Thursday, 27 March 2025

THURSDAY, 27 MARCH 2025

THURSDAY, 27 MARCH 2025

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

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider further stages of the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill, the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, and the Privacy Amendment Bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I’m wondering if there’s a backlog and the Government will be calling urgency again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I thank the member for his question and I acknowledge the great progress that’s been made in the House this week. If that member wants more urgency, we’ll have to wait and see.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Four petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of the Vegan Society of Aotearoa requesting that the House introduce legislation to ensure accurate labelling of vegetarian and vegan products

petition of the NZ Vegetarian Society requesting that the House introduce legislation to ensure accurate labelling of vegetarian and vegan products

petition of Megan White, on behalf of NZEI Te Riu Roa, requesting that the House urge the Government to halt the Ministry for Regulation’s recommended changes to early childhood education

petition of Malkiat Singh requesting that the House urge the Government to remove the ballot system and the limit of 500 approvals per year for the Parent Resident visa.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. I present the report of the Chief Ombudsman entitled The way I see it, a report by Chief Ombudsman Peter Bouchier, December 2015 to March 2025, on leaving office. That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports—now, there are quite a number here, so I’ll ask for our patience and silence while the Clerk reads through the list.

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:

2023-24 annual review of the Retirement Commissioner

briefing on the 2023-24 financial performance of Crown Regional Holdings Ltd

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of the:

Inland Revenue Department

Reserve Bank of New Zealand

The Treasury

Government Superannuation Fund Authority, Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, Kiwi Group Capital Ltd, NZ Green Investment Finance Ltd

Productivity Commission and Office of the Controller and Auditor-General

Natural Hazards Commission and Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd, and the

Government financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2024 and Controller and Auditor-General’s Audit

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Fire and Emergency New Zealand

Statistics New Zealand

Office of Film and Literature Classification

Office of the Ombudsman

Public Service Commission

reports of the Health Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Health New Zealand—Te Whatu Ora

Cancer Control Agency, the Health Quality and Safety Commission, and Health Research Council of New Zealand

Health and Disability Commissioner, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and the Maori Health Authority—Te Aka Whai Ora

reports of the Justice Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of the:

Ministry of Justice

New Zealand Police

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency)

Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission)

Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhiti

Tupu Tonu - Ngāpuhi Investment Fund

Whakaata Māori

interim report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the conduct of four members during the proceedings of the House

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Drug Free Sport New Zealand

Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children

Radio New Zealand Ltd

Television New Zealand Ltd

Children and Young People’s Commission

Independent Children’s Monitor

Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Ministry for Pacific Peoples

Ministry for Women, and the

social housing sector.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee, the briefing of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Government’s financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2024, and the Controller and Auditor-General’s audit are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Anzac Day Amendment Bill, introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Justice

1. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Why is this Government adjusting the funding criteria for the Proceeds of Crime Fund?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): On Monday, the Government announced a new funding round for the proceeds of crime fund, introducing revised criteria focusing on reducing violent crime. From 31 March, any new initiative seeking funding must contribute to the Government’s goal of reducing violent crime. This change reflects the Government’s commitment to prioritising victims over criminals and ensuring public funds are used responsibly. By refining the funding criteria, we are directing resources towards initiatives that actively support the reduction of violent crime and make New Zealand safer.

Todd Stephenson: How is she ensuring that funding initiatives deliver outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Under the previous administration, the proceeds of crime fund lacked clear direction and accountability. One example is the $2.7 million meth rehabilitation programme run by patched Mongrel Mob members in the Hawke’s Bay, which ended nine months ago but is yet to produce an outcomes report. To prevent such misuse, this Government has introduced a rigorous ratings process to ensure funding proposals are complete, outcomes-focused, and fully aligned to the objective of the fund. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, we wait until the questioner’s had a chance to ask some questions first.

Todd Stephenson: Thank you. How will these changes contribute to the Government’s target of 20,000 fewer victims of crime by December 2029?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The updated funding criteria recognises that the drivers of violent crime are complex and often require targeted interventions to break offending cycles. This allows Government agencies to apply for funding for short-term initiatives. These must either prevent crime from escalating to violent crime, or disrupt organised crime. This Government is reinforcing its commitment to the 20,000 fewer victims of crime by 2029.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can community initiatives still be funded through the proceeds of crime fund?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you to my colleague for such an excellent question, because the answer is yes. But community groups must now have the backing of an eligible Government agency to support their proposal. This ensures that initiatives are properly vetted and directly contribute to reducing violent crime. We will not allow public money to be funnelled into gangs such as Harry Tam’s Mongrel Mob to run boondoggle meth rehab programmes, as seen previously. This Government is strengthening oversight and accountability to ensure that the proceeds of crime fund is used to make communities safer and prevent further victimisation.

Question No. 2—Rail

2. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: Is the Cook Strait ferry replacement programme on track?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): We said on 11 December that we would provide an update on this programme by the end of March this year. This means outlining, first, the type of ferries and the infrastructure plan that we will be pursuing; second, an update following our worldwide engagement with ship builders; and, third, an update following an alternative proposals process. There is a performance indicator in the freight world called a DIFOT—in short: delivered in full, on time. We’re on track to deliver the goods in full and on time.

Tanya Unkovich: What has the Minister learnt from his engagement with key stakeholders involved in this programme?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is no shortage of good, pragmatic, sensible ideas when one is willing to listen and discuss. We have met unions representing Cook Strait mariners, engineers, masters, and crews. We have met on site with CentrePort to hear their views and see the infrastructure that has served our country for decades. We’ve met with the Mayor of Marlborough, Nadine Taylor, and enjoyed hearing the priorities of her community, and her council’s 100 percent commitment to practical, sensible solutions. The small but effective team at Ferry Holdings has met with KiwiRail, both ports’ officials, councils, and many other interested parties, and they have done an extremely good job in the service of us all in this House, and in the service of our country.

Tanya Unkovich: How is work on the infrastructure programme tracking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is just stunning to see the no-nonsense thinking that comes from people when the Government is disciplined—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —in its objectives and firm on its spending limits. Now, that’s not a laughable matter. The pragmatic, thoughtful, and sensible people at both ports and KiwiRail have come to the fore in recent months. An excellent idea has been put forward for Ferry Holdings on the job of assessing and assisting Ministers on this matter. This contrasts sharply with the cancelled iReX project, then valued at $3.1 billion in 2023, with a $4 billion warning given to the previous Government. All of this happened between 2021 and 2023—a vast departure from our expectations in May 2020 for a $1.4 billion total cost, with a taxpayer cost of $400.1 million for the ferries.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Lecture.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As for the details for our new solution, the House will have to wait just four more sleeps—or in his case, 12 more.

Tanya Unkovich: What lessons has the Minister learnt upon his review of the programme he is replacing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We were staggered to learn that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in September 2023 did not disclose a $750 million funding decision taken before the election, because Cabinet took this decision a week after Treasury round out the numbers, but months after the cost blowout was known to the Government. And there were cliff-face disasters like this one after the other—we’ve counted now 21. I can’t answer today because of the brevity of time in this House, but if they’ll ask me a question from that side, I’ll give you the full list.

Tanya Unkovich: Has the Minister ruled out any options?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me say this right here, right now: we have ruled out letting directionless, empty vessels.

Tangi Utikere: Will the required land-side infrastructure costs and funding be included in his pending ferries update, not decision, and, if not, when will those details actually be announced?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, actually—and it pays to, in this House, listen very, very carefully—we talked about that in my first answer. The types of ferries and the infrastructure plan was the first thing we were working on. So the answer is profoundly yes.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) 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: Well, obviously, in the context and with the usual caveats, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Government preventing officials from releasing reoffending rates for boot camp pilot participants, and, if so, why?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the Minister has said yesterday and the countless times before, the pilot programme is going on, and confidentiality until the final assessment is part of that process. It’s not a matter of not—[Interruption] Look, sometimes it takes some people—because of their education, I suppose, or maybe their mental process—a long time for it to sink in, but the Minister has been going on for months about the fact that it’s a pilot programme and there’s a certain privacy to—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why are you passing the law, then?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, why don’t you stick to the subject? She wanted to know whether we have been deliberately stopping the disclosure, and the answer is that when the final pilot programme is known, you will know all the details—right, Minister? Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, regarding methamphetamine: “We’re going to be really tough on that. I mean, we have to get to the suppliers.”; if so, has that objective been achieved, given that the waste-water testing suggests a 96 percent nationwide increase in meth use in the 2024 year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, that’s a fascinating question, because the first thing that that judgment was made about in 2024 was the COVID years, when we were locked down everywhere, and to use that as the base for comparative figures seems attractive until you realise that it had to be the pre-COVID years first, and then—

Glen Bennett: Last year.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know it’s 2024 that we’re talking about. But the basis against which the comparison was made was in the lockdown years, and that’s the point. Now, if you’re an academic, you’d know that, but if you’re a superficial politician, you’ll go for the first gotcha answer and hope you’re going to make it, but it’s not going to work out. Look, recent reports are concerning. We know that the types of substances entering New Zealand from offshore are becoming more harmful, and this confirms how critical it is to tackle organised and transnational crime. We are intercepting more drugs offshore than ever before in our work with our international partners to stop these drugs from getting here. The problem has got worse because of international engagement, but we are more seriously and more successfully engaged in stopping it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he work with Labour to build a sustainable, bipartisan consensus on reform to the Resource Management Act (RMA) through compromise; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer to that is—that’s such great news that we were asked that question. The answer is yes, and as long as we get rational, sane cooperation—now, I know that some members on that side have got what it takes, and then there are some who are so difficult to cooperate with. But if that member is making a sincere offer, then of course we’re going to take the offer up and welcome it sincerely.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Judith Collins that “our best assets are our people”; if so, why is the Government cutting hundreds of roles across the New Zealand Defence Force?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’s very wise to agree with the Hon Judith Collins—that’s number one—

Hon Judith Collins: It’s 80, by the way—80.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and the numbers of 300-plus are demonstrably false. It’s, in fact, 80, and possibly less, even, as we work our way forward. But the real point is that the insinuation from those people up in the press gallery was immediately that we were cutting defence expenditure. That’s bulldust. We’re increasing it. Already we have, and we’ll increase it into the future years.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement regarding immigration settings from India: “We want to make sure that we’re making it as easy and as frictionless as possible”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the answer to that is that of course we’d want to make it as easy and frictionless as possible, and for the most obvious reasons. But, remember, that does not mean we will not adopt the same sorts of strict policies, sensible policies, followed all over Asia and, dare I say it, in India itself.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is this Government refusing to acknowledge its failings, with meth use almost doubling, unsustainable RMA reform, free-trade agreements that may not even survive coalition negotiations, and a defence force that’s being stripped to the bone?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I reject all of the background ill-researched and lack-of-foresight thinking behind that question, because everything that was said there was false. The reality is that unlike the last Government, we’re out to succeed. We will not always get it right, but we’ll never stop trying, not like the previous group, when the then Prime Minister at the time recently confessed that they had so many policies they hadn’t worked their way through. Do you remember them: $54 million for a cycleway over the Auckland Harbour Bridge—how could you get that far down? Light rail, at $1.2 million—[Interruption] And I want to thank those members—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —they want to add to the list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I think we’ve come to the end of that question. Any more questions? [Interruption] Quiet, please.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and asks: will the average jobseeker beneficiary subjected to compulsory money management be able to afford—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just—sorry to the member, but if the House would be quiet, I’d like to ask the member to ask that question again, because I don’t think many people heard.

4. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will the average jobseeker beneficiary subjected to compulsory money management be able to afford their rent and bills?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Someone getting their full benefit is financially better off than someone whose benefit has been reduced. Avoiding this or any other sanction is simple: beneficiaries must comply with the obligations they agreed to when they applied for assistance, such as to look for or to prepare for work. If someone does not comply with their obligations currently, they may be subject to a financial sanction, with their benefit reduced by either 50 percent or 100 percent. If a client cannot afford their rent and bills, a money management non-financial sanction would not be a suitable sanction for that person. An alternative and appropriate sanction would be considered by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it true that the average proportion of a job seeker’s income spent on housing costs is over 50 percent, and, if not, what is the figure?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If we look at money management as a non-financial sanction, it will not be applied if it is not suitable for that particular beneficiary. MSD will have the discretion to decide what is appropriate.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident that compulsory money management will be adequately applied when 41 percent of benefit entitlements aren’t even assessed correctly and front-line organisations report that many sanctions are wrongly applied and subsequently overturned when a review of the decision is lodged?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because there is a very small number, which I’m proudly happy to say, of people that aren’t complying with their obligations—98.6 percent of people are at green. So there’s a very small number who are not complying with their obligations. I’m very confident in MSD’s and the front-line case manager’s ability to decide which non-financial sanction is appropriate for the client in front of them.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she be confident when 41 percent of benefit entitlements are not even assessed correctly?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m not sure that that figure is correct. But what I will say is that there has been recognition that MSD has room for improvement in terms of accuracy of benefit entitlements. Some are overpaid and that is equally a problem as if they are underpaid. That is a separate piece of work that is very unrelated to the work on sanctions and ensuring that beneficiaries are complying with their obligations, and that is what our focus is. We want fewer people on welfare and more people in work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the principle that you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression, what chance would a job seeker have if they turned up for the job wearing a leather jacket?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unless it had a patch, I’m not sure that there’s an answer to that. Unless the Minister’s aware of something that I’m not.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yeah, so one of the requirements in jobseeker obligations is people turning up to a job interview and being serious about wanting that job. What they wear needs to be appropriate for the job they’re applying for or, in this case, the job they’ve got.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she committing and staking her own role on no person subjected to compulsory money management being made homeless?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I will say it again: 100 percent of a benefit payment is better than 50 percent or zero percent, which is the only option available today. So someone who is getting 100 percent of their benefit has got a lot less chance of being homeless than someone who’s getting zero.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it correct that if the average person on the jobseeker benefit spends over 50 percent of their income on rent, they simply won’t be able to keep a roof over their head if they’re subjected to compulsory money management?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Let me be clear: the economic conditions we have mean there are more New Zealanders who are facing incredibly challenging economic times. Those on benefit are no different from any other New Zealander who is confronting challenging times. MSD’s front-line case managers will make decisions, based on someone’s circumstances, on whether a non-financial sanction—which means a person receiving 100 percent of their benefit—is better than other options. I trust them to make that decision.

Question No. 5—Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector)

5. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector): What recent reports has she seen on grocery competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector)): Well—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha! I was wondering who that was.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Really! You want it? Well, last week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released the final reports of its supermarkets inquiry. The findings show a highly concentrated supermarket industry across the Tasman, with significant barriers to entry and expansion at large scale. The two biggest players in the market have, according to the ACCC’s report, “limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price.” While ALDI has a 9 percent market share in Australia, it stocks a limited range of goods and does not operate at a national scale. This report is very relevant to us here in New Zealand because there are concerns about competition in our own supermarket industry. Kiwi shoppers need competition to put downward pressure on prices and ease their cost of living.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does the Australian report compare with what is happening in New Zealand’s grocery market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are similarities between the New Zealand and Australian grocery markets, and there are differences too. Like Australia, our market is highly concentrated, and there are significant barriers to entry and expansion at a national scale. Indeed, it’s even the case that some MPs oppose the building of new supermarkets. Kiwi shoppers are being poorly served by extremely low levels of competition in our grocery sector, and the lack of competition is the result of a series of mergers that have occurred over the past 20 or 30 years. This dynamic was acknowledged by the previous Government when it made changes to the sector’s regulatory framework following a 2022 market study. However, since then, in 2024, the Commerce Commission noted that despite the reforms, competition had not materially improved.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the Government doing to address supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In February, I announced my desire to see another competitor enter the supermarket scene to deliver more effective competition in New Zealand’s grocery sector, because I’m interested in not just addressing the effects of poor competition but materially improving competition, because that means better prices and choices for Kiwi shoppers. And I made clear, in February, that I wanted to help remove barriers that could get in the way of a new entrant, including potentially removing a range of regulatory hurdles. Since then, my officials and I have been engaging with a range of interested parties. A new grocery competitor that is able to introduce competitive pressure, not just in one niche or one region but at a national scale, would be good for our grocery market and good for Kiwi shoppers.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You’re doing nothing!

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps the Government will take to increase competition in the New Zealand grocery market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note that members opposite are talking about what they did. I will repeat what I said in my earlier answer, which is that the Commerce Commission has found that the changes made by the last Government have not resulted in any material change to competition. So we have a number of strands of work under way to address that issue. The Commerce Commission is continuing its work to complete its wholesale inquiry, its analysis into land banking issues, in its second grocery report, and we can expect to hear more from the commission in the middle of the year. In addition, this weekend, Duncan, I will be outlining—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both names, please.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry—Duncan Webb, the “member for opposing new supermarkets”. I will be outlining the next steps that the Government intends to take to address competition in the grocery sector. We do need to move fast. However, we also need to move with due care to get this right for Kiwi shoppers who have waited too long for more competitive grocery offerings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I definitely heard the answer to that, even if some people to my left probably didn’t.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “The Treasury got its forecasts before the election plain wrong”; if so, why should the public believe future Treasury forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I would note that a lot of other people were wrong, too. To the second point, it’s not a matter of belief; people can be guided by economic forecasts as they are by weather forecasts, but neither of these is a guaranteed thing. They are predictions of the future, not reality.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, which is independently produced by Treasury, was “doing all sorts of things to make the books look better than they actually were.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Absolutely.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Treasury’s forecasts always based on “Our observations of the economy, alongside the Government’s fiscal policy decisions”, as stated in every Treasury fiscal update?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I’m not really sure what the member’s point is. As I’ve tried to explain to her: forecasts are put together; in the case of the pre-election fiscal update, it was completely wrong, for a combination of reasons. And if the member is of the view that forecasts are somehow going to be 100 percent accurate, she’s wrong.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Were her policy decisions the reason why the surplus was pushed out to 2031 in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I think the member is missing the wood for the trees. In the recent downturn, between the September quarter of 2022 and the September quarter of 2024, real GDP per capita—so our economic output per person—fell by 4.8 percent. That is an extraordinary decline, more than the global financial crisis, and it happened across that two-year period, both when the last Government was in power and when this Government was having to clean up the mess of the decisions they made during that period. So it is ridiculous to suggest that New Zealand went into a downturn because of policy changes made in the last Budget. The member should be very aware that, in the years prior, under a National Government, per capita GDP rose. Actually, the decisions that your Government took drove up inflation, interest rates, and strangled this economy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Were her policy decisions the reason why growth forecasts fell at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why won’t she accept responsibility for her policy decisions that have seen growth forecasts fall, the surplus pushed out, and debt rise, or is she blaming Treasury for being overly optimistic again?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: She needs to listen, because what I’ve said is very clear. Actually, I’d encourage you to go and read the Budget documents, where Treasury set this out in significant detail and went to great lengths to explain that, over successive updates, they’ve unwound assumptions because of overestimations in the past, of trends coming out of COVID to do with labour productivity, the tax-to-GDP ratio, and other things in terms of misreading the economic cycle, which they have now put into their forecasts. What I take responsibility for is being a Government that came in, did what was needed to clean up their messes, has inflation back in target, has had successive interest rate reductions, and has got growth occurring on our watch and forecast to be much higher. The thing is, if you’re a group of people who oppose fast tracking the very developments that will create jobs and growth, you don’t have an economic mantle to hang.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I did just manage to hear the answer to that question. Interjections are fine, but I think that was a bit of a barrage, and it didn’t come from just one side. Thank you.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Justice: What actions has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government has continued to take action to restore real consequences for crime. Yesterday, we delivered on our promise to cap sentencing discounts so that those who commit horrific crimes are not given a slap on the wrist. We’ve introduced new aggravating factors to address offences against people whose homes and businesses are connected, and stopped offenders from receiving repeated discounts for remorse. Kiwis deserve to feel safer in their communities, and it’s disappointing that our friends in Labour didn’t support it.

Rima Nakhle: How are the Government’s new gang laws restoring real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Our new gang laws have given police the extra tools they need to go after the gangs that are a scourge on our communities, to hold them accountable for the misery they inflict upon others. It has given the police the ability to disrupt gangs before they create new victims. Again, it’s incredibly disappointing that we weren’t supported in this by our friends on the other side of the House.

Rima Nakhle: What commentary has he seen on the need for prisons as part of our justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I have seen some commentary, some photos of the co-leader of the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, wearing merchandise from People Against Prisons Aotearoa. It’s this Government’s view that we don’t live in a utopia and that prisons are necessary to keep particularly serious violent and sexual offenders off the streets, to prevent the creation of new victims. We take public safety very seriously.

Rima Nakhle: What observations—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, I’m trying to hear the member, please.

Rima Nakhle: What observations has he made on the response to the Government’s actions to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I have observed the irony of Chris Hipkins’ description of Tamatha Paul’s view on the police and justice system being stupid. I find it ironic because the voting record of the Greens and Labour are in lock step when it comes to law and order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That was well out of order. That was a patsy question designed as an attack on the Opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was a patsy question, but, look, I’ll ask and I’ll review later. If I think I’ve made the wrong decision, I will come back to you and let you know, but it was actually a factual account—the Minister answered the question—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Speaking to the point of order, what ministerial responsibility is there for comments—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member makes a good point about the ministerial responsibility, but—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Speaking to the point of order, the question, and it was a very good question, was about what observations I had, and I am, as a Minister, perfectly entitled to make observations on what was going on, and that’s what I did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll review the transcript and take some advice.

Question No. 8—Children

8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement regarding the release of the rates of reoffending by participants of the military-style academy pilot that “Oranga Tamariki is of the understanding that they follow my instructions that these young people’s privacy is the most important thing, and making sure that we’re taking care of the wellbeing and the safety of these young people comes first and foremost before anything else”; if so, did she direct Oranga Tamariki to withhold the rates of reoffending by participants of the military-style academy pilot?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has anyone in her office indicated in any way to Oranga Tamariki that information about the re-offending figures should not be released?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Last year, it was brought to my attention by Oranga Tamariki that the intense focus on this small group of young people from media and negative attention for political reasons was having a real negative effect on them, their wellbeing, and their families and whānau. Following this, in December last year, it was agreed with Oranga Tamariki that in order to balance the public interest in this matter with the need to protect the privacy and wellbeing of the young people, Oranga Tamariki would provide public updates at appropriate milestones in the programme. This position has not changed, and if one of my staff members has reiterated to Oranga Tamariki my expectation that the privacy, safety, and wellbeing of these young people comes first, then I applaud them for it.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that her officer’s actions are consistent with the Cabinet Manual, paragraph 3.27?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she confident that her actions are consistent with the Cabinet Manual, paragraph 3.26?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the real reason that she is interfering with the release of the reoffending rates because it will show her military-style academy pilot is a complete failure?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oh, look, given that member’s attitude to the lack of concern for the privacy and wellbeing of these young people, I’m really not surprised about the recent findings of serious privacy breaches by Oranga Tamariki under the previous Government which had put people at serious risk of harm. This is a Government that respects people’s privacy and their safety, and I’m focused on giving these young people the best opportunity to be the best that they can be.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she ever make the reoffending rates public or will she continue to withhold these until she has pushed through her serious young offender legislation?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I suggest the member starts listening. I have repeated this over and over again. We will provide public updates at appropriate milestones of the pilot. This pilot is still running.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The Minister rightly said just then that she had repeated this answer over and over again. I would ask that you look at the questions schedule of that member of Parliament, and the repetitiveness of the same question over and over again, and ask whether that is within Standing Orders, because it’s not. You cannot go on ad nauseam day after day asking the same question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will commit to look at this—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah, the Speaker has previously ruled that actually you are allowed to ask the same question as many times as you wish if you’re not satisfied.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. I have a note here and I’m advised that it is perfectly in order to ask the same question as many times as you wish.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Just so everybody out there in TV land and radio land is certain, the Labour Party can go on asking ad nauseam—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not a point of order. That is a general—[Interruption] No. [Interruption] Stop! Stop before this becomes disorderly. That was not a point of order. There are only 12 primary questions and parties can use them as they like. Laura McClure, did you have a supplementary?

Laura McClure: A supplementary, not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Laura McClure: What recent reports has she seen regarding Oranga Tamariki and young people’s privacy?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have seen an independent report commissioned by Oranga Tamariki that they had experienced a high number of serious notifiable privacy breaches—35 since 2020—and that in more than one case it led to people’s lives being put at risk of actual physical harm. This review found that the privacy culture at Oranga Tamariki was one of low maturity and a fundamental culture shift led from the top was required. While these issues pre-date this Government, they could not be allowed to continue under our watch. This has reinforced my expectations that privacy is taken very seriously.

Question No. 9—Public Service

9. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent reports has she seen from the Public Service Commission?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service): I have received a report on progress on the Government’s target to cut spending on consultants and contractors by $400 million by the end of June. I can tell the House that not only will we meet this target but we’re on track to double it. That’s $800 million of taxpayer funding that will now be able to be spent on areas like healthcare, law enforcement, and education.

Greg Fleming: What is happening to contractor and consultant spend by the Public Service?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, we are seeing a clear and sustained reduction in spending on contractors and consultants. Spending by agencies fell a further 48 percent in the six months to 31 December 2024. On current forecasts, we anticipate there will be a reduction of over $500 million for the full financial year and well over $800 million from the 2022-23 baseline. This is more than twice the targeted reduction of $400 million. I’d like to thank the chief executives of those agencies for their effort and focus on reducing spending in this area.

Greg Fleming: What is happening to the size of the core Public Service workforce?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course, the core Public Service workforce does not include teachers, police, and other front-line staff. Official data shows the core Public Service workforce decreased by 4 percent in the 12 months to December. This reduction was largely in back-office roles, with an increase in the number of front-line staff offsetting this. We simply could not continue to support the staggering 72 percent increase in salary costs that occurred before our Government. Our Government will continue to focus on getting delivery of front-line services out of the back office.

Greg Fleming: What other changes do you expect to see in the Public Service?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I expect the Public Service to get back to basics, sticking to its core functions, and delivering outcomes for the taxpayers that we all serve. I expect it to continue to focus on getting the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck, and Government agencies need to be prudent when spending taxpayers’ money. While I do expect a great deal of change to drive improvement in Public Service performance, I also want to see core principles of the Public Service maintained, like political neutrality, like appointment on merit to all positions, and professional competence.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with Standard & Poor’s that their ratings downgrade of 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations “reflects factors including the quick passage and repeal of several key laws governing local councils, the cancellation of various Crown grant programmes, an increase in unfunded mandates, and recent announcements about infrastructure financing options”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I have seen Standard & Poor’s report. It’s not for me to agree or disagree. Rating agencies make their decisions based on a number of factors, including council performance. That is why this Government is focused on getting councils back to basics, delivering Local Water Done Well, and broadening the range of funding and financing tools available to councils.

Tangi Utikere: Why, then, did Standard & Poor’s downgrade the ratings of 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, I am not responsible for Standard & Poor’s.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Madam Speaker, that was a very specific question. The primary Minister indicated that he had no responsibility for Standard & Poor’s and whether he agreed or not. The question I asked was, in light of his initial response, why, then, they made that determination. As the Minister of Local Government, he is expected to respond.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, I’m not responsible for what their decision is. They are ultimately responsible for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think where we’ve got to here is that the member asked the Minister about their opinion about why, and it may not be that the member will get the answer that they want, but it was an opinion that the member asked for. The Minister did make it clear he was not responsible for Standard & Poor’s.

Tangi Utikere: Does he take responsibility for the volatile policy environment that led to councils’ ratings downgrades; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Local Government, what we take responsibility for is getting councils back to basics and putting in place Local Water Done Well, which will ensure that councils are able to borrow at a cheaper rate for water infrastructure than what would have happened under that Government’s failed three waters.

Hon David Parker: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what—is this a point of order?

Hon David Parker: It is a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was just going to reprimand the Minister for attacking—was that the point of order?

Hon David Parker: No. Madam Speaker, it’s long been the case in this House that questions about downgrades in ratings from standards agencies are a matter which Ministers may be asked questions about. Every time there is an upgrade of a standard, the Government crows. Every time there is a downgrade of a standard, the Minister of Finance is asked about questions relating to central government’s responsibilities. The member Tangi Utikere is quite within order to ask questions as to why it is, in the opinion of the Minister of Local Government, that local government agencies have had a downgrade of rating.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I haven’t ruled the member’s questions out of out of order. He’s quite in order to ask those questions.

Hon David Parker: No, no, Madam Speaker, you said that the Minister didn’t have to answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I said the Minister actually said he was not responsible. He did answer the question, right?

Hon David Parker: Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, the member can ask about an opinion and my advice is that they may not get the answer that they want, and that’s exactly what’s happened here.

Hon David Parker: But they still have to address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Minister did address the question but not in the way that the member wanted. I invite Tangi Utikere to continue with his questions.

Tangi Utikere: Will the increased borrowing costs that local councils will now face because of the rating downgrade lead to larger rates increases in the future?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, most councils borrow through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). Of course, the same report from Standards & Poor’s says we have affirmed our AA+ foreign currency and AAA local currency ratings on the Local Government Funding Agency on 18 March.

Tangi Utikere: Does he understand that changes made to the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency, that he just referenced, will, according to Standard & Poor’s, “generally be negative for credit quality across the sector”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, the work the Government is doing to deliver Local Water Done Well is to ensure that councils are able to borrow the funding needed to be able to deliver the water infrastructure that they need. And the advice from the Department of Internal Affairs is that the funding through Local Water Done Well, with the partnership with LGFA, will be cheaper than what it would have been under the last Government’s failed three waters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that last piece was unnecessary.

Tangi Utikere: Why won’t he just take responsibility for his Government’s actions, directly increasing costs for Kiwis and their households, which the international rating agency has so plainly and clearly stated?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister of Local Government, this Government is focused on getting councils back to basics and focused on core delivery rather than on the four wellbeings and all of the other things the last Government was focusing councils on. We want councils focusing on the basics and giving them the funding and financing tools they need to do just that.

Question No. 11—Conservation

11. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries’ statement that “Locals have raised serious concerns about the decline of spiny rock lobster in the inner Hauraki Gulf, and this has been backed up by fishery-independent research. I share these concerns and … I’ve decided to stop spiny rock lobster fishing in the inner Gulf”; if so, is he also committed to protections in the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Āna—yes, I agree with Minister Jones’ statements and welcome the closure. Locals have raised concerns and officials have given advice on kōura decline in the majestic Hauraki Gulf—te Pataka kai Tīkapa Moana. The Government is committed to establishing additional marine protection in the gulf. The announced spatial closure to the code of fisheries by our Dalmatian matua compliments the protections under the bill in restoring the health and mauri of the gulf.

Lan Pham: Does he consider the documented 57 percent decline in key fish stocks, 67 percent decline in seabirds, 97 percent decline in whales and dolphins, and the functional extinction of snapper and crayfish populations in some areas of the gulf to require an equally active response in establishing evidence-based marine protection from overfishing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question, but I won’t succumb to the Green catastrophising of members diagonal opposite—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’d like the member to answer the question, not attack the questioner.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Environmental Defence Society have said, “Perfect can be the enemy of the good” and we are very proud that we will triple the marine protection of the gulf, something that other Governments did not achieve.

Lan Pham: What justification can the Minister provide for his decision to allow commercial fishing in the exact areas that are supposed to be set aside to allow the gulf to recover, when his own official advice stated that allowing the continuation of commercial fishing in the new high protection areas is “incompatible with the purpose” and “will undermine biodiversity outcomes”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: For the umpteenth time, we are very committed to tripling the marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf—Tīkapa Moananui-ā-Toi-te-Huatahi [Hauraki Gulf and the Bay of Plenty]—and we have done this in a manner that will expedite the progress of the legislation to its logical dénouement that will result in seriously more protection than other Governments have achieved.

Lan Pham: Is he comfortable with potentially risking the very purpose of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill and potentially undermining his own purported biodiversity goals for the $14,000 per year that Fisheries New Zealand data demonstrated would be the commercial ring-net fishing revenue from all 12 proposed high protection areas of the gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As mentioned, we’re very proud of our pragmatic approach to ensuring a balanced and increased protection in the Hauraki Gulf. And before I start quoting various points of data, can I point out: of the additional 1,500 square kilometres of the Hauraki Gulf that this marine protection will protect, the areas in question comprise around 3 percent.

Lan Pham: Why should Kiwis trust the National Party’s word on ocean protection when they’re failing their own commitment to “accelerate initiatives like the Hauraki Gulf marine protection and the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary bills to ensure the effective protection of marine biodiversity”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat, for the third time today: we are very proud and happy to progress the legislation to triple the marine protection of the gulf, something—between 2020 and 2023—another Government was unable to achieve.

Lan Pham: Given the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill was unanimously supported in the recent select committee process, why is the Minister prioritising industry over the wishes of iwi, hapū, and community, and his own Government’s commitment to restore the health and mauri of the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are very proud and comfortable in progressing the tripling of marine protection in the gulf. We have considered the appropriate review of the various matters regarding the ring-net fishing, and we’ll undertake that in three years after we pass this legislation.

Question No. 12—Police

12. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the statement by the member for Wellington Central that people “do not want to see police officers everywhere, and, for a lot of people, it makes them feel less safe”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): No, that is total nonsense. This Government has invested in police and part of that has been getting them back out on the beat and back to basics, building relationships with business owners and their staff, and giving Kiwis a sense of confidence and reassurance. The country should reject any alternative that would see a serious degradation or attempted abolition of our police.

Tim Costley: By how much have foot patrols increased nationwide?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In 2024, there were 78,830 foot patrols in New Zealand. That’s an increase of 40 percent on the 56,134 recorded in 2023. In the Wellington district, this was an increase of 54 percent.

Tim Costley: Does the Minister agree that all the beat police do is pick up rubbish?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No. Police do an outstanding job. Last year, on top of responding to, investigating, and prosecuting criminal behaviour, they also conducted over 2 million prevention and service activities, including 1,295 land rescues, 1,593 water and sea rescues, 4,332 sessions educating kids on road safety, 7,653 visits to schools, 191,000 family harm investigations, 2,500 emergency disaster responses, 20,000 missing person events, and gave crime prevention advice 38,000 times.

Tim Costley: What message does the Minister have for the public about the good work that our police do?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Our police operate in a challenging environment every day and respond to the needs of the public. My message to the public is very simple: I think they should be very worried about the prospect of any Government including a party that entertains the abolition of the Police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he’s had any submissions from the people in the leafy suburbs of Khandallah, Kelburn, and Karori—now in Wellington Central with the latest boundary change—as to their opposition to having police on the beat and properly policing their suburbs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I have not personally received one submission from anyone in the country to say that they’re not happy with seeing our police officers highly visible and providing reassurance on the beat; in fact, it’s been quite the opposite. The feedback that I’ve had, both formally and anecdotally, is that people are very pleased and happy to see our police back highly visible and on the beat.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Justice Committee

1. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Chairperson of the Justice Committee: Will he report the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill to the House before all submissions have been processed and considered by members?

Hon James Meager (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Decisions about when a bill is reported back are made by the committee and not by the chair. So when the committee resolves to report the bill to the House, I will do so accordingly.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is the reason he’s so eager to report the bill back—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet please.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is the reason he’s so eager to report the bill back to the House so that he can relinquish his position as chair and focus on being a Minister?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think that is a question that’s at the discretion of the chair of the committee.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: All right. Well, may I rephrase?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think we need to accept that, actually, the question that the member gave, the correct answer is that the committee makes this decision and it’s not his decision to make.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question put to the member was clearly within order. I’m just asking whether I can put a supplementary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the answer was clearly within order, Dr Webb.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: May I have a supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll listen to the question. If it’s trifling with the House, just be a little careful.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why did he not propose seeking an extension of time to report back to the House or support my motion to do so, in light of the fact that members will not be able to consider all of the submissions made by the public?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t think that the member needs to answer that question, given that it’s not the member’s responsibility; it is the committee’s responsibility. [Interruption] Quiet. Thank you. That concludes oral questions. I will give members the traditional 30 seconds to leave the House.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Conduct of Hon Peeni Henare

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General): I move, That the interim report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the conduct of four members during proceedings of the House be noted.

The Privileges Committee report on this issue has been presented to the House and is on the floor for members to see. On 10 December 2024, the Speaker ruled that concerns raised by three members about the conduct of the Hon Peeni Henare, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi following the first reading debate on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill gave rise to a question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the issue of members leaving their seats to participate in an activity that was disorderly and disruptive to the procedure of the House is something that should be considered further.

The incident in which this question of privilege relates occurred during the first reading vote, when Ms Maipi-Clarke began performing a haka. Several members from Te Pāti Māori, the Labour Party, and the Green Party rose to their feet and joined in. The members whose conduct is at issue, in this question of privilege, left their seats to stand on the floor of the House.

This interim report focuses on the conduct of the Hon Peeni Henare. We received a written explanation from Mr Henare on 29 January 2025. He appeared before our committee to answer further questions on 12 March 2025. While participating in the haka, Mr Henare left his seat and advanced on to the floor in front of the Labour Party seats. In his written response to us, Mr Henare stated that his conduct did not reach the threshold of previous privileges complaints where contempt was found, as he was across the floor of the House from other members. He stated that “If there was disrespect, I apologise unreservedly.” In his hearing with us, he again apologised for breaking the rule of stepping away from his seat and on to the floor of the debating chamber. He said, “I know the rule with respect to that, and I knew that, in doing so, I would be breaking that rule.”

As a committee, we have been tasked with determining whether the Hon Peeni Henare’s actions following the first reading debate on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill amount to a contempt of the House. Standing Order 417 sets out that “The House may treat as a contempt any act or omission which—(a) obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions”. Mr Henare’s conduct in stepping on to the floor of the Chamber to participate in the haka while a vote was being taken did obstruct or impede the business of the House, as the vote was not able to continue. Our view is that this is undoubtedly disorderly behaviour. However, we find that Mr Henare’s actions do not amount to a contempt.

We recommended that Mr Henare be required to apologise to the House for acting in a disorderly manner that disrupted a vote being taken and impeded the House in its functions. Mr Henare has, now, so apologised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Madam Speaker, thank you. I don’t have a huge amount to add to that comprehensive description of the proceedings of the Privileges Committee. I note, as I recall, the committee was unanimous in its resolution on this matter, which is always a good thing. I just want to recognise that Mr Henare came to the Privileges Committee, both in his written submission and in person, and he was fulsome in his comments—and frank and sincere—and that assisted the committee in its deliberations considerably and enabled us to dispose of this matter relatively promptly. It’s good to see that the matter is now concluded in respect of Mr Henare. He has apologised to this House, and I endorse the findings of the committee.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): The Green Party acknowledges the report that we’re debating today and the existing rules that therefore guided us to come to the conclusion in this report. I want to acknowledge the Hon Peeni Henare for his contributions to the oral hearings and particularly acknowledging his comments that helped us understand that he was carrying the many, many, many constituents behind him when he chose to make the actions that led to this report.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Privileges Committee for producing a record of the disruption that occurred in the House before the first reading vote on the Treaty principles bill. I will not repeat all that, and I will also not repeat the details that are covered in the committee report, other than to reiterate the conclusion that Peeni Henare’s conduct, including participating in a haka, was disorderly and did obstruct or impede the business of the House as the vote was not able to continue. Peeni Henare has apologised for his conduct, and ACT accepts his apology.

I would like to give special emphasis to his statement that he made during the Privileges Committee hearing. In that, we had several questions, and I would say that he really sincerely answered all those questions. One question we had was about if it was all pre-planned, and Peeni Henare said it was not pre-planned. ACT accepts that. The actions were not calculated. We accept that. We accept that, yep, lapses of judgment can occur.

It is important that any disorderly conduct in the House is taken very seriously, because it’s about the message that we send out—because what we do here is not just confined to our four walls—to, especially, our young people. Are we saying to our young people that it’s OK to break rules? Are we saying to our young people that it’s OK to break rules and feel proud of that? Or are we saying that it’s OK to try to then get some attention on social media after breaking rules? These are not the messages that we want to send out, because our audience is not just here in New Zealand but we have an international audience as well. So, whatever we do here, we are also, through those actions, speaking to our future leaders, and that’s why our conduct in this House is really important.

In this House, we know that on sensitive issues, there are strong disagreements, and there is a way to express those disagreements: that is through debate and that is through casting the vote after the debate is done. We need to respect these ways because that is how our democratic system works and that is what makes our democratic system the best system in the world.

Finally, I would like to urge the House to reflect on the perverse incentives of things being done to go viral on social media—acts that disrupt actions in the House to get attention on social media, acts that go against democracy, acts that go against the rights of other fellow members to cast their vote are the kinds of actions we need to reflect on. We also need to reflect that if these kinds of actions are put on social media to make them go viral, are we really serving the public that we are here to serve? It’s important that we do justice to our job and we do justice to people, those who have elected us. We are here to make New Zealand better, and that starts with our own actions. I thank the member for his apology.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Privacy Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1

Substantive amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Privacy Amendment Bill. We begin with debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 9B, “Substantive amendments to principal Act”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. It gives me great pleasure to be in the chair for the Privacy Amendment Bill wearing another hat. We sat through this on the Justice Committee, so it’s very interesting to be able to be back and to consider this bill.

I just thought I’d very quickly touch on what Part 1 does. So Part 1 is where the substantive amendments to the principal Act are contained. It is, I guess, the guts of the bill. It also, in clause 9, amends Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act. So Part 1, the gist of the bill is that it introduces a new information privacy principle, IPP 3A, into the Act, which relates to the indirect collection of personal information. It is closely based on IPP 3, which is related to information that is directly collected from individuals concerned. So this deals with a situation where information is collected not from the individual but via a third party.

Under new IPP 3A, an agency will be required to ensure that the individual is aware of a range of matters when collecting that individual’s personal information indirectly. That includes the name and the address of the agency, the purposes for which the information’s collected, and the rights of access to and correction of the information. It effectively reflects IPP 3.

The new principle is designed to minimise compliance burden for agencies while increasing the protection for individual’s privacy at the same time. For example, the requirement is subject to a number of practical exceptions to ensure the efficient administration of certain public functions and to protect against other unintended consequences. The committee, during the select committee stage, considered some submissions from what is known as the GLAM sector—galleries, libraries, archives, and museums—for exceptions to their procedures and processes around archiving and, essentially, establishing exhibitions in museums which were eventually accepted by the committee and by this House at second reading.

The most significant change to the bill, as introduced, was that exception to the GLAM sector, but for other submitters who made submissions around how this may impact compliance costs and burden their businesses, there were other exceptions in the bill which could address those concerns.

There is an Amendment Paper tabled to extend the commencement date for IPP 3A to 1 May 2026. This extends it from six months to a year. That just ensures that agencies have enough time to prepare the new requirements. We can discuss that when we get to the commencement clause.

Just finally, clause 9 of Part 1 amends Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act, which deals with those transitional arrangements. Very briefly, that new Part 2 would be inserted into Schedule 1 to provide that IPP 3A does not apply to personal information collected before, on, or after the commencement date of Part 1 of the bill under an approved information-sharing agreement or an information-matching agreement that is in force immediately before this date.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a little bit of a surprise to see the chair of the Justice Committee in the chair in a different capacity. I would have thought he might want to actually query the Minister of Justice, but then again, perhaps a little tricky.

Rima Nakhle: Wow.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I do find it quite unusual. But I am keen—for the record—for the Minister for Hunting and Fishing to express his views on some of the kind of scope of this new privacy principle. It has, essentially, been imported from the EU for good reason, because we need to have an international framework for privacy so that organisations can work in a cross-border way. So in the spirit of a to and fro, I’m interested particularly in the exceptions, because the principle itself is pretty well expressed and clear in new section 22(4), inserted by clause 4. The new privacy principle 3A has a long list of exceptions, and it’s actually the first one that I’d like the Minister to address in the first instance because it seems to me to have a degree of subjectivity to it, which is that non-compliance is not required if it would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned.

The difficulty being that the individual by definition doesn’t know that the information is being shared. The classic example we see is loyalty schemes and so on, where you get your Everyday Rewards card and they collect all kinds of information on it. They know what kind of biscuits you like, and so on and so forth, and they have your email address. So they can provide that email address, for example, to an online biscuit shop who can send you your favourite specials for your favourite Toffee Pops.

Now, it may well be that the person who receives the information thinks that it’s not prejudicial. I’m just wondering what the threshold for prejudice is. Is marketing information prejudicial? Is data harvesting not for personal uses, but to understand population trends; is that prejudicial? I do think that’s actually probably the biggest carve-out. The danger, I guess, and the reason I’m inviting the Minister to kind of put on the record what is intended by this is the danger is that the people who receive information will take a large and liberal interpretation of what is permitted and a narrow interpretation of what is prejudicial. So I think it’d be really interesting to hear the Minister’s comment on that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. In a similar vein to some of the questions we asked previously when we were discussing particularly around the Customer and Product Data Bill and the fact that we are requiring agencies or requiring companies to comply, essentially, with our Privacy Act—today, we’re here discussing new information privacy principle 3A as part of this. I think I want to ask similar questions to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, first and foremost, around the interaction between our domestic privacy legislations and how it intersects with some of the broader international best practices, but also the broader international commitment around this. I think, previously, we’ve heard from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb around the fact that this largely is following in line with what the EU is doing in terms of privacy, which, by the way, is one of the golden standards when it comes to privacy protection, as opposed to, for example, the US.

But I want to check here two questions in terms of this new principle broadly, and I’m sure we’ll drill into specific content of clause 4, which is the bulk of this. The first question is whether, currently, the agency that is here fulfils the same definition under section 4 of the Privacy Act 2020 that you require? The agency is defined as both a New Zealand agency and an overseas agency, as well as an individual. If it’s the same consistent sort of definition, then we can go from there and then look at the parameters of some of that. Looking at 3A more broadly and looking at page 5 of the regulatory impact statement, which is a nice diagram, if we’re looking at “Individual B”, who under the current legislation must be informed by “Agency A” when they are disclosing information, we’re telling how the information should be used. But when “Agency A” passes that information on to “Agency C”, no notification is required, which is what this bill is hoping to address.

However, because often we assume “Agency A”, in this case, is, let’s say, a company or an agency, let’s use the Ministry of Health or Ministry of Education as an example. We would naturally assume that one of those agencies, or a particular company, is that “Agency A”. However, when they use our data-collecting software that is outsourced to an overseas company, let’s say Google or Microsoft, are those software companies in fact “Agency A”, and then the ministry or a company or anyone else is “Agency C”, or are we looking at overseas companies such as Google or Microsoft as “Agency C” in this case? Therefore, this bill would allow those agencies, such as those overseas big tech companies, to also, in some ways, inform “Individual B”, in this case, of how their data might be used under, let’s say, section 4(1), and all of the concern and also awareness as listed there.

One of my first questions is: how does this reconcile with the fact that we are seeing more and more outsourcing of our data-collection software internationally as opposed to domestically? What is the agency in that sense? I’ll leave that for now because I know that that’ll form the basis of my subsequent questions.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll try to address Dr Webb’s questions first: there is a difficulty with the example that was used, because, under that situation, where a rewards scheme collects an email address and then proports to pass it on to a third party, they would only be able to collect the information under information privacy principle 3 in the first instance, with the appropriate usage or disclosure intentions being made aware to the person the information is collected from.

Assuming that is the case—and that’s covered by subclause (3), which is that you are not required to take the steps referred to in subclause (1) if the individual concerned is already made aware of it—if you’re the rewards company and you are collecting someone’s email address and you intend to pass it on to a third party, you would be required to tell that individual in the first instance in order to pass it on, which would then be covered by subclause (3).

I think the example doesn’t quite work in that situation, but the core of the question was: what does “prejudice” mean in this instance? There are two parts to it: one is that it requires a belief on the agency, on reasonable grounds, that it would not prejudice the interests; so that is a subjective belief but with a reasonably objective test, and there are various definitions, or case law, throughout the statute book about what prejudice would require, including within the Privacy Act itself. So I’d refer the member back to those previous definitions.

In terms of the questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan—is the agency in section (4) the same as in the rest of the bill—yes, the definition is to apply the same. Just generally, are overseas companies subject to the Privacy Act? If they are carrying out the course of business in New Zealand, they are subject to the Privacy Act. I think, in the situation you are referring to, it is the question of whether or not Google or Microsoft Word or a cellphone is collecting information itself or whether it is an agent of the agency collecting information, and I’ll seek some more advice on that. But my assumption would be that the “collecting agency” would be yourself and that a piece of software that you’re using to do that—say, a Google doc or a Google survey form—is just a mechanism by which to collect the information; so it’s not the agency itself.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you to the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, for that answer, because I think that does actually land very nicely into my second question around what it looks like. I understand where the Minister’s coming from, that let’s say we’re filling out a Google form or a Microsoft form, that the agency itself is the person who drafted the form, but the medium or the mode that is being used to process the data may not be the agency that is collecting it. However, we also know that, for example, Microsoft or Google—I’m going to use those two examples because they are universally understood—are also the ones who keep that information. That’s how you get the backup system, etc., and are able to retrieve that from their data-processing centre. I just want to know: does this bill allow greater scrutiny and accountability of big tech, for having to declare some of those to the person whose data is being collected?

Now, the reason that I am focusing on this in particular—and when we’re looking at, for example, what needs to be declared as part of clause 4(1), you know, it comes into the broader understanding, and we talked about this yesterday as well, which is that people in Aotearoa want to know that this is our data and we would like to know how our data is being used and being processed. We heard that from another Minister as well. But the fact is that often we don’t know how data is being used and being processed by large tech companies. So, in this case, if the large tech is being held accountable in the same way under new information privacy principle 3A (IPP 3A) in section 22, amended by clause 4, and then they are liable to let us know, in particular, the purpose that the information has been collected for, that potentially can be huge. If that was the case, and the collecting agency and the big tech have that level of accountability or scrutiny, I then want to check with the Minister—for the purpose of this particular bill as well—has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) been consulted in terms of our current trade agreements, particularly when we’re looking at the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, among others—noting that the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement is actually very good about this—and whether that fulfils our requirement under the digital trade chapter of those international trade agreements. Because, again, there are certain obligations, that we have, unfortunately, signed up to, in those trade agreements that actually prevent us from holding certain big tech accountable, including how our data can be used offshore.

So I just want to check with the Minister in terms of getting clarity that in that case, does that mean that Google or Microsoft, for example, are required to also fulfil the requirement of IPP 3A under section 4(1), and, if they do, then has that been consulted with, for example, MFAT to ensure consistency with our existing trade agreements?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I understand that the legal obligation for compliance with the Act lies with the agency doing the collecting. So if there is an agent acting on behalf of the agency, the responsibility ultimately lies with the agency itself—so the individual or the company doing the collecting—and there are various protections in place under the existing Act to deal with that. It’s probably a little bit confusing, but in that situation there is no third party involved: the agency doing the collecting, yourself, and the mechanism by which the collection is happening, the survey, are one and the same, and the legal obligations lie with the agency itself, not the provider or the individual.

I’m advised that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were closely involved in the development of the policy, including discussions with the EU during their adequacy status review, and they’re comfortable with where the law is sitting. Just for the avoidance of doubt, the Act does apply to social media companies. They are expected to comply with this where they are the ones doing the collecting themselves. The Act is technology-neutral, so the method of collection has to apply generally with the information privacy principles (IPPs) that already exist, including with the current or the proposed IPP 3A.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I had a question in relation to—I think it’s section 22(5)(a), inserted by clause 4, in relation to the carve-out of the agency collecting “personal information for the purpose of determining whether the information is of enduring value for general public interest and should be archived for public reference, study, or exhibition”. I know that this was a hot issue during the Justice Committee, and we had various submitters who were concerned that this might curtail their ability to do archival work, particularly studying things like whakapapa and family heritage and having the ability to go in and look over those past records that may contain issues or details around personal privacy. I’m just interested to know from the Minister for Hunting and Fishing if he believes that the concerns that he was present for and saw at the committee are adequately addressed by the provision here.

I would also note that under (5)(b) it stipulates that “compliance is likely to seriously impair the agency’s achievement of the purpose”. So just to check that we’re not concerned that there are any prohibitive restrictions on the ability for that important work to happen that will be capturing history and is now more important than ever given we live in an age where facts can be manufactured. The work of historians and those people who go back through time is probably more valuable than ever.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): That’s a good question. It’s probably helpful to outline an example for this case, and the exception applies to what we were told, and I learnt, was the GLAM sector—and that stands for “galleries, libraries, archives, and museums”.

One of the examples given during the select committee process was around something akin to, say, a Hillary exhibition, where hundreds or thousands of photos are collected and provided to an archive or a museum for exhibition purposes. Now, without an exception, there is an argument that every individual that can be identified in each of those photos would have to be notified that their information is being collected, by whom, and find an address for each of those individuals and go through a significantly substantial pre-checking process before you actually get to the point of putting the photos up. That would seriously impair the purpose of the project in the first place, which is to display a series of archives or photos.

We’re very comfortable that the exception provided allows those GLAM sectors to undertake the valuable work that they do in the interests of the public, and we also consulted with Government agencies involved with the GLAM sector, and they support the drafting that’s involved there as well. It’s very similar to the drafting of exceptions that exist in other jurisdictions’ legislation to provide similar kinds of exceptions. And then, when we’re talking about meeting the concerns of similar submitters who didn’t quite get the express exception, there are other protections in place under section 22(4). That was referred to previously around when non-compliance might not be necessary.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing for your answers. In particular, I think it’s important to note that in this case if it’s the social media company themselves doing it, like the Minister has mentioned, that they are also held liable under the new information privacy principle 3A (IPP 3A).

I do have an example that I want to seek the Minister’s guidance on. This is particularly to do with this particular bill was introduced because we identified that there was a gap in the way that we look at, let’s say, third parties or potentially when there are two different agencies involved or the information is passed from one agency to the other. I’m just checking with the Minister whether there has been any consideration around other aspects where information might potentially be—other IPP where this might also be a factor. So to give an example—again, I’m using the fact that we are currently at an age where the way that we collect data electronically is often done through a third-party provider, usually one of the big tech companies, but in terms of this when, let’s say, you mention that although they are collecting but they’re not an agency who collect it—however, I would like to know who would be liable, for example, in an instance where the software or the holder or the retention of that data has been hacked due to lack of maintenance on the part of the software programme and on the part of the software provider, as opposed to the agency in this case, because, again, there are two parties at play here. Would the liability lie on the agency itself or would the liability lie on the software provider? I think that that is also a consideration when we’re looking at how the IPP should be interpreted today in the digital age, essentially.

Another question I have for the Minister is in section 22(4) inserted by clause 4, and this is to do with when an agency doesn’t need to comply with the requirement under paragraph (a). I just wanted to—and one particular term sort of stood out to me, and I would like to see if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing an example of this; what does it mean when they say that “if the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, (a) that non-compliance would not prejudice the interests of the individual concerned;”? So then is it up to the agency itself to determine the interests of the individual to decide whether compliance is required?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I’ll try and address the first one because it seeks, in essence, a legal opinion on where liability will lie, and it’ll depend on a case-by-case basis. Issues arise when you talk about negligence under contract compared to the actions of the agency making the collection itself, so I’m wary of providing a legal opinion on where liability will arise, apart from the fact to say that the legal obligations sit on the agency doing the collecting, whether that is directly or indirectly, and other contractual relationships that sit underneath that may well have vicarious liability or not. But from the Act’s perspective, obligations are with the agency doing the collecting.

The question about prejudice to interests: one example in order to undertake non-compliance would be you would have to notify the individual concerned. Now, if the agency making the collection considered that non-notification to the individual wouldn’t actually prejudice their interests, because perhaps the information being collected was contained in an internal or closed system, that may well be justified. But, again, it’s a subjective test based on a reasonable standard, which would be subject, probably, to fleshing out by either the Privacy Commissioner when they received a complaint or through the Human Rights Review Tribunal under some sort of privacy proceedings, should they be able to get through in a timely manner.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Look, I’m just interested because, as some of us know, there was some discussion by commercial providers who didn’t manage to get—and started talking about what’s not in the bill, in some ways. I do think it’s important because they made a quite comprehensive submission. These are the commercial providers who, essentially, deal in information, so they actually have a business—particularly mobile phone numbers in today’s world, but also email addresses. I know the Minister for Hunting and Fishing alluded earlier to rewards cards and so on and the use of email addresses there. The point was made that it will be costly and onerous for these commercial providers who have permission to hand on the information, and in other cases to receive it—it will be very costly for them to conduct their business in a way which is compliant with this Act.

It would be good, again, in some ways, for the record to explain why, in terms of the exceptions we’re finding in this clause, that an exception wasn’t provided where person A who has consented to the sharing of their information—because you always do when you click “yes”, right? Your privacy conditions, you click “yes”. So a person who has consented to share their information to a commercial provider, why it is, as I understand it, that, under this piece of legislation, they will still have to be told that their information has been passed to a third party, even though it’s within the bounds of the arrangement that they have agreed to. I understand that to be the case.

Obviously, if you say, “You can provide this to”, and you name an entity, then that’s all well and good. But the way the commercial providers work is they go and, essentially, gather the information and then they’ll hand it on to anyone who will pay the money who’s the legit organisation. Now, it’s a perfectly legitimate enterprise, and this will make life harder for them. In terms of the minimum reasonable regulation and only preventing harm where it’s necessary, it would be really useful to show why that compliance cost on those businesses—and I see you getting some advice—is being imposed, and why, in your view, or the Minister’s view, it was not appropriate to accept that submission.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have the advice and I’ll just read it out. During the select committee process, those additional exceptions were sought and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner provided some additional thoughts. They thought that the existing exceptions, combined with guidance from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, is sufficient.

I think the example in the bill itself relating to information privacy principle 3A(3) outlines it quite well and I can read it out for the House: “[If] An agency [let’s call it an apple] (A) has collected personal information from the individual concerned. [and apple] A has disclosed the information to another agency (B) [ banana], after collecting the information, [they are] is not required to comply with subclause 1”, which is providing the information or awareness to the individual, because the individual concerned would already have had that information disclosed to (B). So if you go to the example in clause 4 of the bill, that will cover that off as well.

Also, there are a number of other exceptions. If you go to section 22(4)(d) inserted by clause 4, “compliance would prejudice the purposes of the collection”—so if those third-party or indirect collectors have already been given permission to collect that information from the direct agency, because the direct agency has told the individual who they’ve collected from that this is going to be passed on to a third party, then to have to go and then make all those notifications to those individuals would prejudice the purposes of that collection in the first place.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question now is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 258 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Other amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 10 to 14, “Other amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 is a very, very short part. It makes other amendments to the principal Act which are technical in nature and address minor issues that have arisen since the Act came into force. For example, the amendment in, I think, clause 12 allows an agency to respond only once to a requestor when it has grounds to transfer an access request to another agency but does not because it has good cause to believe that the requestor does not want the request transferred. At the moment, an agency must respond to the requestor twice: first, to notify the requestor that the request has not been transferred, and then, subsequently, to respond with a substantive decision about whether it grants the access request. So requiring only one response is a sensible change which will improve alignment with other comparable sections of the Act. Members can see that there are five clauses in this part. They are relatively brief and straightforward, and so I would very much commend them to the committee of the whole House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Hunting and Fishing regarding section 13 of Part 2, which is “Section 49 amended (Protection, etc., of individual as reason for refusing access to personal information)”, and it specifies, interestingly, replacing section 49(1)(c), which is around disclosure of information for those under the age of 16. I’m curious about this, both in terms of the context of this bill and the wider context of the primary legislation. Whereas we don’t seem to have protection, and, for example, Minister, you mentioned before, in terms of social media, we don’t seem to have the same degree of protection of agencies who collect information or personal information for those under the age of 16, yet we have a provision for the refusal for someone under the age of 16 to access their personal information. Am I interpreting that correctly?

If that is the case, I do genuinely have concerns that I would assume that for an under-16-year-old to have their data collected without understanding the legal rights and protections that they have for their data, particularly in light of the Privacy Act, would be of a higher order than the rejection or the protection against them from accessing their own information if they are under 16. Would the Minister mind clarifying if I have interpreted that correctly, where there is no protection for the collection in the first place? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No one’s taking the call?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I can, Mr Chair—I can keep going while the Minister is seeking some clarifications. I guess particularly the reason I want to mention this point—and I’m happy to sit down the minute that the Minister receives that clarification—is because, again, in the age of social media and particularly in terms of the accessibility and availability of social media to young people, and this is, again, a very important topic. We’ve seen Australia is now doing something interesting in terms of social media. We won’t get into that, but I would like to know their protection under the Privacy Act. Thank you.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you for the brief interlude. I’m advised that this is actually an expansion of protection for people under 16. It changes protections to the individual involved, who the information might be collected from, to any individual under the age of 16. So if the information collected relates to any individual under 16, that could be a reason not to disclose. So it widens the protection for minors.

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I have just a very short question. I understand what the Minister for Hunting and Fishing is saying, but section 49 says that an agency may refuse access to any personal information requested. I understood it as: if an under-16-year-old requested information, they may be refused access. That’s not the correct interpretation?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): No, my understanding is that it’s a protection provided to both the individual and any other individual who is under 16 who might be prejudiced or affected by the collection of information, because to request information, it must be relevant or related to you in the first instance anyway.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. Clauses 1 to 3 are very straightforward. Clause 1 is the title. The Act is called the “Privacy Amendment Act” because it amends the Privacy Act. Clause 2 is the commencement clause. This is subject to changes in the Amendment Paper to replace 1 June 2025 with 1 May 2026. That just gives agencies more time to prepare for those changes and get their systems in place. And clause 3 is the “Principal Act” clause—[Alarm sounds] Someone is very excited! The Act amends the Privacy Act 2020, and that’s what it does.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister Meager, for that explanation. Can I just check—just for clarity—in terms of clause 2 on the commencement date, in terms of the fact that information privacy principle 3A is to come into force. My understanding is that this bill, as the name potentially suggests, was supposed to give a two-year leeway to be able to make some of that preparation, or, potentially, an 18-month - plus leeway to make some of the preparations, and now it’s been pushed out to 1 May 2026, as you have mentioned, on Amendment Paper 258.

However, I do want to check, considering that we’ve seen a number of bills being introduced in the House very recently where we have been given confidence by the Minister that the transition and changes can be done within a three-month period, we’re still technically within a three-month period to 1 June 2025. So what is holding, for example—if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing clarity—the agency or the Government or even the Privacy Commissioner back from actually imposing this on the day that we have here in the bill, as opposed to pushing it out to 14 months from now? Presumably, by having it come into force, it’s not an overtly onerous task to inform the relevant people or for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to put out the required information and publicity to be able to have people make those changes.

Now, the reason I mention this in terms of the time frame is because I remember, when we moved from the Privacy Act 1993 to the Privacy Act 2020, that, although it was a substantial change, it was a very quick change for most people, with some leeway for them to be able to change certain requirements in terms of terms and conditions, disclaimers, and all of those without having any sort of a disciplinary action being done because of that transition period. None the less, the Act went into force within a very short period of time.

So, yes, the main question is: why didn’t the Minister—or via, you know, advice from officials—decide to stick to the existing time line?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s worth clarifying that when we talk about agencies, we don’t necessarily restrict that to Government agencies. The Act defines the agency as sort of, essentially, any individual organisation that collects information. So this will have an impact on a wide range of agencies, including those who have an exception but then will now need to consider whether or not the practices that they undertake will fit within that exception or whether or not they will need to slightly amend what they are doing.

So it was the view of the Minister of Justice that giving those agencies additional time—rather than three months, give them a year—to assist in their efforts to comply—I’m getting a number of updates there—the agencies, for example, will need to have an awareness of their data flows, the recipients, and intended uses of the personal information they collect. If they don’t have sufficient awareness to comply, their privacy officer and/or lawyers will need to assess the required level of compliance. So we want to try and avoid some of that upfront compliance cost causing any issues just from the fact that we’ve given them three months rather than a year to bring this into force. So we think a year is appropriate.

Of course, our friend the Privacy Commissioner and their office—they need some time to develop guidance on how this might be interpreted or implemented. So giving the Privacy Commissioner a significant amount of time to pull together some really good, robust, strong guidance on this would be a good thing, so why rush them over the next three months, when we could give them slightly more time to consider that?

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2, set out on Amendment Paper 258, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Privacy Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m very pleased with the reception that this bill has received from various different quarters, and I will set those out shortly, if I may. But I’ve been very pleased because it seems to me that this is an important matter for New Zealand. Of course, we understand the importance of the building and construction sector to the economy but also to society, if we think about all the aims that we wish to meet by having residential housing and, of course, other structures built more affordably, quickly, and more easily, as well.

I’ll start in this, the second reading, by acknowledging the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, whose work in examining the bill following its first reading we now are focusing on at this, the second reading. It seemed to me that all the members of that committee conducted themselves in a very responsible and thoughtful way, considering the aims of the bill but also the detail and how that would interact with other parts of the system to ensure to the maximum extent possible that all the available protections would be in place, while not undermining, of course, the intent of the scheme to provide quicker and more broad access to building materials in this country.

As well as thanking the members of the committee, chaired by Mr Andy Foster, I want to thank those who submitted on the bill, those who lent their expertise to the endeavour, and they too contributed to the fact that some changes were made. The changes are set out quite clearly and well, I think, in the legislative statement that’s been tabled, so I won’t go through those in detail, but I’ll touch on those briefly later, if time permits.

I also want to thank the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The officials who have been advising me and who also, in turn, have advised the select committee have worked really hard on this. Their work has been recognised internally by MBIE, but can I place on the record my thanks to them for working with me and, again, the select committee on this important endeavour.

In terms of why the legislation was brought forward and why it’s important that it’s reported back to the House in good form following the select committee consideration is that building products, no less than any other supplies within out market, must have a decent degree of competition, resilience, choice, and innovation.

Starting with competition and recognising the importance of that, of course, in terms of a reasonable price being able to be established, and also as a matter of fairness between suppliers and products, we know from the Commerce Commission’s report in 2022 on residential building suppliers—their market study—that there was found to be a lack of competition in the supply of products. That will come as no surprise to those who have experienced this, and, certainly, I’m always offered anecdotal examples of the difficulty of obtaining a good, broad range of products at a competitive price. So I don’t need to share those; suffice it to say that in a market of the size of New Zealand, it’s all the more important that we encourage as broad a range of products as possible, with, again, that obvious caveat around quality but also sustainability, safety, and so on.

Resilience is the next point. Of course, in relation to plasterboard and the shortage associated with the COVID-19 supply shocks and so on, but in other examples, too, in the matter of resilience, we are best served by having access to more than one—or, effectively, only one—supply of products in the building space. Otherwise, building projects and construction sites almost literally will grind to a halt.

Choice speaks for itself, really, and it goes along with the point around innovation, which is that in this country, if we can obtain the benefit of the research and the development being undertaken in countries other than New Zealand as well as the good work that is done in New Zealand by people applying themselves exactly to that endeavour, then we will all be the better off for that. I do just want to point out that for the sake of Kiwi manufacturers, enabling our building products to be used without additional hoops to be jumped through in New Zealand will benefit those who are bringing in those who are bringing in those supplies from overseas, but it will also benefit New Zealand manufacturers because they will be able to measure themselves against those standards in a way that will make them more attractive to export markets overseas. They’ll immediately be able to be measured against standards from comparable and credible jurisdictions, and so that, I think, in a counterintuitive way, will actually be good for those who manufacture building supplies in this country and it will, potentially, increase their export value, as well.

Basically, the mechanism is that three different ways of approving overseas building products are allowed by the bill. One is that the Minister for Building and Construction—who is currently me, but, obviously, it won’t be for ever—

Hon James Meager: Oh!

Hon CHRIS PENK: —to the relief of many, including myself—may, by notice, recognise groups of overseas standards and standards certification schemes.

The second is the streamlining of the citing, as we say—“citing”, with a “c”—of international standards that can be used as acceptable solutions and verification methods to comply with the building code, and there’s a new mechanism called building product specifications.

Then, finally, we’re requiring building consent authorities—which is, at the moment, mostly the different councils up and down the country—to accept building products and methods certified under overseas product certification schemes.

So the long and short of it, I suppose, is that we are going to allow ourselves to use products that have already been measured against overseas standards and certification systems. The baseline is that we don’t want to have any lower standard of product, so standards that are equal to or higher than those that are already prevailing in New—

David MacLeod: Makes sense.

Hon CHRIS PENK: —will be adopted. My colleague and friend David MacLeod says that that makes sense, and I think it’s fair to say that most of the feedback from the community, including at the select committee stage, has acknowledged the good sense inherent in the proposal.

The caveat comes from others—and I acknowledge it, too—that we need to make sure that in order to avoid a loss of quality, there be credible and comparable jurisdictions that are utilised for this purpose. In other words, they are places in the world and standards that are adopted that build at least as well as New Zealand and, in some cases—let us be frank—sometimes better, and also comparable in the sense of having similar conditions in the environment or seismic activity in a way that’s relevant to the built environment. There are a number of safeguards, but, nevertheless, I think it’s also fair to note that the select committee’s point about liability, and being very clear where that lies in the unlikely event or the occasional event of a failure should be addressed. So I’ll come to that shortly.

I do just want to point out, however, that because this is primary legislation and secondary legislation, it will be used to identify that the particular schemes that we’ve been talking about—the standards and so forth—will be under regulation. In addition to mentioning the select committee—and I’ve erred in describing it in a singular way. But, again, I’m just acknowledging Mr Foster and the members of the House—particularly those here now who contributed to that—but also the Regulations Review Committee, who turned their minds to the way that this would enable the law to be updated in time in a way that reflects the fact that it might be possible to add numbers of standards over the years in a way that, frankly, we wouldn’t want to trouble this House with fully in order to have amendment Acts, and so forth.

So, in terms of that point about liability, the point was well made by the select committee that we need to be as clear as possible, certainly, to reflect my intent and the intent of the Government that where a building consent authority—mostly, a council—would have to deem as approved certain products as specified in the building consent, then the council can’t be held liable for the failure of that product, and that sort of seems like a fair quid pro quo. If they’re not being given an opportunity to object and reduce the liability or to be risk-averse on behalf of the ratepayer, then they shouldn’t face any liability associated with such failure. That seems fair to me, although I also do state as clearly as I can for the record that the building consent authority will still have a role in determining if the building product is being used in a way that is proper for that product.

The other major point that was made by the select committee that I thought, again, was helpful was about the ability of the building sector to implement the changes at an appropriate speed. Obviously, the faster the better, in terms of obtaining the benefits proposed in the bill. However, I would point out again that a rolling maul approach will be taken, with regulations coming in progressively as we determine that overseas standards and schemes are suitable. So, for that reason, it’s not a matter of this sector needing to have the capacity and the resource to implement everything all at once; it’s actually going to be a matter where we will see improvement over time.

So, for those reasons, I recognise the effort and the usefulness of the select committee report. I thank them for that, and I thank all those who have contributed to the discussion that has led us now to this second reading, and soon, in due course—hopefully, for the passage of this bill—we think that New Zealand’s building standards and building quality and, certainly, building affordability will be all the better for it. I commend the bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good to have the dulcet tones and a backing soundtrack, while I give this speech, of building and construction work in the building. To all those tradies in the building, while we progress this important part of our building system: tēnā koutou katoa, nau mai ki tō Whare.

It’s great to be able to speak on a bill which has had such enthusiasm in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Every member of that committee came to this with a real desire to make sure this is a workable system, not only for those builders and tradespeople who use the products and are often needing to upskill, needing to get familiar with new products—and so we were really thinking about them—but also for those people who are in the business of bringing in new products. We want to make sure these are workable for them. We want to make sure that there is competition in the building sector so that new products are available to Kiwis. Ultimately, we would love to see this measure bring prices down and make sure that our building sector is competitive in this area, which the Commerce Commission has studied extensively and found that it wasn’t working as it should.

I’m going to deal, in this second reading speech, with some of the more technical considerations of the select committee and the submissions that we heard. I do still have some things that I need to test with the Minister for Building and Construction, about how the various mechanics of the bill will work and the new powers that the Minister has, and the way that those powers work has changed, a little bit, since the introduction of the bill—but that will be later.

This is something that Labour is supporting, so we have, on this side of the House, a real desire to make sure that it will work as intended. The intention here is that building products will get cheaper, that there will be more choice in the market, and that there will be new and innovative products that people can use. This is in the context where building and construction is one of the most important sectors in New Zealand’s economy. It makes up about 7 percent of our GDP; it employs between 10 percent and 20 percent of our people, depending on which reports you’re looking at. Those are good, well-paid, meaningful jobs. I care about those jobs, because they are, for many people, a path straight from high school into a career with options and opportunities for young people, from whatever background they may have come from. So it’s really important to me that we have an entire view of the building system—and products is one—and this is something we need to see working in the long run, because it’s not working now.

If we do get it working, we have a way to tackle some of these affordability issues in the housing system. I think one of the most significant pieces of work that the Government has on its books right now is the way that our building system works and the efficiencies that can be gained there, because the housing crisis is everyone’s problem. Without being able to get young people into their own homes, without being able to get people who are renting into cheaper rental accommodation, we have a structural problem and a structural failing in New Zealand’s economy. We’re not doing what we should be doing to make sure that people have options and people have choices. It also makes the community stronger. It gives us a solution to the incredible rates of truancy and transience that we are seeing in our high schools now—which are higher than ever—when people have roots and can own their own home or have the ability to hope for that in the next few years. So this is very important to me.

The committee worked really effectively on a few issues, and I’m going to just take you through them in the time that I have. One thing that has probably emerged as the most important thing for Labour members was the possibility of enhanced competition and consumer choice, when we’re considering the products that are used and the barriers that have existed in the New Zealand market about the use of quality overseas building products, and the changes in this bill that are aimed to improve competition in the building products market. But we need to make sure that the introduction of this system doesn’t create actually more ways of established products in the New Zealand market having to go through more compliance mechanisms. We heard from importers of certain products—things like taps, things like fixtures, things like tapes that are used in airtightness—being worried about the way that those products would need to move through a new system. Ultimately, I think that the sector came away with some comfort after the select committee process, and also the work of officials to give some comfort that, even though this is a new process, there will be a way of feeding in to any regulations that are created under it.

The next issue was recognition of overseas standards as a whole. These are complex rules—I had to spend quite a lot of time getting my head around them, because there are different ways that overseas standards can, sort of, plug into New Zealand’s certification systems now and under the introduction of this bill. But we came away with the sense that this bill was an improvement on that sort of plug-in—that there would be an ability to enable the recognition of overseas building products standards and certification schemes, removing that need for designers and builders and building consent authorities to verify those individually, and a more systematised way of doing that. That’s a good thing. The streamlining and integration of international standards was also something that we heard about from the perspective of designers, and, often, the people who are working with these standards first. The introduction of the building product specifications that will sit under this will be key to that, so that is something I will return to later, when I have the ability to engage with the Minister on it.

Acceptance of certified products, then, in the market, is something that the system will really rely on. This is a piece of legislation which needs a very high level of industry buy-in and a lot of comfort with, and faith in, a system which will change. Given that the New Zealand building system is something that has grown up over the years, with differing layers of complexity and different bits bolted on, to then be redesigning this has, I guess, been confronting for a number of players in the industry. So there are still questions around how that mandating system will work. We also have questions about the ministerial oversight with industry consultation. This was something that I took a differing view on from other members of the committee: about how prescriptive the primary legislation should be, about how the industry should be able to speak to the Minister, and when the Minister should be able to seek advice from the industry. This is something that, given that I’ve already spoken about the importance of the industry having a level of comfort with this and plenty of experience in the last 10 to 20 years with bolt-on pieces of regulation that don’t necessarily join up and talk to each other, there is, I think, a bit of an industry in engaging with Government over those rules and regulations.

We have to ensure, I think, that the primary legislation makes it clear when the Minister will make a decision, and when the Minister is out seeking consultation, and when the Minister might make a decision without consultation, because there should be an avenue for a Minister to take official advice and make sensible rules based on the advice of industry bodies as a whole and well-publicised public discourse, without necessarily a long consultation period, especially in relation to products, because products change quite quickly—there is a lot of innovation in this space—and so that was something that I thought should be very clear. That’s not a change that has been included in the set of recommendations from the committee, which were unanimous, but it’s something that I will be testing with the Minister later.

I also wanted to canvass the industry feedback on the implementation of this. There was a real call for clear guidelines and a robust assessment process to ensure that recognised overseas standards aligned with New Zealand’s safety and quality expectations. This was particularly in relation to certain products, and those products are the products that New Zealand might use differently to other jurisdictions; an example here is plasterboard, and the way that New Zealand’s construction has, in the past, used plasterboard as a structural feature of some housing. That’s not a use of that in some of the jurisdictions that we will be importing plausible products from in the future—or could in the future. So there’s a real need for a process not only at the front end but along the way to assess whether those products are suitable for New Zealand safety standards, and that they will be used in the right way, and that the quality expectations are not just assessed at the front but are assessed by the industry along the way.

The last point I wish to raise is the potential impact on domestic manufacturers. I was interested in the Minister’s novel arguments around how that might—

Cameron Luxton: How competition works.

ARENA WILLIAMS: And I’ll bring it up in the committee stage.

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. I do think that this bill is interesting because, on the one hand, there are definitely many examples I can think of since I’ve been in Aotearoa where people who are involved in the building sector have raised with me the fact that they would like to bring in products that are well-tested and high performing and deliver really great outcomes in countries like Germany, where they have far higher performance standards for buildings and more evidence-based, science-based standards that reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling and also produce quieter, more comfortable environments like the passive house standard.

So, on the face of it, this bill might help address that issue where you’ve got small players who are trying to do things to the very best environmental outcomes so we can have warm, dry, healthy, comfortable, quiet homes, but they’re facing these huge barriers because the cost to get that product assessed and approved in New Zealand was simply too high for a small player. We have a few big, vertically integrated players in the construction sector in New Zealand who really haven’t been pushing the boundaries in terms of efficiency and good outcomes, and they’ve been sitting back and maybe it’s been a little bit too comfortable for them. But they were in more of a position to be able to ensure that the products they wanted to import and use would be approved and then that became a big barrier to using more energy-efficient products. That’s why, on the face of it, the Greens supported the bill to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and will be continuing to support the bill.

However, there is going to be a lot of devil in the detail of how it’s implemented. It was very difficult to assess at the select committee whether or not this bill will result in better outcomes because so much of the detail is going to be determined and put down in the secondary legislation—that is in regulations which will be promoted by the Minister for Building and Construction and Cabinet and won’t have the same level of scrutiny that the primary legislation does. I understand the rationale for that too, because there would be a desire maybe to be agile in determining which overseas schemes, but I would have thought that the criteria that are going to be put in the regulations to assess whether or not a scheme is adopted or approved could have been put down in the primary legislation, because the criteria is something that you would think we would all be able to agree on and then it’s the application of those criteria.

Whereas, the bill as it is proposed now, it is actually that, basically, the Minister for Building and Construction may recognise schemes or standards only if the Minister is satisfied that they meet the criteria which are yet to be set out in the regulations. So I think that was a bit of a missed opportunity to put that in the primary legislation, which would have strengthened the bill. So we’ll see when the regulations come out.

I hope that the Minister will consider having some cross-party consultation on those regulations and ensure that there’s very thorough consultation with the sector, but also the different players across the sector, not just the few big ones but the people who are really at the cutting edge of being passionate about and wanting to deliver more environmentally friendly, healthy homes. Because if we can make it easier to do that in New Zealand, I think that will be a huge win for everyone. One of the main things that even motivated me to get involved in politics after I moved here was seeing the quality of buildings and infrastructure in New Zealand and thinking, “Wow. Things could actually be a lot better with some changes from central government policy, regulations, and funding.” One of those areas is most definitely in the building code, where we have been lagging behind. It’s just such a huge win, win opportunities to get better outcomes.

One of the submitters that we heard from on this bill—and I thought it’d be worth bringing up in my speech on this—is an adviser at Tennent Brown Architects, Caitlyn Lee, who spent the last eight years as a materials researcher. She’s researching building materials for the Living Building Challenge, which is the most rigorous sustainability standard in the world for buildings. It’s really inspiring—it’s really what the future of buildings needs to be and it makes so much sense in an Aotearoa context for us to be embracing.

Indeed, there’s a new building up the road at Victoria University which is part of the marae which is world-leading and an amazing commercial teaching facility but also a wharekai adjacent to the wharenui at Victoria University. That building demonstrates what can be achieved when there is a genuine commitment to absolute best practice. So Living Building Challenge would look at things like whether or not there’s toxic materials used, what the carbon emissions are, what the energy-efficiency is. The main ones are zero net water, so you’re not putting extra stress on the water systems and you’re managing all of the stormwater and waste water pretty much on site or adjacent, which is pretty useful, particularly in a Wellington context.

Then one of the topics that is in this submission, which I highly recommend that people look at, is the issues around toxicity. There’s a whole lot of very commonly used building materials that are highly toxic and we actually need some sort of—they will have impacts on the environment, on human health. Because we don’t see the impacts immediately, we don’t fully account for the cost of those health impacts and the impacts it has on our society over time. But it actually does make sense to phase out toxic products and create that market and demand for a supply chain of non-toxic products that are viable alternatives. Timber is a perfect example as well.

One of the concerns that the Green Party had when we first looked at this bill is: is this going to lead to more imported building products as opposed to those that are domestically produced? The answer is, well, we almost couldn’t have more imported building products. As 90 percent of our building products are imported, we may as well be importing ones of a higher standard from countries that have better building standards. But I’m sure that everyone in New Zealand would like to see and could understand the economic benefit to New Zealand of us processing more of our wood here, for example, for cross-laminated timber, which could then be used in sustainable buildings as framing instead of seal—low-carbon, sustainably forested, locally produced.

This was one of the issues brought up in the submission from Tennent Brown that in the Living Building Challenge standard—and there are a number of Living Building Challenge buildings in Aotearoa right now—they do look at carbon emissions and local sourcing of products where possible. So you’re trying to balance up a whole lot of different things. But I think all New Zealanders would love to see more high-quality processing of wood, for example, more local production, because they’re important jobs that we could be creating right here in New Zealand and actually reducing some of the cost by not having to rely so much on imported products from overseas.

In order to achieve that, we need a couple of different things to happen. And that goes well beyond this bill, though it was raised in a number of submissions. The Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association also raised concerns that if we aren’t looking to have a specific support for the industry here in New Zealand, there is a risk that we miss out on those benefits, and also we want to be sure that the standards that we’re adopting are relevant to the New Zealand context and climate, which is quite unique.

My brother is a builder here in Wellington and up in Kāpiti and he will often tell me about—he’s actually quite excited to use some really novel products and techniques that are extremely environmentally friendly and it would be fantastic if we could start producing these here in New Zealand. One of the ones he’s really excited about is hempcrete. We do need to make it easier to grow hemp in New Zealand—that’s a regulatory issue the Government could take on—and to produce hempcrete because it actually is a very practical building material.

So the Green Party is supporting the bill but I would love to see from the Government more of a commitment to actually raise building performance standards here in New Zealand and address the issues around domestic production and products to real support for local industries here, and that requires actually taking into account full environmental externalities.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of tradies, designers, and everyone who’s gone for an application with any kind of unique product, this is a great day, and it’s about time. Minister Penk, well done on bringing such a sensible, obvious piece of legislation. I think back to many times that I’ve been sitting around a building site with other tradies and the question just, you know—we’re a bunch of tradies, we’re having a smoko, we’ve been working all day, and we’d sit around and you’d ask the question, “Why can’t we just use these products that I saw on YouTube or on some other building influencer overseas who’s got this great idea?”, but we can’t use it in New Zealand.

Well, it’s got to be said, it is just ridiculous the amount of hurdles that you have to go through to get something into New Zealand. Let’s start with all the different building consent authorities (BCAs) and the fact that you’ve got to try and get your new, innovative product signed off on every single one of them before it’s accepted to be built in their area.

This legislation is going to have the added benefit of meaning that when you take the risk of importing a product and getting a house built for cheaper, more efficient, and safer, you will be able to have a one-stop sort of solution to that. You are no longer, and I—actually, it might help if I do this with a story. I was part of building a house. I was the licensed building practitioner of building a house that was imported from Europe. And the materials—it came in a container, it got stacked by a crane. It was a great, innovative idea. It was incredibly cheap material to bring in; a piece of plasterboard was $10 compared to the same purchased plasterboard in New Zealand for $25 a sheet. So that’s the sort of savings that we were talking about.

But it ended up costing about the same amount as a building built out of New Zealand products because of the hurdles of compliance. Every time an inspector turned up, you had to get 12,000 pages out and go through, “Was this allowed?”, “Was this not allowed?” It was actually one of the most ridiculous experiences I’ve ever seen in the building industry. And that company, after trying to do it in one BCA jurisdiction and planning to roll it out across the country, pulled the pin and bailed out of New Zealand and said, “This is ridiculous, we’re not coming back here.”

So, hopefully—not even hopefully—this legislation, and I know we’re in the second reading and there’s another committee stage and a third reading to go. But when this legislation passes, we’re going to see products from overseas that are cheaper, more efficient, safer, provide a better quality of building, but also mean that New Zealand producers can access ideas overseas, bring them into New Zealand, innovate products, and actually test it out in New Zealand and come up. So I think the Minister of Building and Construction’s innovative argument about the improvement in New Zealand suppliers is a real one.

Going along with other things that this Government has done—and this Minister has done—like improving minor variations so that like-for-like substitutions can be made. That is going to go hand in glove with a change like this. You can tell I’m a bit animated about this because I go back to some of these experiences where you go, “Look, they’ve run out of this type of building product, can we substitute it for this identical one where all the details and the plans are the same, it’s just the product logo at the top that’s different?” and you get “No, put the tools down, come back in two months—

Simon Court: Culture of no.

CAMERON LUXTON: —and see if you can do this”. Well, this—Mr Court, you raise a great point—is what we are doing to end the culture of no; it’s a culture of yes. We’re going to get affordable housing back, tradies are going to be happy, we’re going to get that sort of lifestyle in New Zealand that we expect of a property-owning democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): What a pleasure it is to follow our resident builder. This time I think I can get away with saying that, because Mr Speaker is not actually in the Chair; it’s you, Mr Assistant Speaker, instead. So, look, I wanted to start off just by giving my thanks to, first of all, the Minister for Building and Construction for driving this through. I’m going to come back to some of the initiatives that he has been pushing through this House, which are all about trying to make sure that we can build houses cheaper because that is a really fundamental thing.

Secondly, I want to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—which I have the privilege of chairing—for, as always, being collegial, constructive, and getting to the point and the heart of the matter, and I think it’s doing a great job. The officials who gave us a lot of good advice, technical advice, answering the questions that we needed answering, and also the submitters, who, again, were a lot of people with a lot of technical skills, which was very, very helpful to us.

The fundamental problem in New Zealand with housing is it’s expensive—it is really expensive. You can do a lot of things about making it cheaper. We can go through cycles. I mean, in Wellington City, where I have the sad pleasure at the moment of owning a house, the house prices have dropped by about 25 percent, or the house values have dropped by about 25 percent, over the last three years—I think it’s 22 percent, to be more exact. That’s not a great way, though, of getting house prices down for people who want to buy them, because as soon as you start doing that, what happens is that the cost of building starts becoming much more expensive than the cost of buying something that’s already there, and people just say, “I’m not going to build new houses.”, and that does nothing whatsoever for being able to create more houses, which we say that we need as a country.

Fundamentally, what we need to do is we need to get the actual cost of building houses down. So the solutions—there are a whole lot of those. As I said, the Minister, I think, is doing a great job there. One of the things he did say in introducing this legislation a while back is that the cost of building a house in New Zealand is about 50 percent more than the cost of building a house over the Ditch in Australia.

He also said that the productivity has not improved since 1985—1985. So that is a drag not just on the cost of building but it’s also a drag on the entire economy, if you have a whole sector which is not improving its productivity. If we want to make the boat go faster, that means the other boats have got to paddle even faster, and that is a real problem. So we have to make the building sector more productive and that is what the Minister is doing.

So this is one of several initiatives. Obviously, reducing the cost of building materials is very, very important, speeding up the way in which we do consents. And, especially, I mean, what Cam Luxton was talking about—I hear so often this issue: do you actually have to wait for the building inspector to turn up? That means down tools for quite a while, maybe somebody is sick, whatever it might be. That time really genuinely is money, so that is a real, real cost. We’ve got to get the building consenting process to be much, much more efficient.

Prefabrication, modular construction, the granny flats work which is being done at the moment to make those cheaper to deliver, Resource Management Act changes—there’s a whole suite of different things which are going through, and this Government is all about trying to make the boat go faster, trying to improve the economy, and in the building sector that is really, really important.

But coming back to the building products which this is all about, we know that more competition, generally speaking, improves productivity, improves performance. I think the point that the Minister was making is that you’ve got more productivity, you’ve got more different products being able to be brought in through the scheme, which I’m going to describe very shortly. That’s got to sharpen people’s minds in New Zealand, because you either sharpen their minds or you go out of business because you’re not competitive.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter just made some comments that it would be lovely to see more things built in New Zealand—100 percent agree. That’s why we’re New Zealand First. We’d like to see that. But we also need to know that we have to do that by being the best, by being competitive with other people. So having other products being brought into the New Zealand market has got to sharpen people’s thinking, sharpen people’s innovation, and so on, because we know that near monopolies or monopolies don’t perform very well. I mean, you’ve got to look across the banking sector, the supermarket sector, a lot of building products sector. That is a real problem in this country.

So what this bill is about is establishing new compliance pathways, speeding those compliance pathways up for the approval of new products or product lines. One of the things I would say, though, is it’s about, as the Minister said, making sure that the products which come in are not just picked off the shelf but are from established, approved, certified product lines and products that other constituencies or other jurisdictions have got. It’s only going to be the ones which we have confidence in. So you’re not going to pick them necessarily from every country in the world, but you will pick them from the countries and from those certification processes where there is confidence in those certification processes and in the products which come through their processes.

The important thing is, particularly, we all want confidence in any product that we purchase. It doesn’t matter what it is. We want it to be fit for its purpose. We want it to be able to last the length of time we expect it to be able to last. And, of course, when it comes to the product, which is the most expensive thing most of us will ever buy—a house—that is really, really important. Something that you would expect to last in New Zealand—a minimum of 50 years is what the building code says, and that to me is not long enough. We should be thinking about products which will last a lot longer than that. But it’s really, really important that it lasts the distance. So it’s not fit for purpose just now; it’s also fit for purpose for decades and decades and decades to come. That is really, really important. So people need to have confidence in that—the people who are building the buildings, but also the people who are buying those buildings.

We spent, as a select committee, quite some time thinking about safeguards and talking about safeguards and trying to say, “Are we going to see some of the risks that we saw going back to the leaky homes situation?” Because, for some of us, that is a very, very painful memory. For many New Zealanders, that’s a painful memory personally. But for those of us—for example, I was in local government for much of that time—that cost this city something like $150 million trying to clean up the mess that was made by substandard products and by substandard processes which were put in place to build those things. So it’s utterly essential that we make sure that this regime is robust and that people can have confidence in it. That is completely essential.

What we did here, because, as I said, we asked a lot of questions about this, is the processes are now far, far more robust than they were in the 2000s when we went through the leaky building process, or when those problems started to happen.

I must say, during that process it was so bad for us that I was certainly talking both as a councillor and as a mayor about handing our building consent warrant back, because it was just purely a liability for us. One of the things I do think is great is that the Minister is saying, “Why do we need 62?” You heard that from Cam Luxton as well. Why do we need 60-plus different building consenting authorities, because building consents should be pretty much the same across the country? You will have differences in insulation standards and so on, but, basically, building consent is about making sure you’ve got a building which is fit for purpose. It’s not about effects on other people. It’s not like a resource consent. It’s not like issues about effects on environment. So it makes sense to centralise those things and maybe the Crown should step up.

One of the things which we did ask about, and certainly I was very, very keen to ask about, is that this bill provides for, as you heard earlier—as I said, the leaky building crisis landed very heavily on local government, as the last man standing. Here, local government is, essentially, indemnified against the product itself failing. If the way in which it is constructed, the way in which it’s used, is wrong and the building inspectors don’t pick that up, then, yes, there’s an issue of liability. But the product itself, they’re indemnified against, and I think that is a great thing.

But that left the question, obviously, of: if the product does fail, who does the poor person in the street come to and say, “Well, who’s going to look after me? I didn’t know that this product wasn’t fit for purpose. You said it was fit for purpose.”? Oh, and in this case, who is the—oh, sorry, Mr Speaker, I can’t say “you” in this sense. But who is it that has approved that product? Well, it’s a product which has been approved in some overseas jurisdiction, and then it’s a product which has been approved by who? The Minister and the ministry of building, innovation and employment on behalf, essentially, of the Government. So should the Government, at the very least, be standing alongside the people who are reliant on these products which are approved through this scheme if something goes wrong? And we hope, of course, it won’t. And, of course, those processes, as I said, are much more robust. But should the Government be standing alongside those consumers? I think that they should.

This is all about trying to reduce the overall costs, which is a good thing. It’s about trying to give us more innovation, more different products. What it does is it reduces the expected time to process and to recognise those overseas products. Something like two years to about three to eight months is the expectation. What it should do is to help drive down the cost of housing. It is just one of many different initiatives that this Government is taking, and I think that is absolutely necessary because the cost of housing is a significant problem in this country, both for our people and for our economy. I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. E tautoko ana mātou i tēnei Pire. [We support this bill.]

So that’s all good; we’re on board. I just want to start like this, just like, just steady: if only building Treaty relationships, or building hapū and iwi—[Interruption] I know; good right?

Andy Foster: We have a point of order already—ha, ha! Relevance.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I know, I know, hold on; you got it. Just stick with me! It’s OK—or building hapū and iwi relationships had the same interest and effort that this Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill had. Really critical. So I just want to start by opening with those comments.

We support this bill because hapū and iwi and whānau want safe and healthy homes. Of course we do—not a new thing. Why do I know that? Because I built 16 homes before I came to this job—just before I came, by the way—in a tiny little place, all the way in Te Kao. Sixteen homes. And here’s how we built them: we built them with our own product out of our forests. We built them with our own kaimahi. The original option was “Meno, you’ve got to go all the way to Hamilton to build your 16 homes, to transport them all the way up to Te Kao.” All the bulk of the funding would have been lost in transport. We decided to do it ourselves, in collaboration with the builders just down the road, like 20 minutes down.

So I understand this idea and this bill in this context. How do you apply the science? I’m not going to talk about the technicalities; there are much more in-tune people that understand those when you talk about standards and certification. That doesn’t really turn me on, by the way. But what does is the result of it, and how we get those results for whānau. What I can tell you is this: our whānau and our hapū and our iwi are ready to do this themselves, for themselves. Our whānau want homes, and they want homes—actually, they want homes, well built, whether it’s overseas—ideally it’s product from home, by the way, but if it’s overseas product, as long as we can work with it, as long as it’s checked off, as long as it doesn’t fall over and fail like leaky homes, because those impacts were terrible for Māori whānau, as well. So I want to make those points.

We want to own our homes. We want to flip homes, by the way. We want to own homes; our communities want to own homes. Our hapū and our iwi groups want to build not just the home but the community in which they exist. To turn a house into a home into a thriving tribal community. Those are the ultimate outcomes that our whānau are seeking and expect me to talk about. Not the technicalities so much, but sort of, “So, what does that mean for us, Meno? I mean, big deal, you’re talking about this bill. Tell me how it matters at home.” So I want to make those comments, in this very small contribution.

There’s always risk when people talk about red tape or blue tape, guys, whatever the tape is, and if you’re wanting to reduce that tape—I kind of get that, of course. No one wants to be hobbled by too much red tape, but don’t take away too much, then you’re going to have to apologise for what you took away before. So it is about a watch, analyse, assess, so we’re watching this progress all the time, because ultimately, if we fail, we fail our communities, we fail our people. That’s my contribution, that’s the contribution of Te Pāti Māori, and we tautoko mārika tēnei whakaaro [we fully support its intent]. Tēnā tātou.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I write in support of the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. I echo the comments from previous speakers, particularly my colleague to my right—the Hon Julie Anne Genter—who is a permanent member of the select committee that evaluated this bill, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I think it’s really important to recognise that, throughout this House, there’s been so far a desire for our homes and our buildings to be good quality and suited to our unique climate and environment, that they deliver good outcomes for our communities—particularly health outcomes as well—that the way that we build things lasts, some members express interest, particularly, that the environmental impacts of the building products that we use are minimised so that we build with the environment, not against it.

I think this bill recognises that we have an issue where some players in the market have benefited from the current settings, and I recognise that this bill aims to increase access and competition so that we can have a broader range of building products. I think, to me, the real answer as to the outcomes for our communities will be, as other members have noted, in the secondary legislation. I echo the calls for, perhaps, the Minister for Building and Construction to look at whether we should actually have a framework that allows good decision making in those regulations so that standards are set to help guide this Government and future Governments to make good decisions.

I support and recognise that we don’t want to be prescriptive in primary legislation when it comes to some of the standards that we set, because, at the end of the day, building materials and products are an evolving piece of work, and there’s new technologies that enable new materials, and, for example, even in what my colleague referenced when it comes to hemp, there may be changes that will unlock the potential to actually use materials that, right now, are massively underutilised. So, yeah, we recognise the need for secondary legislation to create those frameworks.

But I think some guiding principles will be really good so that, actually, when people from offshore; from countries with comparative economies visit us, they’re not shocked at the quality of our homes. It’s wild to me when I’ve met peers from much colder countries who come here and they say they experience, for example, the winter here in a much more severe way than they would in their own home countries.

I acknowledge that to, for example, have good quality, healthy homes and buildings, we’ll need to look at other levers as well. I think, as part of this bill, the Government should be looking at other pieces of legislation and frameworks to change, including, for example, addressing the fact that while I accept that this bill is coming in, accepting the reality that we import most of our building products, but there could be some work that the Government and the State could be doing to process things like our timber onshore so that we, as Mariameno Kapa-Kingi talked about, don’t face these additional costs that come from the fact that, actually, we haven’t unlocked the potential in our own people and in our own materials to build good quality buildings.

I think, particularly, supporting our construction workforce will be critical alongside what this bill is aiming to do, because, right now, the construction sector has not been given certainty. What this means is that, actually, our workforce is facing peaks and throes when it comes to building projects. So we had an opportunity, for example, in the Kāinga Ora building programme to really sit in place and retain our construction workforce to develop them and support them so that, alongside what this bill is aiming to do, we have a really well-supported, well-paid construction workforce that allows us to build the best possible buildings that we can have in this country.

The Green Party is supporting this bill, but we continue to encourage the Government to set a framework so that the decisions that the Minister is able to do in relationship to what this bill prescribes have some good guiding principles to make this bill enduring and so that it can adapt over the years.

Finally, I just want to say that we all need to honour the comments that have been made around wanting people to have good quality homes. That means the Government then needs to own up to its other decisions that are actually leaving people living in mouldy, cold, damp homes. We shouldn’t be taking this bill in isolation; we should be seeing it as part of a holistic project.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and join the chorus of support in this House today for this bill. It is a good bill. It’s a good bill that will speed up the productivity of building and there’s a lot of merit in this bill. I’ve actually heard a lot of the debate and I think the Minister for Building and Construction actually stole most of my speech, but it’s a very good Minister in Chris Penk. But I just want to say it’s been a pleasure to be part of the select committee process to examine the details of this bill. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee did make some minor recommendations. We discussed the issue of liability extensively, and I’m encouraged with the Minister’s direction of travel, which will be to do a review around the liability settings. I think this is a good bill for many reasons. We’ve just got to build more homes; more cheap, affordable homes. This bill will help us do that and I commend it to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in support of this bill this afternoon, the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. It’s often at this stage of the day when long titles like that can trip people up. It’s got a long title, of course, because it identifies the various aspects that this particular bill is seeking to address. It is about the building products that come from overseas. It’s about the standards and, of course, it’s about the scheme under which certification would take place.

I’m a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and it was a pleasure to sit on that committee whilst this bill was progressing through the Parliament. I do want to acknowledge those submitters who took time to submit on this. There were 44 submissions that were received. Many of them, actually, were quite technical in nature, and then, of course, we had nine submitters that provided oral evidence to the committee, which was a great chance to just tease out some of the issues, often from those in the industry but also from those that are going about their business.

I want to acknowledge our colleague Cameron Luxton, who actually brought quite an insight to the select committee as someone who, prior to coming to this place, was actively involved in this particular sector. So I think it’s fair to say that committee members sitting on this side of the House or in our party appreciated the expertise that he did bring to the discussions, and teasing out some of the issues in a practical sense as well. I want to acknowledge the officials that were able to respond to many of the issues that were raised—again, many of them very technical in nature—and that is always appreciated by the select committee.

Of course this is not the only select committee that turned its mind to this bill. As our report indicates, the Regulations Review Committee also identified an issue initially, when they were reviewing the bill, that sought to question why it was that a decision-making provision would be left to secondary legislation by way of regulations. Their preference at the time, from what I can recollect, is that they would prefer that decision-making capacity of the nature within which this bill was seeking to provide is best suited sitting in the primary legislation.

But the report identifies that the Regulations Review Committee finally agreed that, actually, given the urgency that sometimes might be needed to address some of the concerns around criteria changing, in a circumstance where criteria may need to be changed at short notice in order to prevent or mitigate risk when it comes to building failure or product use that might be subject to failure, that actually it was appropriate in those circumstances for that provision to sit with the regulations through secondary legislation. So I do want to acknowledge the Regulations Review Committee for that.

This is a bill that does create speed, but, at the same time, it doesn’t create a sense of compromise, in a good way—compromising the integrity of building products, whatever they might be. This establishes a process that, effectively, is in the hands of the Minister for Building and Construction to sort of oversee. But one of the changes that the select committee did also look at was the role that a building advisory panel or group could actually provide. When this bill came to the select committee, it was suggested that there wouldn’t really be a direct link between the Minister and that body. Once the committee established that this is a body that—you know, they are public appointments, they have folk who are directly from the sector—actually, this would be another layer that could be provided to support good decision making by the Minister. So one of the changes that the select committee has recommended is that actually there’s a little bit more of a formality in the sense of the Minister being able to call upon the expertise of that group or that panel for any advice that they may be able to provide. So I do think that there is a good move in terms of providing some robustness around that.

My colleague Arena Williams, who is our spokesperson for building and construction, has outlined a few things already this afternoon. One of those is the benefit that this bill will provide, and that’s why we’re supportive of it, that this is a bill that will provide direct benefits to homeowners, that they can have some confidence in the products that are used around their homes or in workplaces are actually products that can be—I won’t say “guaranteed”, but there can be some confidence, I think is actually the word that the chair of the committee, Mr Foster, used, that there can be some confidence in that. This is targeted towards a sector within our community that is so important in terms of our economy; I’m talking about the building and construction sector.

My colleague Ms Williams talked about it being around 7 percent of GDP. That is not an insignificant sort of quantum where that would sit at. So it is important that we are promoting and supporting legislation that is going to empower and fuel that particular sector, that building construction is going to be able to thrive, that there’ll be people within the sector who’ll be able to get about their business, that they’ll be able to deliver on all of the things that people have already talked about in the House today that won’t provide a barrier or a limitation to having good products available to them. What does that do? It leads to competition. And at the end of the day, that is a good thing when it comes to this particular sector of our community and our economy. A strong, comprehensive building sector is so important for New Zealand, and having confidence in that is certainly important as well.

The thing I like about the sector is that it sort of delves into two areas. This bill really does target housing. It provides for affordability, it provides for more houses to be to be built—something that the Government might want to take a little bit of a leaf out of that particular book—but on the other hand, it also provides for good skill uptake and development, and that when we think about apprenticeship opportunities, that opportunities that exist in the trades are going to be effectively supported as a result of legislation like this, that there is good competition, there is the element of choice, but that there is the element of confidence and of safety as well.

This is a bill that has been called for by the industry. It provides a platform or an opportunity or a pathway for good decisions to be taken, but decisions that are also going to be safe. On that basis, I’m happy to commend this bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Oh, Madam Speaker, hello.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hello.

TIM COSTLEY: It’s a pleasure to just talk about this bill—fantastic piece of work. I want to commend the Minister, the Hon Chris Penk, and all those that have been working on it. Of course, there’s always a number of people behind the scenes—the officials that come to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, those that submit, and the whole team that work in that office. I do just want to acknowledge them and give credit for the work that has gone into this, because it is really important: we have to cut the cost of building houses, we have to make it faster and easier to build houses.

But we also have to tackle some of the issues around resilience, in my view. When we think about supply chain resilience, that’s one piece I’d like to talk about in the context of the three key things that this bill sets out to do. The first one of those three is around increasing the supply of acceptable building materials and recognising overseas standards and standard certification schemes. In other words, not just having a really tight definition and just a singular product that you might be able to line your walls with but opening up to products that work really well overseas where it’s a comparable environment that they’re being used. It may be, for example, that some parts of New Zealand are very comparable to coastal parts of Australia and certain places, and we can say, “Well, look, if this product is certified by them and we accept their standards and their certification schemes, actually we can open up to a wider range of products.”

It helps New Zealanders in a number of ways. To start with, more products mean more competition. If we think back to the report—I think it was 2022—from the Commerce Commission that talked about the lack of competition in the building sector in some products, actually increasing the number of products available will drive down prices, will stop people being able to just ramp up their prices when there’s a limited supply in the market, and that makes it cheaper for the average Kiwi household to build a house. That’s got to be a good thing. More than that, it means there are more products available, so there is a bigger surplus of them. So you don’t have the same fighting over limited products, and wait times, that kind of thing.

Secondly, I’ll just come back to that resilience perspective. When that door got slammed shut—back in those awful COVID years—on our supply chain, if people hadn’t worked out how big an issue supply chain resilience was, well, they worked it out pretty quickly, because suddenly we made it way too hard for shipping and freight companies to come to New Zealand. Supply lines dried up. If we have more supply coming in, if we have different supply chains, then, if something would happen that would interrupt one shipping lane, maybe another one can carry it and we can bring in different products. We can keep building those houses that Kiwi families desperately need, and that’s what we are really focused on: growing the economy and growing the number of houses.

Of course, this sits alongside some of the other great work going on at the moment, like the rebuild of the Resource Management Act, because we need to cut through the red tape there in terms of the resource consents to open up new areas to build in. That goes hand in glove with this work around consenting, and that’s the second part of this: it’s around streamlining the citing of international standards that can be used. In other words, if the way to meet the building code in the country of this product or this design specification works, why wouldn’t we accept that as an equal way of meeting the compliance in New Zealand? Make it easier to get through those consenting pathways, because I just hear frustration after frustration from people hitting these barriers. Why wouldn’t we accept safe ways to meet that consenting pathway, when they’re available?

That all gets brought together by that third part, which is requiring building consent authorities to accept these new ones. So you put the three together: more products gets us cheaper homes; consenting pathways gets us faster homes; and the third part, around consenting authorities, ensures this will be done. It gets more houses for Kiwis, it gets cheaper houses for Kiwis, and it helps us grow our economy. That’s what we’re focused on. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tackling the productivity issues in the building and construction industry is surely God’s work. As long as I’ve been in this House, a venerable procession of Ministers and spokespersons have gone through this role. I see one of the former Ministers—the Hon Jenny Salesa—sitting there. I was a spokesperson back in the day, and many people have had a crack at it.

The challenges are formidable. Very low productivity by international standards—in an industry which itself is plagued by low productivity globally. The most terrible health and safety record in the construction industry, in New Zealand. A demonstrative lack of competition and the presence of anti-competitive practices in the market. And the granddaddy of them all was the leaky homes catastrophe, which was mostly in Auckland, a city plagued by cowboy builders—still today, actually—it’s an industry that is rife with exploitation of migrant workers.

There is much to be done and this bill tackles one of the issues that has been the subject of much debate over recent years, and that is trying to open up the market and make it more competitive by eliminating the barriers to building products that otherwise find it hard to get in to the market.

It was the market study in 2022 under our Government—as with most of the good things coming through this House these days, the genesis is in the last Labour Government and it’s good to see support from across the House for this bill. The impetus for the Commerce Commission’s market study on building supplies was a very strong perception, particularly in relation to the likes of plasterboard, that the market dynamics were preventing new players coming into the market. In fact, plasterboard is a celebrated case study of how incumbent market players used their market position to keep out products that were highly successful internationally but unable to get a toehold in this little market at the bottom of the South Pacific—to the detriment of the final consumers, the homeowners, homebuyers. This is one of many factors—not the biggest factor, but one of the factors—making our houses very expensive.

What this bill does is it tries to eliminate some of those barriers principally by allowing the Minister of the day to approve groups of standards from comparable jurisdictions overseas and allowing them to be basically dragged and dropped into our regulations. I think that is definitely to be applauded.

I just do want to register some of the concerns from—I didn’t serve on the select committee that was considering this bill, but some of the concerns that came out of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee discussions. Arena Williams mentioned earlier in the debate with plasterboard the fact that we have this quite unusual practice in New Zealand of using plasterboard as a structural material when it gets tacked up on the framing. It’s not used in that way overseas, so we have to be careful about the way that materials are used to make sure that the new materials are appropriate given the way that they might be used here.

Questions about whether or not this will, in fact, drive competition, because if it is going to result in increased competition, those products actually have to find their way on to the shelves of the retailers and wholesalers so that builders can actually get them. The industry is very, very adept at using various techniques at point of sale to prevent products actually getting to the consumers. So that’s something to be considered.

Other concerns that were raised is the question of being—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has—

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —expired. Thank you, Tom Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m sorry to cut the member off. He was halfway through a sentence. But I’m in a bit of an unusual position, having been on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when the bill was referred to it and, then, during the period, moving off the select committee and moving on to the Justice Committee. So I heard the beginning and I heard a lot of submissions on it, but I didn’t do the nitty-gritty bit at the end. But it was a really, as other members have said throughout, collegial discussion that was had on the committee. It looked at the detail around what was actually being spoken, and, as Tangi Utikere said as well, Cameron Luxton from his lived experience as a builder was really useful for tapping into his expertise and understanding in this space as well.

One of the points that hasn’t quite been canvassed yet, though, is around the 2022 market study, done by the Commerce Commission, on residential building supplies, where they said they found that competition for the supply of key building products was not working as well as it could be. We often forget, but New Zealand is a really small trading nation in the scheme of the world. We are a small trading nation, so anything we can do to remove barriers to high-quality products entering the New Zealand market, to increase consumer choice, and to increase competition and provide greater resilience to the supply disruptions is a really good thing, and that’s exactly what this piece of legislation does, so I commend it to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my privilege this evening to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. Back in December of 2022, the Commerce Commission released the final report of its residential building supplies market study, which found, of course, that competition for the supply and acquisition of key building products is not working as well as it could.

Of course, in this House, surprise, surprise, if we go back—and it’s been mentioned in the House, of course—the challenges in supply across the COVID period at a time when we were building a significant number of houses in this country.

Of course, coming from the Northcote community, we are very familiar with some incredible housing developments, and we’ve seen firsthand the blend, I guess, between social houses, homes for first-home buyers, and those for market rental. Getting that right mix in a community is incredibly important. This week, yesterday, I attended the Project Auckland luncheon, where Minister Chris Bishop and Minister Simeon Brown spoke, and spoke to the complexities of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland and the city, particularly when it comes to housing—lack of—transport, and infrastructure, the impact that that has on both our GDP and productivity and the overall potential of a major city in this country. Huge opportunity missed, currently.

So when it comes to this particular bill, we know that, obviously, speed is important when it comes to the supply and products, but one of the major issues in our communities in Auckland is affordability. So that first opportunity to step up into having an affordable rental or, ideally, owning your first home and having that leg up in your life really comes back to affordability, and that’s one of the things that I’m most passionate about in this particular piece of legislation.

The building amendment bill today responds to competition issues in the sector by amending the Building Act 2004 to remove barriers to overseas building products that enter Aotearoa New Zealand’s building product market and are being used in New Zealand’s buildings. It does this, and can I acknowledge the Minister responsible for this piece of legislation, the Hon Chris Penk—in any case, he’s a good North Shore boy, like some of us in the room. His work provides him the opportunity, as the Minister for Building and Construction, to recognise overseas standards or standard certification schemes by notice. It’s important to listen to some of the industry experts, and acknowledging the number of submissions—44 in total, nine of which presented, online through Zoom or in person, to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Can I acknowledge you, Andy Foster, the chair of that particular select committee.

But that advice there, of course, is that these standards are important and that the select committee was very clear that while they wanted to eliminate barriers, they certainly didn’t want to compromise the key standards that were in place in New Zealand when it came from overseas suppliers.

One of the headaches I remember, of course, is, is when we had a bit of a shortage and we shifted to the need for plasterboard—you might remember, Madam Speaker. It was quite a common topic in this House, and we, on repeat, talked about plasterboard, plasterboard, plasterboard. Who knew that there was plasterboard? I certainly learnt something back in that time. But Labour is cautious about the product substitutions for plasterboard being approved in groups. They are used in a structurally different way in other countries. It may be that the rules in other countries for plasterboard should not apply here because of the way it is used by New Zealand house builders.

Phil Twyford actually got a major shout-out at the Project Auckland launch yesterday for the work that he’d done as the Minister back in 2017-2018. He was acknowledged in the speeches to talk about the urban development work that he’d done at that particular time and how relevant it is, actually, to this piece of legislation as well, because, obviously, without good supplies and the right supplies at the right price, it makes it very difficult to build the urban environments that a city like Auckland actually needs.

Lastly, you know, I do want to give a shout-out—within my tertiary education portfolio, of course—back to the apprenticeship scheme. It’s something I’m very proud of the last Labour Government for, and I want that work to continue under Te Pūkenga. Related to this legislation and housing overall, of course, is the 200,000 apprentices and trainees that were funded under the last Government. Particularly, we need to ensure that that support, that training, is available for young people to continue so work like this can be enabled, because, of course, we can have cheaper plasterboard, but we may not have the right subbies and the right team on board to do the job that is required.

So I think this is a very good technical piece of legislation before us today, and I commend it to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. Time to get things built in this country. Time to get rid of the red tape which has been holding the construction industry back, let’s be honest. We are in an infrastructure deficit and we need to get on with the job. Part of this is making it easier to build infrastructure and easier to build our houses. This will ensure that we have more affordable houses. We need to remove those barriers to those high-quality products and bring them in from overseas—other countries are using them. We’re looking offshore to Australia, and it’s 50 percent cheaper to build a house across the Tasman. I mean, we need to bring down the cost of building in New Zealand so that we can create more affordable homes. This bill will go a long way to creating more competition so that we can bring down those prices and ensure that we can get families into their first homes.

If I look at my own electorate of Tukituki, I’m seeing a huge amount of development going on across Hastings; some wonderful housing developments in Flaxmere and also in Havelock North. We want to make it easier for builders to be able to get the quality products in to build the quality, affordable homes that we need. This not only creates affordable homes but it creates jobs and opportunities across our region. We’ve already heard in this debate that the construction industry is worth 7 percent to our GDP. That’s thousands of jobs for our regions, and that is what grows our economy. But, you know, it does come back to our families and having an affordable home, and this bill does go a long way to cutting the red tape, getting on with building, and saying yes to building houses, yes to building infrastructure, and I say yes to this bill. I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Government wants to reduce the harm to children from sexual offending. This bill updates and clarifies the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. That Act established a register to reduce sexual offending against child victims and reduce the risk posed by serious child sex offenders living in our communities. The bill seeks to make some improvements to the Act to ensure that we’re doing everything possible to keep children in our communities safe from harmful sexual behaviour. The bill has been considered by the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee, its diligent consideration of the bill, and those who made submissions to the committee. As emphasised by the submitters on this bill, child sexual abuse is a serious problem in New Zealand. It causes significant and long-lasting harm to the child victims in our community and also to their families.

The bill will help manage the risk to children. This bill will improve the effectiveness of the Child Sex Offender Register and will help registry staff manage the risks presented by child sex offenders living in the community. A number of the amendments will require offenders to provide additional personal information, in particular about their location and activities, as well as their likelihood of contact with children. Other amendments will make it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations—for example, by being able to report changes to their information by phone. These changes will support Police and the Department of Corrections to keep children safe from harmful sexual offenders.

The bill makes a number of amendments to the Act. The bill will require offenders to report additional personal information to help inform risk management approaches; require some information to be provided within different time frames, to better enable registry staff to manage and monitor risk; and, most importantly, require offenders to report that a child is going to be living at the same address as them 48 hours before this occurs, rather than the 72 hours after; and provide registry staff more time to make the necessary international notifications and border alerts. It makes it easier for registry staff to contact the principal caregiver if it is necessary to make a disclosure about an offender who may pose a risk. It makes it easier for offenders to comply with reporting obligations. The new reporting requirements and changes in reporting time frames will create additional obligations on offenders currently on the register. The bill also improves the clarity of the Act and updates it to reflect evolving technology and address several gaps.

A key change in the bill is the addition of seven qualifying offences to the Act. Most notably, the bill adds seven additional qualifying offences. These are offences that cause an offender to be placed on the register. The seven additional offences are four Prostitution Reform Act 2003 offences, which were unintended emissions from the original Act; two Crimes Act 1961 offences; and one Customs and Excise Act 2018 offence. These offences have been added because they align with offences already covered by the Act. While this bill is largely technical, it will deliver practical improvements to further support the protection of our children. Taken together, these amendments will keep children safe from harmful sexual behaviour, balance individual rights with additional reporting requirements, and make it easier for offenders to comply with the Act.

Two key themes were considered by the Justice Committee: the retrospective application of the bill, and the effectiveness of the register. I want to acknowledge that several submitters were concerned about the retrospective nature of the bill. The Attorney-General presented a report on this bill pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, advising that she considered the bill as introduced was inconsistent with section 25(g) of that Act, which is the right to benefit from a lesser penalty where penalties change, and with section 26(2), which includes the right not to be subject to retrospective penalties. I note that section 7 reports were also presented by previous Attorneys-General for the principal Act and when previous amendments to the Act were passed.

I consider the bill goes some way to addressing these concerns. To start with, the seven additional qualifying offences will not apply with retrospective effect. They will only apply if a person commits one or more of the additional qualifying offences on or after the date the bill commences. In addition, while the administrative changes being made through the bill will have retrospective application, they will only have retrospective effect to existing offenders from the point at which the bill comes into force. Offenders will only be required to report current information—for example, current voluntary work being undertaken, but not a list of all voluntary work undertaken since registration. Retrospective application of the administrative changes will ensure that the necessary information can be collected from the over 4,000 offenders currently on the register, 66 percent of whom will remain on the register for life. This will support the register’s ability to manage the risk of offenders reoffending, therefore providing greater protection for children from harmful sexual behaviour. Collecting this information supports the purpose of the bill, which is to improve the safety of children and young people in our community.

Some submitters expressed concerns about the lack of evidence of the effectiveness of sex offender registers, both in New Zealand and internationally. This issue has been raised previously, both in the development of the principal Act and through subsequent amendments. Evidence from overseas jurisdictions has indicated that sex offender registers have no or very little impact on child sex reoffending rates or public safety unless they are supported by an active risk management framework. The New Zealand register is complemented by a risk management framework. Case managers assess the level of reoffending risk each offender poses. This risk assessment helps case managers to determine what sort of preventative action can support the offender to live offence-free. Additionally, initial findings from research commissioned by Police indicates that the New Zealand register is achieving a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in the likelihood of recidivism. This provides tentative support for the proactive case management and risk management approach being used in New Zealand to manage child sex offenders living in the community.

This bill is another example of this Government’s focus on law and order. The bill represents a careful balance that recognises the right of the community to be protected from child sex offenders as well as the rights of the offenders themselves. It is also a reminder that our focus on reducing crime is about reducing harm—in this instance, preventing harm to children. I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to the Minister, who seems to have changed allegiances party-wise from where he’s sitting, but you never know. Look, we support this bill, and it’s actually a really good example. I want to make some comments and notes and reservations, but it’s a good example of good justice policy because it is looking at risk and taking all reasonable steps to ameliorate it. It’s not waiting for a disaster to happen and waiting for crime to occur. It’s identifying—admittedly through prior behaviour, but identifying—that there are people out there who are at risk and is taking a fairly careful approach to how we can manage that risk and—I think, roughly in the Minister’s own words—assist that person in managing their lives in a way which doesn’t put them in a risky situation for further offending.

That is exactly what we should be doing in terms of reducing crime, because sex offending, along with other crimes, is a good example where the threat of going to prison is not a deterrent, because these people are broken, in a sense. However, if you say, “Let’s make sure we don’t put these people in a situation where they are around young people or”, if their offending was electronic, “where they’re given access to unmonitored electronic devices.” In general, the offenders are grateful for that, because whilst they have these predilections, they don’t actually want to be offenders; they want to buy into a framework where they can protect themselves and others from themselves. So that’s why we support this bill.

I note the Minister’s useful discussion of the Attorney-General’s section 7 report, and the Attorney-General did come out and say that this was not compliant and it was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because of, largely, the retrospectivity point that people who have previously been sentenced will now have great impositions on them. There’s a few things I would say about that. Firstly, the additional impositions are slightly more extensive—things like having to give greater notice that a child is going to be residing at an address; 72 hours as opposed to 48 hours. It is a more onerous obligation, but it’s an obligation of the same kind. It’s not a massive change. Or there’s additional greater notice of when you’re travelling overseas. Again, it is more onerous, but it’s a change in degree rather than a change in kind.

The other thing is this, and this is where I differ a little from the Attorney-General because these are seen, by the Attorney-General in her analysis and the analysis that her team did, as a punishment, and whilst I accept that it’s an incursion into liberty, I actually don’t see it as a punishment. I see it as a protective step where you’re assisting the offender in managing their lifestyle. Perhaps that’s not a black and white thing. Perhaps there’s a more nuanced way to view it. But if we think of steps which are purely punitive—we’re only doing it to punish; you can think of pure imprisonment, imprisonment in a cold cell; that’s pure punishment; there’s no good coming out of that—through to a rehabilitated programme where it’s very helpful. Well, this sits further down that end. It’s compulsory, but it’s down that end of the spectrum. So I think when we come to do that balancing exercise—and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does ask us to balance it—whether the incursion into liberty and whether the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act breach is justified in a free and democratic society, I tend towards recognising that the harm is modest. The negative aspect of this retrospective imposition is modest.

As the Minister also said, the committee was very keen to understand how effective this was. Certainly, I brought, as I’m known to do, a high degree of scepticism to the committee around the effectiveness of the child sex offender register, because I had understood, from international sources, that these things were an imposition but, in fact they didn’t do much, and that there was no statistical difference between monitored offenders reoffending and people who weren’t monitored reoffending. It was reassuring to me to be told that, whilst the data and the studies aren’t absolutely robust at this stage, there was very promising evidence that this kind of intervention had a genuine reduction in offending and, consequently, a reduction in the numbers of victims. So, when I took together the fact that I see this to have a low punitive element and that they’re changes in degree rather than kind of the impositions and also that there was a significant degree of effectiveness in statistical terms, I was prepared to back this, notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s opinion. I must say, I do respect the Attorney-General’s opinion, and I know that it’s well-thought-out and that her team in justice do a good job of that analysis.

I guess the other thing just to note is that there are some good things in here as well, because it is important that the system works well. It was getting a little outdated. Things like email notifications by the offender are making it actually easier to comply, because I think it’s really important. We don’t want to come down heavily and say, “Well, you know, you’ve got to turn up to the police station in person and tell us this.”, when all you really need is an email. That’s a good change, because it means compliance is much more likely. And if it’s much more likely, then it’ll be much more effective. Good on the New Zealand Police for taking an approach where they see what works and they build on it. We’ve got a protective set of steps here that, actually, could be a model—I’m not saying we can’t improve it; I’m sure we can. But what I am saying is, perhaps, we should learn from this and start thinking about where else in the justice sector we can use interventions which identify risk and intervene before the event rather than after the event. So that’s why we’re pleased to support this legislation.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, which has returned from the Justice Committee, and I was able to be part of the whole process there. This bill seeks to amend the 2016 principal Act by enhancing reporting requirements for registered child sex offenders, updating provisions to align with technological changes, and ensuring agencies can better manage risk in our communities.

First, I want to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue we are discussing today. Child sexual abuse has devastating and lifelong impacts, not only for the individual but also for their whānau and their communities. It’s essential that we can continually evaluate and strengthen our frameworks to minimise the risks and ensure that our laws are fit for purpose. Preventing child sex abuse and ensuring the protection and safety of children is necessary and urgent in our work here in Parliament.

The changes proposed by this bill focus on several key areas, including tightening reporting time lines. These include requiring offenders to report 48 hours before a child resides at their address, rather than the 72 hours after, which it is currently; providing advance notice of overseas travel at least seven days before departure; and reporting their return to New Zealand within 72 hours, rather than the previous 10-day period. These amendments aim to ensure that agencies can track and assess potential risks in a more timely and effective manner.

Another significant aspect of this bill is the expansion of qualifying offences in Schedule 2 of the principal Act. The inclusion of offences related to making intimate visual recordings, commercial sexual exploitation, and objectionable publications reflects the evolving understanding of harm and acknowledges the ways in which digital platforms can be weaponised for exploitation.

I was involved throughout the whole select committee process, and we received 22 submissions and heard from five oral submitters. One of the key things that was raised in submissions was whether the register itself is an effective tool for preventing reoffending. As noted in the committee’s report, a 2019 evaluation of the register and the associated risk management framework found that they were broadly performing as intended. However, submitters called for further scrutiny, particularly regarding whether the register actually reduces recidivism rates. While preliminary findings from PhD research commissioned by the Police indicate that the register may reduce the likelihood of reoffending by 40 to 70 percent, the final findings will not be published until 2026. Further longitudinal study on recidivism is not due for interim reporting until 2027. These ongoing studies highlight the need for robust, evidence-based policy-making that evaluates the effectiveness of legislative interventions over time.

One of the more contentious aspects of the bill is its retrospective application. The bill would impose additional reporting requirements on offenders who are already registered, rather than applying only to those convicted after the bill’s commencement. The Attorney-General, in a report presented to the House, has determined that this aspect of the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990—the NZBORA. Specifically, it conflicts with section 26(2), which protects against double jeopardy, and section 25G, which affirms the right to the lesser penalty when penalties change. The key question for this House is whether we as legislators think this conflict with the NZBORA is justified. The Attorney-General did not, and it’s important that we consider this advice really carefully.

Retrospective laws always demand careful scrutiny. The principle of non-retroactivity exists to protect individuals from laws that unfairly penalise them from past actions. However, this bill’s advocates argue that without retrospective application there would be two different sets of reporting requirements, one for those already on the register and another for the new registrants. They contend that this inconsistency could create operational difficulties and gaps in risk management. However, some have stated that the argument is not compelling, pointing out that varying levels of supervision and reporting requirements already exist in the justice system, such as with bail conditions. There is a clear conflict in retrospective laws that can threaten legal certainty and rights, but supporters argue that they are necessary to protect children. As policy makers, we must carefully consider that balance, ensuring that legislative measures are both effective and consistent with our legal and human rights obligations.

This bill deals with an area of law that carries significant consequences both for public safety and for the legal rights of those subject to the register. They need to protect tamariki and ensure that our tamariki safety is paramount. At the same time, the concerns raised about retrospective application and potential inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act warrant our close consideration. These are things we do not take lightly. As the bill progresses, it is important that we continue to engage with the ongoing research on the effectiveness of the register and ensure that any legislative measures are guided by strong evidence. We must also remain vigilant to the broader policy context, particularly how we prevent harm in the first place through early intervention, education, and comprehensive support for survivors. That means honouring our cross-party agreement to honour Te Aorerekura, that action plan and that work plan, working with communities for prevention so that we can eliminate family and sexual violence in Aotearoa. That is a vision that we need to hold on to, and make sure that our laws, our resourcing, the way that we are as a country, honour that and ensure that Te Aorerekura is a success, because we need to create a world that our mokopuna deserve.

I want to acknowledge those who made submissions, those who work tirelessly to support survivors, and those who advocate for a justice system that is both effective and rights-based. I look forward to hearing further debate on the bill and considering the perspectives that will be brought to the table.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m honestly very confused by that previous speech. I was quite heartened by the beginning of the speech, thinking we may have a cross-Parliament work where we are actually in agreement that the most important thing in this world is keeping our most vulnerable safe, especially from sexual violence and from people who are sexual offenders out in our communities. I’m still confused by that speech to be perfectly honest, because I’m not even sure if the Greens are supporting or not supporting this bill by that speech.

There was the talk of inconsistencies with the bill, but, my goodness, the inconsistencies within that speech are actually gobsmacking. It’s left me speechless, to be perfectly honest. I mean, it takes an awful lot to make me mad. Often things will sadden me and disgust me, but, actually, I was getting quite mad listening to that where we have one sentence that says, “We need to create a world that our mokopuna deserve”, but, on the other hand, “Ah, nah.”—all the talk’s about why we shouldn’t be putting forward a bill that actually puts in place some support to make sure that our young children aren’t the victims of sexual abusers and sexual offenders out in our communities.

The whole point of the Te Aorerekura action plan—which was absolutely amazing because it had cross-Government support—was that we, as a Parliament, work together towards a better future for our children and do everything we possibly can to put in place a system that allows our agencies to work better together for the betterment of our children, which is part of what this bill is aiming to do.

At the end of the day, this is a Government that I am proud to work with, that puts the victim first and the perpetrator second. At the end of the day, these victims are children that have no ability to defend themselves; have no ability to actually fight off what is happening to them. They also have no ability to get rid of the nightmares that follow; the years of suffering that follow somebody hurting and harming them in this manner. Not only does it hurt the child, it hurts the whole family. It sets that child up for a hard future. Not only do they have to navigate the abuse that has been brought their way, then they have to navigate probably a justice system—if they’re going through the courts—where, actually, we’ll put the perpetrators’ issues ahead of this young person.

How can you even contemplate putting the perpetrators’ rights ahead of a young person not being sexually violated? Sometimes we have to put the most common-sense thing at the forefront of our decision making. The biggest common-sense issue here is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, with the purpose of keeping children and young people in our community safe. If this gives our agencies another tool in their belt to prevent a young child having to go through the devastating effects of being raped and molested, then this is a good thing. I stand here and support this bill, and, quite frankly, I still am confused whether the Greens do. So let’s find out.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. This is an important piece of legislation, and, as the Minister of Police talked about, it is administrative in nature, but it is a very important piece of legislation. I will applaud Minister Chhour on her previous contribution—that this is about putting the children at the heart.

Unfortunately, I’ve had to deal with the child victims of sexual abuse, and the nature of the offenders—who have a manner in which they can manipulate their power and control over children to the extent that it is horrific in its nature. When you have an offender who tells you in his interview, admitting to the crime, that it was OK, he always gave her a bag of lollies afterwards, you get to know the evilness that exists in that kind of mentality. Therefore, when we talk about registering, we talk about getting some level of control and visibility over the movements of these offenders.

But as the member on the other side of the House said, this is also about risk mitigation. This is about doing something smart, and this is why our register has been successful and will continue to be successful, because it does allow for that risk mitigation component and allow the offenders themselves to contribute to controlling their behaviour. That is why making it easier to register their movements and their activity just makes perfect common sense.

The retrospective nature that was touched on previously has been addressed to the extent that I think it satisfies the concerns of the Justice Committee and will continue to ensure that it is applied fairly, in balance with the rights of the victims and the vulnerable children and the offenders.

It is of considerable gratitude to me that they have included the production of objectionable material, and the export and import of objectionable material under the Customs and Excise Act. As Minister of Customs, it has become such a prevalent type of offending, in which case young and vulnerable children can be victimised in isolation by the offenders so that they can perpetrate trafficking—a business enterprise, effectively, that victimises vulnerable children in ways that is horrifying, terrifying, frightening, and depressing, and it is just a tragedy to humanity that it is allowed to continue. But, unfortunately, looking at the statistics within Customs, it is a growing enterprise for some individuals who deserve to be put on to registers so that their conduct can continue to be controlled moving forward.

This is an important and special piece of legislation because it is both a preventative measure—it is a society standing up to ensure that we continue to review and consider the suitability and effectiveness of the legislation that we have, and that we will continue to monitor and control ways in which we can protect children from those who will not only gain some level of perverse pleasure in victimising the vulnerable children but also gain, basically, economic advantage from the fact that they are selling and trading in human suffering. Therefore, I am grateful that the Minister has brought this piece of legislation forward, and I’m grateful that there is support broadly across the House. And I take great sadness that we have to have these pieces of legislation, but I commend this legislation to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted—

Hon Member: Oh.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Apologies to the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 April 2025.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.