where there were fiscal cliffs. Now you can see in this statement of fiscal risks it actually outlines any programmes that have got time-limited funding, etc., and so we want to make sure that it’s very clear to New Zealanders and to everyone about what are the risks the Government is dealing with and if a programme has time-limited funding.
One other important thing I would like to draw the House’s attention to is Treasury’s commentary about some of the kind of more global risks. They actually talk about the trade situation globally. We’ve obviously seen different musings from the US Government. That’s why it’s really important—like we heard today—that our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs is actually on the way to the US to make sure that we have good relations with the US and can ensure that our trade position remains, because New Zealand is a trading export nation and we do need to make sure that those relationships are strong. We’ve also, obviously, heard about the other countries like India, where shortly a delegation—and we’re very lucky to have Dr Parmjeet Parmar from ACT joining the Prime Minister on that delegation. She is one of our only two Indian-born MPs. Again, that we can look to open up more export markets, because, as we heard earlier, lifting economic growth—and doing that will be by actually selling more of our goods to the rest of the world—is one of the key objectives of the Budget Policy Statement for 2025.
I am really looking forward to the Budget on 22 May 2025, Mr Brewer—just so there’s no confusion—when we will actually be able to see the cumulation of the work of all of our hard-working Ministers across the Government as they look to take the objectives that were set out by the Minister of Finance and actually make those into tangible outcomes for New Zealanders. Really, everyone should mark their diaries—22 May—because it will be great to see the culmination of all that work and of these important Budget processes like the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. Thank you to the House for listening to me, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this special debate on the Budget Policy Statement—the BPS. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU), as we know, was also released alongside the BPS as well, at the same time. Like the last speaker, I’m looking forward to 22 May. Kiwis across the country, as we all are, will be looking forward to Budget day, and it’s the day, I think, all New Zealanders and Kiwis watch Parliament, and they love to see what’s happening in the Budget.
This Government, however, has inherited a wrecked economy, and we heard today by the acting Prime Minister, a wrecked economy is what we are dealing with. We came into Government with inflation out of control, causing a cost of living crisis and skyrocketing interest rates. The economy was tanking and running out of steam, and when the Hon Shane Jones spoke of the Budget Policy Statement prior to Christmas, he also mentioned how Treasury itself says it has to go back and rework its own modelling to actually work out the situation we are in.
We are in a dire state of economy. We are on a knife edge and we have to start doing things different—what this Government has done. The New Zealand First party, also prior to the election, warned the people of New Zealand and other political parties of the path the previous Government was on, and as the Hon Winston Peters has laid out, we were right in this forecast. Those forecasts have come true—that we are in a worse position than we thought we were in prior to the election. The economy needs confidence, and this speech today, if I emphasise anything, is about confidence. We need a stronger, more productive economy.
In this Budget Policy Statement, it sets out goals and objectives for the Government in the forthcoming Budget. It talks of the short-term fiscal intentions and it talks about getting debt downwards—a downwards trend towards 40 percent of GDP. It also talks about long-term fiscal objectives, of actually reducing debt to in between 20 to 40 percent of GDP so we can actually budget or actually have wriggle room around economic shocks or environmental disasters or emergencies. It is important we put ourselves back into that situation.
The unfortunate thing is the Opposition does not agree with that. They actually want to ramp up debt. They come and they sit on that side of the House, and all they talk about is spend, spend, spend. They want to ramp things up, where this Government will get things under control.
Shanan Halbert: Did you read your debt levels?
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Your debt levels—yes, I have read your debt levels. We have set a very high bar for any new spending, so we will get the public sector; we will get the Government books back under control. We have those three goals we have to build a stronger, more productive economy that lifts real incomes, increases opportunities for New Zealanders. We will deliver more efficient, effective, and responsive public services to all who need and use them. We will restore law and order, and we have been continuing doing that in this House with legislation. We will improve health outcomes and educational achievements. We will get the books back in order and restore discipline to public spending.
Yes, the Opposition have alluded to the operating allowance of $2.4 billion, and $700 million of that is left, remains to be allocated through the Budget, but that is being responsible. We aren’t blowing out the Budget; we are being responsible with the money that we have got allocated.
The last Government—in their mismanagement, we saw them spending like drunken sailors. They have left us a legacy of debt and bad decisions, and what did they finish? What did they achieve? Nothing. COVID money thrown out and parachuted to people overseas—not even in New Zealand. They wasted money on infrastructure planning—$50 million on a cycle bridge. Where’s that bridge? Where’s the cycleway? Not here. Four billion dollars, they got the ferries out to—$4 billion, that was going to cost. No prudence in their decisions. It is all about choices.
It also a relief to New Zealanders that inflation has come down. We’re seeing inflation back into that 1 to 3 percent range. We’ve no longer got inflation over 7 percent. That was killing our economy. There is now confidence within our business sectors and in our consumers. We are restoring public spending savings in Government, and this is something the Opposition can’t do: reprioritise spending and actually spend your money in a better way instead of just having to have more and more money.
We are removing the regulatory barriers, and we have a growth strategy in the BPS, on page 8, and it’s about export income. We can’t just sell to ourselves; we’ve actually got to grow our exports, and that’s something New Zealand First has always been very much aware of. We must be much more financially sound by our exports growing, and New Zealand First has invested, over our time in Government, in the regions, through the Provincial Growth Fund, through the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF), and through primary industries. Farming, aquaculture, fisheries, horticulture, and mining—they’re all going off. They’re all things that are bringing money and export money into this country.
The one thing the Opposition doesn’t understand is they would always kill the golden goose that lays the golden egg. They would always kill the exporters and put them down—no confidence in our exporters, where this side of the House and our Government, we believe in our exporters. We believe in tourism, and we’re putting money into tourism and bringing money back into our country. As the finance Minister said, growth of 0.25 percent of nominal GDP would increase $2 billion in the forecast period, so any increase in exports—it’s a good thing. It will give us more revenue, more tax money.
Infrastructure fast track—149 projects in the pipeline. Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, looking at capital requirements and how we can make that easier—blow away the cobwebs of the old RMA and actually allow 149 projects on the table to actually be consented and actually get some work done. All you guys will be there for the opening, but none of you will actually vote for it. Time and time again, we hear about renewable energy, we hear about aquaculture, we hear about housing, but all of you voted against those projects, but bet you’re all there when the ribbons are cut.
The economic outlook is better, inflation’s down, interest rates are down, and people are going to have more money in their pockets. We are at a turning point. We are heading back to a path of economic surplus, where this Government is going to take us back to actually having money in the bank and money in our pockets. And why would we want to put more money in the back of the pockets? What can we do with it? Why? Economic surplus will mean more hospitals. It will mean more doctors. It will mean more nurses, and schools delivering basics like maths, reading, and writing, because that’s where the real deficits are. It’s also about infrastructure and having the money for infrastructure.
Amazingly enough, I could go on for 20 minutes. It’s actually been quite pleasurable today, but I look forward and our colleagues look forward to 22 May, to the finance Minister, and getting the country back on track and taking back our country.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an overwhelming feeling to hear all the speeches in this House and not once mention wellbeing. The last speaker talked about inheriting a wrecked economy. Well, I wonder how he feels when we’ve inherited or been subjected to a stolen one. This debate isn’t about numbers on spreadsheets; it’s about real people, real whānau, and real struggles. This is a Budget that doesn’t care about New Zealanders. It doesn’t want to invest in those struggling whānau working hard, the sick, Māori or Pacific Islanders, because they only want to serve those who want to exploit our country.
There are no wellbeing indicators in this Budget. What we have is a Government that doesn’t care about the social return on investment, because it only cares for profit or for shareholdings and for international exploitation. This Budget tells us nothing. It tells us nothing of the wellbeing of Aotearoa—nothing at all. They could fund Māori healthcare so whānau don’t wait months for care that others get in days. Or they could close mortality rates. But they don’t. And you know what? They continue to talk about equality. Liberal democracy is about equality, because it’s easier, but equity is what’s missing in this country.
We’re not talking about equity because equity costs, and this Budget talks nothing about equity and closing the gaps, closing the mortality rates, lowering Māori prison rates. Māori make up 50 percent of the prison population for males in prison. We’re not looking at how we close those gaps. That’s what equity funding does. That’s what this Budget should be talking about, but it doesn’t, so they come up with these catchphrases: woke—all of these woke things. Though, it’s not woke. Follow the data, follow the science, and stop being so stupid.
The politics of distraction—we heard it in one of the speeches, the “Americanising” of our country. We have got to stop allowing these types of Governments to run their agenda, and Americanising our country is not the answer to close inequity. You continue to use words that Trump uses: “woke”. Everything you disagree with is “woke”. Equity is “woke”. What you do is you cut funding—you cut funding to those who are struggling.
Mark Cameron: What about productivity?
RAWIRI WAITITI: It’s not about productivity, because productivity will be achieved once we have closed the gaps between those who have and those who have not. And the Budget doesn’t look at any of that. Actually, your last 16 months has absolutely blown equity out of the water. What you do is you use this race baiting - type politics to get your point across. It’s got nothing to do with Pākehā or Māori; it’s got everything to do with the economy, but you use those types of tactics to distract us from the real issues, and that’s what this Budget Policy Statement doesn’t do for our people.
I’ll tell you what, we’ll have a whole lot of trolls trolling us in the morning when they see this speech, because, in actual fact, what they don’t recognise is they’re part of the 98 percent that are getting ripped off as well, and that this Government is only tending to the 2 percent that control 50 percent of this country’s wealth. Removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from any legislation—Treaty principles bill, regulatory standards bill; removing Te Tiriti from 28 pieces of legislation—all of that is to allow Aotearoa to be exploited by corporate greed and international investors.
If you think that’s where our economy should be going and if that is development or if that is making a profit for this country, we don’t want anything for it. Our country needs to wake up. Wake up in 2026; it’s our chance to make a change, because these types of policy statements in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update do not recognise those who are contributing to it. That is 98 percent of the country that are working their butts off to ensure that there is some type of economy here in Aotearoa. We must stand up for the 98 percent of this country whilst this Government continues to feed the 2 percent, who control 50 percent of this country’s wealth.
That’s what this Budget is doing. That’s what this Government is doing. It must come to an end—2026, we will see a change. Kia ora tātou.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia orana, Mr Speaker. This Budget Policy Statement is the same old tired talking points that I’ve heard from National Governments for way too long. It harks right back to the 1990s’ absolutely failed neo-liberal concept of what the economy is and how we make progress, and it’s sad. I mean, I find it frustrating and sad because I’m sure that there are members on the other side of the House who genuinely believe what they’re saying; they just don’t know better. Like, they’ve confused excess profit with progress, the rich getting richer with success, and we’ve known since the 1990s that doesn’t work.
In the 1990s, inequality dramatically increased in Aotearoa New Zealand because of policies from a National Government in the early 1990s. As a result, New Zealand has been held back, and we didn’t make the investments in infrastructure that were needed. We haven’t invested into public housing. All of these things have contributed to the problems that we face today. And it happened again last time, when the John Key - National Government—which was less extreme than this one, I’ll be honest. It was less extreme; it was less ridiculous and Trump-like. But still, when we hit the global financial crisis and house building completely ceased in the private sector, they didn’t put money into State housing, which is what was needed to increase the supply of State housing. Instead, they’re like, “Let’s try to create jobs by building some roads.” And by “roads”, I mean the six highways that were announced in 2009, most of which weren’t even procured until the next term of Government and some of which have only recently been completed, many years later.
I bring up transport because, ultimately, if you really look at the numbers in the Government policy statement on land transport and the National Land Transport Programme, as put out by the NZ Transport Agency, it becomes abundantly clear that the Government’s policy on transport will bankrupt the country and it will come at the expense of investment in things like hospitals, schools, and other vitally important public services. Right now, as we debate this Budget Policy Statement, we’ve got the Minister for Infrastructure, and Transport, and the Prime Minister, up there at their—what is it? The private capital festival, which is a joke. I mean, they’ve had to push back this event three times. It’s a talk fest; there’s no reality to it. I believe the Prime Minister actually believes public-private partnerships (PPPs) are free money, that all this foreign capital is just going to come here and build infrastructure in New Zealand for free. No, we have to pay for it.
Those investors, my friends, want a return on the money they’re putting in, and if they’re putting money into roads, which are only going to raise a tiny fraction of their cost from tolls, that means that future New Zealanders will be paying back the debt that is going to be racked up by this Government. That actually is clear in the Budget Policy Statement, because if you look at figure 2 on page 2, you see very clearly that starting in 2008, net core Crown debt increased under John Key, it started reducing until we hit COVID, and now it’s shooting right back up again. There’s no sign of that reducing. Just because you sign up for a PPP doesn’t mean you don’t have to account for the future repayments to pay it back.
There’s a massive gap between forecast revenue from the transport funds and forecast spending once we get outside of this three-year period, and everybody knows it. It’s like the emperor has no clothes. This is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous that Government parties stand up and give their fiscal discipline talking points, say we can’t afford to have decent school lunches for our tamariki, but they can have burned plastic and a few big corporates can maybe make some money off it. It’s abundantly clear that when they talk about doing more with less, they’re talking about doing less with less. We’re not getting quality school lunches, and a vast majority of New Zealanders can see that. The old programme was working, it created local jobs, and it had massive benefits that flow on to the rest of our country.
Because we are a country, we are a society. They will blame individual failure for poverty when it’s a systemic problem created by policies they promote that do not actually benefit all New Zealanders, they benefit the top 1 percent, and a few big overseas corporates will be milking it off of the money that we’re going to have to pay back in the future. That’s no vision from this coalition Government.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on this debate on the Budget Policy Statement and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. We heard from one of the other speakers—who has now left—from the Green Party. She used big words like “demonstrably” and “sands of speculation”, but then she has walked off so I can’t demonstrate the very things which this Budget yields—the very things of substance. Of course, on 22 May, there’s going to be a whole lot more as we approach Budget day, so it’s going to be very exciting.
This Budget Policy Statement (BPS) is all about economic growth. It’s imbued through the statements, and I will talk through some of those things and qualify some of those attributes. As has been mentioned by our chair Mr Brewer, and other speakers, the cost of living is coming down, inflation is coming down, and the official cash rate is coming down, and that means that for mortgage holders—which is the majority of mum and dads around New Zealand—they’ve got more cash flow in their bank, and an example was $180 a fortnight, based on some of those new interest rates. That’s serious savings, and we do take some tribute for reducing Government spending, which has reduced domestic inflation—we do take some credit—and that’s of benefit for Kiwis.
Our aim is also to grow incomes—not just tax but to grow incomes. I want to quote from the Minister of Finance, as per the Hansard at that January hearing, where she said: “Here’s a statistic I find compelling: additional growth of even a quarter of a percent of nominal GDP each year would boost tax revenues by $2 billion a year, by the end of the forecast period.” If we just think about that—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: But we’re in recession—we’ve been going backwards.
RYAN HAMILTON: —it’s just a quarter of a percent. Even you can imagine it, Mr Webb—just a quarter of a percent. If we can grow by that much over four years, that’s worth $2 billion in our tax revenues.
The Opposition talks about tax, tax, tax. Member Halbert over there was talking about tax cuts for landlords, and I think, frankly, they need a new catchcry, because we know at least a third of landlords are mum and dad Kiwis.
We want to grow the pie, not just cut the pie—not have a stingy pie and give everyone crumbs, but grow the pie. In fact, we want to give more pies, or grow the pizza, if you like. We know you can cut the pizza into smaller sections or you can just have another pizza. This Budget Policy Statement is all about growing our Kiwi pizza. It’s about job creation. It’s about wage increases. It’s about better public services.
Dan Bidois: More ham and pineapple!
RYAN HAMILTON: You can have pineapple, Dan. What do energy-poor countries have in common? They’re poor, and that’s why we want to grow our economy.
We want new money. The previous Green member, again, left the House and didn’t get to hear my contribution but she mentioned that this reminds them of the 1990s. When I think about the 1990s, I think about the Spice Girls, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, and the RMA—1991, the RMA—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: R.E.M—it’s R.E.M.
RYAN HAMILTON: —and again—R.E.M. for you. We’ll tribute a song to you. At the BPS hearing—again, if I could quote the Minister: “In the longer term, we have a productivity disease in New Zealand and our Government is intent on addressing it. Resource Management Act (RMA) reform is an example of this. We know that weaponising our laws against development and construction has been bad for our economy.”
I’m pleased that we are reforming the RMA. Obviously we’ve got some fast-track legislation which is now in train, and some hearing panels will be set up and enable those things to get on and do it. The great thing about them is they’re time consent - bound, so regional councils and consenting authorities can’t keep kicking the can down the road. Developers want to get on and do it.
We want to double our exports, and obviously our Minister is working really hard with free-trade agreements. The Prime Minister is off to India next week. We want to bring in foreign capital, and I want to talk about the business summit, soon, and there’s an example of that. I love talking about infrastructure, one of the key pillars of our productivity pipeline. We want to have 30 years of infrastructure certainty. We have invited, obviously, the Hon Barbara Edmonds to the business summit because, where possible, we want bipartisan support. We want our development community to have certainty into the future of New Zealand, so it means big contractors can invest in the capital requirement to employ and develop. Yes, building roads, because building roads takes a lot of employment. You know, the great thing about when the road is completed? Then we’ve got enhanced productivity and people can get somewhere faster and do more, more efficiently.
The former member talked about public-private partnerships. That’s just one tool, and we’re looking at special purpose vehicles. We’re looking at infrastructure funding and financing tools. We’re looking at tolling. There are multiple ways that we can fund infrastructure, but we can’t keep doing it the way we’ve done it. Councils have reached debt ceilings, the Crown has reached debt ceilings—
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: No, it hasn’t. The Crown doesn’t have a debt ceiling.
RYAN HAMILTON: —and we need to be innovative. Oh, you just print more money, is that right? You just print more money. No, we want to bring in the opportunity for foreign investment. In terms of the RMA at the moment, we’ve got resource management amendments, we’ve done the fast-track resource management amendments because we want to unshackle this RMA that the Minister spoke of, around infrastructure and energy, housing growth, obviously making the medium-density residential standards optional, which is really important for those councils to provide a nuanced solution so they can do infill housing around public transport and areas where it makes sense, rather than sort of a helter-skelter approach, and natural hazards and system improvements.
To talk about the investment summit this week, just to give, I guess, some context to what it might mean. Some of the members opposite might realise that there’s some other countries involved: Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia—I’m just going to take a breath—Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We’re going to show our international visitors in no uncertain terms that New Zealand is open for business. We’re not just going on a trade delegation to say, “Gidday, mate, we’re from Australia; we’re from New Zealand.” We actually want to invite people to say, “Here’s a tangible way you can invest in our economy where everyone can benefit, including Kiwis.”
The financial companies and institutions attending the summit manage assets and funds worth around $6 trillion worth of capital. They include pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and major banks. The challenge for us is just getting out of the way and enabling this for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
We’re also moving quickly to provide a regulatory environment which will open up that framework, but also, even with local councils—with our Minister Penk—trying to make it easier for builders to get consenting projects and even unified across councils. In my local example, we’ve got Hamilton, we’ve got Waipā, we’ve got Waikato, we’ve got a regional council, and building developers don’t know who to talk, to half the time and it’s so confused.
I guess the word I want to bring to all of this is “alignment”. In the RMA, we’ve got Local Water Done Well, we’ve got the infrastructure funding and financing, and we’ve got consenting, and if we get all these things lined up, this country’s going to take off. You know who’s going to benefit? It’s going to be New Zealanders. It’s going to lift wages and lift prosperity and lift the economy for all of us. We’re also very passionate about innovation, science, and technology. Part of the—
Hon Member: You fired the scientists.
RYAN HAMILTON: You’ll see some efficiencies come out—just be patient—as part of the antidote, if you will, to our productivity disease. I was at Waikato University last week with Minister Shane Reti, at the Ahuora Centre symposium on decarbonising process heat. We heard about collaboration between structural engineers and chemical engineers designing things using AI. I even got to see some of the intellectual property in action with asparagus pickers and a machine that would go over a vineyard and analyse grape vines and could use AI tools to work out where to trim. These are the sorts of things that are going to be productive to our economy.
Of course, tourism; we’ve had a massive announcement this week of $3 million for the international visitor conservation fund. It’s going to be awesome. In fact, we’re really excited about tourism in Hamilton. Obviously, as MP for Hamilton East, Hamilton—of course, everyone knows it’s New Zealand’s fastest-growing city and the city of the future. We’ve got the Pullman Hotel, built by the Pisos and Sanjils of the world. We’ve got the Templeton Group eyeing up some hot property in Hamilton, overlooking the mighty awa. We’ve got the Regional Theatre, a $100 million project which is going to attract visitors, on top of the Hamilton Gardens, which has half a million visitors a year, and it’s in the top 1 percent on TripAdvisor. It’s all happening, and it’s a catalyst for confidence.
I know you’re ready to jump to your feet, Deborah Russell, but we’re not quite there yet. All these things are a catalyst for confidence. “Everyone must go” to New Zealand. We’re on a path of productivity, we’re on a path of delivering a great Budget on 22 May, and I can’t wait.
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to remind this House about what New Zealanders really, really care about. They care about jobs. They care about health. They care about homes. There are a lot of fancy words and economic concepts in this debate—a lot of talking about fiscal ceilings and growth and measures of how we measure the economy, but at the end of the day, what New Zealanders really want to know is how what the Government is doing matters for their jobs, how it matters as to whether or not they can get healthcare, how it matters as to whether or not they have a warm, dry home to live in.
See, the Budget Policy Statement is full of lots of numbers, full of economic concepts, but the Budget is not just about numbers and economic concepts; it is the Government’s plan for New Zealand, the plan for the coming year, and it is a plan from that Government which is severely lacking. Let me take you through how it just misses out.
The Government has said that it has four policy areas that it’s going to focus on in Budget 2025. In the first of those, it says it’s going to lift economic growth through measures to address New Zealand’s long-term productivity challenges. Well, they seem to think they can do it just by saying the words, “Growth, growth, growth, growth, growth.”
Let me unpack what needs to be done in order to get growth up. It means we need ordinary people with well-paid jobs. It means we need scientists creating the innovative research that takes New Zealand forward. It means we need people getting good quality education. That growth, growth, growth, growth, growth and productivity, for ordinary New Zealanders, it means: do they have a well-paid job where they can use machinery and equipment that lifts their productivity? Do we have scientists doing the work out in the fields with the farmers to help lift the productivity there, and in the labs, creating innovative research? That Government has fired 500 or so scientists so far. It’s gotten rid of them, getting rid of some of our best and brightest. That’s their commitment to growth.
That Government has not put aside any extra money for education so far. It has a really limited amount of money it can spend this Budget because of the constraints it’s put on itself. So far, most of that has been allocated to health. There is no room even for inflation adjustments in education. That Government is not committed—much as it might say it is, it is not committed to ensuring that every New Zealander gets a decent education. How, then, are they going to lift growth?
The next thing they said they were going to concentrate on was what they call social investment, and they said what that means is trying to get better results from the Government’s investment in social services. But what have they done there? They have undermined the health system. There is less money per person in health. So much for an investment in social services.
In fact, there are some really nasty overtones that have come through from the Government. We’ve seen it in the policies mentioned by some of the parties in this House that when it comes to medicines—this is in political party policy agendas—perhaps medicines will only be available for people who are productive. I think straightforwardly decent healthcare ought to be available for all New Zealanders, and we know at the moment that New Zealanders just can’t get it. There’s nothing in this document that talks about how we’re going to ensure good healthcare for all New Zealanders.
They talk about how one of the four things they’re going to do is have tight control of Government spending, so they’re going to make sure that all Government money is spent really effectively. Just today, we had the Minister of Finance coming out with some new procurement rules, how Government departments would go about procuring services. Sitting in there is a line which says that they will no longer require Government agencies to employ only services that pay the living wage for cleaners, for catering, for security guards, and so on.
What does that mean for ordinary New Zealanders, the ordinary New Zealanders who are the cleaners, who are the security guards, who are the cooks? Well, if they are no longer paid the living wage and get the minimum wage instead, that is a drop in their wages of $186 a week or $9,672 a year. That is that Government’s commitment to ordinary New Zealanders—taking nearly $10,000 a year off the people who work hard as security guards, the people who work hard as cooks, the people who work hard as cleaners. That is that Government’s commitment to decent, well-paying jobs. It is taking money off the hardest workers who are paid some of the lowest wages in our country, and they are making it even worse. That is absolutely shameful.
In terms of those procurement rules they’ve come up with today, the other thing they’ve said is that they are no longer going to require Government services to have buildings built to a five-star rating standard, they should no longer be required to have battery electric or hybrid electric vehicles, and they should no longer have to use low-waste or recyclable products. There is no commitment to working on building a sustainable economy from that Government—not sustainable in terms of money but sustainable in terms of the environment we live in.
This Budget Policy Statement is remarkably silent about the hugest issue we have facing us, and that is the issue of climate change, but it’s lurking in there. It’s lurking in there in these cuts to Government services where they are going to cut any commitment to working on climate change. That is shameful too.
Then, in their fourth strategy, they’ve said they’re going to develop a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments. The ferries—what happened there? A massive piece of infrastructure this country needs and they cut it. Dunedin Hospital—a massive piece of infrastructure that this country needs and is particularly needed in the South Island, and what did they do? They put it on hold and incurred more costs. We know that there’s about $800 million that has gone down the tubes because of the very short-sighted decision that Government made on the ferries. We know that they incurred more costs because they simply sat on Dunedin Hospital for a while, and now they talk about making good long-term infrastructure decisions. They’ve got a very poor record in that regard.
In terms of those strategies that the Government has for ordinary people in New Zealand, it has meant cuts, it has meant insecure services, it has meant that the sorts of jobs that we want are not being funded. If we talk about the sorts of things that we care about—jobs, health, homes—that Government is not interested in them.
Then they did a nasty, fudgy little cover-up job in the Budget Policy Statement. In the Budget Fiscal Strategy Report for Budget 2024, the Government then made a commitment. It said it would return the operating balance before gains and losses to being positive by 2027-28, but by the time they came around to doing the numbers this year, they realised they simply couldn’t do it, so they came up with a new measure, the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses. They couldn’t get the books to say what they wanted, so they fudged them instead.
We had a long discussion at the Finance and Expenditure Committee about this as to whether it was appropriate to create this new measure. Treasury said no. The experts we consulted said no. Everyone said it was just smoke and mirrors—smoke and mirrors designed to cover up the failings of that Government. Failing in the jobs front, failing with respect to health, failing with respect to homes, and trying to cover up that failure by introducing a dodgy accounting measure. The only person who wanted it was the Minister of Finance. Every single other person advised against it.
That is an absolute train wreck of a Government. They should admit it and should admit it right now. They should change their leader who’s leading them astray, and they need to do better by ordinary New Zealanders.
NANCY LU (National): It’s an honour to actually speak on the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update in front of you today—well, the Budget that lays the foundation for a stronger, a more resilient economy, and relief for New Zealanders.
For those who have just tuned in on TV and for those who have visited us in the gallery right now, I think we should tell you what the BPS stands for. The Budget Policy Statement commences officially the Budget cycle for the Government. It sets out the Government’s fiscal strategy and the broad goals and policy objectives that will shape the upcoming Budget. This side of the House will tell you that the upcoming Budget is on 22 May—there we go. This is what the BPS is about and many of the speakers in front of you today are the members of Finance and Expenditure Committee and we had the first opportunity to scrutinise the BPS 2025.
Now, let’s be honest. The past few years have been tough—very high inflation, rising interest rates, and very slow economic recovery that has stretched household budgets and pressured our Kiwi businesses. Many families have struggled with the grocery bills, the utility bills, the rent, mortgages, childcare costs—everyday costs that people struggle with—but also our small businesses in New Zealand who are fighting to stay afloat with the reduced income revenue, with managing higher operating costs and higher wages. So many, many New Zealanders have felt the pressure and also the uncertainty about their financial future, but today we stand at a turning point. The largest economic indicators show that we are now moving towards recovery as a whole, but only if we stay disciplined, cut wasteful spending, and focus on sustainable economic growth.
So where are we right now? I think we need to be very clear about where we are as a country. Laid out very clearly in the BPS, New Zealand’s fiscal position has deteriorated over the last six years—this is actually on page 2; it’s a public document that everyone’s welcome to read. New Zealand’s fiscal position has deteriorated over the past six years. Crown expenses have risen faster than core Crown revenue. The operating balance before gains and losses, which is commonly referred to as OBEGAL, has been in deficit since 2019 and the 2020 year. And, yes, all of the above is during the last Labour Government.
The fiscal deterioration is due to many several factors, including large discretionary spending increases in previous Budgets; for example, in Budget 2022, the last Labour Government committed an additional $9.5 billion on average for the new operating spending. Yes, through the COVID period, but yes, also more debt. More debt, way more debt, and also the finance costs that we now need to service debt. Now, some members spoke before me in the Opposition, including members from the Labour Party and the Green Party, and referred to some of the diagrams in the BPS. I find it very funny that the Green member kind of stopped talking about the net Crown debt that went all the way up under the Labour Government. That’s very funny. But, hey, look—
Hon Member: Wasteful spending.
NANCY LU: Wasteful spending for sure. But now, after facing the economic downturn as a whole, Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, commonly referred to as the HYEFU, in 2024 gave us some reasons to look to the future—some optimism. Inflation now is back under control after peaking at 7.3 percent in 2022-23. Inflation now has finally returned to the Reserve Bank’s target range between 1 and 3 percent.
What this means for New Zealanders is it directly reduces price pressures for households and supermarkets and petrol and in many others. The official cash rate (OCR) is also coming down. Since August 2024, the Reserve Bank has cut the OCR by 1.75 percent at the time of the BPS, which lowers the borrowing cost. What that means for our Kiwi households is that if you have a $500,000 average mortgage in your bank account, this means a saving of $180 per fortnight.
More great news: since the release of the BPS 2025, which was December 2024, the Reserve Bank has further announced another reduction in February, which is last month, that further reduced the OCR rate by another 50 basis points to 3.75. Now, this is four consecutive reductions since August last year, meaning our rates have fallen a lot faster. However, there is an upside. Business confidence has finally improved at a 10year high. Businesses are now starting to invest, they are hiring again, and they are signalling a turning point for job growth.
However, the challenges remain. Challenges remain, and we are very, very early in this economic growth space. Economic growth has been a little bit slower than expected, which means that things are sticky. However, we have a plan, and this is where the Budget Policy Statement becomes very, very useful. One of the biggest challenges that we are facing as a Government is fixing the Government’s books. Now, over the last six years, as I said earlier, the Government’s spending has outpaced Government revenue. Our net core Crown debt has surged from below 20 percent of GDP under the Labour Government to around 42 percent of New Zealand’s GDP. Treasury has also forecast a structural deficit, which means the Government is still required to spend more than we can cope with, so we have a plan.
Our fiscal strategy is very clear: No. 1 is to return OBEGAL to surplus by 2027-28; reduce core Crown expenses to 30 percent of GDP to ensure that spending is sustainable; lower net Crown debt towards 40 percent of GDP; and now I must quote from when we scrutinised and invited the Minister of Finance to our select committee to present. This is what she said: “It is unsustainable for the Government to grow the economy by borrowing money.” Noting the consequences of inflation, she said, “It is better to grow the economy by improving productive capacity in long-term growth prospects.” And we have heard from members on our side of the Government that any additional growth of just 0.25 percent of nominal GDP would increase our annual tax revenue by $2 billion. This is what we talk about—by growing the pie, like the member for Hamilton East, Ryan Hamilton said—grow the pie. This is what we need to do.
To achieve this, Budget 2025 has three very clear actions: cap the operating allowances to $2.4 billion per year, ensuring that there is disciplined spending in our Government agencies; performance-based budgeting to make sure that every taxpayer dollar that we spend must deliver results for our taxpayers; targeted capital investment so that funds would only go into high impact projects, not wasteful spending—so a shared strategy and the plan. But I now must go on to what it means for New Zealanders, because I think most people who have tuned in on TV and then also the people sitting in the gallery have listened to all the jargon. Yes, I am a chartered accountant; I love all the jargon and all the accounting, but what does it really mean for all of you sitting here today?
For families, a better economy means lower inflation, more affordability, more choices in your supermarkets, more choices for your kids and extracurricular activities, more choices when you decide if you are going away for a holiday or saving up for something really nice for the family. It also means a recovering job market, creating better employment opportunities, higher incomes, and therefore it goes back to more choices for our families and also easing mortgage rates, making homeownership more manageable and making rentals more manageable, and for all the small businesses and investors in our economy, which are the majority of them, better regulatory certainty, cutting out the red tape, and pro-business policies that will encourage growth, recognise their hard work, and support them for their expansion in New Zealand.
It also means lowering the barriers to trade and investment—for example, the investment summit that many of my colleagues have mentioned today—but also for the taxpayers. Ultimately, as a Government, we need to be responsible for all taxpayer money. It is your money, so we need to make sure as a Government that you are getting a better return because we have better fiscal management, ensuring that your hard-earned money is spent wisely.
This is a plan that will protect future generations to come, and this is the plan that will make New Zealand wealthier, make all New Zealanders wealthier, and we have a better future outlook. Thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): That was another terrible speech from this Government. It was so fixed on growth—growth. As you’ve heard from this side, jobs, health, and homes have to be the priority for this Government, but they aren’t the priority for this Government. They’re certainly the priority for the Labour Party and for the Opposition. I am proud that we have made that very clear in the last week. Our leader made that clear in his recent speech and in his recent reshuffle.
We’ve heard from a Government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Their Budget Policy Statement is a vacant list of promises that won’t be met, because, ultimately, what we see from this Government is an economic policy that betrays the people for the donors’ interests. I think that’s what our communities are saying, and you’d have to agree with that. To claim, as they have, to have contained inflation with their austerity Budget is a nonsense and a falsehood. As we all know, inflation skyrocketed because COVID shut down global supply chains. For National to take credit for inflation falling because those global supply chains reopened is such a load of nonsense it’s not funny.
The severe cutbacks this Government has embarked upon to pay for tax cuts we couldn’t afford—that’s not good economic management at all. If it was good economic management, you wouldn’t be looking at a 5.1 percent unemployment rate, and we know that 9.7 percent of that is Māori, and 10.7 percent of that is Pasifika. Thirty-one percent of Kiwis are struggling to pay their power bill, 24 percent are struggling to buy food, 26 percent are struggling to pay rent, 29 percent are struggling with transport costs, one in four kids are going hungry—this is where the growth strategy has taken us. It’s just shocking at the moment. Violence against children is rising. Homelessness is rising. Inequality is rising. Mortgage missed payments and unpaid bills are at their highest level in a decade. This is where their great management has got us right now.
This Government’s economic focus is cutting more public spending and hoping that no one notices. They can’t manage to get basic edible food to our kids at school. It’s a total disgrace and embarrassment at the moment, and we’re seeing that every day in question time—the embarrassment that we’re seeing on the faces of Minister Stanford as she has to put up with Minister Seymour’s nonsense. As we all know, he never even wanted to feed the kids, which was the original ACT policy. You’re dealing with a Minister who never wanted to feed the kids, and you’ve got the shambles right now in terms of the school lunches.
I want to come to an area that not many have touched on, which is the investment in Māori, which has gone right down, and although the Government have talked about their four policy areas—lifting economic productivity, social investment. These are the areas that the Government talks about. The investment in Māori, as we see with this Budget, is minimal. We’ve seen a total decrease in terms of Māori housing. It’s really sad to see that. Yes, there are pockets of investment happening, but far from enough, and so we need to see our Māori groups being invested in. In the Māori health area, there is a real minimal investment there. As we know, in terms of the general investment in terms of health, per person it is way below where it should be. And, in terms of Māori social services, we’ve had the shocking news of Whānau Ora in the last couple of days.
A lot of questions there for our communities—hundreds of workers now being made redundant. Questions have to be asked about the process there, where we had a provider for 10 years, who had it in terms of Te Pou Matakana, in terms of our northern Whānau Ora commissioning agency—$155 million allocated. Now that $155 million has to go to an extra agency. Where is the investment in terms of our people at ground level? Should they be worried about this recent decision, in terms of Whānau Ora? We say yes. We say to the Minister for Māori Development to step up, and we say: invest in Māori, but invest in all our people—communities and people right across the nation. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise with great pleasure to speak about the Budget Policy Statement because this year, things are looking up for hard-working Kiwis. It has been tough for families during a cost of living crisis inflicted on them by the Labour Government, who spent big, taxed big, and fuelled inflation to record highs.
Well, the green shoots are here. Responsible fiscal management is back. Inflation is back under control. Interest rates are coming down. Hard-working New Zealanders have more in their back pockets with tax relief and mortgage rates coming down. There is business confidence. There is farmer confidence. In fact, farmer confidence has surged in the recent surveys, because they know that they’ve got a Government that is backing them. We know that farmers and businesses are the key to unleashing the economic potential in this country. Getting rid of red tape and regulation, and celebrating our primary sector and our exporters is key to everyone getting ahead in New Zealand. This year is all about going for growth. We need to grow the pie, as we have heard many times today.
I turn to education, because lifting performance in education is the way that we are going to strengthen our economy and create more equality. We’re developing a world-class education system. I’ve been out and about across my Tukituki electorate, where we have 61 schools across my Hawke’s Bay electorate. They are loving the new curriculum, where we are looking to lift performance in education with structured maths and structured literacy. I was recently, actually, in the classroom at Te Mata School, and the kids and teachers were loving the new maths books and the new structured maths programme, the Numicon resources, where they were learning maths, they were getting back to basics in the classroom—reading, writing and maths. Also, we’re improving teacher training, raising attendance, and strengthening learning support. This is what creates equality.
Infrastructure is another big focus in the Budget Policy Statement. We must have better-quality infrastructure and look out to a 30-year pipeline of infrastructure. On this side of the House, we aren’t just visualising it and wasting money on ideas and consultants; we’ve actually got diggers on site, shovels in the ground, roads being built, and fast-track legislation in place to actually make this possible so we can get things built in this country.
I’m so excited to see the four-lane expressway in Hawke’s Bay, the first road of national significance to get started. Every week I drive that road, I’m seeing progress. We’re seeing diggers there, and we’re seeing progress because construction has started. It’s something that we campaigned on in Hawke’s Bay, and we are delivering on it because we are a Government of action. We understand that infrastructure is really important in this country. Roads are what drive economic potential. It’s what gets our produce to the port—our apples to the port, our wine to the port, and our meat to the port—and off to market so that we can get that high value for our exports.
Not only are we investing in the four-lane Hawke’s Bay Expressway; but the Waikare Gorge realignment is also happening. Again, we recognise that that road between Napier and Wairoa is so important for our exports and trade and for getting people around faster. But the other infrastructure that we are investing in is water storage, because water storage creates water security. In Hawke’s Bay, we can’t even grow what we have, let alone grow any more, so water security is really important. It’s really amazing to see $3 million invested for the Tukituki water storage scheme so that we can unleash the economic potential that we have in the regions across New Zealand and support our primary industries.
This is what is going to grow our economy, and this is what is going to strengthen our economy, both in Hawke’s Bay and across New Zealand. With that, I absolutely support our Budget Policy Statement, and I look forward to the Budget on 22 May.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. We stand today in the middle of an economic crisis, a crisis that has been made worse by the decisions of this Government, the bad choices this Government has made. The facts are pretty clear. Unemployment is rising, jobs are being slashed, wages are stagnant, and hard-working New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, this Government has the audacity to claim that their economic management is responsible and effective.
The Budget Policy Statement (BPS) lays out the truth. It confirms what New Zealanders already feel in their day-to-day lives: things were better under Labour. It states right here: growth through 2023 and 2024 was stronger than originally thought. But since then, since National took office, the economy has taken a sharp downturn. The BPS itself states this was largely offset by a stronger cyclical downturn since then. In other words, National’s policies have made things worse.
Jobs, health, and homes is what Kiwis are after. When we hear National telling us that things are looking up for hard-working New Zealanders and I’m seeing green shoots everywhere, maybe they should talk to one of my constituents who wrote to me just yesterday and said, “I wish Chris Luxon would stop talking about putting money in the pockets of New Zealanders. The only thing he is worried about is lining the pockets of his rich mates and multinational companies. The latest line charge for my gas was $45 in February; I used only $14 in gas. The cost of power is expected to rise by $10 a month. My rates in the Hutt City Council are expected to rise by 16 percent. My home and contents insurance for my house in Petone has increased by 36 percent. I got $30 per fortnight in so-called tax cuts. There is no money in my back pocket. I have medical conditions and now have to pay for my prescriptions. I go to the doctor often, at $70 a visit. I live alone so no double income here. I’m paying a mortgage, paying bills, and everything is increasing in price apart from a reduction in my interest rates when I refix next week. My back pocket would like some money in it. I count myself fortunate as I can pay what I need to pay. I don’t know what others are doing out there who are doing so tough. I’m not rich. I’m not sorted for my retirement in a few years’ time.”
What’s the plan for people who are real New Zealanders, from this Government? There isn’t one. But we have one on this side. It’s called jobs, health, and homes. Let’s take a good look at what is happening right now with jobs, because there’s higher unemployment, with 213,000 New Zealanders now on the unemployment benefit. We have an economy that is operating below capacity, as the BPS states, and that means fewer jobs, less income, and more hardship for people.
Mass layoffs in a couple of areas—let’s just take a look at Callaghan Innovation. The Government came in and laid off scientists, research staff, and support staff, with no plan for an alternative entity. That meant all of those highly skilled individuals, those innovators and scientists, are left with no certainty in their future. They are applying for jobs offshore. I’ve met with them. They’re applying for jobs in the Netherlands and Australia because there is no certainty of employment here. The Government can announce a great PhD programme that they’ve given some money to and they can talk about saving 20 jobs in one part, but they have just laid off a vast majority of bright people innovating while yet still claiming to be going for growth—absolutely unbelievable.
The construction sector is another one. Significant infrastructure projects like the Interislander ferries being rail-enabled cancelled—a $300 million break fee, $300 million and rising just to break the fee. We’ve also seen big projects from Kāinga Ora right around the country cancelled and stopped. The result of all those big infrastructure projects being cancelled was 13,000 construction workers leaving the sector, enough for them to write to the Minister and say that the sector is on its knees and we need to be doing something. The answer to this is to hold a talkfest with a bunch of foreigners who are going to go and save us all and invest in New Zealand. No plan for us. We have a downward spiral of cutting jobs, losing people overseas, and no real plan to address this.
On top of this, we’ve seen losses right across the public sector, not just public servants in Wellington but right across in front-facing jobs—Oranga Tamariki, health workers, social workers cut by this Government. And what has that seen? A further retrenchment in the economy, because what we are seeing is less people out there being able to buy things in local businesses. That’s why, in Wellington alone, so many restaurants, so many cafes, so many small-business owners who have worked for 20 or 30 years to keep their doors open, are now closed permanently with higher levels of insolvencies than we have seen in such a long time. Every one of these job losses is a real person losing their income, their ability to support their families, and their sense of security, and yet this Government still pats itself on the back claiming fiscal responsibility.
National promised economic growth; instead, the economy is projected to be $20 billion smaller by 2028 than was forecast in Budget 2024. While they promised to create jobs, unemployment is to rise every single year in the Budget period. By 2026, there will be 20,000 more New Zealanders on jobseeker support than there would have been otherwise. That is 20,000 more families struggling to pay rent, struggling to buy groceries and to heat their homes in winter.
National’s obsession with tax cuts—and let’s not forget that while we’re having these cuts across, they borrowed for tax cuts for landlords, cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. This has come at a massive cost to everyday New Zealanders. The $58.7 billion increase to debt and 46.5 percent net core Crown debt peak are direct consequences of bad choices that this Government has made.
Who is paying for it? It is those people I’ve spoken about—that letters I got from people, people who don’t have the money to buy the basics, people who work hard each day but still can’t afford to feed their families. The problem is it’s only going to get worse. The Budget Policy Statement signals that in Budget 2025 there is just $700 million available for all spending outside of health. That means more cuts to the public sector, more cuts to social services, and more uncertainty for those who rely on Government support.
Let’s be clear here. The Government has already pre-committed $1.37 billion per annum just to keep health services running at their current level. That leaves almost nothing for education. It means nothing for housing and infrastructure—I guess, hence why we’re having this meeting over the next few days. There’s nothing there and nothing for wage increases for our hard-working people.
Speaking of wage increases, I’ll just deviate for one moment to talk about what the Government’s announced today in terms of the procurement rules for Government contracts. Today, it was announced that out of those rules being changed, one is taking away the living wage. The living wage has come out of procurement in an announcement today. At the same time as trying to talk about productivity and trying to make the cost of living crisis better, you’re taking the living wage out of Government procurement rules—an absolute shame, and it is absolutely relevant to this debate.
Let’s talk about some of the real consequences that we are seeing, in conclusion. It is important to note that this Government has shifted the goal posts. While people are losing their jobs and financial security, the Minister of Finance has made a big deal out of reaching surplus, but now she’s had to push it out even further. She knows she can’t meet those targets that have been promised, so instead she’s created a brand new measure—operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses (OBEGALx)—to make it look like she’s on track. The original OBEGAL measure has been used for years. A review in 2021 confirmed it was fit for purpose, but now, because National’s policies are failing, they’re trying to rewrite the rules to make themselves look better. The truth is that under the original OBEGAL measure, New Zealand will not reach surplus in its forecast period.
I leave with you: what is responsible about this Government, that it makes promises it can’t keep and changes the rules when it fails, and it pushes the cost of its failure on to everyday working families? We need a Government that puts people first, that puts their jobs and their incomes first, that makes sure we have a health system that functions properly, and people can go home at night knowing that they have a warm, dry home. We’re a long way from that under this Budget Policy Statement.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): In the final part of this debate of the Budget Policy Statement, I wish to speak directly to Kiwi voters. In the backdrop of the Budget Policy Statement, we know times have been tough. Unemployment is rising, people are still struggling with the cost of living, and we’re dealing with the worst recession since the early 1990s.
We are in a mess. But who caused this mess? It was the last Labour Government. They are the ones that doubled our debt, that had wasteful spending on projects like KiwiBuild, light rail, Skypath, three waters, Health New Zealand, Te Pūkenga, and the highest crime rates in a generation. We are in a mess, but we take responsibility for getting us out of it.
I come back to the big Budget Policy Statement, because it is quite clear from the Minister of Finance that we’ve got Budget deficits right through to 2028. We’ve got increased public debt until 2029, low growth and productivity, an unproductive public sector. There are some green shoots, and we’ve talked about them today. The official cash rate is coming down because inflation is under control and we are starting to see, in fact, wage growth starting to outpace inflation.
I just want to zoom out because having just had a son—my first child—nine months ago, I just want to talk about the long-term fiscal challenges that New Zealand faces, because that’s what I worry about for my son and the future for this country. Alongside the Budget Policy Statement, a month earlier, the chief economist of the Treasury—who is a proud Northcote local—published a document on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal challenges. It’s quite sobering because it does talk about our long-term productivity challenges and the fact that our kids, our grandkids, inherit a future with high debt, low incomes, and low productivity, low opportunities, and poor public services if nothing changes. That is why we have to go for growth.
The other side will talk about an alternative approach, which is to tax everybody and everything more. That is not a sustainable pathway for New Zealand to follow. The finance Minister has talked about improving our productivity rates, which successive Governments have failed to actually make a measurable difference to, and by doing so, going for economic growth.
I want to touch on today a few key areas which I think are going to help power our economy up dramatically. The first is on trade, and don’t we have a great trade Minister in Todd McClay? “Trade McClay”, we call him. We’ve already done deals with the UAE, with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and we’ve got the big fish coming up soon where he’s off to India. Won’t that be good for New Zealand if we can secure a free-trade agreement with India?
The next is investment. I’m really proud of the Government’s work to make this an investor-friendly country to operate in. David Seymour’s work around overhauling the Overseas Investment Act is very, very important, as is our announcement recently to set up Invest New Zealand, a one-stop shop where overseas investors can come to and get advice on where the great places are to invest in the country. I think the simple answer to that is Northcote in Auckland. We have heard from great speakers here about our investment summit, and my best wishes to Ministers up and down our Government who will be attending the summit. This is an important summit for the future of our country.
Suze Redmayne: Going for growth.
DAN BIDOIS: Going for growth. The third area is deregulation. We are entering an era of deregulation both here and around the world. We’ve got important steps to free up the resource management, to fast track investment projects around the country, and we’ve got a Ministry for Regulation, which I hope the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, may change to deregulation, because I think that is a more appropriate phrase for this Government’s agenda to power up and go for growth.
The next area is around our science reforms, and we’ve got some fantastic reforms around getting more value out of our science system. The final area is around competition. We’ve just come from a banking inquiry summit, ably chaired by my colleague Cameron Brewer. There is important work that we need to do to make our banking sector more competitive, but not only that, we can’t just stop at the banking sector. I come from the grocery sector, and this is another important sector that needs further competition. We’ve got here the Minister of Energy, Simon Watts, who is driving more competition and putting pressure on those energy companies to keep the lights on and at a cheaper price. Also, I want to single out the Minister for Building and Construction, Chris Penk, who’s doing some great work to lower the cost of building and improve the productivity.
We’ve got some great things that are going to make a huge difference for our growth projections both in the short term—and the Budget Policy Statement does talk about the fact that we are returning to growth this year. That is good news, but we can’t stop there because it really is about our future and making sure—not our future, actually; our kids’ future and our grandkids’ future. What are the things that this Government is doing today that are going to make New Zealand a more prosperous country in 10 or 20 years’ time? That’s what we’re really focused on.
I want to just touch on education because I think that’s a really good bipartisan issue across the Parliament; everybody wants our kids to have a great education. For years we haven’t had a disciplined enough approach around teaching the basics brilliantly. I’m really proud of the work that our Minister Erica Stanford is doing to make sure that in every school, no matter where you grow up in this country, you get taught the basics brilliantly. From the basics, you get to do really cool stuff like economics or engineering or robotics or accounting, but without those basics, those opportunities and those high-income opportunities won’t be unlocked.
It is a pleasure to round off the debate today, and I’ve heard a lot from this side about growth. I’ve only heard a couple of times growth echoed on the other side. That may be because the other side doesn’t know how to deliver growth. We’ve got a lot to do—we’ve got a lot to do. For New Zealanders out there up and down the country, my message to you is this: give us time to see the fruits of the labour that we’re doing and the reforms that we’re working on. I’m confident that by the back end of this year, people will start feeling like they can get ahead, they can feel safer, and they can feel that there’s a real strong future for them and their family. We are going for growth. The Budget is coming up on what date?
Hon Members: 22 May.
DAN BIDOIS: 22 May. The finance Minister has indicated that it’s going to be a growth Budget. She’s put some teasers out there, and even I don’t know what’s in the Budget, but I’m hopeful. I’m really hopeful around some tax changes because as an economist—there’s not a lot that economists agree on, actually, but the one thing economists agree on is the power of the tax system to spur long-term and short-term economic growth. I’m really excited about the teasing that the Minister of Finance has talked about in the media. We’ll be waiting for that eagerly on 22 May—which is the day after my son’s birthday, so he may actually be able to be down here while we’re doing these midnight speeches. Look, it is a lot to do. We’re going for growth. It’s all a part of our plan to get our economy back on track. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2025 and the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I move, That the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is a real pleasure to rise for the second reading—
Hon Nicola Grigg: Hard-working MP!
Hon SIMON WATTS: —thank you very much—of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. As you all remember—because this is one of the most important bills—during my first reading of this bill, I said that I was incredibly grateful, and I remain so, that the bill enjoyed the support of every party in this House. I am pleased that the Governance and Administration Committee—an excellent committee; very, very able committee—has recommended unanimously to pass this bill into law, and I hope that members will support it today.
The bill, while small—only a few pages long—concerns a rather unsuspecting corner of my electorate of the North Shore. However, for my community, this bill represents an opportunity for growth, revitalisation, and a new future for a much-loved community asset—the Takapuna Boating Club Bayswater clubhouse has been in a sorry state for a long time. The primary reason is that the legislation governing the site is highly restrictive and doesn’t allow it to produce any revenue required to maintain itself. The building’s original purpose has largely been overtaken; the boating club has newer, more fit for purpose facilities. All of these are different to the original purpose as a public bath house; that may have been common in the law when it was passed in 1923 but, of course, sadly, is a little bit rare in 2025.
The bill before the House proposes to loosen those restrictions, allowing more use of the premises while keeping the site’s core purpose for community good. The committee spent some time defining community purposes and I acknowledge, again, the committee and their work on this matter. They made a number of minor changes to clarify the meaning; the bill is about balance.
No one in my North Shore community or in this House, I would argue, would not want to see this site being able to serve the community. In any changes to legislation, we must always consider that, and at the same time we should also be conscious of why we are here. We shouldn’t allow a repeat of the past and have too tight restrictions which, while well intended back in 1923, will mean that a future MP for the North Shore will have to do this again in a few decades. The balance has been struck well.
Cameron Brewer: It could still be you.
Hon SIMON WATTS: It could still be me, that is true Mr Cameron, but one doesn’t want to tempt fate in the future.
As I said, Mr Speaker, and I know you’re enjoying this, the balance has been struck well. It is not too onerous that the site cannot be used, but strict enough to ensure that the community can be assured that it will always serve the public good. The committee also considered restrictions on what revenue could be used and used for. Once again, this is about balance. The committee’s changes to the bill make the original intent more transparent regarding using any revenue, and that is very sensible.
When the bill was first introduced last year, it became very clear that this story is hardly unique. Sadly, many communities across this House, of which we all represent, see a number of their local treasures sitting unused, and I’m sure many are subject to similarly restrictive legislation that inhibits their full potential. Well, this bill gives you all hope. There is a pathway through to get those local treasures back into the community good that they should be, through a local bill, and I look forward to seeing more of these come to the House in due course.
Given that, it was good for the committee to have a look at whether there were any other ways that a bespoke local bill could make this change—i.e., is there a way that we can do all of these changes in one go across New Zealand. The Department of Internal Affairs has provided some advice and, ironically, that advice was one of the first things that I saw as the Minister of Local Government, having taken up that responsibility only three or so weeks ago. The committee members can speak to that process, but the committee decided a local bill was the most appropriate way to proceed at this point.
I hope that this bill starts a conversation about other sites around New Zealand like it. I hope the Bayswater clubhouse will be an example of a community working together to get better use from a community asset that would otherwise go unused. This bill involved the work of the boating club, the council, local press, and parliamentarians. Similarly, work would benefit many places, and I hope it does happen.
Six submissions were received and three were presented orally to the committee, including the Auckland Council and the Takapuna Boating Club. That’s not unsurprising given that submitting a local bill already requires consultation before the bill can be tabled in the House. The community has had several opportunities to make their voices heard, and I also presented in person to the select committee as the member in charge of this bill—
Cameron Brewer: That was very good.
Hon Nicola Grigg: Hard-working MP.
Hon SIMON WATTS: And I acknowledge the members again.
Hon Nicola Grigg: Re-elect Simon Watts.
Cameron Brewer: High “Wattage”.
Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you. I want to thank members of the Governance and Administration Committee and those who submitted on this bill. I’d also like to thank, once again, all of those that have made this bill possible, especially the Takapuna Boating Club’s Commodore James Jordan, also the late Ralph Roberts, and former club president Barry Ward. I’d also like to acknowledge Ray Welson, who also played a significant role in this process.
It is very rare for a member to take a bill through this House, and a local bill at that, which is so closely and exclusively related to their function as a local member of Parliament. It has been a pleasure shepherding this bill on its journey so far, and of course I do hope that we will all soon be able to celebrate the passing into law of this bill. While I’m taking this bill as the MP for the North Shore, this will benefit all of Auckland.
What happens to the site now will be up to the boating club and our community. The last time we debated the bill, a cafe was discussed—perhaps a function venue, perhaps an ice cream parlour [Interruption] The ice cream parlour seems to be very popular. Or, potentially, any other purpose, but we will see. For the first time in many years, there’s hope for the future of the Bayswater clubhouse. As the local MP and a proud resident of the North Shore, I’m looking forward to seeing what happens to this site.
With that, all that remains is for me to commend this bill to the House. I hope all members will continue to support it. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): It’s always good when we have bills that are non-controversial and that are supported across the House. I’m standing on behalf of Labour to support the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill.
I acknowledge the member for North Shore, Simon Watts. He made many acknowledgments; I want to acknowledge that I have two colleagues that live on the North Shore too: Camilla Belich and Shanan Halbert. As I said, this is non-controversial. All of the detail has been traversed adequately by the previous speaker and the person who brought the local bill to the House, the Hon Simon Watts.
After this bill, we will be discussing a much more contentious bill, which is the criminalising wage theft bill, and we would really like to be able to move on to that quickly. With that, we support this bill and commend it to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. While we are acknowledging Takapuna connections, my dear colleague Kahurangi Carter’s father was the Mayor of Takapuna for some many years and grew up in that neck of the woods. This is the bill where we stand up and support the restoration of old buildings, as is appropriate. Assisting that restoration of the Takapuna Boating Club building and the Bayswater clubhouse—we certainly support that mission, we support the means to achieving that mission, and we do support the bill.
I want to note a couple of quick fun facts, acknowledging that the club has already spent $600,000 to restore the roof and the foundations, but they need about 10 times that to do the full restoration. One of the fun facts was that this building was originally on the shore in Panmure and was dismantled and carried by the boaties around the water and reassembled. Quite an impressive history. We’d be very glad to see this beautiful old building restored and we do wish the Takapuna Boating Club all the best with that effort and commend the member for bringing the bill and we commend your success in it. Thank you.
SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party will support this bill. In fact, I commend the Minister, on behalf of the ACT Party—Minister Simon Watts, the MP for North Shore—for proposing to legalise the sale and supply of ice creams from the Takapuna Boating Club. I’m sure my colleagues in the Green Party would support that, as well.
One of the things that this bill has thrown up is how many anachronistic pieces of legislation we have on the book that stop New Zealanders from transforming their lives, from becoming more productive, and from actually doing the things that their communities want them to do. It’s a great pleasure to support this bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, which will allow part of the land, any buildings or improvements on it, to be used for commercial purposes. This is intended to enable the club to secure commercial income to fund restoration and maintenance of the boating club building on the site.
I am sure, as a dinghy sailor myself and a yachtie for many years, that places like this, where people can continue to learn to sail, learn safety skills on the water, and maybe enjoy a little bit of hospitality with their friends and family afterwards, will remain a part of New Zealand’s culture, and certainly a part of the Takapuna lifestyle. The ACT Party commends this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): First of all, I just want to congratulate the member the Hon Simon Watts, or the Minister—in both of those roles—for this bill here. I rise as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered this bill. It’s a very, very specific bill, as we’ve heard. It’s specifically focused on one building on the Takapuna—or Bayswater—waterfront.
We all know that owning buildings is actually quite expensive. It’s particularly expensive if you’re a club, and particularly if you’re a club which relies on the income that comes from members. This is an old building, it’s a big building, and it’s a heritage-listed building—all of those—and it’s a waterfront building, all of which adds to the challenge of maintaining a building like this.
What this bill does is simply remove the 1923 prohibition—1923 prohibition—a 102-year-old prohibition on commercial activities being operated out of that building. What that does is it allows the club to be able to get some revenue to be able to look after the building, which that building clearly needs. Also, I might say that from personal experience of running a club, it will give the opportunity of bringing more life to that area as well, so I think it’s a win-win-win opportunity.
I just want to pick up one thing that Steve Abel talked about. New Zealand First is a very, very strong supporter of heritage, and this building has a really interesting history, because it started life in about the 1880s as a tannery on the shores of the Tāmaki River in Panmure. At the time the club had just been formed, just after World War I in 1920, it was actually—that’s the Takapuna Boating Club—a successor to the Bayswater Boating Club, which was formed in 1914 and lasted until 1917; obviously it was discontinued during the war.
They set up this club in 1920. Within three years, not only did they manage to get an Act of Parliament to allow them to use the site but they also managed to acquire this tannery building from Panmure, deconstructed it—all volunteers as I understand it—put it on a barge, took it around the corner—apparently it was a three-day journey—to Bayswater, put it all back together again, and then had it operating by the summer of 1923. That is a club which had energy, enthusiasm, and creativity, and I think it sets a standard. Apparently, the building is made out of heart kauri, so it’s pretty impressive as well.
As I said, it’s a heritage-listed building. In its heyday, it was used for dancing, boxing, library, school events, ladies’ mornings, roller skating, and of course boat storage, and it also had a sort of swimming area in front of it. It’s a building which tells a lot of stories. I think the great thing about this is that not only do we help the boating club here but we help this building, this piece of heritage in Auckland, to have another life and to be able to continue in that life. Apparently, the building’s got good bones, but it’s clearly in poor repair externally, and so this bill will help it significantly.
I just want to finish off with a couple of questions that we considered during the Governance and Administration process. One was where the money from the commercial activity would go. The first thing is that it needs to go to the building—to repairing the building, to maintaining the building, and to keeping it going for another 100 years and more, I hope. Secondly, the flexibility there is for the needs of the boating club, which doesn’t just operate from this site but in fact most of its operation is on the other side of the Takapuna isthmus, so it needs to go to the needs of the boating club and the great work that it does in the North Shore community.
Finally, there was a bit of discussion about what community purposes were, because should the boating club ever fold, it will go to the Auckland Council. Then the question will become: what community purposes could the Auckland Council use it for? To be fair, it’s very, very broad—and we did have some discussion about whether it should be broad or whether it should be slightly narrower.
This is a good day for the boating club. It’s a good day for Auckland. It’s a good day for this grand old lady—for another hundred years and more to go. I wish the club and the community well in restoring that building, and I hope that this bill helps this building to have a very, very long life in the future. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call. Are you making a call?
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Tēnā koe e te Pīka.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I call Takutai Tarsh Kemp.
TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Well, as a member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau, I rise to address the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. Te Pāti Māori has consistently advocated for the principle of community before profit, and we recognise the intent of this bill to enable Takapuna Boating Club to generate revenue for the restoration and maintenance of this historic clubhouse.
This initiative aims to preserve a community asset, ensuring its continued use for public benefit. However, during the first reading of this bill, my colleague Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke emphasised the importance of understanding the land’s history and ensuring that mana whenua are actively consulted. She stated, “Te Pāti Māori wishes to hear from mana whenua on this matter raised in the bill, both individually and collectively, where mana whenua deem it appropriate to do so.” Despite assurances from Auckland Council about upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles, there has been a lack of transparency regarding consultation with mana whenua. The council has not disclosed who they have engaged with in this process. This omission raises concerns about the authenticity of the consultation and whether the voices of those with ancestral ties to this land have been generally heard.
Te Pāti Māori firmly believes that any decisions affecting land with historical significance to Māori must involve meaningful engagement with mana whenua. Such consultation ensures that the development aligns with the values, traditions, and aspirations of the indigenous communities connected to this land. Therefore, while we support the preservation of community assets and acknowledge the benefits this bill seeks to provide, we issue a clear warning: if Te Pāti Māori is not assured that comprehensive and genuine consultation with mana whenua has not taken place, we will oppose this bill at its third reading. Our support is contingent upon respecting and upholding the rights of mana whenua in all legislation processes.
We too had discussion around the whenua around if there was any consultation. We also questioned who owned the land before 1923. What we want to see is that we want to make sure that Māori have been consulted. Kia ora. Tēnā tātou.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. It’s an absolute privilege to rise today to speak on behalf of the Takapuna Borough. My whakapapa, in fact, is that my grandfather was the Mayor of Takapuna City for 21 years. His name was Fred Thomas and he would be—
Hon Simon Watts: Oh, Fred Thomas Park!
KAHURANGI CARTER: Exactly. And he would be behind this bill. It is a real honour to speak about him here in the House today. He gave his life in service of the people of the North Shore, which it is called these days—North Shore City, not Takapuna City. I remember stories about when he was a councillor and people would call up and say, “A tree has fallen down” or “There’s rubbish in the waterways”. He’d get his nine kids packed up and go down and sort it out themselves, and I think that that’s something that we can all take with us: getting our hands dirty and making sure that we’re out there in community. That’s what this here is all about.
We know that we support active lifestyles, and boating is one of those amazing things that Kiwis just love to do. When you’re on the North Shore, the sea is surrounding us and it’s such a joy to see kids out on the water learning those navigation skills and having fun out in nature, which you know us greenies just love.
Now, I do want to talk about another amazing navigator from a long line of amazing chiefs, Patuone. If you just head a little bit down from Bayswater, the chief Patuone—who you may have seen his picture in one of the Lindauer paintings—is buried just down the road in Devonport, and I wanted to honour him in response to my colleague Takutai Kemp’s kōrero about the importance of honouring the mana whenua and making sure that we are living in true partnership with the mana whenua o tēnei takiwā, of the North Shore, and honouring Patuone, a great chief who was buried there and came from a long line of navigators. This boating club is about that next generation of navigators and making sure that they have a home.
We stand in support of this bill today. It is a good day for navigators, for boaties, and for the North Shore. Thank you very much.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and contribute to this debate today. I’d like to quote a famous North Shore local, “The North Shore, what a great place to live.” And it is a great day for the North Shore. I am a proud representative of the Northcote electorate, and it is a great day for everybody in the North Shore who wants to see this building restored and continue to contribute to our communities on the North Shore.
I’d like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Minister Simon Watts for shepherding this bill here. As you can see, he is also a very proud advocate for the North Shore. It’s not only a great place to live, work, and play, but it’s also a great place for sports. That’s what brings us here today: to restore a building on the North Shore that contributes so much to our sporting communities. I’d also like to pay acknowledgments to Commodore James Jordan, the Auckland Council, Caroline Williams from Stuff, and all those who have contributed to the mahi to get this bill to where we’re at today, which is the second reading.
The purpose of this bill is to allow commercial activities to be used in order to help raise the funds that are necessary to restore the building to its former glory. We’ve heard the rough sums of money that will be required to do that. This bill has been through a select committee process, through the Governance and Administration Committee. It received a huge amount of submissions—six! But, no, seriously, the submissions that were received were all supportive of the bill, and there were only two small changes that came out.
One was around changing the meaning of community purposes to ensure that the building is used for true community purposes. In fact, it just inserted a new section. The second is just clarifying the restrictions on what the money can be used for, and I think members of the community want to make sure that all funds raised go into the benefit of the organisation.
It is a great day for the North Shore. Thank you to my colleagues on the Governance and Administration Committee. Let’s get on with it now. It’s over to the good people in the boating club to raise the funds that are needed, to get on and actually contract the work to happen. I look forward to visiting as a member of the public. I look forward to seeing the building in a very restored fashion as I drive down the highway. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much for the opportunity today to speak to this simple piece of legislation, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill.
I won’t take up too much time this afternoon, because I think that this is a simple change. For those of us who live on Auckland’s North Shore in Te Raki Paewhenua, we’re privileged and blessed to have a number of local community facilities in our area. For a number of years, I led one of our local community facilities—the Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project—so I understand the complexities of this piece of legislation and the restrictions that it actually places on enabling the local organisation to generate revenue in order to reinvest in the facilities and make them available for our local community.
Without further ado, can I acknowledge the member and Minister based in the North Shore, Simon Watts, for the mahi he has done on this piece of legislation. Great work from him supporting the North Shore. It’s good to see some outcomes happening for our local community. I look forward to heading over and enjoying good coffee over in Takapuna Beach. I wish the rowing club well. I commend this bill to the House.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’ve been referring to this as the “Takapuna ice cream bill”, because that’s effectively what we’re doing, and it sounds very simple but there’s actually a few details I’d like to cover on this—
Hon Chris Penk: Give us the scoop!
TIM COSTLEY: Look, I’m an orange choc chip guy if you’re asking, Chris Penk. What we’re doing is a simple change to allow them to conduct some commercial purposes like the honourable Minister Simon Watts said. I’m in favour of the ice cream option; raise a bit of money to help with the restoration.
Let’s just rewind the clock a little bit and remind ourselves how we got here. Of course, the Takapuna Boating Club goes back to the start of the last century, before this building was built. It started with a race for the grand sum of £2, and the club officially formed in February 1914 after that, and the Bayswater Boating Club came to be.
Now, although the Act that we are amending here goes back to 1923—to correct some of the dates that were stated earlier—the land was actually acquired by the club from Auckland Council for a nominal sum in 1926, but the deed and the title was issued in 1927. There are a few confusing dates but, effectively, we’re going back about 100 years; 100 years of history that we are just tweaking today.
The issue is that currently the club can only charge minimal rental to tenants who use the building currently and, as we’ve heard, it’s in a bit of a state of disrepair. The money that they’re getting from their tenants does not cover the upkeep for the building, hence the desire from them to have some more commercial activities conducted so that they can raise more monies for the restoration. If you’ve seen the artist’s impression of what the restored Bayswater Clubhouse looks like, it’s quite a grand building. It looks fine; it will be a great—well, it’s not an addition because it’s there, but it’ll be a great upgrade on that little bit of the waterfront.
Now, I should point out that even if this bill goes through, that doesn’t mean it all happens overnight. There is some work for the board of the club to do to confirm their initial discussions, particularly around establishing—and I’ll use their words here—“a Bayswater restoration committee, or some similar title, to further explore the proposal and maybe look at a Bayswater Restoration Community Trust.” Of course, they’ll have to engage with council and with the local community, and I know they’re eager to do that.
While we’re here, I would like to acknowledge those members of the club that have been so involved. Can I acknowledge James Jordan, the previous Commodore; Ralph Roberts and Penny Roberts, both the current club patron and the former patron; Barry Ward, the club president; Ray Welson, a former board member; but in particular can I acknowledge Wendy Baker, the club commodore, well done to you, ma’am; and to Darren Moore, the vice commodore. They have advocated strongly for their community, well supported by their local MP and the Minister who is seeing this bill through, the Hon Simon Watts. He, of course, was eager to be the very first to come and present to the Governance and Administration Committee, which he did in great form.
I’ve also had other Auckland local MPs, Cam Brewer, in particular—I just want to acknowledge Dan Bidois—very vocal. I mean, they’re always jumping up in caucus meetings to advocate for the issues that matter in Auckland but they’ve been very keen to see this bill go through. I want to acknowledge the work that they did in support of this, as well.
We’ve heard also, in the select committee, from members of the public. I want to particularly acknowledge Anna Muir, Claire Bodle, David Hopkins, and Gus Stewart, who all took the time to take part in their democracy and their Parliament and to submit to the Governance and Administration Committee on this bill, alongside the Takapuna Boating Club, and Auckland Council, and of course Minister Watts as well. I would like to just refer to some of the submissions we heard because I think it’s important to give this a community voice. I’m quoting here from Claire Bodle: “What was once a beautiful building [an] asset to the community has not been adequately maintained and is now more of an eyesore.” This bill, she says, gives the opportunity to upgrade, to give the maintenance that it needs, again, as she says, for the community to again benefit from this space.
If I can also just quote Gus Stewart, who wrote to the select committee as a member of the local Bayswater community to fully support and applaud this bill, he gave a small suggestion of an improvement—section 5(3)(b)—to make it clear that money used under the lease can be used for improvements to the building and the land, not just the maintenance of them. That is something that we considered and have made some small adjustments to the bill.
As we’ve heard already, one of the big discussions was around the use of the term “community purposes”. When we look at the bill, it says when they receive money now for the commercial purposes, it can be used for maintenance of the land, maintenance of buildings on the land, and community purposes. There was a lot of discussion about community purposes and whether it was too broad. There was an argument from some that maybe this is a little too broad. I don’t take that argument. I think we actually need to be a nation—a Government—that gives clear intent, that gives the scope and then trusts good people to do good things.
Hon Chris Penk: Ice cream shops.
TIM COSTLEY: Well, it’s more than just an ice cream shop, Chris Penk, and another strong advocate for Auckland, we have there. I don’t see a situation where this money ends up getting used to improve roads down in Papakura. This is clearly about the community first and foremost restoring this once glorious building and ensuring there’s something for all the community to enjoy.
We have to trust them that if we get to the point—and I hope we do—that there is money left over, that they are empowered and trusted to make good decisions for this. I refer to the policy intent from the boating club themselves, and I’ll quote that. They said they “want to ensure that the proceeds of any lease or commercial arrangement are used towards the upkeep and maintenance of the land and buildings on it”—as we just heard, and that’s a good thing—“and for any surplus proceeds to be able to be used towards the club’s broader community-based activities.” This includes, and they give some examples, things like using funds towards community water sports programmes for local children.
Now, why wouldn’t we want to trust good local people, good salt of the earth Kiwis to go out there and do great things for their community? Maybe it’s a water safety programme; maybe it’s getting young kids who wouldn’t have the opportunity otherwise into water sports. I just was at the rural games with Tim van de Molen and Erica on Friday, alongside one of our great Olympic medallists from Paris. What an inspiration to young Kiwis and the Kiwi kids that we were hanging out with that day, and why wouldn’t we want to encourage more people into it? If we get to the point that there is excess money left over, I think that’s a great way to use these funds.
It’s very clear that, in the hypothetical situation which Mr Foster covered before, where the property was to change hands back to Auckland Council, this would then be covered by the Local Government Act 2002, and it has a statutory role and purpose that would restrict the spending to be wholly used or principally for the benefit of its district. It can’t go outside the scope of that. There are suitable safeguards and protections in place, and I think it makes a lot of sense that actually we leave this broad enough that the boating club and the local community can get on with doing what they do well and, first of all, fix the building and, second of all, go on and support their community and do some great stuff in it.
Finally, can I just take a moment to acknowledge the fact that as a local bill, there has been some discussion—we heard it referred to just before—about the fact that this is an Act of Parliament, effectively, to allow Takapuna Boating Club to sell an ice cream to kids on a hot day. Now, that sounds comical, and we all have a joke about our favourite flavour of ice cream, and that’s OK, but it does seem crazy that we use up Parliament’s time to do such a thing. One of the questions we asked in select committee was: is there another way that this bill could be done so that it didn’t in the future have to come back through Parliament?
I think of the McLean Trust Institute (Trust Variation) Bill—one of my favourites. In that bill, we were able to add a provision so that this would no longer have to be an Act of Parliament to change it. Maybe in the future there will be some situation which we can’t foresee now, which will necessitate another Act of Parliament to change it, to go from ice creams to hot dogs; I’m not sure. There might be some other purpose that we haven’t been able to foresee, so we asked the question: is there a way that we could rewrite this bill, that we could tweak it, that we could change it, that we could improve it so that we wouldn’t have to keep coming back to Parliament if another change was required in the future?
We did try and we did press officials over this, but, ultimately, I’m satisfied with the answer we were given, which was that for us to do that would take more work and be more involved than what it might take in the unlikely event that there has to be another change in the future; that actually, by doing things like leaving “community purposes” pretty broad, we’re reducing the chance that we’d have to come back in the future, even if the land was to change hands, even if something dramatic was to happen to the boating club. I think this has been well considered.
So, with that in mind, with ensuring we’ve stuck to the boating club’s policy intent and the great submissions, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A five-minute split call—Camilla Belich.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure the House I won’t be using the full five minutes, because this is a very simple bill. I was lucky enough to speak at the first reading on this bill and I set out at length the reasons why I continue to support this bill. I’m now lucky enough to be the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, so unfortunately I wasn’t able to participate in the discussion on this, but I’m well aware of the issues surrounding local bills.
I wanted to acknowledge, in closing, the North Shore Ward councillors Chris Darby and Richard Hills, who put the motion to Auckland Council in order to support this piece of legislation coming through. I want to acknowledge those two hard-working local councillors and commend this bill to the House.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hey, I’m very pleased to take my first call on this bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. I didn’t have the opportunity to speak on the first reading, but I’m very happy to be here for the second reading.
From looking at this and from what I’ve heard from around the House, this is a very pragmatic bill. It’s got a sensible approach to deal with an anomaly, and I just happened to search the premises on my phone—I have not actually seen it physically myself—and when I did search it, the headline that came up straight away was “Million-dollar dumps”. That says to me that they’ve troubles here with the building that’s been sitting there for years and years and years, not being able to earn the revenue to be able to do the necessary work that’s needed to maintain it. Looking at the pictures, though, it does look like a very grand building—a huge building, in fact. I can’t quite see how an ice cream parlour can fill the whole building, but maybe it is actually part of the building.
Maybe I can also acknowledge Fred Thomas, our member across the way there, the former mayor of this place here. It’s great to hear some of the history that comes from some of these places where these local bills come from itself. The Hon Simon Watts, the person that’s actually sponsored or brought this bill to the House and taken it through—it’s great to hear from him at the beginning of this particular reading itself.
As previous members have said, this is a bill of common sense. It’s a bill that fixes a situation where, dare I say, there must be many buildings around New Zealand that have similar situations. I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see more of these types of local bills before us before the end of this term to fix these particular areas that the community wants—it’s strongly supported by the community.
I acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee that did its work there, ably led by Rachel Boyack, who is the chair of the committee that actually dealt with the particular bill. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I just found out that my friend in the Green Party had a relative who was the Mayor of Takapuna. In fact, my great grandfather was the Mayor of Takapuna too. When I drive down to this—actually, his name was Jack Guiniven, and he was for 21 years the mayor—there is a street on the way to this Bayswater place. I know that that history is really important to me and I know it is to other people. This bill will make sure that that history continues. I commend the bill to the House.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): As a North Shore MP—part North Shore MP, part West Auckland—I would just remind Dan Bidois, that I would probably like some of the Upper Harbour territory, but for the time being, Greenhithe Bay, Bayview, Unsworth Heights, Tōtara Vale, Wairau Valley, and parts of Glenfield belong to Upper Harbour.
Dan Bidois: For now.
CAMERON BREWER: For now. But despite the campaigning already under way, it’s great to be able to acknowledge my good friend Dan Bidois, MP for Northcote, across the way here, and of course the sponsor of this local bill, the Hon Simon Watts.
I spent some time with the Hon Simon Watts last week. I turned up to the Milford Bowling Club to an attendance of 80 locals, and I thought, “Wow, this is the biggest crowd I’ve ever attracted.” I thought, “I’ve got to text mum about this.” “Look at all these cars, all these little Morris Minors and Suzuki Swifts out the front”—I was thinking, “This is good; a good, youthful crowd!” Then I realised that they weren’t there for me; the invitation actually had Nancy Lu on it. My office in the electorate of Upper Harbour, in Hobsonville, is now sending out: “Business After Five in Hobsonville with the Hon Chris Penk, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing. Hosted by Nancy Lu.”—and “Cameron Brewer will also be in attendance” is in small print. That is the power of Nancy Lu on the North Shore!
I want to again acknowledge Simon Watts for his shepherding and the work that he’s done through the Governance and Administration Committee. I also want to acknowledge all those officials at Auckland Council that Zoomed in at different times—they, effectively, wrote the amendments that are needed to enable some commercial activity here. There’s a lot of talk about orange chocolate chip ice cream, but this is beyond our realm, because this would be more to do with the district licensing authority and the local boards’ policies on alcohol. I kind of see, Mr Costley, dare I say, maybe not just an orange chocolate chip ice cream, but maybe—maybe—it could be a place where one can share a very, very, very low alcohol drink over a very nice meal, looking over the fabulous Waitematā Harbour.
For those that are just tuning in on Parliament TV and on Truth Radio, when you go over the Auckland Harbour Bridge—the one that the Labour Party were going to spend $56 billion replacing—
Dan Bidois: They did spend it.
CAMERON BREWER: They spent probably that much just looking at it.
Shanan Halbert: How’s your plan going?
CAMERON BREWER: Anyway, over the Harbour Bridge—Shanan Halbert, just to take you back—and once you land on the North Shore, you peer out at the borough of Birkenhead, the home of Dan Bidois. You look over to the right there, and it’s that big two- or three-storey kauri weatherboard boathouse that’s under the auspices of the Takapuna Boating Club in Bayswater. Of course, it sits on Sir Peter Blake Parade. That, of course, is named Sir Peter Blake Parade because that’s where the late, great Sir Peter Blake grew up with his family and his parents. You can see that Bayswater Marina is going to be a fabulous setting, and I want to commend those members of the Takapuna Boating Club that have put their shoulders into the grind here to back this restoration project.
It will be a major restoration project. Steve Abel from the Green Party said much money has already been spent on roof replacement and foundations. It’s a multimillion-dollar refurbishment, and this enables that commercial element in the club, while protecting, as Dan Bidois has eloquently articulated, that as a primarily community facility, a not-for-profit facility, in perpetuity for the good people of the North Shore and those that they let across the bridge. And I understand they don’t let everyone across the bridge. Sometimes when I’m coming across the Greenhithe Bridge from West Auckland, I have to kind of be issued with a visa as well.
I just want to again, for those that have tuned in, just reflect, in my closing remarks, on what this actually means and where this has come from, for those that are trying to make sense of it.
Hon Chris Penk: Including you!
CAMERON BREWER: Including some of my colleagues, says the Hon Chris Penk—see my hearing’s better—
Hon Chris Penk: I said “you”.
CAMERON BREWER: The post—oh, he said I’m trying to make sense of it too. Look, we can cite some amendments in the legislation if you want. See, once a lawyer, always a lawyer!
A quirk of archaic legislation means MPs will decide whether to increase the supply of caffeine on Auckland’s North Shore. The Takapuna Boating Club has long held ambitions to rent out part of its clubrooms, at the end of the peninsula in Bayswater, to a cafe—don’t know if it’s licensed or not; we won’t interfere with that. However, a law from the 1920s—and we’ve got members across the House on the back row of the Opposition who were there, who debated the third reading back then—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I hope you’re not forgetting where the current Speaker sits.
CAMERON BREWER: Mr Speaker, I was pointing over vaguely to Willie Jackson and Damien O’Connor—where they normally sit; just in that area.
Anyway, a law from the 1920s—that some were privy to—specifically states that the land and building may only be used, and only be used, for the purpose of swimming, boating, and any similar community purpose. We’ve been talking about dances and the likes of that, and I know—
Dan Bidois: Ice cream.
CAMERON BREWER: Ice cream—there’s a lot of talk about ice cream. When that little boy grows up, you’re going to get even more talk about ice cream, Dan Bidois. It’s going to ruin your carpet, and your car as well, Dan, and your car. That car is history. That’ll take more refurbishment than the Bayswater Boating Club, I can tell you.
Anyway, the Bayswater Boating Club is not allowed—Mr Speaker, this is as I close, and I suspect the Hon Chris Penk will ask for an extension of time. The Bayswater Boating Club is not allowed to be used, as has been well canvassed, for commercial gain due to an Act that was passed a hundred years ago. Once the hub of the community, it now stands battered. The land where the heritage building—and Andy Foster took us through its heritage status—was gifted through an Act of Parliament in 1923.
There are very few places on the Waitematā Harbour where you can actually sit across and look directly on the water. It will be a competitor to the marine centre in Catalina Bay, in Hobsonville Point, which is under construction and will be a fabulous facility for the good people of Upper Harbour—the marine centre at Hobsonville Point with the jetty that’s being constructed. So this will be a great amenity not just for the good of the North Shore—they may think it’s just for the people of the North Shore. No! This is going to drag people from all around the place. Everyone must go. Isn’t it fantastic, the Hon Louise Upston? Check the Hansard, the numbers—the numbers—of how many businesses are on board with the “Everyone Must Go” campaign. And I’ll tell you what, they’ll be going to the Bayswater boathouse for a cup of coffee, a chocolate chip ice cream, or dare I say an alcohol-free Heineken zero.
For the North Shore, this is a proud moment. I want to acknowledge some of my old mates on the North Shore, like former Mayor of North Shore City George Wood, the honourable George Wood. I also want to acknowledge Ann Hartley, a late colleague of many of ours who passed away recently, who was also a mayor of the North Shore—North Shore City in those early days—and then of course she was on the inaugural council. We acknowledge Ann and all the advocacy that she’s done. And we acknowledge all those that have enjoyed the Bayswater clubhouse over many, many years. A good friend of mine Jan Franklin, and her husband Steven—Jan was recalling the dances they used to go to in the 1950s at the Bayswater clubhouse.
It is a great honour to be asked—in fact, a lot of my colleagues demanded I speak on this. Demanded! Hence we’ve got a full House tonight—Parliament TV always ruins my speeches because they pan out and no one’s there. But I commend the second reading of this local bill. I congratulate all those that are involved in this massive restoration project. It’s a great project for Auckland. It’s a great day for New Zealand. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Name changed to Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day—and Mr Penk comes closer to his vanilla ice cream.
Bills
Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move, That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
It’s an honour to be standing here and to be able to bring the third reading of this bill to the House. I think it’s fair to say that it’s possible many of us thought we would not get there, in terms of this bill being introduced in the last Parliament and now with the change of Government. I couldn’t be happier to be here, being able to shepherd this bill through the House.
First of all, I just wanted to acknowledge a personal thing, which is that it’s my father’s 70th birthday today. Happy birthday, Dad. He’s been a lifelong champion for justice in the workplace, so I think, hopefully, he’ll be very happy to see that, although I won’t be able to spend much time with him today, I’ll be in the House bringing this bill to the House.
This bill criminalises intentional theft by employers to their workers. Why? Why is this bill needed? This bill is needed because of the injustice that many workers face in New Zealand to this day. It was brought to this House by a very, very good man, a very close friend of mine, a former MP of this House, who, I believe, is watching tonight, who came to New Zealand as a refugee. He experienced injustice in the form of wage theft. He then became a member of Parliament and brought this bill to the House to stop any other workers suffering what he did. I think, really, that is a story of New Zealand and also of this party. I can’t see whether he is here, but, hopefully, he’s watching today. Ibrahim, this bill is really for you.
I read, when I was preparing for this debate, his first reading speech. It’s really a fantastic speech, so I do really encourage anyone to read that speech, rather than listen to my speech tonight. I thought it would be pertinent to read an extract of that, because it really summarises why this bill was so important to him and how important it is for so many workers in New Zealand, especially migrant workers. This is what he said:
“Not long after arriving in New Zealand, I got my first work in the Wairarapa. It was farm work, with my employer shuttling me from Lower Hutt to Martinborough each day for work. At the end of my first week of work, I was told by a contractor that I had done a poor job that was not worth the cost of shuttling me to and from work, and that I did not deserve any pay. I was told that if I had any decency, I should be paying back the employer his costs for the week as the work that I’d done had amounted to nothing. I was told that I would not be paid and that if I did not like it, then I should piss off.”
He said, “Not knowing what my rights were, I just walked away from my payment for my week’s work, but as I became involved more with migrant workers, I found out that my experience was not the exception.” And, unfortunately, this experience is not an exception in New Zealand, and it regularly happens in New Zealand. Unfortunately, some businesses deliberately rely on regularly underpaying their employees and have it baked into their business model. This bill imposes serious criminal sanctions in order to stop this practice.
Now, we know that most employers are good employers. In fact, almost all employers are good employers. This bill really applies to the businesses who are not acting within the law. It doesn’t impose any additional sanctions on employers. Essentially, it allows good employers to continue doing what they’re doing without fear of anything happening to them. It doesn’t, unlike many other employment-related laws that come to this House, impose any other conditions or work or bureaucracy or anything on employers. It just asks them to pay employees what they’re owed, to pay them their fair wages, to make sure that, when they contribute their labour, they are fairly recognised for that.
Taking this bill through the House, I’ve regularly been asked by people if we have a lot of evidence around wage theft, and I just wanted to cite a few of these different examples to really show how this is a problem in New Zealand and how I hope this bill will be able to address it.
In 2019, there was a report by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that found that wage theft was one of the most common forms of migrant labour exploitation in New Zealand—the most common forms. We’ve seen examples, as this bill has gone through the House, of migrant workers working as cleaners being underpaid by $17,000; workers who worked over 900 hours being paid only for a small percentage—being paid for only 32 hours. We’ve seen people who’ve been paid an equivalent of only $7 an hour for their work at bottle shops. We’ve seen cafe staff, hospitality workers, and construction workers, unfortunately, deliberately underpaid by employers who are taking advantage of the fact they could.
This has to stop in New Zealand. These are all New Zealand workers who deserve respect. I was very honoured once my colleague Ibrahim Omer brought this bill to the House in April 2023 to then see this bill come through the Education and Workforce Committee. We had, I think, 84 percent support of submitters at select committee—so quite significant support from the people who were able to submit on this bill. I was very, very pleased then to see it reported back to the House. I think, really, the circuit breaker for this bill not going in the dustbin of good ideas was the fact that we were able to obtain support from parties across the House.
We were very privileged to have the support of the Green Party and of Te Pāti Māori throughout the readings on this bill. And then, after select committee, we were very, very pleased to get the support of New Zealand First to allow this bill to go through the House. I want to really thank the members of New Zealand First for looking to their values and seeing that many of the values that we have we share—especially when it comes to standing up for vulnerable workers, for making sure that there isn’t exploitation in workplaces, and for fairness. I wanted to thank especially the Hon Mark Patterson and the Hon Casey Costello for their work on this bill.
Their work did lead to an amendment to this bill, which I think has actually made this bill stronger. This bill now very clearly applies to employers who deliberately steal without reasonable excuse from their employer. That, I think, is the original intention of the bill and really has clarified the purpose of this bill. It’s really clear, and if you look at the draft that we’ve got here today, I think we’ve improved on that bill since the select committee as well. I really want to thank New Zealand First, and, of course, Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, who have supported us throughout the process.
This bill is not an unusual bill, either, in terms of international comparisons. We know that in Australia many states have had wage theft laws, and since 1 January 2025 Australia has outlawed wage theft under its fair-work conditions. We also know that Norway has laws against wage theft, and also California has laws against wage theft. Really, this bill brings New Zealand into line with world leaders in standing up for injustice at work and provides a real avenue for those who have faced terrible injustice with what little they have. We have to remember that, for many people, especially people who come to New Zealand, the only thing they have—the only thing they can use—is to sell their labour in order to make money. If the value of that is taken away on purpose by someone who professes to be an employer, those people should be held to account for that.
I just want to reflect on why many of us come to this House. I think we come here to stand up for justice, to hold people to account, and to protect the vulnerable, and I think this bill does all of those things. I want to again acknowledge my colleague Ibrahim Omer for bringing this bill to the House. This has been a collective effort, my friend. We wouldn’t have been able to do it without you having the bravery to bring this bill to the House—and, indeed, many members of the labour movement who were able to raise this as an issue and to assist. I especially want to acknowledge, as you did in the first reading, John Ryall and Peter Cranney for their assistance with this.
I very much hope that we can pass this bill tonight and that this bill will become law and it can be something where members across the House can be proud of their Parliament for standing up for the dignity of work, for justice, for fairness, and for working New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Members, when we left the House prior to the dinner break, we were on the third reading of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 2, and it’s a National Party call.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, tonight we are speaking on the third reading of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t actually fortunate enough to speak on the second reading, and so I feel like it’s my opportunity to make my fulsome comment on the bill in the third reading, which is absolutely A-OK.
I am the chair of the select committee that heard this bill, the Education and Workforce Committee. We went through a very rigorous process, as we always do when we go through members’ bills, and I think there’s a few points that I would quite like to make. Look, I understand that it’s likely that this bill will go through its third reading, as it passed the second reading, and so I am just acknowledging the nuances and reinforcing the very reasons that in the second reading, we did not support this bill, for the reasons that I will outline.
One of those, of course, is the impact that it makes on the criminal justice system. Of course, to acknowledge the points that we’ve already made and continue to make, there is already an Employment Relations Act that covers any dispute between an employee and an employer. The process exists, the civil court action exists, and making it a criminal offence—obviously, adding penalties, adding criminal repercussions to employers—not only clogs up the justice system, as we have made clear, but also takes down a different path something that has otherwise had a path for resolution between the employer and the employee. Look, not to say that it’s a slippery slope, but if we do this for everything that we have currently civil action for, making things criminal, including increasing penalties, what then do we have left in the Employment Relations Act and in the civil courts?
One thing I will just do, going through the points, is just acknowledge, obviously, of course, as has Camilla Belich, the member currently shepherding this through the House on behalf of Ibrahim Omer, and just commend his involvement in the process. Of course, he came to select committee and was acknowledged through that process and his participation, and we did hear some stories from people that have had a very challenging time. I think it’s important that we acknowledge those people. Obviously, whether it’s migrant exploitation, whether it’s worker exploitation, you know, those are things that we absolutely don’t want to see. The point that we make, and the point that was well made by Business New Zealand, is that what this does is further divide the employer and the employee and the relationship that they have in the workplace.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Only if they steal.
KATIE NIMON: I think the point to make—and the point that the Opposition are trying to make quite loudly is “Only if they steal.” Well, actually, the first person that has to take this as a criminal offence to the police is the employee. This is not to say that in every single case what they take to the police is valid. Members opposite have mentioned this in the first reading, the second reading, that every case that is taken to the police is not always going to be grounded. What we are doing is adding another criminal offence to the justice system, further clogging up an already very lagged justice system, a criminal system that’s having to deal with retail crime, gang crime, violent crime, additionally now adding a further crime to the Crimes Act.
The point that we’re making here is that in every case where an employee has been hard done by, by their employer, or perceives that they’ve been hard done by, by their employer—whether it’s $2, $20, or $200—they have to take that to the police. They have to have the police investigate the process, and they then go through the criminal justice system, if it is in this case—if the amendment has been added—an intent to be dishonest. Look, that’s something that we debated heavily through the select committee process, and as we mention in our report—
Rachel Boyack: “Tough on crime.”
KATIE NIMON: —that, of course—actually, Jo, I’m going to come back to that point. Members opposite said, “Tough on crime.”—absolutely. Do you know what I’d rather our police be dealing with? I’d rather our police be dealing with people crashing cars into a dairy, people robbing someone’s house, and people wearing gang patches in public and intimidating members of the community. I would rather the police be dealing with someone being stalked. I would rather the police be dealing with just about anything other than a dispute between an employee and an employer that can be dealt with through the civil court. This is the point that we are making. We are absolutely tough on crime, and now all we are doing is adding an additional crime for police to get involved in when there’s a dispute process already in place.
The next thing is that the Opposition are going to be introducing crimes for dealing with tenancy disagreements—I bet we’ll see that coming. Unfortunately, they’re probably already going to go there. They’ve probably got it drafted up ready to go, but the point that we are making is, at the end of the day, this is not—[Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Interjections are fine, but this is becoming a barrage from both sides.
KATIE NIMON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is not the point that is trying to be addressed. As we have always said, every time we work for the worker and we work for the business, we want to make that relationship closer, not for somebody to feel that they have to take that to the police to have a dispute resolved. This is the point that we have argued from the beginning and what we heard very loudly from Business New Zealand.
Now, I just want to identify that, obviously, in the select committee process, we hear from all sorts of people. Of course we heard from the unions. We heard from individuals that have been impacted, that have had terrible stories from their workplace relationships, and that’s something that’s really important for us to acknowledge, but Business New Zealand, in this very case, has represented a lot of businesses—businesses who haven’t come and spoken in their own case.
To acknowledge that the member Camilla Belich did say, almost every business and almost every employer is a good employer, but, in so many cases, it is inevitably going to happen that police are going to be entering a workplace, pressing charges against someone or investigating someone for what has been perceived to have been done to an employee. That is absolutely without a doubt going to have an impact on their reputation as an employer in the first place, whether or not this ends up being something that gets pursued or ends up going to court, or, even if it goes to court, whether or not they end up winning the dispute. It’s really important for us to identify those repercussions, and Business New Zealand made that very, very clear. That’s something that we can’t ignore and we didn’t ignore on the Government side of the select committee.
Look, I think it’s really important to make sure that, in every single case, we are thinking of the perverse outcome, because we are absolutely and by no means putting to the side the experience of the worker; we made that very clear, and we heard some very telling stories from people. I am absolutely acknowledging the intent that the former member and now the current member have with this bill and what they intended to bring to the House, but the point that we continue to make is that the additional pressure on the criminal justice system for something that has a pathway for its dispute to be resolved through the civil courts, through the Employment Relations Act, now to have further penalties and, actually, for some employers to face a year in prison—if people didn’t read that in the documents, make sure that it’s very, very clear. This could be over a couple of hundred dollars—that someone has the right now to take this to the police, that that employer could then face lifelong reputational damage, the inability to ever operate a business again, and face up to a year in prison.
It’s not to say that there might be people out there that do something that deserves a course of action—absolutely, but to say that now people have to go through this process, to be investigated, to be part of the criminal justice system, the impact that that places on them and their reputation and the feeling that that has in the workplace for others, that is something that absolutely has a pathway to be solved and resolved through the current system. We feel that that is a slippery slope towards having a criminal approach to just about everything that we have civil action for. We’ve made it very clear in our select committee report, and I’m sure you’ll hear from my colleagues throughout this evening our position on this bill.
At the end of the day, to make something that has a current pathway through the Employment Relations Act a criminal offence is adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to a process, and it is taking away from our police and from our criminal court system, from the very real crimes that this Government, who is absolutely tough on crime—to be focusing on something that has already got a resolution process. With that, we do not commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, what I omitted to say before the last speech was that the question is that the motion be agreed to.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I absolutely agree the question should be agreed to, Madam Speaker. We’re hearing tonight about people being soft on crime or tough on crime, but that side of the House is very selective on the crimes that they want to prosecute.
I do acknowledge that Katie Nimon is a good chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, but I cannot agree with what she has said just before, in that speech, and I had hoped that the National Party would be supporting this bill. We expect the National Party to sort of hug the middle, but, unfortunately, they seem to be incredibly distracted and incredibly attached to the ACT Party mantra.
It’s disappointing, and we expect this from the ACT Party—you know, they’re the big business on hyper-capitalism. We know that they will do anything to burn down workers’ rights. That’s what they’re about, and we expect that. We also sometimes have hope for the National Party that, actually, they’ll see the light and try to hug the middle, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. They are still, unfortunately, subservient vassals to the ACT Party. I was hopeful, actually, that the smell of burnt plastic in school lunches might have convinced them to support this bill, but, unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Fortunately, there is a Government party that does sound like they have unshackled themselves from the neo-liberal freight train of capitalism and will be supporting this bill, hopefully, at the end of this as well.
I do want to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer, who brought this bill to the House in its first reading. I acknowledge his presence here today, as well. What a momentous occasion for him to be back in the House to see this bill, hopefully, be passed into law, and I feel that it will happen.
It is important, and people have spoken about it before—because I spent a bit of time tonight reading his first reading speech, where he talked about his actual experience of having his wages stolen from him. In the case that he talked about of himself, he was working on a farm in the Wairarapa, and then his employer told him that they didn’t like his work and just took his pay. As the previous speakers from the Labour Party have said—and I do want to acknowledge Camilla Belich’s expert shepherding of this bill through the House. They noted that there was a 2019 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment report that said that there was such a significant impact on migrant workers, and that significant impact was wage theft—wage theft.
This bill is incredibly simple. It is incredibly simple. If you nick something, you get pinged for it—if you nick something, you get pinged for it. If you’re an employee and you put your fingers in the till, you’re going to get pinged for it, and that’s what’s there at the moment, but if you’re an employer and you put your fingers into your employee’s pocket to take their money, you don’t get pinged for it. We hear from that side of the House—well, that particular corner of the House—that there is a pathway for workers to take and that it’s a civil action pathway. For those of us who know, who come from families who are migrant families where mum and dad don’t speak such good English—they’re just recent immigrants here—how are they able to access that pathway? How are they supposed to at least not only access that pathway but afford that pathway? It is outrageous.
That’s why it’s so important that this House turns its mind to supporting this bill through the House and to supporting and upholding workers’ rights—because it is a basic right. It is a decent right. If you do a hard day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay. If you do a hard day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay, and people shouldn’t be allowed to hold back your wages. That is what is at the centre of this.
I don’t want to prolong this kōrero, because we want to get to this bill being assented to here in the House, but I was thinking of a whakataukī, and it goes “Ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri—ko te amorangi ki mua, ko te hāpai ō ki muri”. What that means is if you’ve got things sorted out the front and you’ve got things sorted at the back, that’s when things are harmonious. When you’re on the marae and people are doing things well in the kitchens and your workers are doing well in the kitchens, that enables people in the front to do their bit well at the front as well, and what that points to is good relationships.
We need good relationships in the workplace, and I acknowledge that for many, if not most, employers, they won’t be having their fingers in their employee’s back pocket, but it points to the importance of making sure that we have those good relationships. For those employers that are stealing and that are thieving from their employees, this bill goes some way to addressing that. On that, the Greens support this bill.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I love doing some speeches after the Green Party. Firstly, what I would like to say is ACT is not anti-worker; in fact, we are extremely pro-worker. I understand the intent of this bill and I want to, firstly, acknowledge the previous member Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward.
I think everybody in this House can agree that, if an employer intentionally withholds money, that is a very, very serious matter, and none of us wants to see employees exploited. I think that is pretty huge, but there are reasons why we can’t support this bill. Katie Nimon has articulated all the points very well, I would say, but let me remind everybody—and it’s not because we don’t believe in the cause. In fact, we really do believe in it, but there are already key mechanisms in place. We have the Employment Relations Act, we have the Immigration Act, and we have all kinds of other little bits and pieces so that you are able to do that.
I think what might be quite useful for everybody is to actually go through what some of these processes actually are and how they actually look, or how effective it is. Present data shows the effectiveness in the current system in resolving employment issues, including the number of enforcement actions and penalties awarded. If we look at the 2022-23 financial year, there were 112 direct enforcement actions that were taken, resulting in approximately $1.13 million in penalties awarded by the Employment Relations Authority. In 2021-22: 212 investigations and $685,000 in penalties awarded. In 2023-24, of the 400-odd complaints, most of these were resolved without enforcing penalties. The system is actually working. Why would this House want to create another layer of bureaucracy on top of what we have, under the premise of keeping our workers safe?
It’s all great to hear all the stories, and I do believe it is really stressful. I remember one time when an employer didn’t pay me and you’ve got automatic payments coming out—if you’re living week to week, it’s extremely stressful if you know you’re not getting that money at all. That’s absolutely horrible, and I don’t think any of us can accept it, but we’ve got a system. We’ve got mechanisms in place. We don’t want to see an employer being potentially victimised. We don’t want to see our police going around and knocking on the doors of businesses when they’ve actually got real crime to deal with. We do not support this bill, and I think it’s very clear why we do not support it. Thank you very much.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. There’s nothing, I’ve found, in this House like employment relations to open up the old fractures between Labour and National, and the parties to the left and the right of them. This is the old battle between capital and labour, and they are the proxy wars that have gone on in the House for probably close to a hundred years between those two parties. This is where New Zealand First brings real value to these debates—we see ourselves as Switzerland. We believe it is the Government’s role to be a referee.
We do believe and our voting record over time is that we do believe quite strongly in flexibility in the labour market. We have fought really hard over time for the 90-day trials and have supported Minister van Velden in this Parliament, and when we were last in coalition with Labour, we fought really hard to keep those 90-day trials for businesses of under 20 employees. We also supported recently around the process of supporting the excesses around the personal grievances to try to bring that back into some balance.
At our core, our values are that we are an egalitarian party. We believe in fairness and that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. We have consistently championed for rises in the minimum wage when we’ve had the opportunity to be in coalition negotiations, including in this Parliament as well, although I must admit it’s a bit easier when you’re in coalition with Labour—they’ve been a bit more meaningful. At the very least, the very lowest bar that you should be clearing here is that you should be paid, and you should pay if you’re an employer.
We have evidence that this wage theft and exploitation does happen in this country, and it’s not something that we should be proud of. That’s why other jurisdictions also have brought in laws to address this issue, and we know that the original proponent of the bill—and it’s great to see him here—Ibrahim Omer, was a victim of such a crime himself.
Just a history of our involvement, for those that may be tuning in for the first time. We were not in the House during the first reading of the bill. It was in those dark days when New Zealand First wasn’t represented in this House in the 53rd Parliament, and we were not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee. We had the first opportunity to engage with the bill only during the second reading. We did vote it through to the committee of the whole House stage, but we did share some of the concerns of our colleagues on this side of the House that it wasn’t tight or strong enough to protect employers that may have genuine cash-flow issues or genuine reasons why they might not have been able to make payroll. We worked diligently—and through an amendment from my colleague Casey Costello—in that committee of the whole House stage to get this bill into a state that we felt we could further consider it.
In terms of what we’re being asked to do, fundamentally, Camilla Belich, the proponent of this bill, was asking us two key questions: why do migrant workers here on work visas have the protection of a criminal process when New Zealand citizens and permanent residents do not have that same legal recourse, and why is it a crime for employees to steal from employers and the reverse does not apply? They are questions for which New Zealand First has yet to hear compelling answers, and that is why we will be using our key swing votes to assist this bill into law.
This bill will not criminalise the 99.9 percent of good, honest employers. All they have to do is continue to do what they do now: pay their wages and their contractual obligations to their employees. This bill will punish unscrupulous employees that seek to exploit the time and the labour of often vulnerable New Zealanders. Now, let’s be honest here: most of these are recent immigrants, many of whom have come to this country for a better life, often with English as a second language and often from countries that do not have the same strong labour protections as we do. It speaks to our values, I think, that we would want to protect these vulnerable workers. They often do not have the means or the knowledge to go down the civil pathway that is being referenced by our colleagues on this side of the House.
The other point is that this is a deterrence factor. We are a law and order party. There should be consequences for a crime. We fundamentally believe that, and this bill does provide that deterrence factor.
I would like to commend my colleague Casey Costello. As I’ve said, we did have some concerns about this bill when we kicked it round a little bit, and Casey tabled the amendment to new section 220AA(2) of the Crimes Act, inserted by clause 4 of the bill. Casey brought a depth of experience to this issue. She had been a trustee of the Migrant Exploitation Relief Foundation prior to coming into Parliament and had represented vulnerable workers. She was also vice-president of the Police Association—under Greg O’Connor, I might say. I’m not sure how Greg managed to get in above Casey, but that’s a question for the Police Association. She has represented the police workforce, of course—the police union, essentially—and, of course, with 14 years’ active service in the New Zealand Police, she knew the realities and was able to ground truth how the police may interact with this bill and how we could make it clearer for them. I’d like to thank Casey for that work.
The real congratulations here are to Camilla Belich, of course. This is a substantive legislative achievement, Camilla. The members’ bill stuff—there’s a continuum there, or a range, but this is at the substantive the end of those bills, I think. I congratulate you. Thank you very much for your constructive engagement on this bill, and I thank you and your team. There was almost a mini - select committee going on as we thrashed this out, and you were always open-minded to sensible changes.
The real hero here today is Ibrahim Omer. I only got the chance to meet you during the dinner break. Your experience was pivotal to this bill. We talk a lot in this House, and every time you’re asked as a politician, “Why do you want to be a politician?”, well, it’s to make a difference. I don’t know where your political career will lead you in the future, Ibrahim, but you have made a difference today. It was your experience in putting that bill in the biscuit tin, and it was an example of Parliament working at its finest. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Ka pai. Tēnā tātou, e tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te ture e kīia nei ko te Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. Enei kōrero ka tukua ki te reo Māori. Tika tonu kua roa te iwi Māori e noho nei ki roto ki te rāngai kaimahi o te motu. Nō ngā rima tekau, ono tekau, whitu tekau, tōia mai o mātou mātua tīpuna ki rō tāone noho ai hei kaimahi. Nō reira, taua ao, kei te mārama nui nei te iwi Māori ki ēnei tūāhuatanga.
Nō reira, hei tākiri i te ia o aku kōrero, e tika ana kia mihi ki te tangata nei ki a koe Aperahama, Ibraham, tēnā koe. Haramai, tōia mai ō whakaaro nui hei wetewete mō tēnei Whare. Hākoa, kua kore e tino whai whakaaro nui tēnei Whare ki te manene, ki te tangata whenua, ki te iwi parauri i roto i ngā tau. Nō reira, ēnā tū āwangawanga, ēnā tū wero katoa o te hunga taketake ka tōia mai ki roto ki ngā kōrero, nō reira tēnā koe, Aperahama.
Nō reira kei te Pīka, ehara i te mea ka tōaitia ngā kōrero. E tika tonu ana, ko tā te iwi Māori e mea ana, kia kotahi te ture, kia kotahi te ture kia mana ō kupu, kia māia tō ū ki ngā tikanga. Nō reira, mēnā he tikanga rua tō te whare, tō te Tāhūhū o te Ture rānei, whakatikahia. Ko te wā tuatoru pea tēnei, tuarua, tuatoru kua tū au ki ki te kōrero mō tētahi pire kua roa e noho waikura ana i roto i tēnei Whare. Te hanga nei kāore tēnei Whare mō te whaiwhai haere i ngā ture kua roa e taka hē nei kātahi ka hoki mai ki te whakatika me te patipati i tōna anō tuara.
Nō reira kei te tautoko atu mātou, mārika, kia kotahi te ture, ahakoa kaipakihi, ahakoa kaimahi rānei. Anā, ko tāku e āpiti nei ki ngā kōrero, ko te iwi Māori kua roa e noho hunga kaimahi ana i roto i ngā rāngai mahi katoa o tēnei motu. Nō reira koia tā mātou e mea nei kei te tautoko ake. Tika tonu kia kotahi te ture, tika tonu kia hāngai te kupu o te Whare ki tōna mana, e ai te wāhi ki a ia, ki te kore, hei aha mā te Whare? Nō reira, ka waihohia ake ki reira. Kei te tautoko mātou i te pire. Tēnā tātou.
[All is good. Greetings to all, I stand to voice the sentiments of the Māori Party with regards to the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. These sentiments will be delivered in te reo Māori. It is only true that Māori have for a long time been a part of the labour force in this country. In the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s, our ancestors were dragged to the cities to live as labourers. Therefore, that world is something that the Māori people understand well.
To strike at the gist of what I am saying, it is only appropriate that I thank you Aperahama, Ibraham. Welcome, bring with you your wise opinions for this House to ponder, in spite of this House not being very considerate to immigrants, to indigenous peoples, or to brown-skinned people in the past. So all of those concerns and challenges of the indigenous peoples are introduced into discussions, so thank you, Abraham.
To the Speaker, I will not prolong my speech. The axiom of the Māori is true, that there should be one law and that your words are your bond, and to hold fast to code. Therefore, if there are dual rules in this House, or of the Ministry of Justice, then this must be rectified. This is perhaps the second or third time that I have stood to talk about this bill that has been sitting here rusting away in the House. It is as if this House is not adhering to the rules that it has long been disregarding, and now is trying to correct it and stroke their own back.
So we support it wholeheartedly, for there to be one law, whether it pertains to a business person or a labourer. I would also like to add that Māori have long been labourers in all sectors of the country. Therefore, that is why we are in support. It is only right for there to be one law, and that the House is true to its word, because if it is not, then what is the point of this issue to the House? I will leave it there. We support the bill. Thank you all.]
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s a great pleasure to support this bill and, hopefully, it becoming law. I just want to commend Camilla Belich and Ibrahim Omer—who is here with us today—for the work that they have done to bring this issue into the debating chamber.
I think, at the core of it, this bill is asking us to consider whether not paying an employee their wages is theft—pretty bloody common sense, I reckon—and I think, to me, that should spark a broader conversation politically. Workplaces are nothing without the workers, and therefore we should be willing and be brave and aspirational in saying who should have control of the workplaces and who should retain the ability to make decisions around how workplaces run, including how the profits and the wealth generated from workplaces are, therefore, distributed to workers.
I think this bill has sparked a really important conversation. Having worked in hospitality, as with my peers, I know this is a huge issue in the hospitality sector. I know that Ibrahim, coming from the union movement, has heard for himself many, many stories—as has Camilla Belich, as well—of workers talking about, basically, those workers not having had their wages paid by their bosses and, basically, that profit, that money, having been kept from them, and there are the impacts on people on the ground. It’s the difference between being able to put food on the table, being able to pay your bills, and being able to actually engage in your workplace constructively.
I think, to me, that the key to the success of this bill will be continuing to keep a really close eye to whether the deterrence factor applies. If it doesn’t, it’s actually not a failure of the purpose of this bill, but it actually should be a call for Government to do far more, to give greater power to workers in the workplaces, so that this issue doesn’t keep happening again. I look forward to this bill becoming law, and for us continuing to have brave and bold conversations about who should have control of the workplaces.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer, here in the House this evening. Thank you for the contribution you made as part of the select committee process and for your willingness to continue to engage in this legislative process that we have in this special place. I just want to welcome you back here this evening. I also want to acknowledge Camilla Belich for shepherding this through the Education and Workforce Committee, for her willingness to have a kōrero, a conversation, about some of the nuances of employment law in New Zealand. Certainly, I did learn through the process, and I want to acknowledge that this evening.
I want to acknowledge the select committee for the hard work that they put into shepherding this through, the conversations that happened, led by New Zealand First and by the Hon Casey Costello, and the amendment that was put forward as part of the committee of the whole House stage. I’m not sure that that amendment has been particularly explained so far this evening, in that there were some key words added, which included “without reasonable excuse”. That was part of why the National Party, as part of the committee of the whole House, did support that amendment—so that, if the bill did become law this evening, it would be a better law for it. I just want to, as I say, acknowledge our coalition partners and the Hon Casey Costello for bringing that amendment to the House and ensuring that the piece of legislation is better than it would have otherwise been.
It troubles me this evening that this has become a conversation about whether or not employees should get paid. The answer to that is pretty simple: employees should get paid what they are due for the work that they do. That is not the question here this evening. The question here this evening is whether or not the system that we currently have in place adequately, appropriately addresses that concern. It’s important to note that we have the Employment Relations Act that makes it very clear that underpayment and breaches of employment agreements can be dealt with; that the Minimum Wage Act and the Wages Protection Act ensure workers receive their full entitlements and prevent unlawful deductions. We have the Holidays Act, which requires payment of leave entitlements and imposes penalties for non-compliance.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Talk to some workers.
CARL BATES: Look, I’m not going to take side comments from the Greens this evening, who want us to hug the middle, right? We’re talking about stealing money from employees, but they don’t want to give them tax cuts and put more money in their pockets. Quite frankly, I can’t even see why they feel they’ve got an opinion this evening on this topic. We’ll just keep that kōrero over there quiet while we focus on the current law that we have—a law that protects employees, gives them rights, and ensures that they have the right to deal with issues in their employment relationship when they come up.
Now, what was interesting through the process, both here in the House and in the select committee, is that we asked for data around theft from employees on a number of occasions. What we were given were broad challenges, using the current system that provides for grievances, that didn’t and couldn’t accurately provide a number for theft from employees that’s currently occurring. What is being proposed this evening, and proposed through this process, is something that tries to deal with the exception rather than the rule. I take the point from our New Zealand First colleagues that 99.9 percent of all employers are good employers.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How do you know that if you say you have no data?
CARL BATES: Well, I’m simply quoting a member who has shared that perspective earlier this evening, and a perspective that I value significantly more than anything that comes from that corner of the House.
The point about the 99.9 percent of employers that do a good job is that, while this bill doesn’t target them, it is going to increase the compliance burden, the expectation, and my concern is the mental health of the small and medium employers, small and medium enterprises, who are going to have another thing that their HR consultant comes along and says, “Are you aware that you could go to jail, that you need to come to this workshop, you need to learn more about this?” It’s going to add another thing that employers and businesses have to learn about that doesn’t actually solve a problem—that doesn’t add to the set of tools that are already in our legislative framework to deal with this sort of problem.
Now, the comment was made earlier this evening that businesses don’t work without employees. I agree with that. In my journey as a businessowner, without a team we couldn’t have achieved anything, but, similarly, employees don’t have a job without an employer. It is a relationship that requires both to be involved. Yes, you can talk about some of the larger ones and how it’ll be easy for them to ensure they comply with this, and, of course, there are already remedies if they don’t. We make that point very clearly in the House this evening. There are already remedies for those where this happens. I feel for an employee that is in this situation where they have had the effective theft of their wages by an employer. I feel for them, but there are already ways, avenues within our law, for them to ensure that they get their wages paid.
I am concerned, as I say, for those small and medium employers, those sub-20 that my learned friend spoke about earlier, and what this will mean for them. The question for us this evening is: when we add a law to the statute book, does it add to the set of tools? And is the cost of implementation—and I’ve heard it said a couple of times over recent times, the cost of red and green tape. We have to remember that those two things are tied together in this House. When we talk about thieving from the pockets of employees, we should also be talking about the fact that both of those parties—who are so concerned with employee earnings in this country that they voted in this House against tax cuts for those very people, which I just find very ironic with their concern. We have to think about the cost of implementation of these laws when we already have a legislative framework to deal with this challenge.
Now, during the select committee process—and it might not have actually been on this bill specifically, because we have the unions talk to us on basically every bill in the Education and Workforce Committee, and our chair, Katie Nimon, effectively guides us through those discussions. The point was made recently by one of the unions that, in employment relationships, there is a good-faith requirement as part of the employment agreements. They argued that this covered all manner of issues that may come up in an employment relationship. While I’m certainly not suggesting this evening that that is the only component of employment law in New Zealand that an employee who has had theft of their wages can rely on—because I’ve already referred to the actual specific statutes and the language within those statutes that ensures protection for employees.
I did think it was sort of rather ironic that, on the one hand, the unions argue, on the occasion that suits them, that good faith covers everything, but, on other occasions, maybe good faith isn’t enough and we need much more specific language within our legislation and within our framework. Of course, we don’t support that. The biggest thing that this does is it shifts one aspect of employment law from the civil jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction. We don’t believe that that actually improves in any way the ability for employees to get recompense when they have had their wages withheld or stolen. Therefore, I don’t commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I do want to start by congratulating Camilla Belich for bringing this here today; and, of course, my friend and colleague Ibrahim Omer, who’s here in the House tonight, who brought this bill to the House in the first instance. They’ve done a great job, not only of drafting an important bill but also of doing that other thing in politics, which is marshalling support around the House. It does demonstrate that Parliament can do a fantastic job, particularly around members’ bills, where our job is to genuinely persuade our colleagues from every party and marshal support. Well done.
I don’t often tell personal stories in this House, but I want to start with one. It’s the story of Charmaine. Charmaine, whose name is already public, worked with me at a law firm. She was the human resources manager, and she was very good at her job. But she wasn’t honest. What she did—she was clever—was when it was someone’s time to leave, she would add some extra holiday pay. Over the course of several years, whenever someone left, she’d get an extra week of their holiday pay. It’s called fraud; it’s theft. She stole, over the course of several years, hundreds of thousands of dollars. She went to jail. She was sentenced to more than three years in prison, and that was right because she was dishonest and she stole from her employer. I was a partner at that law firm. There was a bit of a joke that, because of her theft, some of the partners couldn’t upgrade their Porsches.
I want to tell you another story. It’s fictitious. It’s a story about an employer who, when people leave, short-change them their holiday pay; who don’t give them their holiday pay; and if they don’t ask, they don’t follow it up. Over the course of many years, they steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from their employees. Their employees don’t miss out on a Porsche; they miss out on their mortgage payments. And do you know what? The National Party would want the world to stay that way. That is ridiculous. Charmaine stole money just as much as an employer who short-changes someone on their holiday steals money. I find it unbelievable that the National Party—and I cannot believe that Carl Bates called not stealing a “compliance cost”. I cannot believe that he said that that was a “red tape burden we shouldn’t put on employers”. Charmaine went to jail for a reason.
Katie Nimon, who at least had the decency to not sound like she believed what she was saying, would say Charmaine should deal with that in the Employment Court; it’s a civil matter. Now, we know that when people are dishonest, when they steal money, when, in the words of this bill, they “intentionally” and “without reasonable excuse” take money, the criminal law should kick in. Look, the ACT Party I forgive, because they’re irredeemable. But the National Party? Really? The National Party, who put themselves out as a thoughtful party who wants to get the law right? Why? Really—why?
The fact of the matter is that this went to the Education and Workforce Committee and 84 percent of the submitters there were totally in favour of this reform. All we’re asking for is an even playing field: when an employee steals, they suffer the consequences; when an employer steals, they suffer the consequences. Just because the employer happens to have the money that the employee is entitled to in their bank account doesn’t change things.
Now, I want to be really clear. There’s been scaremongering and I want to be really, really clear: if the employer doesn’t have the money in the bank; has tried their best and is not intentionally depriving someone of their wages, it’s not theft—it’s a liquidation and the civil law deals with that. All the reckless trading provisions deal with that, as they should. No one’s going to go to jail for not having the money to pay their staff because the sales weren’t enough that week. It’s really important to remember that. The fact of the matter is that a party that we look to for responsible government—
Grant McCallum: Oh, that’s good of you.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, we do. No, no, we look to you because you are in Government and we expect you to make reasonable decisions about things like this.
I do want to recognise New Zealand First on this because they have come to the table and they’ve brought a thoughtful and considered approach, and an open mind, which is all we ask. Thank you for your support for this bill, because I think it reflects on the fact that we will not agree on everything—we didn’t when we were in Government together, and we won’t if ever that happens again. But on this we agree and we can come together, so thank you for that.
This bill is actually an unbelievably simple bill: if you steal, pay the consequences, and stealing is the same whether you’re an employee stealing from an employer or an employer stealing from an employee. That’s why this bill will pass tonight.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill because I think this an opportunity for the National Party to explain our sensible opposition to this bill.
None of us wants to see migrant workers or any workers exploited in any way, and I want to just acknowledge Ibrahim Omer for his bringing of this bill, likely to become law, to the House. I can understand the reasons behind it and what you want to accomplish, and nobody disputes that. Nobody wants to see the bad actors, the people who are using their positions of power where they have more understanding of how to take advantage of people. Nobody wants to see that, and that’s not right, and we do not in any way condone that.
I think, when we talk about legislation, from our position, we look at what is the problem that we are trying to solve. From hearing the story that you brought, the problem was that there was an imbalance of power and not understanding what the rights were or what the correct thing was to do.
When you make something a criminal offence, does it really deter people? That’s the real question. This is creating a new pathway into criminal law when there is already a pathway for resolution through the civil courts. The ability of employers already exists to use the Employment Relations Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the Wages Protections Act—all have provisions that prevent unlawful deductions from wages, as does the Holidays Act.
When we think about what is it that we are trying to do here, putting it in under a new system or a different way of approaching this is not going to make it any quicker. This is not going to increase people’s access to justice. It may increase people’s access to legal aid, and maybe that’s the real reason that we’re looking at it through this avenue, because if you were to bring a matter through the civil court, my understanding is you don’t have the same access to legal aid. Again, this is another problem. This is the problem: people can’t afford to take the actions, and, therefore, they’re not getting access to justice. That’s a real problem, and we do need to look at that.
By creating a pathway through the criminal system, we will actually likely slow down people’s access to justice, because it takes a lot longer for these things to go through a criminal proceeding. Some of my colleagues have also spoken about the impact of the police needing to be involved in these proceedings as well. We can imagine a situation—and, yes, there’s always hypotheticals to discuss—where, as an employee is leaving an employment relationship, for whatever reason, they can raise an allegation through this. The fact of having to raise this allegation means it’s then investigated. It goes through the police process. They come and knock on an employer’s door. The employer has to defend themselves, and it adds more cost because they have to then employ a lawyer. Look, the lawyers are the ones who win in this; it’s always the lawyers, isn’t it? The ones who win here are always the lawyers; they’re always the ones who win here.
I’ve got the privilege, now, of sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee, and I’m very, very, very sad to see that Camilla Belich is no longer on it, because I felt we would have had some good across-the-seats discussions. However, now coming to speak on this bill, I can see that—through the process, as the chair, Katie Nimon, pointed out so ably—it was very well discussed and traversed all through the select committee. I thought it was very interesting that some of the concerns that were raised through the submissions haven’t been fully addressed. I thought it was interesting to read that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions pointed out that it would be hard to establish mens rea for non-natural persons. Do we actually have a resolution for that? I’m not sure.
Also, Business NZ noted the high threshold of beyond reasonable doubt imposed through the criminal system compared to the balance of probabilities that lies in the Employment Court. This then makes the proving of intention quite difficult. The prosecutors have a greater burden of proof to say that this was an intention. We know that proving intentionality can be very, very difficult.
Katie Nimon: They’ve still got to prove it.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: They’ve still got to prove that’s the case. Then, if they’re able to do that, is this a pattern or is this a one-off thing? This is going to be an interesting part of the question.
If you allow me to indulge for one very quick moment, the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee pointed out to me that she omitted to make a very important acknowledgment during her speech. I’ve undertaken to fix that error for her. She is no longer here, but anyway, she needed to acknowledge her husband, Jeremy, and his birthday tomorrow. Happy birthday, Jeremy, for tomorrow. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. Look, this, as I said—
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can stretch it; only three more minutes, Vanessa. You can do it.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Only three more minutes, says Duncan. Yes, thank you. Do you have any more contributions to make to my speech?
Look, when we are looking at this, we absolutely acknowledge the good intentions behind it. There will be unintended consequences that come from this. My colleague Carl Bates pointed out that employers are a very valuable part of this relationship. A relationship of trust should be in existence between employers and employees. This is a matter that’s likely to affect very few people within an employment relationship, because it is a very small number of people that are at that extreme bad end—
Ricardo Menéndez March: You don’t know that. You just said there is no data.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK: The member opposite says that we don’t know that. It’s already been pointed out that neither do they, because there is no good data on that, and maybe that is because there hasn’t been the ability for people to bring this before the law. It will be very interesting to see what happens. However, everything that happens that is added through this process will slow down the justice system. If every problem that needed to have a really careful, nuanced approach to it was given a new legislative agreement, a way of going through it, it really is just going to clog things up.
It’s not solving the problems, the underlying problem being a mismatch of information, a mismatch of power that is abused. That’s not going to be resolved by this change in the law, changing of avenues of recompense, and it’s not going to solve fully the fact that we have issues with access to justice because of cost in this country. That is a different matter; it is a different problem. It is something that should be seriously considered, but taking this course of action to solve that problem—that will result in other consequences—may not be the effect that we wanted to achieve.
What we want to do is to eliminate migrant exploitation; we absolutely want to do that. I do not commend the bill to the House for that reason.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): This bill amends the Crimes Act to clarify that intentionally not paying an employee their wages is theft. The law as it stands does not address this; it’s currently carried out in a civil jurisdiction. This bill corrects that and makes it a matter for law enforcement through the police. This bill supports Labour’s continued effort to protect workers’ rights and ensure they get a fair deal by strengthening laws around labour law.
I’ve heard the most sorrowful speeches ever done in this House tonight. I’ve heard that theft from an employee is equivalent to a layer of bureaucracy. We’ve also heard that not stealing is too much compliance—we don’t want to do that—and also that making it a criminal offence doesn’t deter people. Well, that’s a new one from National; I thought it did, according to them. I’m quite astounded by what we’ve heard tonight, and I look forward to reviewing some of those speeches later on and having a good laugh. But it’s not a laughing matter, because wage theft is a real and constant problem in New Zealand. This is a wider issue: many New Zealanders still have fewer rights at work. Many workers never even see a written employment contract, even though there is a legal requirement for them to do so.
I would like to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer and his work in bringing the bill so far. He has worked incredibly hard and he has real experiences of this happening in New Zealand. I’d also like to acknowledge my colleague Camilla Belich for continuing the good work and progressing this bill in order for it to pass into law. I would like to acknowledge all those union workers and activists who continue to fight for workers’ rights in a time when that has been incredibly difficult. I know that we’ve still got a lot of work to do in this space.
For many New Zealand workers, the era of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991 has never gone from the workplace. There is still an inherent inequality of bargaining power that is very much alive, so this bill takes an important step to rectifying this imbalance. Fair Pay Agreements also did this, but that’s already been stripped away by this Government. By having this bill in place, it actually makes it better for those people experiencing wage theft.
Tonight, in a break, I heard a story that was of wage theft where someone who was working in New Zealand was due $3.50 extra an hour. That had accrued over a period of months. It came to thousands of dollars. They pursued it through their union delegate, they wrote letters, they inquired as to how they would get that money paid back, and there was no engagement from the employer. What happened was the delegate forwarded the link to this bill to the employer and said, “This will be made law in New Zealand and you will be breaking the law.” Within a short period of time, the full amount of unpaid wages was paid. In situations, funnily enough, where there’s predetermination—white-collar crime—actually having a crime is a good deterrent. If it’s clear what the penalty is, in some areas like this, it does deter employers from taking money from employees unnecessarily.
I’ll try and keep my call short, but I’d like to say that for those migrant workers in New Zealand, this adds to their protections in place. For those employees that have to fight for their rights, there is now something in place—equivalent to Australia, equivalent to other jurisdictions. The penalties aren’t as tough here, but I really hope they go towards building a body of law that protects workers to earn a fair wage and to have enough money in their pockets to hold their head up, to put food on their table, and to be proud of being a Kiwi. And it’s a damn shame that side opposite doesn’t agree with that.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise on the third reading of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t going to take a call, but, sitting here, I felt compelled to get up and share my views on what is, I think, an important debate. I would like to start by acknowledging Ibrahim Omer for your contribution and Camilla Belich, a Northcote local, for taking this member’s bill on.
Where I start from is similar to where a lot of people on this side of the House start from, which is that we believe in individual employment relationships. There’s no secret it is an ideological debate that the left and the right have had for decades, and we will continue to have it. From my perspective, we believe in employment relationships that should be employer and employee led—individual. The Government shouldn’t have a role to play; it should just set the parameters and let those relationships get on.
I’m of the view, having lived around the world—I’ve lived in different contexts. I’ve lived in France, which has had a very heavy-handed approach to employment relationships. Look at where they’re at, at the moment. I’ve also lived in America, which has a completely opposite approach, and look at where they’re at, at the moment. Actually, there is no right or wrong way; it’s what fits for New Zealand’s context. I think where we’re getting to is getting back to that individual employment relationship.
I think that this bill is heavy-handed. There are already a lot of ways in which employees can go about exercising their rights under the Employment Relations Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and the Holidays Act. Zooming out, there are a lot of laws in this country that aren’t policed. You look at the litter laws in New Zealand. I’ve got police in my own family. I don’t want police going around making sure that people are fined for littering, because there are laws in place for that. There are by-laws in place as well. We’ve got more serious crimes that we want the police to focus on. In Northcote, in the member’s own electorate, there’ve been some serious crimes committed: robbery, armed robbery, stabbings, murders.
Hon Willie Jackson: Where?
DAN BIDOIS: In the great electorate of Northcote—come over and see, Willie.
Katie Nimon: They don’t really take crime seriously.
DAN BIDOIS: They don’t take crime seriously. I want to commend the hard-working police of the Waitematā district, who have gone out to bat for those types of crime, who found the offenders and who are bringing them to justice. That’s the crime that we want to focus on, because that’s the crime that’s actually going to make our community safer, on this side of the House. Look, I’ve heard some good debate in this House today—
Hon Ginny Andersen: Not from your side.
DAN BIDOIS: —from both sides—around why this bill should or should not go forward, but, again, I want to bring it back today to the core crux of this, which is that we don’t think this is needed. We don’t think this is needed. We think that there’s unintended consequences. We want the police focused on improving the safety of our community and we want an employment relationship that works at the individual level. We want Government out of our lives. Northcote voters, except that person over there, want Government out of our lives—
Hon Willie Jackson: Who?
DAN BIDOIS: Camilla, and she lives in the most wealthy—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two names: first name, last name. Thank you.
DAN BIDOIS: Camilla Belich. People in her neighbourhood—I’ve door-knocked every door in her street, and I know the sentiment of her community. They would not approve of such a bill, because they believe in employment relationships at the individual level. They believe in the current architecture and that it’s sufficient, and they want our police focused on what matters to them. I do not commend this bill to the House tonight.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I’m trying to imagine the National Party caucus meeting when they discussed this bill and Katie Nimon put her hand up and said, “Camilla Bellich has got this member’s bill, and it will make it a criminal offence if people intentionally steal money from other people.” I’m trying to imagine what the discussion was in the National Party caucus that led them to think it was a good idea to oppose this at the third reading.
I actually think tonight’s debate could be really, really useful for teaching young people civics, because, as an MP, from time to time some young person will say to you, “What does the National Party stand for? You know, the blue team—what happens if you tick the blue colour?” Well, tonight is actually a really revealing demonstration of what the National Party stands for. The self-styled “Party of Law and Order” is voting against a bill that will criminalise the intentional theft of money by employers from their employees. That’s what’s going on in the Chamber tonight.
We’ve seen—just unbelievable things that we’ve heard from that side of the House, not from the New Zealand First colleagues, I would say. Katie Nimon thought that this offence would clog up the courts; it was a layer of bureaucracy and red tape. Carl Bates, God bless him, worried that this would be bad for the mental health of business owners because the HR consultant would come running in and say, “You could go to jail if you steal money!” It’s just absolutely unbelievable. What it does illustrate, and what it will teach generations of civics students, is that the core value of the National Party is to protect the economic interests of employers at the expense of everybody else who works for a living. That is the core value of the National Party.
It shouldn’t really surprise us that they want to defend the interests of employers in the face of logic, of morals, of principle and reason, that they will reflexively support the right of employers to steal money and not be held accountable for it, because they opposed every single increase to the minimum wage—every single one. For as many years as I can remember, they trashed fair-pay agreements as one of the first things they did when they were elected, because they didn’t want low-paid workers to earn a decent living. They restored unfair trial periods and they’re also in the House at the moment bringing in a bill that will allow employers to deduct money from a worker’s wage if they so much as wear a badge or a T-shirt during industrial action. That’s the kind of party that the National Party is. That is their core values.
Tonight’s debate reveals this incredible double standard: that they will stand up for employers, defend their economic interests, do everything they can to drive down the cost of labour at the expense of working New Zealanders, but they will not support a bill that criminalises the intentional theft of money. Absolutely unbelievable. I want to thank and give credit to Ibrahim Omer and Camilla Belich for bringing this bill to the House and showing generations of civic students what kind of party the National Party is.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Well, I’m the last speaker on this bill, and sometimes you’re that person: you’re the last speaker at a function before everyone goes to have a beer. Well, that’s kind of where we’re at, at the moment.
I’d like to start with this: the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, was—let’s see—focused on what it would be like in the National caucus. Well, I’ve got a question: I wonder what it was like in the Labour caucus when they were in power. Let’s go back, and this concept of putting a bill forward which actually says what—and then this bill came up for discussion. Did they think it was so important then that they would actually put it on their own Order Paper and pass it? Oh, hold on, hold on, what happened? Nothing. Crickets—no noise.
I find it a little bit hypocritical that suddenly they’re all in behind this bill when they have had their opportunity. In six long years of destroying the New Zealand economy, they didn’t have enough time and priority to actually put this on the Order Paper, and that was what was missing. I take these crocodile tears with a rather large grain of salt, and I’ll just put that right out there, right now. But then—
Rawiri Waititi: Indian salt.
GRANT McCALLUM: Yeah, good salt—very good salt. It’s from Blenheim. They make great salt there—very good. Good to hear from you—welcome to the House. It’s great to have you here. Look, now, so that’s—[Interruption] God, I’m getting a lot of commentary here. Everyone is very excited about this bill.
Now, I think it’s important, actually, and I would like to acknowledge that getting a member’s bill drawn is quite an achievement. I think we have to acknowledge that, and I would like to acknowledge the original mover of the bill, Ibrahim Omer—congratulations—and also then Camilla Belich, who has followed this bill through to this point, where you’ve obviously managed to convince one of our coalition partners to support the bill, and well done to you.
I’d also like to just acknowledge the other members of the great select committee that we sat on, the Education and Workforce Committee, although it’s all been blown up recently because we’ve got new members coming and going. I’ve lost count of who—I’m not quite sure who’s on it any more, actually. I’d just like to acknowledge our great chair, Katie Nimon, who did a great job, and her husband, Jeremy, who was in here in the House earlier tonight—good to have him here. I acknowledge the deputy chair, Carl Bates, who did a great job; also Mike Butterick, who was part of that committee for a while—great to have you here—and then there’s Parmjeet Parmar. But then we go to the other side of the House—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He’s got 7½ minutes to go and he’s doing his thankyous.
GRANT McCALLUM: Look, thank you for the advice—I really appreciate it. Thank you. Then there’s all the other members from the other side of the House: the Hon Phil Twyford, Camilla herself, Jan Tinetti, and Ricardo Menéndez March, who was here earlier. It’s fantastic.
Look, I think it’s important: the thing that concerns me most is that being an employer, when you are an employer, you’re taking a big risk. You’re the person, or a group of people, that actually starts a business, takes a risk, and creates the opportunity for employees to work for you. Good employers do a great job, and so do good employees, and I have to acknowledge that up front. We all want to make sure that people absolutely get paid for the work they do, but when that doesn’t happen, for whatever reason, then there is already a process that takes care of that. There’s a civil process that can actually take care of that, right, through the Employment Relations Act currently, and the Minimum Wage Act and the Wages Protection Act. They all provide that opportunity, right?
Think about it as an employer, where you’re doing your best and suddenly out of nowhere something happens and next minute you get a knock on the door and the police are turning up and you are being questioned about whether you’ve done your payroll properly or not. That is a big stress and worry as an employer. Running a business is not an easy thing—it’s not an easy thing—and I think it’s really important people remember that and acknowledge that, right? I think it’s very, very important to keep that in mind.
When you think about the employers who get out there and create businesses and do things and create economic wealth in our country and take those risks—I’m thinking about all those great employers who in the not too distant future are going to come up to the great area of Northland and they’re going to build a big highway called the Northland Expressway. They’re going to build this expressway, and there are going to be lots of different employers and subcontractors who employ people. This is really important: we need to actually open up the economy of Northland, and these are the people that are going to be the employers that own the bulldozers and the graders that do the work. This is a tough enough job as it is without actually having to worry about having police knock on the door and call out for a criminal offence. I think that is really, really concerning.
These are the people that are going to build the roads. These are the people that are actually going to drill the tunnels that are going to take us through the Dome Valley, all the way up to the great electorate of Northland. I just think it’s really important we remember all that.
Hon Phil Twyford: Grant, you were doing so well.
GRANT McCALLUM: I’m getting great advice. The thing here is I think it’s really important. The irony of the Hon Phil Twyford making a lot of noise at the moment is that he was the one that cancelled our road that the employers could not work on. I haven’t forgotten that, the Hon Phil Twyford—the employers never had the chance, so therefore you took that away from us, and you took that away from all the businesses in the North—right? You missed that opportunity. I really think—
Hon Member: Toll the roads of Northland.
GRANT McCALLUM: Absolutely. The roads of national significance are back. The employers of national significance are back, which is great news, right—great news.
I would like to acknowledge, actually, that this bill was improved a bit with New Zealand First’s contribution—at least to really put a focus in on the word “intent”. That is the one good thing that did come out of this whole process, and I have to acknowledge that from there. The thing is, there’ve been lots of bills and so forth passed or rules created with good intent, but the stress that comes, and then the lawyers get involved and the legal system gets involved, and good farmers, for example, suddenly find themselves at the mercy of law, for example around farming practices, and it comes back to haunt them—well, this could be the same here. The extra stress that puts on a business owner is something else.
I think that probably just about covers it all off, because, actually, we’re about to get to the point where I will have to sit down, and we’ve only got a couple of minutes to go—
Hon Members: Oh!
GRANT McCALLUM: —and I’m sure they’re all disappointed on the other side of the House—all very disappointed. Even the audience on the rear benches over there are disappointed. [Bell rung] Oh, there’s the bell—I’ve got two minutes to go.
No, look in all seriousness, congratulations, Camilla Belich. I mean, the opportunity to actually get a bill through the House is a really good—
Steve Abel: Are you going to cross the floor?
GRANT McCALLUM: No, I’m not going to cross the floor. That’s not a very good suggestion. But thank you, Camilla. Look, I really commend you for bringing this to the House, where National has made its case as to why it does not support this bill, and we do not commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 60
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 19 February.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, could we please have those leaving the House do it quietly, as we’ve got further business to carry on with. In the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill, we were up to call No. 2, the National Party.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I might be able to help with clearing other members out of the Chamber. I do want to start by acknowledging the member at the centre of this member’s bill, Hūhana Lyndon. I do want to acknowledge that we’ve had a constructive engagement on that. I was very pleased to have a one-on-one discussion, except with other colleagues present in that, so to speak. Also, at my invitation, she was gracious enough to engage with the panel that was conducting a review into the Public Works Act. I trust that was a productive exercise. Seeing as I have the opportunity, I do want to put on record my thanks to that body for other work that they are doing—well, some related work actually, as I’ll cover soon, in relation to reforming and reviewing the Public Works Act.
I should clarify as well that, being a member’s bill matter, I’m speaking as the National Party spokesperson as opposed to on behalf of the whole Government. Our colleagues and friends of the other Government parties will no doubt make their own position clear soon enough. In the course of my remarks, I will actually refer to some of the changes that we are making as a Government as a whole to improve the situation for Māori freehold land and Māori protected land, to correct some inconsistencies or, frankly, some unfairness that have been a feature of the Public Works Act regime for many years, in terms of providing better compensation, better valuation, and so forth for the holders of Māori land. I’ll get on to that shortly.
I do just want to state reasonably early in my contribution that, while we’ve considered the proposal of the member in good faith and understand certainly where she is coming from with the historical context of the Public Works Act having shamefully been used as a vehicle for confiscation historically, nevertheless the practice in the 21st century is that it is used as a last resort in relation to Māori land. Therefore, being the case that it is only used as a matter of necessity, we don’t support this bill because that would be to deprive whole communities, including Māori communities, of the benefit of the public works infrastructure that of course, ultimately, is the reason that we have this legislation in the first instance.
In saying that, of course the overall context is that we have a Public Works Act. And I emphasise “public” because it’s necessary to balance that against the private property rights, be it individually or collectively held. In seeking to achieve that balance, we acknowledge that land should not be taken from a person, be it a legal person or a natural person—entity—other than when it is strictly necessary for the achievement of aims that are good for the community as a whole. Flood protection works might be one example; schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure, and other ways in which we seek to live our lives as a community in a way that represents the best interests of the community. Of course, as I say, we do have to balance out against the private property rights be they individually or collectively held. For that reason, we have such a regime in the first place.
For those who are not familiar with the Public Works Act framework, the starting position is that agreement is sought with the landowner. If a willing buyer/willing seller relationship exists, albeit perhaps with some reluctance and a sense of resignation or inevitability—it might be that a landowner agrees with the Crown or the local government agency to part company with their land for appropriate compensation, obviously—following that period of negotiation, the transaction would take place. In the event that such agreement is not forthcoming, then there is the compulsory acquisition procedure. It’s got a number of different stages and steps, and that’s for the protection, of course, of the landowner and their private property rights.
I should note—because these relate to the points made broadly by the member in her bill, but also they of course have general application—that if there is a dispute about the compensation amount, then the land valuation tribunal is available. An unreasonable decision maker can expect to face a judicial review application and recourse to the Environment Court, ordinarily—and I’ll qualify that again soon.
In the case of Māori-specific land, Māori freehold land, or protected Māori land, as that term is defined in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, we are sensitive to the fact, again, of the historical context of the confiscation of Māori land since 1840, and in fact before that time. For that reason, we have acknowledged that, and also the particular characteristics often of Māori land that make it inappropriate to treat in exactly the same way as general land, as we might call it. That’s why the Government reforms have amended the basis on which Māori land is valued, so that it is brought up to the status of general land. In my view, that should have been the case, but that’s a wrong that we’re managing to right now in 2025. We’re also moving to ensure that compensation can be given for multiple dwellings on the same parcel of land. That, again, has not been the case until now, and that’s disproportionately disadvantaged Māori land owners, among whom it is more traditional to have multiple dwellings on that single parcel of land.
In relation to reforms announced as recently as a week ago in relation to critical infrastructure—that is, projects to be consented under the Fast-track Approvals Act consent process or roads of national significance—we are saying that the right of recourse to the Environment Court will remain for protected Māori land, noting its special significance and status in this country, but without removal of that right of incentive; the incentive being that if the landowner, where it’s protected Māori land, will still have the ability to claim an extra 15 percent of the value of the land, notwithstanding that the usual time frames might not have been met. That’s to acknowledge the fact that sometimes there are more complex ownership structures or governance structures that apply to Māori land, be it of a trust-type nature or perhaps a post Treaty-settlement entity, and so forth. But we are deliberately acknowledging the fact that Māori land is often more complex in its character and wishing to ensure that those who hold the land in those more complex arrangements are not disadvantaged.
For that reason, we consider then that the bill—and not wishing for flood protection works or other critical infrastructure to be unable to be completed for the good of the whole community, including the Māori residents within that, we therefore can’t find a way to support this bill. We considered its terms nevertheless, and I do want to draw the attention of the House to new section 4AB(1)(c), and that’s defining the Māori land protected. This would be within clause 4 of the bill. It says that “Sections 4A and 16 do not apply to protected Māori land other than with the consent of—”, and then paragraph (c) says, “any other persons with an interest in the land.”, and that’s an extremely broad characterisation.
If I understand it correctly, and I think that I do, the interest in the land need not even be ownership; it could be some sort of lease arrangement. It could be an easement, which could be a right of access, or some other way of using the land, even on a temporary basis. It needn’t be a registered interest. In other words, it wouldn’t necessarily be on a certificate of title; it could just be some arrangement that’s made in respect of the land and therefore quite difficult to prove. If this legislation were to pass, it would be nigh on impossible to determine whether someone who has claimed that they have the ability to give such consent would actually do so. While the more general objection to the passage of the bill is based on the fact that, ultimately, we do need that last-resort necessity basis, nevertheless, I think also it’s fair to point out that the kaitiaki of the land, as in paragraph (b) of new section 4AB, has a particular meaning, and that’s set out in section 4 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The more broad definition, or lack of definition, of “other persons with an interest in the land” would be problematic as well.
For all these reasons—and noting the Land Information New Zealand published policy and practice not to acquire Māori land except as a last resort and that there have been no such takings in the last decade—we do not ultimately support the bill, albeit we recognise the intent and commend the member for her engagement and having brought it forward.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koe, e te tuahine mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa. Rawe, rawe tō mahi. E mihi ana ki a koe i tēnei wā.
[Firstly, I acknowledge you, my female colleague, for your strength in driving this issue. Your dedication is outstanding. I thank you at this time.]
We stand to support the kaupapa tonight. This kaupapa, in my view—and, I’m sure, in others’ view—is one of the saddest kaupapa in our history. When I think about this, I think about all of our activists—if you want to call them activists—or our people who’ve fought for our land, and you’re going to have to go back to 1974 with the Māori land march, which Whina Cooper led. Our people went on the land march because of this type of kaupapa. This was the kaupapa that drove them.
That’s why I say to our tuahine Hūhana Lyndon over there: this is always worth putting up—it’s always worth putting up, if only as a reminder to the House and people listening; a reminder to them of the type of injustices that our people have endured for decades and decades and decades. Tonight, I’m proud to say that our party will tautoko this bill.
When I was listening to the previous speaker, the Hon Chris Penk—it’s one of the problems, sometimes, with being in Government. I hear what he was saying, and I can hear some empathy for the kaupapa, which is good, but sometimes I think we have to find our way around every technical problem that’s going. Let’s be honest, when Labour’s been in Government, we’ve gone down the same process, and yet we’ve had people who have fought for their whenua before. You only have to go back and look at how this kaupapa has been used against us.
We’ve heard the Taranaki land claims. We recall the wonderful work of our tohunga like Te Whiti and Tohu. They did really nothing wrong in Taranaki, apart from lift the survey pegs, I think it was, and, hello, they lost all their whenua. It was a disgraceful act from the Crown. Those examples have been replicated right through our history—right through our history—and our people have never known what to do, and land just confiscated; taken away. I mean, we’ve got crazy examples of whenua that was taken for bowling clubs, for goodness’ sake, and all of a sudden, the bowling club doesn’t use it for what it was meant to be. Did they return the whenua back to our people? No.
It’s just such a tragedy that we see, and it feels fruitless and that’s why, even if this does not pass, we put on record our horror and our tautoko for our people who marched in 1974. When I think about this, though, I think about my Aunty Hana Jackson, I think about my Uncle Sid Jackson, I think about my Uncle Moana Jackson, and I think about Tāme Iti and Ken Mair—all the activists from all the way—Whina Cooper, Hone Harawira. They all marched and everybody thought it was fruitless, but it wasn’t fruitless. Sometimes you have to fight.
Tonight, I want to mihi to a special kuia, which is Patricia Grace, who made a stand against the Public Works Act—you know all about this, Doc, if you’re up there—this special kuia who stood up for her whenua in Waikanae, who said, “No, no. No, you’re not going to take my land.” I don’t know how old our kuia is now—she must be about 86, 87, or whatever she is—
Rawiri Waititi: Don’t guess!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —but she’s one of the most special kuia of this country—of this country. She might be a Labour Party member, I think, Rawiri. She’s wonderful—wonderful. She said, “No, I’m making a stand here.” She stood up and she won. She won, in terms of the court, and they weren’t able to take her whenua. We mihi to her because she was part of a push to try and change things and change the law. She’s been part of the Green kaupapa; part of the Māori kaupapa.
What I’m saying tonight is we should never give up because of all the technicalities. When you have a people who are reduced to just 5 percent of the land, then surely it’s incumbent on all of us—all sides—to say, “Can we do better? Can we change this law? Can we look at this differently?” Tonight, I mihi to our kuia Patricia Grace for her fight, and to all our people who have put their hands up and fought against this Public Works Act acquisition of whenua Māori for decades and decades. Tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa. [I thank us all.] Kia ora.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk to this Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the member Hūhana Lyndon for having a member’s bill drawn. I think it’s a real privilege to be part of any journey in this House, certainly a legislative change one.
I don’t want to look in the rear-view mirror of New Zealand’s history. I think we all agree. I know Willie Jackson’s going to spin up with this—
Hon Willie Jackson: I know. Let’s not go backward.
MARK CAMERON: —but let’s have a conversation about moving forward, sir. I say that to Willie Jackson.
Interestingly enough—and I mean this with the greatest respect to all the members here—Hūhana Lyndon, when she referenced in her primary speech, she referenced to a lot of places that I know intimately well in Northland. There are 250,000-odd people that live in Northland; it’s about 235,000. We all share in the infrastructure, all of us. Every day we come to this House and we’re complaining that there’s not enough money, there’s not enough economic activity, the jobs are sparse and few and far between. Well, I’ll just tease out the logical counterfactual to that if I can.
How does it work that some of our most remote regions in New Zealand coincidentally have some of our poorest people? We need infrastructure to join the metaphorical hands in that instance. Now, some might laugh, but I know people in the Far North that literally live on a metal road. They’re lucky if they see the postie, they’re lucky if they have a cop, they’re lucky if the infrastructure in the school works, all of which is shared by all of us.
Now, I cannot for the life of me reconcile what happened as being good—what happened in Māori history was terrible—but if we live in this grievance-a-side reality, we always look backwards. We are never going to succeed on the world stage as a joint nation. We are a group of Kiwis—
Rawiri Waititi: Ha, ha!
MARK CAMERON: —who come to this House—Rawiri Waititi laughs. Well, I’m bloody proud of being a New Zealander. I’m not sure if he is, but I certainly am. Let’s join together and take a journey forward.
We knew that we were going to get the heckling, but in their version, they’ve spent all the money on a small group of people. I’d rather spend it on all of us. How do we reconcile that we don’t have the schools, we don’t have the infrastructure? So often Te Pāti Māori are saying, “We haven’t invested it.”, but how can we do that if we start splitting hairs about who gets what and how?
Now, I’ll give you an example, if I may, from an infrastructure point of view. Periodically, private land has to be acquired through the Public Works Act. I know, incidentally, when you have to put a viaduct through a mountain, that’s significantly cheaper than having to go around it or put a tunnel under it. Now, how does that work when a group of New Zealanders—that share in that infrastructure, by the way. Infrastructure is not a racial thing; it’s shared by all of us. We all reap the benefits of infrastructure, but we’ve got to spend significantly more because certain interest groups took umbrage with that. I think that is a factual nonsense.
If we’re going to move forward as a country, we have to stop looking through a myopic lens, Willie Jackson, in our past, move forward—we have a settlement process—look after the people that were aggrieved and actually start building stuff.
Tākuta Ferris: We’ll steal your land tomorrow and tell you not to feel bad.
MARK CAMERON: Otherwise—
Rawiri Waititi: Steal the new farm you just bought.
MARK CAMERON: Tākuta Ferris and others are going to be in this House, if they remain in it, continually complaining that they don’t have enough stuff.
Well, we’ve got a solution. We could actually join hands together and start building kit in New Zealand and stop beating each other up about what happened in our ancestral history 180 years ago. There’s one journey and it’s one journey forward, and I think we should actually celebrate being a New Zealander rather than attacking each other for something as superficial as someone’s race in the investment in infrastructure.
Rawiri Waititi: Nobody mentioned race.
Tākuta Ferris: Nothing to do with race.
MARK CAMERON: Excuse me?
Tākuta Ferris: “Nothing to do with race.” was the comment.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member had resumed his seat. I call Andy Foster.
Mark Cameron: You’re calling me racist?
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Do you want to start again?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ve called you.
ANDY FOSTER: Yeah, OK, thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Look, we understand the reasons for the bill and we understand the history, but now is 2025, and the advice we’ve already had in this House, just this evening, is that the last time protected Māori land was taken under the Public Works Act was in 2012. I’ve just asked the Minister how often non-protected Māori land been taken, and he said it was dozens of times in his time as Minister. No Māori land has been taken since 2012, but dozens of pieces of land have been taken which are not Māori land, OK? So let’s just talk about some facts here.
I would also say that Māori have a very strong attachment to land. We understand that, but that is not unique to Māori. The word “tūrangawaewae” is an important word for many, many people.
Tākuta Ferris: It’s not your word. Don’t use it.
ANDY FOSTER: Oh, OK, so “Don’t use our language.”, then. If you really want to, “Don’t use our language.”—that’s very unhelpful.
The Public Works Act exists to do things which are for public benefit. There is quite a significant hurdle to get through to do that. It exists for good reason to allow public works, and it should be used and is used relatively sparingly. They’re the kind of works that if you don’t build them—if you want to build a road, a pipeline, a stopbank, sometimes it has to go in that location. There is no other alternative. The process under the Public Works Act says you’ve actually got to look at alternatives, and if there is no other alternative, you select the best option. Then you’ve got to go through the process under the Public Works Act of saying: can you buy it in a way which you negotiate with a willing seller? Ultimately, sometimes, you have to get to the stage where you actually have to go through a compulsory process. That is the last resort. With protected Māori land, the clear evidence we have is it is the last, last resort—something to be avoided if at all possible.
I wanted to give you an example of a Public Works Act—and I don’t think this is Māori land at all; in this particular instance, it’s non-Māori land. It’s the Mt Messenger Bypass. That was a project which started at something like $80 million to $90 million. It involves a bypass of a very tricky bit of road. It’s to build a tunnel through a piece of land, to give you a good piece of roading through there. There is one piece of land at one end of the tunnel—you’ve got two valleys there, one a piece of land at one end of the tunnel, which the person held out against the Public Works Act.
There was an option to buy it. In fact, the Minister for Land Information at the time was Eugenie Sage, who declined to do so. The result of having not done that under the Public Works Act is going to be a project which was going to start at $80 million to $90 million but is probably going to be several hundred million. The New Zealand Transport Agency have done an incredible job trying to build gantries and cable cars and things like that, to be able to allow the work to happen. It is inordinately expensive, and that is money that is then not available to build other roading and transport infrastructure for New Zealanders up and down the country. That is the cost of a holdout against the Public Works Act. I’ve got to say that what Ministers Penk and Bishop have done in the last week is to say, “Look, let’s incentivise doing deals early to reduce the cost, to reduce the uncertainty, so that there can be more of a willing buyer, willing seller, but you give more money to the seller of land upfront.”
In terms of Māori land, it is very regrettable whenever it needs to be taken but does have to be taken. It’s probably worth actually also noting what the Environment Court has to do if there’s an appeal to the Environment Court—and they’ve left appealing to the Environment Court for Māori land; not for non-Māori land but just for Māori land. The Environment Court must find that it is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary. In other words, you only take land when it is necessary for public good, for public works. To take that off the table—and it hasn’t happened at all since 2012—but to take it off the table entirely will just make building infrastructure even harder in this country. It’s hard enough already, and it is one of the things that is slowing down this country. It’s slowing it down for every New Zealander. It is making us all poorer. If these parties over there want to keep us being a poor country, or make us a poorer country, they’re going the right way about it. We need to get this country moving, and part of doing it is to say no to this bill. I do not commend this bill to the House.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I don’t even know why this law still exists, to be quite honest; and why this is even a bill. This is not the only bill that we should be concerned with; we’ve got new bills being rushed through this House and eventually new bills will be rushed through this House in the future. We just have to look at fast track. We just have to look at the regulatory standards bill. They’re very similar to what the purpose of the Native Lands Act was back in 1865—became the Native Land Court, eventually became the Māori Land Court in 1947—where they turned communal land into individual title, then alienated it, and then used the Public Works Act to steal more Māori land.
Why? For roads. They still have paper roads out there that belong to the Government and the Crown, still today, that they don’t use. They don’t use the land any more, but it still belongs to the Crown. That was taken under the Public Works Act. It’s still there. Now we’ve got people in this House talking about “Māori land”, “non-Māori land”—it was all Māori land, confiscated—confiscated—under the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863. Then they’re talking about the settlements process where Māori only get 1 percent of its total due. They’re going to say, “Look, you’ve got a settlement process. It’s OK, shut up now. You’ve got a settlements process. You’re going to get 1 percent of your total due, and we’re going to keep the 99 percent.”
Then we’re going to wonder why Māori still only have the resources that they’re getting. The Government continues to make its money and its profit off stolen Māori resources and assets taken through legislation like the Public Works Act, and then they wonder why Māori don’t want to lose the 4 percent that they still have. Thank you, Hūhana. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe for bringing this particular issue back into this House for us to debate. If any sane person looked at the history of Māori land theft—that’s what this bill is; it is theft of Māori land. Four percent—let that sink in. That’s all we have left, and you still have legislation like the Public Works Act—still own Crown-owned land through the Public Works Act that has not even been used; paper roads, for Christ’s sake. We’ve got them through my iwi. You alienated our lands by turning communal land into individual title. You alienated it.
Andy Foster: Look forward, not backwards.
RAWIRI WAITITI: And not only for the Public Works Act; you alienated it through survey costs. Now, people couldn’t pay it, so you took it. This is the reality of what we are facing here, today, in regards to this bill.
Andy Foster: Nothing since 2012.
RAWIRI WAITITI: You displaced us. You confiscated the land—not you, Madam Speaker. The Crown confiscated the land. The Crown continues to steal the land through its legislation that they’re still moving today. This is not 2012; it’s 2025. Fast track will allow the same thing. The Regulatory Standards Bill allows the same thing. To remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from any legislation allows this Government to open this country up to a free market. That’s what it wants. It wants a free market. It wants international investors and corporate organisations to come in here and rape what’s left of this country.
Mark Cameron: Oh, rubbish.
RAWIRI WAITITI: Absolutely. And we’ve got a guy back here who owns two farms. How the hell did you get two farms in the first place? It’s because of bills like this. That’s how you ended up with it. That’s how the Crown has made most of its money: off confiscated land—millions and millions of hectares of land. Absolutely. Then you’re wondering why Māori are impoverished in their own little 4 percent that they still own. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, Hūhana.
What we’ve got here is absolutely a travesty, and you’re a disgrace to the country for not supporting this type of bill and fixing—we don’t want you to apologise, we want you to fix—what your ancestors did to us. We support this bill 100 percent. Kia ora tātou.
Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā rā tātou katoa. I stand in support of this bill. I think this bill deserves to go to a select committee. I think this House has demonstrated very clearly that there is a fairly low understanding of what’s actually going on with Māori land. The information I’ve heard tonight is rather astounding. We’ve got some member telling us, “Don’t look back; look forward.” I am looking forward. I look forward to the day that we no longer lose land. I look forward to that day. I look forward to the day when this House upholds the promise that it made only last week. It made a promise to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua that the breaches to Te Tiriti would no longer happen. We passed an apology to those iwi. We passed legislation that acknowledged the breaches of Te Tiriti, and here we are trying to protect land.
Now, we heard from Andy Foster—good on Andy—that there hasn’t been any Māori land taken since 2012. My question around that is, then, what is the problem? It hasn’t been used in 13 years, so why not make that permanent? Then he said what the legislation says and what we are, effectively, saying to Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, “Look, we promised you we wouldn’t do it, but under this legislation, if it’s really necessary, we’re going to do it.” That isn’t good enough. We need to actually just stop doing it.
In this piece of legislation—I’ll go to the clauses. That is actually an opening for a Government to actually sit down with owners and get them to a point where they’re satisfied that they might want to do a land swap. You’ve got to have other mechanisms. I find it really astounding also that some members are talking about the monetary value of land, and then someone else thinks they know what tūrangawaewae is. When I say, “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au. Ko te whenua ko au, ko au te whenua.” [“I am the river and the river is me. I am the land and the land is me.”], they’re not just words, and it doesn’t have a monetary value when I say that. It’s not about the money.
I would say to the members about infrastructure: ask yourself who in this country has contributed the most land to infrastructure in Aotearoa? Who has done that, and quite often done it because the land has been taken? Every single national park in this country was once Māori land. Almost every native school that was built in the 20th century was built on Māori land. They had no choice about it. I can’t help but look back, because I look back and I hope for a better future, and I believe that with this bill, if Government parties took it seriously and actually let it go to select committee, you might get a whole range of views and get to a solution that could actually work. That’s why I’m supporting this bill.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. First of all, I’d like to talk to Hūhana Lyndon and congratulate her on getting her member’s bill drawn from the biscuit tin, which I think is a big lift up for any MP that achieves that here, but also, as has been mentioned by a number of members, for bringing this kaupapa, this subject, to the House to be talked about, because it’s an incredibly important subject, but it’s also a very emotional subject. There are many people who are in this House tonight who have a history with our ancestors, and a very bad history with regards to that. That shouldn’t be forgotten, and I think it’s something that we as today’s politicians have the ability to effect a different outcome into the future. I think that’s something that we should look at.
I note the previous member talking there, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. We’ve had conversations about Māori land and there’s a tyranny of history that our country should not be proud of. Today, over the last couple of decades, the Crown has endeavoured to put some of that to right. I do agree with what’s been mentioned by other speakers about the recompense of the wrongdoings only scratching the surface—everybody knows that—and it doesn’t truly recognise what happened in the past, but it’s an opportunity for us as a country to understand, to educate ourselves about what happened, and to endeavour to put some form of mechanism for everybody to move forward and to give Māori potentially an opportunity, with some of the recompense that happens through settlements, to be able to do that.
The Public Works Act, the subject of this particular member’s bill, is, I think, possibly one of the strongest powers actually given to Government: being able to take land. This is not just private land, but it’s also Māori land. And that power is something that we should be careful with, with regards to what it is. As I mentioned, it’s an incredibly important subject to talk to, and there haven’t been any substantive amendments to this particular Act, which was enacted in 1981, a long time ago, and it’s been sitting there with a lot of flaws in it. We can all give examples of some of the wrongdoings and, if you look particularly at Māori Land, we can talk about the unfair nature of compensation, like the member Adrian Rurawhe—whether that’s in a monetary sense. I think there is some sense in the fact of looking at other means of recompensating with regards to whenua or something like that as well. I think that should not be underplayed as a potential option going forward.
If may just talk to what I see as some of the big problems with regards to the decision making for much Māori land. And I can give you the example in Taranaki with Parininihi ki Waitotara This is an entity with a large tract of land, nowhere near what it had originally. It lost a lot through the—well, not the Public Works Act, but more actually the Māori trustee back in the day and a few things like that. It lost a lot of land. One of their challenges is that today they actually have a shareholding of over 11,000 shareholders and, to tell the truth, they can’t even find half of those people. As Māori land is governed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, it prescribes there that any major decision of an entity like that does require the majority of shareholders to be engaged in that decision. That is literally impossible for entities such as Parininihi. And that’s just one example. I’m sure there’s other incorporations, other entities around New Zealand.
An interesting fact that came out of the Māori Trustee Te Tumu Paeroa is that their shareholding now is getting to eight decimal places. That’s how small it is. That’s what fragmentation is actually happening to shareholdings. There’s a stack there. There’s something like 2.6 million shareholders within Māori land, and we understand that that’s about 5 or 6 percent of the total land of New Zealand. The other 94 percent has about the same number of landowners. That’s actually the enormity of the ownership structure of Māori land. My point is it’s actually very, very difficult for Māori to be able to get on and do things, and I think it’s something that this Government should be looking at. I’m pleased to hear what the Minister for Land Information said about the work that he’s doing on the Public Works Act. It needs to be looked at. I think it needs to be looked at as a whole and not in piecemeal here. So, Hūhana, I am not able to commend the bill to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I first begin my speech by acknowledging the member Hūhana Lyndon for what is a sensible bill. To those following along in its progress who have an interest in Māori land and who have had dealings with Māori land that was subject to either public works takings in the past or in more contemporary settings, this is a really difficult thing for many, many people who are following this closely because of the history associated with public works takings.
What are we seeing tonight? We’re seeing two major parties who know that any Minister who is responsible for public works takings of any kind treats these sorts of decisions with dignity and some level of humility. Everyone who is affected by public works takings is in that position because they have already had a negotiation with a Crown agency and do not want to sell. These are people at the end of the line. These are people who want and need their land because it’s their farm, because it’s their home, because it’s their business and they do not want to see that go out of their ownership, because they have some long association with that. It is a serious thing to need to get to the end of the line as a Government, but there are some situations in which that is warranted, and that’s been acknowledged by speakers from both the National Party and Labour Party.
Instead, we have two minor parties of the right who are using this as just another culture war, as just another decision that they will never have to make because they will not be in charge of this as a Government Minister who has to look into the eyes of the people that they are taking land from that means something to them and telling them that the Government can and so it will. No politician in this House will return to their electorate and make a speech like that. No one here who represents their communities will treat this so flippantly that they would say, “Yeah, the Government can take your land and so we will.” No one believes that this is something that Governments want to do to people, and certainly not in a situation where you have Māori landowners who have faced 180 years of public works takings which have not only dispersed traditional communities, taken away a traditional land access, and meant that people are landless and wealthless in their own homes, in their own communities. That is not an outcome that anyone wants to see.
This bill has some problems with it, but these are things that we can resolve at select committee. This is an opportunity to get around the table in a cross-partisan way and have a discussion about what are the bottom lines here, because anyone who is in charge of this will have some bottom lines. No Minister is going to run roughshod over Māori land or general land in this way, so there are surely some ways that we could be updating this law to actually reflect what are the negotiations going on now. If we had a bill like this—and everyone knows this—it would force Crown agencies to negotiate in a different way. There wouldn’t be no bridges. There wouldn’t be no viaducts. There wouldn’t be no overpasses. There would, in fact, be a coming together and a meeting of minds between landowners and Crown agencies. Imagine that—imagine that—where Aotearoa New Zealand was a place where Māori land owners could negotiate with the Crown. That is looking forward. The ACT member said that that was looking backwards.
I think that all of us should be aspiring to a New Zealand where, in 2040, two hundred years after the Treaty, we can expect that Government agencies will not only sit down with Māori New Zealanders but Government agencies will sit down with landowners—all landowners who are affected by this—and have the kind of negotiation that we expect of a Government that represents people. That is not using the provisions of the Public Works Act in a way that targets people and where people feel like there is a history of land loss and dispossession because of this Act and so are coming to the table with that in their minds. This doesn’t just mean a loss of land for some people; for some people, this means a history of a Government that has taken and taken and taken and given them nothing back. Paper roads where roads have not been built. Schools which are now no longer schools and service some private land which was given by iwi for that purpose of education. Land that was given to churches where a church no longer lives but supports the income of that charitable church.
These are the public works takings that that side of the House—and it isn’t the National Party—are defending in this history. This doesn’t have to be another culture war—not this one too.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to add my contribution to this first reading of the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill. I too, like my colleague David MacLeod, would like to begin with commending you, Hūhana Lyndon. Thank you for the passion with which—what I’ve noticed actually—you do everything. I’d like to acknowledge you and I’d like to acknowledge the whakaaro behind this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the history that we’ve touched on, the history that has led to a lot of the pain that underpins the discussions we’ve heard tonight—history that I’m learning a lot about since moving to New Zealand Aotearoa, and I’d like to acknowledge that as I embark on this speech.
I guess if our party and our Government weren’t embarking on what we’re saying is an overhaul of the Public Works Act, to be honest, and you always get honesty from me, this would be a very hard speech, but I’m comforted, Hūhana, by the fact that we are embarking on this overhaul of the Public Works Act. Again, I repeat, while I acknowledge the true and authentic intent behind this bill, the National Party, as we’ve heard, is not supporting this bill, but we are embarking on what we see as major reform of the Public Works Act.
I’d like to, if you don’t mind, Madam Speaker, just highlight what kind of comforts me tonight, some key elements of this reform. I know that Arena Williams just mentioned: imagine a situation where we’re actually talking with the landowners. Part of the reforms that we’re going to make is there will be mandatory mediation for compensation and disputes between parties. Part of the reforms, as well, is that we’re going to be refining the role of the Environment Court, just to streamline objections and streamline them fairly and efficiently.
Again, I’d like to say that I’m comforted that I feel that the reforms that we’re making with the Public Works Act are taking a balanced approach with the backdrop of the horrendous history when it comes to Māori land. I know that the compulsory acquisition of whenua under the Public Works Act in the past has contributed to the deeply perturbing erosion of ancestral whenua, disconnection from cultural identity, and these longstanding injustices. They cannot be ignored. With the balanced approach that we’re seeking to achieve with this overhaul of the Public Works Act, I do believe that the Government is respecting history and is acknowledging the pain—a lot of the pain that took place—but there’s no doubt about it that we also want to ensure that we can pave the way for economic growth, for infrastructure development, and for prosperity for all communities as a whole.
As I said, the public works amendment bill—well, I didn’t say this, but it will be introduced in the middle of this year. It comforts me, as I don’t, unfortunately, commend this bill, Hūhana, but there is work being done. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just remind the member to use another member’s full name when you refer to them.
RIMA NAKHLE: My apologies, sorry.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I stand here with no comfort in this House. I stand here offended on behalf of te iwi Māori at what has been shared in this House by members who are historically illiterate—historically illiterate—to the loss of te iwi Māori. It’s not historic; it’s today. Nā wai i teka [What a bunch of lies] it’s historical; it’s today. Patricia Grace stood for her whenua only 10 years ago. This isn’t from the time of the signing of Te Tiriti; this is today. We have got quarries that still have our whenua, e hamahamangia ana e te Kāwanatanga, [that are being quarried by the Government,] today and our people want those quarries back. You took it, you used it, then you passed it around yourselves as the Crown and then you never gave it back.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker did not do that.
HŪHANA LYNDON: We are a people under siege right now. Te iwi Māori are under siege. The provisions of this review that the Minister for Land Information has undertaken ignored the advice of officials. His officials said, “Include Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Have a good look at it. Let’s be comprehensive.” He ignored the advice and kept it narrow for fast-track public works, for a fast-track approach to speed it up, because that’s the focus of this Government. It’s not about meaningful engagement; it’s about singling out the Minister’s ability to have the power to say yes or no. That’s what’s happening in this reform. That’s what this Government is doing to the people of New Zealand, let alone te iwi Māori.
Do you know how expensive it is for Māori to go to the Environment Court when you can’t even get a dollar together to live peacefully on your own land, the little bit of land that we have left—less than 5 percent—and then we have to go and fight you in the Environment Court? How on earth is te iwi Māori to even stand against the public works takings on our whenua? You have no idea of the burden that te iwi Māori suffers because of this Act. This is lived experience for our people. Do not think that this is a historic experience and don’t think that a Treaty settlement is going to make it any better.
Just like Matua Adrian has shared, we apologise in one breath and then we take again. We stand here and we mihi and we give these speeches to iwi and say, “Here’s your one to two cents in the dollar.” Then we take again. We come through the next week and we’re saying no to meaningful engagement and giving Māori the ability to say yes or no to public works takings.
What is wrong with fairness? What is wrong for the people of Taranaki to come to the table and have a meaningful negotiation and make an informed decision, resourced completely, to come in and negotiate a pathway through, and if they don’t agree, that you stand down, you actually take your road or your railway or whatever else you’re doing and you go around the block? That’s what the Crown has done for Pākehā for generations. Pākehā landowners got their land, they kept it, and Māori suffered. How many marae and urupā do we have in this country that have State highways running right through them? Come to Ōtaki. Come to Waiomio. You will see State highways right through our wāhi tapu.
Don’t think that this is not something that Māori are passionate about. We will fight. We will fight the fast-track public works. We will fight it because it’s our land and it’s very little that we have left. When you don’t have anything, that’s all you’ve got. And when you talk about infrastructure and how we all benefit—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into your debate.
HŪHANA LYNDON: I’m not bringing it. Anyhow, if you’re talking about infrastructure, go and talk in Pānguru. Go and talk in the back of Ngapipito. We have been neglected for infrastructure for generations. We don’t benefit from infrastructure and investment in these rural Māori communities, because it’s so rural that there’s nothing else there of benefit for general New Zealand. Why is it that it has taken so long to fix our roads after Cyclone Gabrielle? Yep, you’re going to come through and you’re going to put a State highway right through us, the four-lane highway. Nau mai, haere mai, Northland Expressway. How much whenua Māori is going to suffer?
I stand here and I am deeply concerned for what’s going to come, because whenua Māori is precious. Whenua Māori should be something that we cherish and come to the table as meaningful Te Tiriti partners and say yes or no. Why not send it to the select committee? Why not allow us to come in and provide our voice and input into this and find workable solutions? We have a Government that is anti - workable solutions with Māori, and that’s a crying shame.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Works (Prohibition of Compulsory Acquisition of Māori Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Motion not agreed to.
Bills
Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill
First Reading
LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider this bill.
Firstly, guys, I would like to thank my team because this has been a huge effort. For all of you that know, being a first-time MP and having a member’s bill in the tin, the chances of it being pulled are quite rare, so I’m pretty excited to have this be pulled and I want to acknowledge my team and my staff that have really helped us on this. I also would, firstly, like to acknowledge the business community, the various different chambers of commerce across the country that I’ve spoken to and heard their advice, and also the employment law experts that I’ve been talking to. Thank you so much for all the advice and encouragement you’ve given to me in helping shape this idea to come to life.
Today marks an important step forward, a step towards making the employment process in New Zealand simpler, fairer, and more practical. This bill fosters a collaborative approach, empowering employees and employers to approach the sensitive issue of employment termination not as adversaries but as partners. It’s about making sure that when an employment agreement needs to come to its natural conclusions, there is no unnecessary stress placed on both the employee and the employer. Instead, this allows for them to deal with these situations quickly and fairly.
As someone who has owned a small business and as the ACT Party small-business spokesperson, I know—and I’ve heard from the voices of countless businesses, owners throughout the country—of the very real obstacles that these businesses in New Zealand face. The challenges have been made clear: the ongoing effects from COVID, rising costs, and tight margins that all contribute. However, the current employment system represents one of the biggest barriers to business success, productivity, and small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) taking a chance on employing somebody new. The complexity, the time, the stress, and the process can feel like mountains to climb, but this bill is part of a broader effort to streamline our employment processes and make them more balanced.
What is the problem we have here and what is happening? Firstly, I’d like to talk a bit from a business perspective. What is happening out there is the difficulty that businesses find when they get themselves in a situation where they have an employee and, for whatever reason, the communication or the relationship is breaking down—and there can be various things that can happen in this situation.
Under our current law, we don’t have a lot of opportunity and options to approach somebody to discuss potentially ending that contract. What is happening out there is employers are using the likes of restructure, redundancy, performance review, which are really good processes and we should have these processes but they are using these to move people on because they’re unable to have a conversation about what it might take in order for them to leave when that relationship has started to break down.
This is incurring all kinds of different problems at the end. Personal grievances (PGs), whether that is because the process has been not followed quite correctly or because the process was followed correctly but six months of a potential restructure, if you have to go to work and work together, you’re probably going to end up in a PG, and then you’ve got the other side of things. If you’re an employer and you’re going through some of these processes, whether you’re being made redundant, especially in a small team, you quite often know that this is possibly not what is happening here but you’re going through these processes. It’s extremely distressing and dehumanising for everybody involved.
We have processes in place. We have things like the mediation process if there’s a dispute. We also can enter non-prejudice. But all of these things take an awful lot of time, they cost an awful lot of money, and they have the same outcome at the end. Why can’t we say that, actually, an employer and an employee can come together to discuss what it is that’s happening within the employment and how they can move on, and, in doing so, that employee may be rewarded with a monetary sum and all kinds of other things which I’ll discuss.
Let me be clear: this will not undermine workers’ rights. It’s about creating a system that’s fair and transparent for both the employers and employees. When this relationship breaks down, as we all know, I would say everybody sitting here tonight has either been an employer or an employee, worked in a workplace where employment relationships are breaking down and where the dynamics are changing in the team. We need manageable processes in place to be able to deal with these quickly.
Now, let’s dive into some of these key provisions in this bill. This bill allows for employers to initiate what’s called a “protected negotiation” with employees about the potential termination of their employment contract. This process is designed to be confidential so both parties can have an open and honest discussion about the employment without the fear of this being used against them in a potential PG dispute. This is particularly useful in situations where a business may need to make difficult decisions such as downsizing, restructuring, or moving people on.
One of the most important features of this bill is the introduction of a settlement agreement. In cases where appropriate, the employer can offer an employee a settlement agreement that includes compensation in exchange for the employee’s agreement to end their contract. The terms of the settlement might include a monetary sum, a reference, or other mutually agreed upon conditions. The employee would also waive any potential personal grievance claims against the employer in the future.
For the settlement to be enforceable, it must be in writing, signed by both parties, and must include a recommendation for the employee to seek independent legal advice before signing. This ensures that employees are fully informed of their rights and the implications of this agreement. Importantly, any discussions or offers made during the negotiation process will not be admissible in future legal proceedings related to the employment relationship. This is crucial because it ensures the confidentiality and encourages both sides to negotiate. This is actually happening, but it’s happening quite far down the track when people are in the non-prejudiced situation. Of course, if there’s evidence of dishonesty and illegal activity, predetermination discussions could actually be used as evidence in court, but these would be the exception rather than the rule.
There are several benefits to both the employers and the employees under this bill. For employers, it makes the process of dismissal less stressful, more efficient, saves time and money on legal costs and potential PG claims down the track. What I’ve heard from New Zealand businesses and especially our SMEs is that PGs have become the cost of doing business here in New Zealand, and this is not acceptable. It creates a more harmonious work environment by offering fairer processes for everybody involved. Within this framework, employers can feel more confident when hiring new staff, knowing there’s clear and straightforward processes for managing terminations when needed. For employees, this bill offers the chance to bypass a stressful, time-consuming process that leaving a job can have, and it won’t damage their reputation. This is particularly important in niche markets, where going through a large process—whether it’s performance review, whether it’s going back on a PG—your reputation can be damaged, and we don’t want that to happen and occur.
By allowing them to negotiate a settlement at the top end, this can give an employee certainty about leaving the workplace through things like financial compensation—something that is particularly important since many employment contracts nowadays don’t include redundancy pay. This is more so if you’re in a low to middle income job. The process is designed to be mutually agreed upon so the employee can withdraw at any time if they wish to no longer proceed. Even being offered to have this conversation, they need to agree to it in the first place. This ensures both parties have a fair opportunity to make the decision that is best for them.
Similar legislation has already existed in the UK for over 10 years. We’re seeing global trends towards more flexible, mutually beneficial termination processes. This bill is in line with that trend. It empowers both the employers and employees to reach an agreement on the best way to end their employment relationship on terms that actually work for both sides.
There have been a few questions that have come up during the process of this bill: firstly, does it create a power imbalance between the employer and the employee? The answer is no. While employees may initiate this settlement process, employees have the option to walk away at any time. They’re still entitled to all the rights provided under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Second, could an employee raise a personal grievance down the track for having this conversation? No, and I think that this is a key, core message about this bill. It’s allowing people to have that conversation without risk of a PG coming back on you for having that conversation or approaching the conversation.
Finally, what about time frames, etc.? The bill does not prescribe specific time frames for the negotiation process. This is something that, should this bill pass, would be further explored by a select committee. There are other provisions that the select committee may want to include, and that could be around cool-down periods for signing negotiations. It could be what is considered a time frame. In the bill currently, it says, “a reasonable time for notification” and “reasonable time to consider a contract”. These are things that I’d be really keen for a select committee to hear from those that are working within businesses, from those employees, about what would be reasonable.
This bill is practical. It is much-needed reform. Like I said, the current system isn’t working. The processes that we have in place are there to be designed to be used for when they’re really needed, and we need something else. We need another tool in the kit, so I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.