Tuesday, 1 April 2025

Volume 783

Sitting date: 1 April 2025

TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

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

Urgent Debates Declined

Supermarket Sector—Lack of Competition, Government Response

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from Arena Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s response to the lack of competition in the supermarket sector. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. An application for an urgent debate on this issue was sought and declined last year because the matter had not reached the level of urgency required to set aside the business of the House to debate it. The most recent Government announcement was that it would make a request for information to support a supermarket competitor. While the issue is an important one, the Government’s announcements to date also do not reach the threshold for an urgent debate. The application is declined.

Motions

Myanmar—Earthquake

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to express our condolences to those affected by the Myanmar earthquake.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I move, That this House send it condolences to all those who have lost loved ones and livelihoods in Myanmar, Thailand, and other adjacent nations as a result of the Myanmar earthquake on 28 March, and note that the Government of New Zealand stands ready to consider and respond to any request for assistance from affected countries to aid recovery efforts.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Free Fares NZ requesting that the House urge the Government to not implement the new private share funding targets for public transport.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK:

2025-2029 Statement of Intent for National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Ltd.

Amendment to the Statement of Performance Expectations for National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Ltd.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Thirty-seven select committee have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

New Zealand Post Ltd, and the

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Accident Compensation Corporation and WorkSafe New Zealand, and the

education sector

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

He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission

Predator Free 2050 Ltd

Climate Change Chief Executives Board

Department of Conservation

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority

Environmental Protection Authority

Ministry for the Environment, and

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2023-24 annual review of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, and the

Policing (Police Vetting) Amendment Bill

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Animal Control Products Ltd (trading as Orillion)

AsureQuality Ltd

Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd

Land Information New Zealand

Landcorp Farming Ltd (Pāmu Farms)

Quotable Value Ltd

Ministry for Primary Industries, and the

New Zealand Walking Access Commission (Herenga ā Nuku Aotearoa Outdoor Access Commission)

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010

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

Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa (Creative New Zealand), and the

Broadcasting Commission

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 2023-24 annual reviews of:

Air New Zealand Ltd

City Rail Link Ltd

Crown Infrastructure Partners Ltd

KiwiRail Holdings Ltd

Te Manatū Waka—Ministry of Transport

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd

Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Transpower New Zealand Ltd

Waka Kotahi—New Zealand Transport Agency, and the

energy sector.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of four bills.

CLERK:

Medicines Amendment Bill, introduction

Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, introduction

Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill, introduction, and

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, “What’s mattering most to New Zealanders out there is what we are doing to reduce to the cost of living.”; if so, why is his Government increasing Kiwi household power bills by up to $25 a month through increased transmission and charges during a cost of living crisis? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a reminder that questions are heard in silence.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the efforts of our Government to help New Zealanders with the cost of living. That’s why we’re getting control of Government spending, that’s why inflation’s coming down, that’s why interest rates are coming down. I just note that that member didn’t support tax relief for the first time in 14 years for low and middle income workers. We’re doing everything we can to put money back in Kiwis’ pockets.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his Government’s decision to increase car registration fees by $50 a year, increase taxes on parking fines, and more than double the insurance levies on motor vehicles increasing or decreasing cost of living for Kiwi households?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What is improving the situation for Kiwis’ households is making sure that inflation is coming down, interest rates are coming down, and the economy is starting to grow. It was fantastic to see the economy grow at 0.7 percent in quarter four last year. Importantly, Labour didn’t vote for tax relief, Labour didn’t vote for Working for Families credits, and Labour didn’t vote for FamilyBoost.

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough. Thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will his Government’s plan to increase annual household insurance bills by between $400 and $948 a year increase or decrease the cost of living for Kiwi households?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We don’t set insurance premiums, but what we can control is the environment—which is an economy that’s incredibly well managed—to make sure that we’re bringing spending down, to make sure that we’re bringing inflation down and interest rates down, and that the economy’s growing so people have more money in their pockets and they can access higher-income jobs.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister might have misheard the question when he said the Government doesn’t set insurance levies, given that the question was specifically about the part of household insurance that the Government does set. The Government is currently consulting on a proposal to increase household insurance costs by $400 to $948 per year per household.

SPEAKER: The question is: is it the Government or a Government agency?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a Government agency. But that is the Government.

SPEAKER: If it has a separate board, then the board will make that decision. But the Prime Minister might want to make that distinction.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a Government agency. They have a separate board; they can make their own decision.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did his Government’s decision to reintroduce charges for pharmacy prescriptions, slash public transport subsidies, and increase the cost of rubbish disposal increase or decrease the cost of living for New Zealand families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member: I am incredibly proud of what this Government is doing to help New Zealanders with the cost of living crisis. That member and his party did not vote for tax relief—

SPEAKER: No, just talk about the Government.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —they did not support the things that are helping New Zealanders improve their cost of living.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage by less than inflation for two years in a row—meaning those earning the minimum wage earn less now in real terms than two years ago—increase or decrease the cost of living crisis for low-income New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m proud of the fact that we are increasing entitlements by roughly the amount of inflation. But what I’m also proud about is the fact that real wage growth has grown for five quarters in a row, after declining for 13 quarters in a row under that Government.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that levies issued by the Natural Hazards Commission, formerly the Earthquake Commission, are driven by risk and global reinsurance costs; and if indeed the levy does have to increase, it will be because Labour left them—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t ask a question like that. He can’t speculate on that, but he can answer the body of the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree: insurance levies are based off risk profiles of New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that “There might be just regular annual increments in some fees and levies across the piece, but that’s not a major focus.”, and, if so, does he acknowledge that increased costs for prescription charges, electricity lines charges, car registrations, car insurance levies, survey and title fees, insurance levies, and, in fact, fuel excise indicate that his priority isn’t fees and levies that impact everyday New Zealanders but rather delivering tax cuts for landlords and tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answering part of that question—my focus is on making sure we run a great economy so New Zealanders can get ahead. We inherited a situation where the economy was run into the ground. We are making sure that we do everything we can to get growth back into New Zealand so we get money back into Kiwis’ pockets so they can get out of the mess that we’ve inherited thanks to that last Government.

Question No. 2—Economic Growth

2. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent announcements has she made regarding supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): On Sunday, I outlined the Government’s next steps to drive more competition in the supermarket sector and deliver better grocery prices for Kiwi shoppers. I announced two things: first, a formal request for information (RFI) process to identify what is needed to support a significant, national-scale competitor to enter our grocery market. Second, I announced that I have commissioned specialist external advice on ways in which the existing supermarket duopoly could be restructured to improve competition. I would note that this approach is similar to that recommended by the last Cabinet in June 2023, when Minister Duncan Webb said that “It would make sense to consider the need for more detailed policy work on divestment to occur after the Commission makes its first report into the state of the grocery sector”. That report was delivered in September.

Joseph Mooney: What response has she seen to the announcement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There have been a range of responses welcoming the Government’s announcement, including from Grocery Action Group’s Chair, Sue Chetwin, who said the announcements were “terrific news for Kiwi shoppers”. Miss Chetwin said that “While the many recent regulatory reforms of the supermarket sector have been worthwhile, none has effectively curbed the duopoly’s market power.” Well-known grocery commentator Ernie Newman said the announcements were “A significant move”, and “The good news is the sense of urgency”. He added: “That said, this is necessarily a long-term project. I hope that all parties in Parliament will endorse the direction of travel.” Of course, the Government’s announcement builds on our coalition commitment with New Zealand First to ensure that there is greater competition in the supermarket sector. There are many other responses which reinforce the sentiment that change is needed, and I agree with them.

SPEAKER: Good.

Joseph Mooney: What other work is under way to address supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Commerce Commission is working to complete its wholesale inquiry, its analysis into land banking issues, and its second grocery report. My officials are also working to get as much involvement as possible in the RFI from market players, potential entrants, and investors. On that note, I was pleased to see on Sunday that Foodstuffs said in response to my announcements that it will “constructively participate in the Government’s RFI process.” I welcome their involvement.

Joseph Mooney: When will we see the next steps towards better competition in the grocery market?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the RFI is proceeding at pace and will close after six weeks. In mid-2025, once I’ve considered the evidence from the RFI and the Commerce Commission’s additional work, I will bring further recommendations to Cabinet. Depending on what I hear, I may seek Cabinet’s mandate to progress further design work on structural options to improve competition in the grocery sector. If legislation is needed, I would want to introduce it before the end of the year. We need to move fast and also with due care to ensure Kiwi shoppers get the benefits of stronger competition in our supermarket sector.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder if I could ask the Minister the origin of this brilliant, thoughtful, considerate policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, of course, the number one driver of this is the fact that all the evidence points to a lack of competition in the New Zealand supermarket sector, and in particular the fact that New Zealanders are paying more for their groceries than counterparts in other countries. This was recognised in the coalition agreement between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party, which identified this as a priority area for work. The attempts by the last Government have, in the review of the Grocery Commissioner, not improved competition in this area.

SPEAKER: That’s enough—that’s enough. Good.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by the statement of the Minister of Housing, who, when asked whether his Government’s emergency housing policies were a success, replied, “Yes, we’re very proud of it”, and, if so, what is he more proud of: homelessness services across the country reporting increased homelessness or siphoning money out of services that our most vulnerable people in Aotearoa need to survive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m incredibly proud that in a very short period of time, this Government has ended what I think is one of the blights on New Zealand’s social policies—the fact that we have taken 2,000 children out of squalid motel rooms and we have put them into proper, dry homes; the fact that we have taken 5,000 people off the State social housing wait-list who are desperate to get a home—that is fantastic. And so we should be very proud about that, and I think the House would want to join with me on that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he accept that it is his Government’s decisions that are resulting in reports of increasing homelessness, with less people being able to access basic supports that were available even this time last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. Government support is still available to people who need housing assistance, and will continue to be so. But what I am incredibly proud about is that emergency motel housing has been a major challenge in New Zealand for a decade or so—we’ve talked about it all the time—and this Government has finally done something about it through good, active management and getting the job done.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he understand that being denied housing support from the Ministry of Social Development, resulting in even just one night sleeping on the street, can have lifelong consequences for our rangatahi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There will always be Government support for people in need of housing. That has not changed.

Hon Marama Davidson: So does he stand by the statement of his Minister of Housing that “There is always support available for people who are sleeping on the streets,” and, if so, why are community-based homelessness organisations saying that they are unable to get support for people who urgently need housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to properly resourcing community-based providers who are already supporting those doing it tough, or will our rangatahi continue to be abandoned to sleep on our streets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member’s line of questioning is not acknowledging that we had 3,141 families and households in motel accommodation in New Zealand—completely and utterly unacceptable. This Government—a Government that cares about outcomes, cares about people and making sure they find housing—has reduced that to 591 families. We now have 2,000 kids out of motels and in proper houses. Whether that is State housing, social housing, transition housing, or the private rental market, that is a great outcome and we are very, very proud of it.

SPEAKER: There were at least five people on my left who were talking almost constantly through that answer. That is a barrage that has to stop, and the people who were part of that group of five will know who they are.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “The Government is focusing on the things that make a difference to the quality of people’s lives”; if so, do the changes coming in today reflect that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes and yes, because the annual general adjustment changes coming into effect today help New Zealanders, with greater increases to payments, including those who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veteran’s pensions, and benefits, which will help them with the cost of living. I note that for those that are adjusted according to the after-tax average wage, the increases are larger than they would have been otherwise because of the tax adjustments delivered by this Government in its first Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does a 35c per hour increase in the minimum wage—less than the rate of inflation—make a difference to the quality of people’s lives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the first thing I would note is that our Cabinet is mindful of the fact that the minimum wage is paid by employers—small businesses and medium businesses up and down the country—and we are conscious that in recent years, they have undertaken a very difficult period in which they have faced significant inflation and rising interest rates. We want to ensure that they are now in a context where, given the choice between letting a worker go and hiring a new worker, we minimise the costs that they face and ensure that we do not put New Zealanders’ jobs at risk.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does the planned removal of the living wage for Government-contracted cleaners, caterers, and security guards make a difference to the quality of people’s lives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The member is referring to the procurement changes which the Government is consulting on, which intend to improve the quality of New Zealanders’ lives by ensuring that when the Government is choosing who to contract with, instead of ticking a lot of boxes, small businesses and medium businesses in New Zealand are invited to submit on the impact their business will have on New Zealand as a whole, including the jobs they create, the training they create, and the positive impact they have in their community. We think this economic impact test is an important way to ensure we make the most of Government procurement.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does removing free public transport fares for under-25s and reducing public transport subsidies make a difference to the quality of people’s lives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In our first Budget, what we did was we ensured that we were able to offer tax relief to millions of New Zealanders, fully funded by savings across government, and what we can say is that that has allowed many New Zealanders to have more money in their bank accounts than would otherwise be the case. At the same time, we have ensured that inflation is back in the target range, minimising the price increases that New Zealanders face across the general economy, which has allowed interest rates to reduce—again, improving the cost of living for many families.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that she “is focusing on the things that make a difference to the quality of people’s lives” when public transport costs and car registration fees are up and power prices, insurance levies, and rates are up, but our lowest-paid workers only get a 35c an hour raise or won’t receive the living wage?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, picking up on the last part of that question, it’s important to note that minimum-wage workers are in families with a range of different household circumstances, and what we have been advised is that in many cases, those workers will be eligible for additional Working for Families and accommodation supplement support, such that in some cases, a minimum wage increase will actually be eroded by the abatement in those payments that would occur otherwise. The significance of this is that, actually, what New Zealand families want is pretty simple. They actually want jobs, and we’re ensuring our policies support that; they want a cost of living that’s under control, and we’ve ensured that a lower inflation rate delivers that; and they want to be part of an economy that’s growing so that there are more and better-paid jobs and so that their cost of living is controlled in the medium term. The alternative approach is that of the last Government, where they sprayed the money hose around, crossed their fingers, and hoped, and what that delivered was a cost of living crisis that made many New Zealanders worse off.

Question No. 5—Rail

5. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: Is the Cook Strait ferry replacement programme “on track”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Yes. By Christmas 2029, two brand new ferries will have rail on them and it will save the taxpayer billions. This is met with positive reactions: Carl Findlay, Maritime Union, said, and I quote, “Particularly happy for the workers who now know that they have a future”. Nadine Taylor, Marlborough Mayor, said this: it’s “the certainty [that port] needs to move forward”. Anthony Delaney, CentrePort, said this “gives … surety to all the people who rely on the provision of a safe, reliable and affordable ferry service”. And Don Braid of Mainfreight said this: “It’s a pragmatic, logical, sensible decision.” And he went on to say this very important note: “there’s a good number of people, politicians included, who are a little naïve as to how much freight actually moves by rail”. And then this self-appointed economist said this: “Rail-enabled ferries are a no-brainer”—that’s Julie Anne Genter.

Andy Foster: How does this Government’s plan compare to previous plans?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the greatest maritime fiction, since Moby-Dick, was delivered by Chris Hipkins when he said this: mega ferries “wasn’t the wisest decision.”

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How was that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: How was that? It landed big time; that’s how it was.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. You can’t use a question to abuse the Opposition. You can talk about factual matters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that’s what he said.

SPEAKER: Well, you didn’t present it that way. Started out like you were reading a novel.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He said, “How did”—no, the question—point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The question: “How does the Government’s plan compare to 2020?” That’s them in power; that’s their decision. You didn’t stop that, did you? So here comes the answer.

SPEAKER: Ha! The question’s in order; the answer has to be as well. And so let’s see how you go. You’re a very experienced man.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He need only ask Todd Valster, from the rail union, for an education. He said this—well he used to work for him, see—“It was the infrastructure and the terminals that blew out and just kept blowing out”.

Andy Foster: How will the road and rail marshalling yards be different compared to Project iReX?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, under iReX, both yards were proposed to lift by a metre at huge expense. There’s a lot of stone and concrete with new buildings, roads, and a rail on top. It was far beyond the modest alterations we had planned in 2020. They said lifting yards would mean extreme weather events would not disturb the ferry operations. That would have cost hundreds and billions of dollars alone. Here’s the point: why build a halo around a car yard when you could increase the culverts to stop the build-up of water in the first place? This can be done at a fraction of the cost and means we can keep using existing yards. It’s blindingly obvious to some of us, but not to those in charge between 2021 and 2023, or Mr Hipkins.

Andy Foster: How have the terminal buildings been considered in the Minister’s thinking?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are retaining the existing terminal buildings. They are simple structures that can battle weather and earthquakes. Picton has a new concrete foundation, a steel structure, and we have been told it has a long future. Wellington’s building is in the right location beside the wharf, and so certain was KiwiRail and CentrePort about the terminal’s future that they started building a new baggage area months ago. The previous Government’s plan included—unbelievably—multi-storey new terminals with concrete so thick there was barely any room for the passengers and fixtures; so flash, even Louis XIV would have been embarrassed. While some may regret the absence of a Taj Mahal in Picton and the Sydney Opera House in Wellington, the people paying their taxes will not. And that’s why, over there, it hurts so much.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: What is he doing to address systemic violence against Māori by the police, in light of three incidents in the past months alone where an 11-year-old autistic child was misidentified by police and forcibly medicated at the Henry Bennett Centre; a 15-year-old boy had his jaw broken by police in Napier; and Sam Matue, who was tasered, pepper sprayed by police, then died on the scene while being arrested at Ōrere Point?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I won’t comment on individual cases, as that member will understand, given investigations that are ongoing, but I just say that I am very, very proud of the police, and I back our police.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he support the Māori Party policy requiring police officers to wear mandatory body cameras for their own safety and for the safety of the public, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll take my advice from the Police, and if that is a tool that they wish to have, I back them with any tools that they need to do their job. But I’m very proud that our police are out there on the beat. They’ve increased the beat police by 30 percent, and the public are feeling safer in their businesses, in their homes, and in their community, and that’s a good thing.

Rawiri Waititi: Will his Government implement the recommendations of the Understanding Policing Delivery report, in which the New Zealand Police found that structural racism within the policies is the reason Māori are more likely to be stopped, tasered, and prosecuted than any other group; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I back our police. Our police are out there making sure that they catch criminals and that they keep the community safe. They do a great job. There are obviously processes that people can have investigations or can make complaints around, but our police, each and every day, are out there protecting and serving this community, and I’m proud of them.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he accept any discrimination in the Police?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t agree, with statements that I have seen, that there is structural, racial discrimination in the Police at all.

Rawiri Waititi: Why is his Government considering giving a further $1.2 billion in corporate tax cuts, on top of the $3 billion he has already given to landlords, when 46 percent of retail-trade companies paid no income tax at all in the last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I don’t understand the question that the member’s asking. Can he repeat it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, well, there’s no decisions that have been made, but I just say to that member, we want to make sure we get our tax and regulatory settings as good and as competitive as they can be so that we can unleash growth in this economy. We want growth, growth, growth. We want that above everything else. It’s so important. It’s how Kiwis get ahead. That’s what we’re focused on.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, sir. The first portion of that question—why did you not intervene? It’s a long-established tradition in this House, consistent with the Standing Orders, that any Police matter that may involve investigations should not be traversed in question time.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a good point. I’ll have to take that on board and consider it further. I think the question was satisfactorily answered, though, in that regard.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Are her policies working; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. We have been working hard to create a more proactive welfare system to support more job seekers into work. In the year to February 2025, there were 67,281 exits from the jobseeker benefit into work—an increase of 11 percent from the year before—despite the challenging economic conditions. We also know our policies are working because 98.1 percent are at green under the traffic light system, which means they are meeting their work obligations. Our Government is relentlessly focused on growing the economy, because when businesses have the confidence to grow and succeed, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for people, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she agree with the Salvation Army that “benefit sanctions had little to nothing to do with them finding a job.”, and, if so, why is she pursuing a programme that doesn’t work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I disagree with that member because, as I said, 98.1 percent of those who are on benefit are complying with their work obligations. They’re taking the steps they need to. The economic conditions we inherited mean it’s a very challenging labour market, but, despite that, there has been an 11 percent increase on last year of people leaving the jobseeker benefit and going to a job.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about the Salvation Army, not about myself. I can put the question again, if you like. That’s no problem.

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.

Hon Willie Jackson: Put it again?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK. Does she agree with the Salvation Army that “benefit sanctions had little to nothing to do with them finding a job.”, and, if so, why is she pursuing a programme that doesn’t work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I disagree with the Salvation Army, just like I disagree with that member.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister comfortable with 22,000 more people on a jobseeker benefit, a jump of 12 percent in 12 months, who were potentially made homeless as a result of her punitive sanction policies?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m proud of the result that our Government has in terms of an 11 percent increase in the number of people leaving the jobseeker benefit into a job. I’d love to be in a position where we didn’t inherit the economic environment that we have, where high levels of inflation and interest rates mean that we’re now dealing with higher levels of unemployment than we’d like. But we’re dealing with the problem. We’re getting people into work, we’re taking the steps that are necessary, and our Government is ensuring that more New Zealanders have the opportunities to be in a job.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she expect that more students will be arrested at the border as a result of her policy to increase interest rates on overseas borrowers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, that is an operational matter, but what we are focused on, on our side of the Government, whether it’s in welfare or student loans, is that we want to see people fulfil their obligations. There are rights and responsibilities that they owe to other taxpayers. We expect them to fulfil them.

Hon Willie Jackson: How can the community have confidence in her policies when under her leadership there are 22,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit, and she said that she would support the workers of Kinleith, but it’s shut down and more people are unemployed than compared to this time last year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said, it would be great for this side of the House if we didn’t inherit the unfortunate economic climate that we did. We always knew—and Treasury forecasts from the previous Government as well as from our Government expected unemployment rates to rise. That is indisputable. What is on record, though, is our success in actually getting people off the jobseeker benefit into work. We’re still ambitious. We have a target—50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker is a target that’s worth working for.

Question No. 8—Police

8. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on trust and confidence in the Police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): The New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey Cycle 7, taken from October 2023 to October 2024, showed that, for the first time since the introduction of the Police module to the survey, the proportion of people with high trust and confidence in Police increased from 67 percent to 69 percent. This coincided with the proportion of people with no trust and confidence in Police dropping to its lowest level, at 2 percent. This research confirms that a visible presence of Police, and community engagement, such as the community beat teams, impact positively on trust and confidence in the Police and reverse a trend of declining confidence in Police.

Mike Butterick: What other good results for Police were reported in the survey?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In Cycle 7, 74 percent of people who had contact with Police were satisfied with that contact. The number of people who were dissatisfied decreased significantly—from 16 percent the year prior to 12 percent last year.

Mike Butterick: Why does he think trust and confidence in Police went up?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The initiative of the community beat teams has played an important role in having Police visible in cities, reassuring the public. I know that Police are doing outstanding work to respond to crime: the targeting of boy racers in the Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa over the last month that resulted in infringements and impoundments, or responding quickly to reports of a sighting of a person holding a firearm outside an Auckland address yesterday and seizing two pistols, a shotgun, and a rifle. It’s critical in letting communities know that Police have their backs.

Mike Butterick: How have communities responded to the increased presence of police out and about?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ve seen a recent media query to Police that asked them to comment on a poll run by The Star newspaper in Christchurch, which shows 82 percent of respondents feel safer as a result of beat patrols. The Canterbury metro area commander responded, noting that the poll aligned with the feedback that Police have been receiving and a 5.8 percent reduction of victimisations in his area. On this side of the House, we back our police. That stands in stark contrast to some people who now think that the Green Party has raised some legitimate issues with regards to our police.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context they were given. In particular, my commitment to delivering a knowledge-rich, year-by-year, world-leading and internationally comparable curriculum. Yesterday, the Ministry of Education released the draft year 7 to 13 English curriculum for consultation. It is underpinned by the science of learning and designed to support teaching the basics brilliantly. There are clear progression outcomes in spelling, grammar, sentence structure, reading, writing comprehension, and oral language. The draft also proposes a new requirement for year 12 and 13 students to consider at least one work by Shakespeare, one 19th century text, and texts by New Zealand authors as part of their studies. We believe in setting all Kiwi kids up for success and this is just another step we’re taking to do just that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she tell the House that she is, “kept up to date” about school lunches, when she wasn’t informed of Libelle’s liquidation by David Seymour when he knew a week earlier and had told the Prime Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because the Associate Minister of Education and I had a conversation twice around these issues where he kept me up to date with their supply issues.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why was she, as the Minister of Education, the last to know about Libelle’s liquidation?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My expectation of the Associate Minister is that he was solely focused on the continuation of supply of school lunches during that period, which he was.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she have confidence in her Associate Minister given he did not inform her about Libelle’s liquidation when he knew five days earlier?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have confidence in the Associate Minister to ensure continuation of supply during that time, which he did.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why won’t she step in and fix the school lunches programme when research shows students are getting meals that fail nutrition standards and give them around half the energy they used to get under the old model, given the overwhelming evidence that underfed kids fall behind at school?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The delegation for school lunches is the responsibility of the Associate Minister, and any decisions around that are decisions for the Prime Minister.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that the school lunch programme has been contracted to deliver meals at the same nutritional level as last year and the years prior, when, none the less, up to 40 percent of meals were found not to meet the contracted standard, and can she confirm or at least tell the House what yesterday’s on-time delivery numbers were?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In response to the second part of the question, I understand that yesterday, I think, around 112,000 meals were delivered, and the on-time delivery rate was 99.5 percent.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister think “profit is a good thing”, as he said in question time last week, in the context of supermarkets making $1 million in excess profits a day?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We think profit is a good thing. Excessive profit is a bad thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept that a fixation on profit at all costs leads to a rising cost of living for New Zealanders, as found in analysis through the COVID period that rising profits contributed to more than half of domestic inflationary pressure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member seems to have a challenge or a problem with organisations making a profit. My point is that that is a good thing. They are investing, they’re taking risks, they’re investing capital in order to drive growth, and we support that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept that the prioritisation of profit at all costs, without any Government intervention, results in concentration of market power and higher cost of living for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that we want to tap into as much investment from overseas domestically in order to get more roads built, to do more mining, to do more housing, to do more schools so that we can actually get the economy growing with great infrastructure.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are there any circumstances, such as in, say, healthcare, education, or when we see it so clearly driving the cost of living, where the Prime Minister might agree that corporate profiteering is not “a good thing”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just reject totally the way the member is characterising profits. The reality is that corporates and businesses, people out there, 97 percent of our businesses in New Zealand are small businesses. They are people who take a risk, they invest their capital, they build a business, they employ people, they grow an economy, they create opportunity and choices for families. They should be celebrated, and it’s right that they make a return.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister please explain that if a business does not make a profit, it goes broke, and the employer, and employee, the staff, and everybody loses their work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is exactly right; that’s how it works. If you don’t make money—as we saw because of a short-sighted energy policy that led to mills laying off workers because they couldn’t be profitable, they couldn’t make a return to cover the investments that they’ve got in their capital and their assets—that’s exactly what happens. If you care about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you run and manage the economy as a fiscal conservative. That’s what we’re doing in this Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister see, understand, and articulate a difference between excessive corporate profiteering and the profits of the likes of small New Zealand - owned businesses?

Hon Member: Changing your tune now.

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on. Sorry. Once you’ve asked the question, let someone answer it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, could you repeat the question. I want this on the record.

SPEAKER: When the House is quiet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister understand and articulate, for the public of this country, the difference between excessive corporate profiteering and the likes of profits from small New Zealand - owned businesses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I understand business and commerce well. I just say to that member that businesses making profits is a good thing. Where there are market failures, where there are excessive profits, it’s why we have a Commerce Commission, some guidelines, some rules around all of that—that continues under this Government. But I just reject the member’s degrowth mindset from her party. That is not what New Zealand needs right now. If you are a working New Zealander and you want to create a future for your kids or your grandkids, you need growth. For that to happen, we need free enterprise, and we need companies and businesses to be able to make profits. That’s not a bad thing.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister agree that the profit motive is a key principle of a capitalist market economy, and would he advocate other forms of economic philosophy such as, for example, Marxism?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry. [Interruption] That was asking the Prime Minister to answer a question for which he has no responsibility. He may have an opinion, but not as a Prime Minister. Those sorts of questions are going to be dealt with very severely from this point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister, or any member of his Cabinet, tend to take the views of someone who started a small business which went bust on them in about five weeks, and then comes to this Parliament and starts preaching to the rest of us?

SPEAKER: I doubt he has any particular responsibility for that.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm there is not only great value in Shakespeare but there’s value in the book called The Wealth of Nations—although the former has a famous saying, “We are [the] stuff [upon which] dreams are made [of]”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think there are a lot of merits in Adam Smith, yes.

SPEAKER: Question 11, Tangi Utikere. [Interruption] No, I tell you what, just wait. There are a whole lot of people seeming to want to have a bit of a say while you’re about to speak.

Question No. 11—Rail

11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Rail: When will New Zealanders know the cost of their new Interislander ferries and how the requisite port-side infrastructure will be funded?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Later this year. We will not approach this like Wellington Water, by which we mean revealing our budget while negotiating the price. That turns a buyer’s market into a seller’s market. When these ship and port agreements, when they are signed, the member will know the total cost and the shares between the Government and the ports.

Tangi Utikere: Is he then simply kicking the costs for required port-side infrastructure upgrades on to ratepayers?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can you repeat that.

SPEAKER: Repeat the question.

Tangi Utikere: Is he simply, then, kicking the costs for required port-side infrastructure upgrades on to ratepayers?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the land-side infrastructure costs and funding will be included in our ferries update, and this was the ferries update which was sent to Cabinet. As we said yesterday, today, and no doubt again tomorrow, until the lesson sinks in: we do not show the budget to the contractor. We have set aside sufficient funding, and it is billions less than the previous Government planned on spending, and Ferry Holdings will now negotiate with shipyards and ports on those matters.

Tangi Utikere: How much disruption will New Zealanders face with fewer Interislander sailings over the next 4½ years until his ferries arrive, given operating the Aratere until 2029 is “simply not possible”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All the advice that we have had from KiwiRail is that the requisite cargo and passenger movements will be up to scratch, and that was supported by somebody from Mainfreight—who would know more about this than anybody in this House—when he said it was just plain common sense to go forward in this way. We are going to be ahead of the market when we get these new ships as well.

Tangi Utikere: Is the plan that he has announced after three months better than the deal Nicola Willis couldn’t deliver in one year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality was that Nicola Willis, as Minister of Finance, inherited a nightmare. She was facing a blowout which Treasury forecast to go to $4 billion and beyond when she was going to be—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know it’s rubbish. That’s your specialty—that’s why I’m talking about it. It’s total rubbish. And we stopped that rubbish and the Minister then had to make a decision, which, weighed against other options, was not the right decision. But she did make the right decision to look at other options. That’s two right decisions, which is two right decisions, unique to a Minister of Finance in the last nine years.

Tangi Utikere: Why is his Government willing to spend more than 15 months and over $1 billion only to leave Kiwis adrift, waiting three years longer for new Interislander ferries and still with no idea of how much they will cost?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the option was to buy two massive ferries for which there was no infrastructure, and repeat what’s happening in Tasmania right now. They’ve got two new ferries and no infrastructure—

Tangi Utikere: Who ordered them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —they can’t even use the ships. What’s wrong with that? Well, it’s not moron time over here.

Question No. 6 to Minister

SPEAKER: Just before I call on question No. 12, in response to the point of order raised by the Hon Shane Jones, police inquiries are not sub judice, and members can raise matters related to those cases. The prohibitions are through Standing Order 116, where a prosecution or a court is hearing a case; or if there is a question of an independent prosecution, which is Speaker’s Ruling 182/4. While members can’t always know whether or not a matter is before the courts, Ministers most certainly would be expected to know that and respond accordingly. So the question, in short, was in order.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to lower building costs and make it easier to build?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): As I’ve commented before in this House in response to a similarly searching line of question previously, we want to make it more affordable and also to enable people to build more on time. For that reason, we are working on the building costs, which have increased by 40 percent since 2019, and we’re taking decisive action this week with, all going well, the passage of the overseas building products legislation.

Nancy Lu: What does the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill do?

Hon CHRIS PENK: This bill will make it easier to use high-quality building products in construction sites all across New Zealand. Currently, each of the 67 different building consent authorities approves building products, and because the councils currently have joint and several liability, they can be on the hook for as much as 100 percent of the total cost of a failure. And, therefore, they’re extremely risk-averse and only approve familiar products. For this reason, there’s often little competition and we see the establishment of effective near monopolies. We’re determined to do something about that to improve competition.

Nancy Lu: Will this mean a drop in building standards?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thanks for the opportunity to address this question. The answer is, of course, absolutely not, and we have designed the legislation in such a way that will ensure that only equal or higher standards from overseas are to be met in New Zealand in order for the scheme to qualify. In passing, I’m pleased that, across the House, this point has been recognised, and we’ve enjoyed the support of various different political parties so far in the passage of the legislation. And so I commit that we will continue to consider whether the jurisdictions overseas that we will be leaning into are comparable and credible.

Nancy Lu: What else is the Government doing to lower building prices?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Last month, we published the first annual set of data across the nation for building-consent processing time frames that takes into account the real time involved in the issuing of consents. In other words, we were able to highlight that in two out of every three cases, councils have been pausing the issuing of building consents. Now, whatever the reason for those pauses having been made, nevertheless, the effect is that the real-world productivity gap has not been highlighted so clearly before. And, for this reason, in terms of the overseas building products but also the other major work that we’re taking on, streamlining inspections, making trusted builders accountable for their work, and structural reform of the building consent authorities will continue.

Bills

Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2023/24 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 March.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Any bill or Act that places mokopuna and tamariki at the centre of the discussion is, in our view, worthy of debate. Te Pāti Māori supports the idea of improving the effectiveness of the child sex offender register, the clarification in the Act, and making it more applicable, I guess, and workable.

The proposed amendments are designed to protect to make safer places for children and young people, preventing the reoccurrence of abuse. Seventy percent of children in State care are tamariki Māori, and 80 percent of those who face abuse within the system are Māori. In 2017, it was revealed that 37 percent of victims of sexual violence within Child, Youth and Family care services were Māori. The recent abuse in care report delivered in this House showed up over the years how badly we have done, and, I would say, we still do poorly.

The only way these numbers will decrease for Māori is when healthy, nutritious food is available; when warm homes and strong communities surround our mokopuna; when te reo Māori is the norm; when whānau, hapū, and iwi systems are flourishing; and when cultural imperatives and cultural qualities are appreciated and understood and when this is systemic of public services. By the way, Whānau Ora is a perfect expression of all of those things, but—no surprises—this has also been taken away by the Government. Why? Because it works.

Later this evening, we will continue the debate on the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. How ironic it is that we’re prepared to care and protect the most vulnerable—and this bill does that—but it’s what we’re prepared to remove in terms of the care, protection, and understanding of what it means for mokopuna Māori. On the basis of these reminders and the points of fact reflected in this, we tautoko this next step in this bill. Tēnā tātou.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. As we heard from my colleague Kahurangi Carter and also from our previous speaker, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, this is an important step, because, at the end of the day, child sexual abuse has a devastating and lifelong impact, not only on individual survivors but also on their whānau and communities. We must also thank those people who submitted as part of the select committee process, because, again, this is something that is nuanced, it is complex, and it is emotional. We would like to thank the submitters who submitted on this bill and spoke on this bill.

I think, broadly speaking, when we are looking at this bill, we understand the impact, from those submitters, that it has on their wellbeing and on the wellbeing of tamariki in Aotearoa. We also want to acknowledge the fact that there is preliminary evidence around this by the New Zealand Police and by some of the work that has been done on looking into the evidential basis. Our understanding—and I’ll come to that—around the section 7 report by the Attorney-General is that, domestically and internationally, the evidence on the registry is inconclusive; however, despite that, what we can see internationally is that, when we have registries which are restricted to law enforcement use and are coupled with comprehensive supervision and treatment programmes, including what we’re seeing in Aotearoa New Zealand, it does suggest that they may contribute to reducing the recidivism rates.

I think, for this particular scenario and for this particular bill, I really want to echo the previous speaker on the fact that we are having conversations around child protection, which is incredibly important, on the same day as we, as a Government, are looking to repeal section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act. I think, in that sense, we do wonder if child protection is at the heart of the Government’s decision making, and also, in terms of the cultural needs that we are seeing, because we must recognise also that Māori are disproportionately harmed, both as perpetrators, offenders, but also, themselves, as victims of abuse, which has come out incredibly clearly and incredibly prominently in the report on State abuse and faith-based care abuse that we saw last year.

We must also address some of the tensions to do with this bill, and I would like to note both in terms of the section 7 report by the Attorney-General as well as the submission done by the New Zealand Law Society that what we are seeing is that there are elements of this bill that fundamentally challenge our understanding and our interpretation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and for us to have a section 7 report is not something we take lightly. I think, in this case, we are looking at particularly the Law Society’s submission on this, which opposes the retrospective element of the bill, and I think this is something that is significant that we must address during the committee stage. We are also seeing what seems to be inconsistency around the idea of double jeopardy, as well as other elements, such as section 25G, I believe, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

We will be putting forward Amendment Papers to consider during the committee stage that will ensure that this bill follows the purpose and the intent around child protection and, at the same time, is done in a way that is most consistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And we would request that the Government consider these amendments seriously. With that, like I said in the beginning, the Green Party is in support of this bill, and we will look forward to the discussion during the committee stage.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. This bill enables Government agencies to better manage the risk posed by child sex offenders in our community. It enhances the options and the effectiveness in the operation of the Child Sex Offender Register. The harm caused by child sexual offending is significant. It is something that we need to look to protect against, and to improve the protections against through this amendment bill.

This bill is about improving the effectiveness of the register and, in turn, supporting police and other agencies to make our communities safer. It requires offenders to provide additional information, in terms of the registration, around things like their location and their activities. I thought, for the benefit of the House and for those listening, in a moment I’ll go through some of those key changes, some of the most substantive amendments that enable that to happen. Other amendments will make it easier for offenders to comply with their reporting obligations, such as enabling offenders to provide some of their reporting via phone. There are eight substantive amendments to the primary legislation and the operation of the Child Sex Offender Register through this amendment bill.

First of all, it requires offenders to report if a child is going to be living at the same address as them 48 hours prior to it happening, rather than currently it being up to 72 hours after that child moves into the location that they are at or vice versa. Secondly, it requires offenders to report if they are attending education or training courses, and clarifies that voluntary work does require reporting. Thirdly, it clarifies how “locality” is defined for offenders who do not have a permanent address in New Zealand. Fourthly, it enables notices to be served to offenders by electronic means as well as a continuation of the postal option. Six, it requires offenders travelling out of the country to report this information at least seven days in advance of their overseas travel, rather than the current 48 hours prior. Seven, it clarifies that where a successful application against registration happens, that information contained in the register that relates to the offender must be removed. And, number eight, the requirement that an application for review has to be made within 28 days of registration—it removes that requirement.

Indeed, I think I may have missed one of my eight there, and I just want to make sure I’ve covered all—yes. So, ultimately, this bill is another example of the National-led coalition Government’s focus on law and order, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. We speak in support of this bill today. It’s a crucial step towards strengthening our child protection laws and also ensuring the safety of our tamariki. We stand firmly in support of this bill because, fundamentally, it is about safeguarding our children and providing a framework that enables that to keep occurring in New Zealand. We want to make sure that not only the Police, but other agencies within New Zealand have the appropriate tools to make sure our children and young people are kept as safe as they possibly can be—particularly if there are known sex offenders.

It is important to be clear that this bill is not about creating a new offence. It is about ensuring that individuals who have already been convicted of sex offences or serious crimes against children are appropriately monitored to prevent any further harm occurring within our communities. It tightens registration requirements, it increases reporting obligations, and it introduces necessary amendment to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act, which was passed back in 2016. These changes, we think, will improve the effectiveness of the Child Sex Offender Register and enhance the ability of both Police and Corrections to track and manage the risks that exist around known sex offenders.

The bill introduces a series of important changes, and I’ll quickly run through those. First of all, it expands the range of personal information that registered sex offenders must report. It now includes things like attending education or training courses; also, ensuring that authorities can assess whether a registered offender may pose any risk to children or young people in those settings.

Secondly, it requires earlier notice for a change in residence—this is an important one. Offenders will now be required to report that a child will be residing at the same address at least 48 hours before that in fact occurs, rather than 72 hours previously. This is a really important shift as it provides the ability for earlier intervention, risk assessment, and also notification to caregivers.

The third is enhancing the reporting requirements for travel—and I’d like to note that Labour member Greg O’Connor already had a member’s bill in this space. Registered offenders must now go and report their intended travel overseas at least seven days in advance, instead of the 48-hour requirement. They will also be required to report their return to New Zealand within 72 hours electronically, or they’re able to do this by telephone as well. That was opposed to the previous 10-day in-person requirement. So this ensures that authorities remain informed and can act swiftly if required to.

This bill also clarifies definitions and improves the administration of the register. It includes defining what constitutes the locality of offenders without a fixed address, and allowing notices to be served electronically, not just by post, which can cause unnecessary and needless delay. These changes improve efficiency and eliminate unnecessary delays in managing registered sex offenders.

The removing of the 28-day time limit for appealing registration decisions: there appeared to be no valid justification for limiting the ability of a person to challenge an error in their registration status. This amendment ensures that individuals have a right to a fair review, improving the integrity of the register. It’s important to note there has been some discussion around this, on the retrospective application and human rights considerations that we also considered at committee. We noted that the majority of these amendments do in fact have a retrospective effect, and that means they will not just apply to new people on the Sex Offender Register, but these changes will apply to all of those people already on the Sex Offender Register. We know that some argue that this raises concerns under the New Zealand Bill of Rights, particularly regarding freedom from double jeopardy and the right to benefit from a lesser penalty. Parliament did examine similar concerns in previous amendments to the Act and found that balancing public interest and protecting children outweighed these considerations.

The Ministry of Justice has noted the bill may also engage the right to freedom of expression under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act due to the requirement for offenders to report certain types of information. However, these are necessary and proportionate if we want to put in adequate protections for children.

We support this bill, primarily because we want to put our children first and foremost and we want to prevent them from incurring any harm at all. We initiated this bill, and it’s good to see that it’s proceeded under this Government. The Government has made some minor tweaks, but, fundamentally, there’s a continuation of the same work that we started. While we acknowledge there will always be room for further improvements, we want to make sure that individuals who pose a risk to children are kept under a framework—that this provides—to reduce those risks as much as possible. This strengthens the existing framework that’s been working well, and it identifies gaps that are existing there. It also moves with modern times, to make sure that we are using electronic notifications to make sure that when a risk is being flagged, it’s being acted on as quickly as possible.

We support this bill because it prioritises the wellbeing of our most vulnerable: our children. It is our duty as MPs and legislators to do everything in our power to prevent harm from children and young people, and we’re definitely making a step in the right direction with this bill. We must always remember why we’re here, and we’re here to serve and protect the people of New Zealand, especially our children.

While it’s great to see this bill here, it would be great to see other great things provided to our children as well, like a hot, healthy lunch; like a warm, dry home; and making sure that their mums and dads earn enough money to be able to pay for the bills. Those things are also very important for tamariki growing up in New Zealand, just as it is to grow up in a home that’s free from violence. We still have a long way to go in all of those areas, but I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill in its second reading. The principal Act that this bill amends is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act, which was passed in 2016.

Essentially, if we were to just summarise what the purpose of this bill is, we’re trying to reduce sexual reoffending against children. We’re going to do that by establishing and maintaining a register of child sex offenders in a way that, as I said, reaches that goal of ours to reduce reoffending.

As I listened to commentary across the House—particularly from our Green MPs, there’s kōrero which they usually bring up: they question the effectiveness and the legitimacy of the child sex offender register. I do find that quite curious, because, to me, whatever avenues and whatever means we can put in place to protect our tamariki, we should be going full force with that.

Also, the Green member previously kind of complained about the fact that there are New Zealand Bill of Rights of Rights Act issues here. The complaint is that the bill, in one aspect, has a retrospective effect. For this, I thought about one of the submissions. That submission was a very short submission by Josephine Edmonds, and she said—which really tugged at my heartstrings—“Please protect all children who are harmed”.

Personally, in my view, I don’t really care if a few rights are breached if our children are protected. If people have done something to put our children in harm—I’m sorry, but, personally, I don’t care if a few rights are breached in our pursuit of keeping children protected. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been said, Labour supports this bill for very good reasons. I think it’s really important to start a contribution by acknowledging the incredible harm that could be done to children and the incredible responsibility that we have as lawmakers to make sure that whilst we’re here, we are putting in place anything we can to minimise that harm and to create good legislation.

Looking at the four key points and the reasons why Labour will be supporting this bill, as has been said, certainly the improved information for risk assessment rates very highly. Expanding the information that offenders must report—like whether they attend education attendances or education forums or help authorities identify situations where children could be at risk and help them, certainly, to respond earlier rather than after the fact—is incredibly important.

Also, as has been noted earlier, the means by which we accommodate an earlier notification of when a child is in co-residence, moving from a post-arrival to a pre-arrival notification system, provides agencies with that requisite time that is required to do a much more robust and a much more proper risk-assessment process and take into account and take the necessary steps to protect children.

As my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen said, strengthening the overseas travel requirements—we remember, only too well, the member’s bill that was in the name of our colleague Greg O’Connor, who sought something very similar to this, but this has been assumed by this bill. Requiring earlier and more flexible reporting of international travel ensures offenders are monitored appropriately both when entering and leaving a country, because it’s really important that, within one jurisdiction, there is an awareness of someone on the register or someone that should have an alert. The fact that they may travel, for various reasons, and, therefore, place children overseas in harm is something that we should most definitely have a responsibility for. This includes, I think, those new qualifying offences, such as exploitation for commercial sex or creation of intimate visual recordings. And that’s really important because it ensures that the register captures those really serious risk behaviours that previously weren’t explicitly specified, so it’s important that we do so.

The Justice Committee received 22 submissions and heard oral evidence from five submitters. The effectiveness of the register was questioned. Some called for a review of the register’s overall effectiveness, but the committee did note that, in 2019, there had been an evaluation and it did show that the register was working as intended. But, certainly, further research is under way, with a notable study being done by the University of Waikato, expected to be reported back in 2027. And a PhD researcher is doing a body of work which is expected to be reported back next year. Certainly, preliminary results show that there’s something as robust as a 40 to 70 percent reduction in likelihood of reoffending when they look at the effectiveness and the efficacy of that register, so that is something that absolutely we should be building on through this process of strengthening this legislation.

As has been mentioned, the retrospective application raises some concerns, as all retrospective elements do. In this case, it just simply wouldn’t make sense not to include those 4,000 people that are already on that register and expect there to be some retrospectivity in terms of monitoring that future behaviour.

There were also some suggestions about changes of wording, particularly in relation to those qualifying offences. But, in this case, the committee suggested, or certainly found, that those particular suggestions were out of scope and emphasised, I think quite correctly, the need to remain as consistent as we possibly can with the original legislation.

So Labour supports the bill as a continuation of the earlier work in our earlier efforts to enhance child-protection laws. The amendments, we find, are targeted. We think it is evidence based, which is incredibly important, and, ultimately, it helps ensure that the register remains exactly what it should be, and that is an effective tool for the management of the risk of reoffending.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Māngai o te Whare, nōku te maringanui i ia wā te tū i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei wā kia tautoko ai i tēnei pire.

[It is my pleasure to stand in this House and to support this bill.]

The bill is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. It’s a good and very thoughtful piece of legislation, and a step forward. Can I acknowledge the detailed and excellent contributions of members across the House to this bill. Can I also acknowledge the broad support that the bill has at this stage. It’s always a pleasure to be part of a thoughtful and largely bipartisan legislative process.

Can I acknowledge my good friend and the chair of the Petitions Committee, Greg O’Connor, for the advocacy work that he has done in this space. It’s pleasing to see that work incorporated here. Can I also acknowledge the hard work of the Justice Committee, all the members therein, who have listened carefully to—I understand there were 22 submissions, with oral evidence provided by five submitters, and there were a number of very thoughtful contributions made there that have clearly made their way through to shaping the legislation. I very much look forward to the committee of the whole House, where we can consider the legislation in even more detail.

With this point, it is my pleasure to end my short call there and commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be, I’m sure, a short call in support of this bill. I want to acknowledge the work of members of the Justice Committee that considered the public submissions to this. Members have talked about the nature of the submissions and the numbers, so I won’t delve too far into that.

But when we step back and have a look at what this bill is seeking to do, it is seeking to expand the personal level of information that is provided for those who are on the register, but also the timeliness within which that information would be provided. My colleague Dr Tracey McLellan talked about the extension to qualifying offences, and there are a few there. The interesting point is that with the agility of technology and as times have changed, some of those qualifying offences, as defined, didn’t exist in their current form at the time this legislation was perhaps introduced. So I guess one of the questions moving forward is how the legislation and the register would respond to the changing dynamics that technology and a future focus might bring as well.

It’s interesting when one has a look at the select committee report into the various aspects that were covered off. What I think is quite pleasing is that the time frame or the window within which the information would be required to be provided by someone who was on the register is largely tightened. So whether it’s about notification as to when they were travelling overseas, instead of that being a 48-hour window prior to leaving, it’s seven days. Likewise, when they return to New Zealand, instead of it being a 10-day window, it’s 72 hours. So there are these little tweaks that I think will make a huge difference and will mitigate risks that might be posed. And, of course, it’s over to the agencies involved to consider those.

The final point I’ll make is it’s interesting when one reads about a sort of retrospective approach to things, because often it’s a concern where legislation is passed and it has a retrospective sort of dimension to it. And the Attorney-General, I understand, in her report, sort of signalled that as a concern. The difficulty, of course, is that with this bill, if a retrospective approach was not to be applied, then, basically, the level of information that would be provided for those who would, effectively, go on to the register after the date of commencement would be required to provide a more detailed level of information and to meet those time frames than those who are already on it. So I think it’s not an easy view for someone to set aside some of those concerns. But I think, on this particular occasion, those balanced considerations are justified to set them aside. So I join with other colleagues around the House in commending this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As the last speaker on this bill at its second reading, it is a really good opportunity to reflect on the contributions we’ve heard this afternoon and previously, when the House was deliberating on the legislation as well, prior to being interrupted. It is good to hear good support from a variety of different political parties in this place looking to see that we are rectifying an issue in our society and that we’ve got the support of other parties to make that happen.

Credit to Mark Mitchell, the Minister of Police, for leading the legislation. Credit to colleagues of every political party who sit on the Justice Committee for their deliberation and hard work on this legislation, and to those who submitted to the legislation and gave oral submissions to the select committee as well.

Ultimately, the principal focus of this legislation is to reduce sexual reoffending and offending against children by establishing and maintaining a public register of child sex offenders. It’s a pretty basic, pretty straightforward, pretty simple thing that I can’t believe we don’t have already established in 2025, and so it’s a good thing to be stepping in that direction.

The good thing about this is the purpose of the bill to improve safety for children and young people in our communities. As the youngest member of the Government, that is close to my heart. It’s important that we make sure that for our next generations coming through, we have done everything we possibly can to give them the best possible opportunity at life by providing them the protection they need and deserve and the safety from those who commit heinous crimes against the most vulnerable in our community. This register will do exactly that. This is part of our wider focus as a Government to restore law and order in this country and ensure that everyone has the opportunity at life and can feel protected no matter their age or stage.

Ultimately, the bill will improve the effectiveness of the child sex offender register and help registry staff assess and manage the risks presented by child sex offenders living in the community, and that’s a good thing. It will ensure our vulnerable and our young people coming through are protected from those who commit these terrible crimes. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

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

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 and 2 of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee to consider the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 8, “Amendments to Parts 1 and 2 of principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just to acknowledge, members, I’ll keep my opening remarks brief in the committee but I do just want to state for the public record that I was very pleased with the debate at the second reading. Members across the House engaged in good faith in the very serious undertaking that we are making. I am grateful for the support of the parties, not only in their comments but also with their votes—of course, importantly—and I acknowledge that Arena Williams was kind enough to signal a couple of areas in which she will be asking questions. So with no further ado, I will resume my seat and look forward to that discussion.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on this Part 1 of the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. Part 1 deals with the regulatory-making powers that will be set out for the chief executive and the Minister. Basically, all of the Opposition MPs’ questions will fit into these parts, because anything that the bill does will be sort of in those two parts. I have six questions to start off with the Minister for Building and Construction on around the intent of granting powers to the chief executive and to the Minister—whoever that Minister may be, as the Minister said in his second reading speech—about how to create the changes that the Government is proposing will be made by this bill and those changes that have sort of been advertised and well-canvassed with the industry. I want to make sure this bill is doing what it says it does on the tin.

So my first question of the six is: the Government is aiming to improve competition and lower building costs with this. What advice has the Minister had to show that these changes will actually lead to lower prices for consumers rather than just benefiting the larger importers and merchants? That’s something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard a lot of evidence on from various groups. I think we had 44 submitters who were interested in the bill, but because they are all from disparate parts of the industry, it’s not something that any one submitter could tell us, and it wasn’t something that they were focused on.

The next question is: how does the bill ensure that recognising groups of overseas standards will not lead to a lowering of building quality or safety standards in New Zealand? That’s given effect in the next clauses, clauses 7 and 6. And the next question is: what process will be used to determine which overseas standards and certification schemes are robust enough to be accepted? Who will oversee that decision making?

My next question is: the aim of streamlining the use of international standards is something that the committee really grappled with, and I think other members in this House have discussed in their speeches a real enthusiasm to be using international standards which are at the same standard as or much better than New Zealand’s. So how do we streamline those standards by moving them into the new regulatory instrument, and how will that affect designers, builders, and consent authorities in practice? The worry here is unintended delays for people who are already using products which meet those international standards but might need to do it again. Many in this House will have had representations from industry groups or importers about this particular problem, particularly about confusion over the different rules that they could be using. Some of those rules that do let them use that now in the Act seem to overlap a little bit with these changes.

The next question is: the bill mandates that building consent authorities must accept certain overseas certified products, so what protections are in place to ensure that the products meet or exceed the durability and safety requirements that those building consent authorities have been using?

And the last question is: given that 90 percent of building products are already imported for use in New Zealand, how does this bill ensure that local manufacturers remain competitive and are not disadvantaged by easier access to overseas products? I ran out of time to discuss this with the Minister in my second reading speech, but it was something that the committee is also very interested in, about how those local Kiwi businesses that are making great strides to create eco-friendly or alternative options—perhaps they’re safer; perhaps they have a higher safety standard for their fire ratings because of New Zealand’s track record with fire risk, or perhaps they are using waste products to turn them into plasterboard. These sorts of businesses that are doing really interesting things in the New Zealand market because of New Zealand’s other challenges, like with recycling for these products, are businesses that we should be making sure have the conditions to thrive.

These are businesses that have already gone through what was a very, very rigorous set of compliance standards, so how will they be affected now by overseas products that are able to compete with them and not be at the standards that they were held to prior? Especially for those businesses that—you know, they’re absolutely not at a scale where they’re looking to export overseas; they’re looking for the domestic market because that is what their scale allows them to do. Now that they’ve met those very high standards, can they be assured that they will have some level of competitiveness in the New Zealand market, or are we just setting them adrift?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I apologise to other members of the committee, but am grateful for the questions—I counted, I think no fewer than six—from Arena Williams.

Going through those in turn: first, the benefit in terms of increased competition and adding some price pressure in a positive way for the Kiwi consumer is based on the idea, of course, that in a market economy the greater the degree of competition, the more that the price of the product—or the goods; or goods or services, for that matter—will tend towards the minimum at which it can be produced—including, of course, that with the benefit of innovation, one can get to that point much more readily. So we think that’s a useful mechanism. Countries like New Zealand have believed this for many years, and it was highlighted in the 2022 Commerce Commission report on building materials, on which the idea for this legislation is partly based.

I would just add, in addition to that point around competition and therefore price pressure, that innovation—which the member also, rightly, mentioned—and, of course, resilience are the aims of the bill in terms of opening up the availability of products from different places around the world.

Second, in terms of the standards, the assurance that we have given and that we will rigorously hold ourselves to as a Government—but relying on expert advice—is that the standards be equal to or higher than those that currently apply in New Zealand to the respective building material types.

Third, in terms of decision making, who oversees? I actually originally wrote the word “overseas” incorrectly—it’s “oversees” in the sense of oversight as opposed to non - New Zealand jurisdictions. So thank you for confusing me on that point, if not the others.

In terms of the oversight, then, that is provided, clearly there’s a process that’s set out in the legislation. And without going through it fully, I will note that, of course, the Minister for Building and Construction, from time to time—like the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who has similar powers in terms of being able to approve products—is guided by the advice of MBIE. In turn, that is informed by expert opinion from outside MBIE—acknowledging there is expert opinion within MBIE as well—industry expertise; and, of course, all the users of these materials are able to contact the Government and be part of that discussion. The broader the discussion is, the more helpful it will be in terms of providing the kinds of materials, products, and therefore outcomes that we will see.

Fourth, in terms of how there is a streamlining effect: the member asks—and I hope that I’ve understood her question correctly—how we avoid the possibility that there might be unintended consequences whereby people who are already going through a different process might experience delays by seeking an approval under this mechanism. The answer is that this is an additional method by which products could be approved. If a tradesperson or a consumer—the Kiwi battler seeking to have a home built at a reasonable price—is already in the stages of getting approval through their local building consent authority or through the CodeMark regime, maybe on the basis of brands testing taking place and giving some comfort or assurance there, then they’ll be welcome to continue to do that. We’re not taking that pathway away; we’re actually increasing the range of methods by which it will be possible to have building consent or products approved.

In terms of protections, in terms of the assurance, again, leaning on expertise rather than it being the Minister himself—or herself in the future, as it may be—making the decision. So the assurances, for example, by reference to the Building Advisory Panel who are available for purposes such as this, providing that expert advice to Government.

Finally, for now, in terms of the point that the member rightly makes, that 90 percent of products at the moment are already sourced either wholly or in part from overseas, and thinking about the innovation that’s taking place in this country—of course, she’s right to reference the technique whereby waste materials are turned into boards. In fact, there’s an example of that a stone’s throw away in terms of the work that’s going on—it actually will be part of the new parliamentary precinct. Certainly acknowledging that point and those within New Zealand who are doing that work.

A couple of points: first of all, of course it’s important to consider suppliers, but from the consumer point of view it’s also worth considering the effect of competition being advantageous to them. But more importantly, from the suppliers’ and manufacturers’ point of view in New Zealand, the fact that they can measure their work against overseas standards, have that accepted in New Zealand, and immediately be export-available and export-ready and export-attractive, I think, would be actually quite helpful for them indeed. But, of course, it will always be easier for Kiwi suppliers and manufacturers because you don’t have the export costs and supply chain implications that those from overseas currently face.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for that very helpful answer. While he was giving that answer, I was helpfully handed, by the Chamber attendants, the Residential building supplies market study from the Commerce Commission that was published on 6 December 2022. It led to some very useful work by the Government of the day, and then by this Government, on competition in the sector. Given the Minister’s answers around the use of competition as a way to bring down prices of building supplies, I just want to delve into that with one question: does the Minister envision the regulations that are to be written in line with the two powers granted under the primary legislation to the Minister and to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment —will that regulation likely consider the impact of both large suppliers and vertically integrated companies using their market dominance to block competition, as was suggested by this study?

Even with the easier access to overseas building products, this is still something that may be a feature of the New Zealand market for building supplies, given that, in the existing legislation, there is already a power to have recognised some overseas building products. This does, we think, make it easier. But there has already been that power, and a lot of the, I guess, scepticism from the industry about whether real competition will be brought about by this legislation has to do with whether that will be able to be taken up or whether the market dominance of the existing players in the New Zealand market will mean that new overseas products can’t really establish a market for themselves here.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think there will certainly be more competition, not less, as a result of the legislation. As to whether bad-faith actors might, in the future, hypothetically attempt to act in a way that’s anti-competitive—if they were to do so that would be a matter for the Commerce Commission.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have two short questions, because I can see the Hon Kieran McAnulty is also keen to ask the Minister for Building and Construction some questions. First of all, thank you so much, Minister, for your explanations. I always find this Minister’s contributions to be particularly helpful and educational, so thank you very much.

I would like to just kind of follow on from what my colleague Arena Williams was referring to, particularly when we’re looking at clause 4 of this bill, which amends section 7 of the Building Act 2004. There are two things, one of which I have a question for and the other one’s on the back of something the Minister mentioned before. The first question’s around overseas standards organisations and also, in terms of when we’re looking at the broader context of this bill, when we’re looking at overseas building products, would the Minister be able to elucidate how that interacts with, for example, something like the Green Star ratings, both for commercial and also for residential? You will see that the way that we import some of those materials—or export some of the materials, potentially—will have an interaction, and just in terms of consistency with that overall level of compliance.

The second question I have is what the Minister mentioned before around trade and export, which I found particularly within my area of interest, and one of the things that the Minister might be aware of is that recently there has been this discussion around agreement on climate change, trade, and sustainability. It was one of the things that was announced a little while ago and was ratified a little while ago, as well—sorry, it was signed a little while ago. One particular part of that was around the removal of, for example, tariffs over environmental goods. I was just curious to know from the Minister, because the Minister mentioned some of these in terms of compliance in terms of exports, and particularly when we’re looking at things that are, overall, supposed to provide better sustainability and environmental goods, and timber potentially being one of them—do you see any potential interactions with the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability in that regard, knowing that that agreement still has reasonably few countries that are signed up to it, but something like this might potentially open doors to other available markets?

So those are my two questions, one on Green Star ratings and the other one on some of the broader ideas around trade of environmental goods.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member Lawrence Xu-Nan for his always thoughtful questions and—again, if I may reciprocate—educational questions, even in the way that they’re framed and put forward. Between the member himself and his colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter in her comments at second reading, the focus, collectively, from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in relation to sustainable building practices that might be augmented—I think that’s a really helpful conversation.

In general terms, I’d observe that improving the range of products as well as, I suppose, the depth of the availability of existing products will be useful from the point of view of encouraging sustainable building practices. The innovation that’s thereby encouraged, I think, will be something we can recognise in coming up with systems that relate to recognising sustainable buildings—encouraging and enabling, if not mandating. More particularly, to answer the first part of the member’s question around the different rating systems—Green Star rating system and others, for example, NABERS, which is an Australia-based system, appropriately enough; everyone needs good neighbours.

But to the extent that these can and do already exist in New Zealand, there’s a degree to which those can sort of translate already. Certainly, those systems voluntarily being entered into and complied with—for want of a better phrase—in New Zealand can make use of the known properties of overseas products to the extent that those are also used in Green Star and other sustainable certification systems overseas. So I think it’s helpful in that regard.

Julie Anne Genter mentioned the high-quality and sustainable practices in the German jurisdiction that she’s aware of and, certainly, my layperson understanding is that in Germany and elsewhere in the EU, they are probably ahead of us in many of these respects. So it’s quite exciting to think that we’ll be able to tap into that—not a specific reference to plumbing products—in very short order.

In terms of opening the door to international agreements and trading along these lines, I think it can only be helpful. I know that other countries in the world—other countries are of course in the world!—are interested in these matters and they will want to know that New Zealand is also interested in this space. We’ll be able to say more about what that might look like in terms of Government policy beyond the scope of this bill in due course.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his answers. I want to build on a question asked by my friend and colleague Arena Williams and the subsequent response from the Minister around competition. Now, the Minister is correct in a sense that, after this passes, the Commerce Commission will be responsible for monitoring this, but now is the time to provide those reassurances. And I don’t think it’s satisfactory to just simply say that this will likely lead to more competition. That in itself, in isolation, is true. But we’ve got to recognise that the Commerce Commission has identified that part of the issue is not just supply but competition. Now, the two are actually different. So, yes, we’re going to see, as a result of this bill, an increase in supply from overseas-made and -assessed products, but a lot of those products will be made by large multinational corporations, who, actually, through their size, can prevent other overseas products coming in. We would like to know what provisions the Minister intends to include through regulation to ensure that that doesn’t happen.

Now, we’ve got to recognise that the supply chain here is incredibly complex, and it’s not just a case of accessing building material that is made and assessed overseas; it’s also a case of ensuring that local producers and manufacturers get a fair crack as well. Now, most members in this House will be able to point to local manufacturers in the areas that they live. I certainly can think of, where I live in Wairarapa, a number of manufacturers that are producing products that are of a high standard and that will be able to compete with overseas-produced products in terms of quality, but we need to ensure that they get fair access as well. A lot of the things that are happening in this bill is good news for local manufacturers, particularly the work around ensuring that the consenting authorities are open to different products. That’s been part of the problem, and many of the things that the Minister is putting to the House today builds on the work of the previous Government in recognising that, actually, this House supports this bill.

So these questions are in good faith. We need to ensure that this not only leads to an increase in a variety of products but in a true competitive market. Now, what we mean by that is not just ensuring that the Commerce Commission reports on it, because we know they will and they have, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to the solutions that we need. My fear is that what will happen in practice is this bill comes in and the new regime is under way—a review of that doesn’t happen immediately. We need to wait and see how it’s working and assess that and then reflect on that and then look at what changes could be made to improve it. If we don’t get it right now and the committee isn’t given the assurances it desires now, my worry is that local producers might be undercut and might go under in the meantime. So it is important, I think, Minister, that the House gets a clear understanding of your intentions from this bill to ensure that the market is truly competitive and that that doesn’t undercut and undermine local producers who, up until now, haven’t had a fair crack. The idea of this is to give them one, but we need to make sure that’ll actually happen.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question relating to clause 6(1) of the bill, and also clause 8, which inserts new section 25B in the principal Act. It’s not a new issue, but I’m asking the Minister for Building and Construction how this bill deals with it differently, and it is around overseas building standards not being comparable to New Zealand’s because they verify it to a different level. Ours is based on the Building Code, which sets out minimum standards, whereas there are other overseas certification schemes that may have different thresholds for compliance and different levels of compliance. So the question is: how will the regulations ensure that imported products are tested in the system that they are authorised under in order to meet not only the basic compliance standards but also long-term performance standards for durability and other standards like insulation and energy efficiency that we are trying to test for?

My other question is: given that New Zealand’s Building Code sets minimum standards and it is that kind of regime, but some of those lag behind most international codes, particularly for things like warm, dry, energy-efficient products and their best use, what safeguards will we have in place to ensure that the overseas building products that we are bringing in—will we have a different way of treating products from regimes where those standards have sort of a minimum compliance and then another level of compliance, or will we test each level of compliance to see whether it complies with the New Zealand standard, rather than just sort of figuring that it meets our current minimum standards, and so we don’t need to go further than that?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the members for their questions and comments. Starting with the points made by the Hon Kieran McAnulty—he’s right, of course, to highlight the centrality of the Commerce Commission’s role in all of this. I’ll just take us back to the year 2022 and the Residential building supplies market study and its recommendations, which included exploring ways to remove impediments to product substitution and variation. I do just want to note that as part of this broader piece of work, the easing of the rules around minor variations and customisations—actually, by allowing greater clarity in that space—I think, is part of the way that we can assist to introduce the products of New Zealand building suppliers and smaller overseas building suppliers into New Zealand buildings. Notwithstanding that a designer might have initially specified a particular product that’s well known to them or perhaps is produced by a large player with a big marketing and sponsorship budget, a builder or another tradesperson, or the designer himself or herself, could actually have that product substituted along the way more readily as a result of that.

In terms of the Commerce Commission, it’s true that a review in due course might have observations about how well the new regime is working, but it’s also the case that as part of the regulatory function of the Commerce Commission, they are able to undertake, at any time, reviews or answer questions of whether market dominance is leading to unfair results that are anti-competitive in their nature, along with individual practices that might be alleged to have occurred. So, I think, contemplating a review that might take place sometime in the future doesn’t actually represent the gap that Mr McAnulty is suggesting, if I’ve understood him correctly, given that the Commerce Commission has those other functions and powers in the meantime.

Second, in terms of assurances that I’m able to give about market dominance, including for the possibility of large overseas providers—well, I can’t give any such assurance. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I know that by increasing competition overall, it’s nearly inevitable that the Kiwi consumer will be better off in each individual case. And to mitigate away the possibility, theoretical as it may be, that there’ll be unintended consequences in any individual case, we can think about the fact that there are natural barriers in the case of overseas products, which is transporting the physical goods here—we’re very remote—so, naturally, there is a cost, and there is uncertainty associated with supply chains, always. In terms of barriers being established to the acceptance of products—be they overseas or local ones—to the extent that these are more difficult for smaller players to achieve, they represent a barrier that in itself represents the antithesis of a competitive market. So I think it’s reasonable, or more than reasonable, to assume and to expect that there will be an effective increase in competition, and a thumb on the scale will remain in favour of New Zealand suppliers and manufacturers for that reason.

Third, in terms of liability—and I think the member might have been referencing the point around building consent authorities having to take note of overseas-approved products or New Zealand products approved against overseas standards—of course, to the extent that local councils, being building consent authorities, are required to deem, as approved, these products under this regime, they will not be liable for any adverse consequences of doing so. In terms of the use of the product, to the extent that that’s checked by inspections, yes, liability will remain on the current footprint of the scheme, but that’s as you would expect. And just to be clear, we’ve outlined—I think, quite carefully—in the legislation that liability won’t attach to councils where they are simply giving effect to the policy choices made by central government through this bill.

In terms of Arena Williams’ latter contribution asking how we are to measure that minimum standards have been met—well, under the Building Act and The Building Code currently, we’ve got quite a flexible approach to the way that it can be demonstrated that standards have been met. There can either be quite a prescriptive following of certain ways of operating and systems; but also some flexibility can be demonstrated—the flexibility is a trade-off, of course, with the certainty of the other method. But, certainly, between those, at the moment, we’ve got a couple of different ways that you can demonstrate that a product complies. We’re not seeking to change that.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for his responses. I was a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which listened to a number of industry participants and others who were really keen to ensure that that level of competition and price point is driven down. One of the points that was a real point of conversation, I guess, was also the role that councils—so I’m pleased to hear that the Minister has confirmed the inability for liability to be attached to councils, provided that councils actually are making decisions in line with the legislation, although that would sit at that quality assurance level prior to that.

I have some questions for the Minister, and this really lends itself to the lower cost of building. I mean, that’s really a key driver behind the legislation, as the Minister has indicated. My question is around that monitoring aspect that the Government intends to take to ensure that that is actually happening. I appreciate that the Minister says he doesn’t have a crystal ball in terms of gazing into the future, but if we’re in a situation where the changes that are proposed are not leading to that price point dropping, as everyone anticipates, what provision in the legislation—if the Minister can point to a particular aspect in the legislation—identifies a mechanism or a lever for the Government to step in and do something in that space? Or maybe it’s not, but I’m just interested in—this is the genesis of it, but, in practice, if it’s not actually flowing through to consumers, then what is the approach within that?

The other part of that question to the Minister is: when we set aside the building products—in the context of the cost of building products, and this is an issue that many home builders and others in the consumer space are facing all the time—a large chunk of the actual cost when it comes to building construction lies within labour, lies within GST, and lies within the professional services that make up the bulk of those remaining costs. Has the Minister considered how the product innovation or process innovation to capture those particular aspects can lead to more competition in the driving-down of that price point? I’d be interested to get the Minister’s responses in those areas.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thanks to Mr Tangi Utikere for the thoughtful questions. On the second point, process innovations are part of the building reform work that we’re doing more generally, but not within this bill, except to the extent that standards and certification systems and so on might lend themselves to improved processes.

So beyond the bill, I suppose it’s a matter of watch this space, but I think it’s fair to say in light of that point being raised by the member and also that conversation more generally about the liability of building consent authorities that the liability question as at now—joint and several for each of those councils—is something we’re looking to address more broadly, so I look forward to continuing to converse with him outside the scope of this bill on those matters.

The second point that I’m raising—but his first point—is in relation to lowered costs more generally. He’s right to observe that increasing the affordability of building, including residential homes but not only those, is a major focus for us. I know other members of the House are interested in that kaupapa too.

I would point out, however, in answer to his question, there isn’t a specific provision in this bill that would trigger some sort of particular Government reaction in the event that building costs don’t come down. I suppose I would be remiss not to point out that the aim is to apply downward pressure on prices. One doesn’t say that they’ll necessarily go down, because if they go up for other reasons—but nevertheless, as a result of this legislation, they’re lower than they otherwise might be. Obviously, I can’t—again, I don’t have a crystal ball, but we’re doing what we can and I think it’s a useful step in the right direction in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just note, members, at the moment, that we’ll be looking for some reasonably specific questions now. The Minister, unlike many of his colleagues, has been fulsome and actually quite direct in his replies; therefore, he is covering a lot of this ground. So I just invite members to now point to some specific part of the bill to accompany their question.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): All right, Mr Chair. Then my question to the Minister for Building and Construction is: what impact will the regulations made under clauses 5 and 6 in Part 1 have on offsite manufacturers who both purchase key building materials and supply prefabricated components or modular builds? I ask the question because Fletcher Building’s Clever Core prefab house-building factory in my electorate of Manurewa, in Wiri, will shut today, and it will be replaced next year by a PlaceMakers frame and truss plant. The reason I ask that is because one of the reasons they cited for that closure was “unfavourable Government policy”. The building products regulations are something that could help the sector in New Zealand that creates and supplies modular builds and prefabricated components.

My second question in that is whether off-site manufacturing has the potential to improve competition and efficiency in the building sector, as this bill aims to do, and whether this bill will give the regulation-making power required to be able to enable some of that competition being driven at that part of the supply chain?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member makes a good point. Offsite manufacturing, or OSM, represents a huge opportunity for greater productivity, including by way of economy of scale and other associated benefits in terms of the way that buildings are constructed in this country, and I’m thinking of worker health and safety, and so on, as well as the productivity gains in their own right.

I think it’s fair to say that this kind of regime will enable that purchase at scale of products, which, again, through the competition that the bill will enable to increase will have a positive effect for the likes of the soon-to-be-closed Clever Core factory. I regret its closure. I note that they’ve found it difficult—according to public reporting—to operate over the last few years. Clearly, the construction sector in general has taken a major hit over the last three or so years, but we wish its successors on that particular site—which I too have visited—all the best, along with everyone else looking to come out the other side of a difficult time for the construction sector.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate being able to take my first call on this, and the Minister for Building and Construction’s excellent answers. I’m really interested in clause 8, inserting new section 25B(2), thinking about the list of building product specifications, and I’m really mindful of the decarbonisation efforts that we have as a country and the reform of our science sector from Crown Research Institutes to Public Research Organisations—wondering where the bioeconomy fits into this?

If we’re thinking about products like hempcrete, for example, or wool insulation, to support our rural communities, to support the restoration of manufacturing in the country, to think about what we can do with timber that we haven’t yet done—things that Scion is an excellent advocate for and has been working on—and how we might retool some of the manufacturing plants that have closed down to start building and manufacturing, how do those things fit, and how do proponents of really local systems that have had challenges in our construction sector, such as earth building, light earth, straw bale—how do they fit? If we’re thinking about the decarbonisation efforts, they are also a really important part of the construction sector.

We recognise—and we are in support of this bill—that it has been dominated by very few players, and my concern is, I guess, that we don’t want to simply add on cheaper products from other jurisdictions when we also have a wealth of innovation here in Aotearoa. How are we going to ensure that we bring that to the fore and that we support those? And what are the ways in which—if I can grab my colleague’s document—under section 25B, if we’re thinking about the physical properties, the installation, the fabrication—(b), (e), and (g)—are these elements that are going to be considered by the Minister, when we’re thinking about how we make sure we have a construction sector that has access to materials and a cheaper, more localised way of doing things, to speed up innovation in the sector?

I do have a slight follow-up—I think I’ve got a little bit of time, if I can—and I’d like to reflect on the honourable member Tangi Utikere’s presentation on product innovation and process innovation. If we think about local producers like Formance, for example, who use structural insulated panels, which is, sort of, a clip and a screw-and-glue approach to do fast builds, what are we doing particularly with process? I know that the Minister has addressed this, but we already have products here that can—we can build so much quicker, and we’ve got an example of that when Railways used to build all those fantastic railway homes. Are we thinking about that type of patterned build, using known products that we already have but that struggle through the Building Code? So this is a code question as well.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, and I thank the member for his very thoughtful questions. I love that he’s emphasised the wealth of innovation that we have already here in Aotearoa, to use his phrase. Of course he’s right, and of course he’s right, too, that there are many products—I use that term in the broad sense of the phrase—that could be used much more extensively than they already are. Although, again, he rightly references wool, which is known to have very helpful products in terms of health and sustainability and other desirable features. So it seems strange if I put a product like wool in the same sense as innovation, because of course, in a way it’s back to the future. Looking at the terms of new section 25B, inserted by clause 8, and the word “manufacture”—I mean, he’ll know the etymology; it’s sort of literally making by hand, and yet obviously in the modern parlance, that implies great factories with industry 4.0, churning out physical products that are anything but natural.

However, of course this points to the right one, but I do emphasise that the legislation is agnostic as to type of material. I mean, it’s my personal belief that we can and should make much better use of such products. It seems to me there’s nothing here that would preclude that. I mean, I take the point that he is, I think, arguing for something that would be more positively moving in that direction. We’re not moving away from it, put it like that.

I would just, perhaps, put out a more general challenge to the building sector in this country and say to some extent these are legal or legislative questions, but to some extent they’re cultural too. I think we have a very conservative building sector and there are good reasons to be conservative where there are questions of quality and, obviously, we don’t want people to be at risk of having homes or other buildings that are substandard because we’ve been experimental. But at the same time, I think there’s scope for being more innovative, and it’s my hope that this will allow that, from overseas but also in terms of Kiwi manufacturers who can measure against standards that are known and accepted. For example, in the likes of Germany, as referenced by the Hon Julie Anne Genter, and through that we will be better off in the way that the member’s described.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I’m going to talk to my proposed amendment to clause 8 of the bill, which adds a proposed section 25B(5) to new section 25B, which is proposed by clause 8 of the bill. Now, I know, looking around the Chamber here, that it just drives everyone in this committee crazy about the rise of the administrative State. Whether it’s a consequence of word processors and computers or the internet, I don’t know what it is. It’s a combination of these factors. But the mad level of detail that is required, across just about any area that has been regulated in this country, drives us all spare. I see the Hon Andrew Bayly there, and I’ve spoken to him about the biblical length of prospectuses that is now required for new capital raisings, which is so long that people never read the damn things. And the big risks are missed in the mass of detail that is there for people to wade through.

I know that the Hon Andrew Hoggard has experienced similar frustrations with farm plans, with the inability for us to do a practical farm plan without requiring repetition for what’s already been done by industry organisation plans tweaked a little bit. I’m completely on side with both the Hon Andrew Hoggard, with his efforts in that regard to make these things practical and cost-effective, and Andrew Bayly’s efforts in respect of the prospectus space. But it’s even worse in the building control space, and I suspect just about everyone in this House has experienced it.

Just this last week I had an architect of over 50 years’ experience—Malcolm Walker—come to see me saying he’s putting together a group of architects to go to complain to the Auckland Council about what they’re doing because, now, you can have a product that is an acceptable building solution for which there is a specification, and, now, the council will require you to lodge the specification, not just list the product. So the specification already exists. We’ve already got a licensing regime for architects and for licensed building practitioners, and they’ve got the obligation to build these things in accordance with the specification. But these people in Auckland Council are saying, “When you file the application, you’ve got to refile the specification.”

The papers that are now being filed for what used to be a very simple application—it probably would have said, “I’m going to build this house in accordance with building standard NZS 4605.”—I think it was; I might have the wrong number; was it NZS 3604?—“Here’s a bit of a design as to what the outline was and the distance from the boundaries, and the building is going to be built by a licensed builder.” They could just go and build the house. Now, they spend $100,000 before they start building the house, in part because of the ridiculous level of detail that is required by building consent authorities when they are issuing the consent.

I’ve experienced this myself. I’ve got friends who are architects, who I know are amongst the best architects in New Zealand. Even if they’re building a single-storey house, they’ve been put through this ridiculous level of detail, which brings me to my amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Chair is very relieved, Mr Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Minister, I think this amendment that I have could not only save the hair of most architects—male and female—that’s falling out around the country as a consequence of their frustrations with building departments and of their mayors and councillors, who hate it too. In addition to that, this amendment will save tens of millions of dollars of wasted expense every year, and that can then be spent on either a lower-cost house or a better house. But this amendment is very simple, and it says, “Clause 25B”—and I might not be able to quite finish this in the 44 seconds that I’ve got—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll probably give you more time.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Clause 25B of the bill, in respect of these new products, says that “(1) The chief executive may, by notice, issue building product specifications that may be referred to in an acceptable solution or a verification method. (2) Building product specifications”, at proposed subsection (2) of that same section, “may include specifications for building products in relation to any of the following: (a) manufacture: (b) fabrication: (c) testing: (d) quality control: (e) physical properties: (f) performance: (g) installation: (h) maintenance.” And what my amendment says is “Where a building product specification is issued under this section, the building consent authority is not permitted to require the refiling of that specification or method of use when an application for a building consent is applied for.”

I would say to the Minister for Building and Construction that that simple sentence will save tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars every year, which is currently being passed on to consumers, and it will mean that building consent authorities can turn consents around faster than they currently do. And, accordingly, I ask that the Minister give his support to this amendment so that we can leave this House, thinking that we have made a little push there for the licensed building practitioner, for the architects, for the homeowner, for the builder that wants to do this work, for the subcontractors, and for us politicians, who are constantly getting it in the neck—as are councillors and mayors—for the fact that building consent authorities are asking for the refiling of what is within the ambit of an existing product specification and what the licensed building practitioner and the architect are already responsible to deliver.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I simply have to respond to that and it’s a bit unusual, but I agree with every word that the member, the Hon David Parker, said. How glorious. I will note that the member, before coming to this place, was a lawyer. Sounds like he could have been an architect—

Hon David Parker: And a builder!

Hon CHRIS PENK: —and a builder, he claims. Having read his handwritten amendment, I also wonder if he could have been a doctor. But I think I understand it well enough, including from his very impassioned speech. I suspect he’s trying to provoke me to be more lengthy and loquacious than I probably should be in the committee of the whole House stage.

But he said it all. The only flaw in the plan, so far as I can see, is that the bill actually already deals with the problem that he’s identified. To be specific, at clause 7 introducing new subsection (2A) within section 25 of the Act—

Hon David Parker: It doesn’t stop the council doing it.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, to the question of whether it stops the council doing it—I’ll come back to that if I may—but it should stop the council from doing it.

First of all, “An acceptable solution or a verification method may refer to building product specifications.” That being so, there is no reason that a council, as a building consent authority, should be able to inquire behind the approval of a product under this regime. Now, they can inquire as to whether a product is being used correctly, whether it’s being installed correctly after the fact, but they shouldn’t be able to do that. And by the way, they shouldn’t be able to do that already, which is why your friend who’s the architect is so outraged. I share his outrage; I share your outrage.

But this is part of the problem that we’re having to deal with. If I were to be generous and fair to all concerned, I’d say that building consent authorities feel that they need to be risk-averse because they’ve got the threat of joint and several liability hanging over them, and for that reason they want to tick every box and then a few extra besides. But they don’t need to, currently. And certainly in terms of the current Building Code or the requirement to comply with the Building Code under the Building Act at the moment, section 19—that one that I referenced and my friend has very helpfully put in front of me—in terms of the current law, and I quote, “A building consent authority must accept any or all of the following as establishing compliance”, etc.

I finish as I started: as a lawyer by background, he’ll appreciate the significance of the word “must” to the extent that building consent authorities need to stay in their lane or get in their box, as some would say. I wouldn’t necessarily use that language myself but your architect friend might—that’s already a problem that should not arise. We’re dealing with it as clearly as we can in this legislation and dealing with building consent authorities. The problems that they face in terms of liability is another story for another day.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Well, the problem with that answer—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will invite succinctness.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, it’s very relevant. I’ll do this within five minutes. What’s this two-minute thing?

Hon Chris Penk: Wishful thinking.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Not wishful thinking on the part of the Chair, I can assure you.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The problem with that answer is that that’s not what happens in practice. Now, what happens in practice is that if you’re a licensed building practitioner who can file an application for a consent, or an architect—who is automatically a licensed building practitioner—you file your application and they say, “Give us all this information.” Well, what are you to do if you’re the architect or the building person? Are you to take judicial review and say, “I’m sorry, you’re exceeding your powers. You can’t require this.” Because that’s, effectively, the only option they’ve got.

They’ve got to go along with what the council requires, otherwise they get another bill from the council for another hour’s work at $300 an hour. They suffer another month’s delay because they go to the back of the queue in terms of the clock running on the building consent application. Every time, city hall wins. In order to change this, you don’t need to just add more building product specifications in—which is part of it for alternative products coming from overseas—you’ve got to drag out the successive regulatory overreach by councils.

Now, I hear the Minister for Building and Construction when he says there is a problem with risk allocation in the building system; I absolutely agree with him. My own view is you’re never going to get over that until you remove liability from councils—all care, no responsibility with compulsory insurance against major defects with a large excess, not insurance against too many scratches in the woodwork, but a failed building envelope, or a failed foundation—the big things you should insure against. Then let the insurance industry effectively regulate their premiums against johnny-come-lately with a $100 company building with a monolithic cladding and untreated timber, compared with Fletcher’s building another brick and tile single-storey house with a tanalised frame. The premium will take care of the problem.

But that is no excuse for not dealing with this problem when we can now. The status quo isn’t working. I would say to the Minister that this amendment doesn’t change this aspect of the law that isn’t working. My amendment does.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’ll treat that as an interlude, shall we?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have two very specific questions for the Minister for Building and Construction, but I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed that. It’s nice to see the Hon David Parker being so passionate and lively about something that the Minister is also in agreement with.

I have a question around, first of all, clause 6, which amends section 19. I understand that under the new section 25B, in clause 8, and particularly we’re looking at (3), at the chief executive being able to amend or revoke some of those building product specifications. But when we’re looking at clause 6 with section 19 amended, when it comes to overseas product certification schemes, there isn’t such a mechanism for there to be revoked or to be amended—understanding that we are basing on what the overseas scheme is.

However, what I don’t know and am seeking the Minister’s clarification on, is how would the chief executive then review these overseas schemes and how frequently will they be able to review something like this? Because looking in the principal Act of section 19, it also actually doesn’t specify any review mechanism when it comes to that level of consistence and compliance. So that’s my first question.

My second question is with regard to clause 8, so the new section 25B. I want to focus on—the Minister mentioned before the use of the word “must” and how “must” is used in legislation, and that segues very well into my question around, in (2)—the use of the word “may”. I understand once a decision is made the reporting and public notification and availability mechanism under new section 25C, but I wanted to check with the Minister that he doesn’t clarify in new section 25B when the chief executive determines this. What consultation process will it go to under the specifications of (2)(a) to (h)? This could be from a perspective of complete ignorance, not understanding how building product specification normally works, and I always defer these kinds of expertise to my colleague Cameron Luxton, who is an actual builder.

But I want to know, leading on in terms of some of the consultation, what sort of confidence they have to the industry, but also to people who are interested in this and the level of transparency of it that things aren’t going to be changed or that they have confidence in knowing that these will always be consulted. Because “may” means that some will be consulted, some may not. It might be very much up to the material itself, but just wanting a little bit of clarification around that.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to respond. To the second point, a fair question is raised around the difference between “may” and “must”, such that “An acceptable solution or a verification method may refer to building product specifications.” That is to say, we’re not precluding other acceptable solutions or verification methods. But in terms of the point that I was making in response to the Hon David Parker, certainly a building consent authority doesn’t have the discretion not to allow the use of a product if it’s been approved under this regime. I hope that’s clearer, but if not, I’m happy to re-engage.

In terms of the way that the process of advice and then decision making is set out—actually, already provided for—the chief executive, meaning the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), may amend or revoke the building product specifications at any time, and I see there needs to be reasonable opportunities for consultation and comment on those. So in general terms, technical expertise, consultation requirements—and, of course, this is part of a broader picture of engagement that MBIE is constantly undertaking with the sector and, for what it’s worth, I have also been engaging on these past 15 or 16 months.

In terms of the first point that he made around the ongoing review, if I’ve understood his question correctly it was about the time frames at which this might occur; there is no set time frame. It could be as often or as infrequent a period of time as needed to ensure that we’ve got a suitable regime, both in terms of the introduction of standards and systems but also the removal from time to time, if that should be warranted.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): These new points will have to be new and specific.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate that, and I was heartened to hear from the Minister for Building and Construction earlier about the concern for the building sector and the culture of the building sector, which relates to new section 25C, in clause 8, which is the public notification and availability of information. If we think about the way in which the building sector is going to adopt the new materials, I would like to hear more from the Minister about—as the Minister referred to—the building sector itself and the culture of the building sector.

I wonder whether the Minister has engaged with BRANZ—the Building Research Association of New Zealand—on this, in particular, because one thing that is particular to the building sector is that once you have finished your apprenticeship, there is no requirement for any new training. I was made particularly aware of this when I was doing the rebuild—

Hon Member: There is.

SCOTT WILLIS: There’s no requirement. There’s the possibility, but there is no requirement, and I was made particularly aware of this when I was fixing up our old villa. I had to reline and had to fix and replace the wooden weatherboards. I was determined to put Mammoth insulation in, rather than fibreglass insulation, which, of course, we know degrades over time because it’s lofted with an acrylic glue, and that top 20 or 30 centimetres can drop in walls. So I really wanted an insulation that was going to endure over time, and the interesting thing was that the builder I had contracted had never come across it before. The only experience of it he had had was through working on my property, and he has subsequently adopted that material.

But if we don’t have a way to change the culture of the building sector to bring in innovation in the sector, it’s not going to help that we have all kinds of new materials on offer, unless we have ways in which they can be brought in, understood, and appreciated, and we have a requirement to adopt innovation or to reskill. This is something that we’ve seen in overseas jurisdictions. We’ve seen with the retrofit of buildings, particularly in Germany and throughout Europe after the Ukraine crisis. We’ve seen how the building sector really stepped up to build, essentially, passive homes—rapid, rapid innovation. Here, we’ve got something that we really do need, and I’d be very keen to hear from the Minister about his thoughts about ensuring that the building sector is equipped to adopt the new materials and to innovate, and to make it a requirement for them to do so.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s on the edge of scope, but the Minister may like to answer that.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s generous of you to allow me the chance. I would point out that occupational licensing and regulation is a very worthy subject of discussion for reform of the building system more generally, but there’s nothing particularly within this bill that contemplates it.

If I can just add before I resume my seat, even though I know I indicated I was about to, the point the member makes, along with the dissertation of the Hon David Parker, I think are very useful discussions that are much broader than the scope of this bill. I do note that after his first contribution, the Hon David Parker said he needed more time. I think after his second he needed a defibrillation—I wish him well on his recovery.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right, Arena Williams, but I will indicate that this will be the last question.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Well, Mr Chair, I must use my last contribution, then, to encourage the Minister for Building and Construction to adopt the amendment of my colleague the Hon David Parker. It is a sensible amendment that would bring a measure of control to a system that is designed to speed up these processes for the people within the system, and also would be an amendment that would ultimately lead to lower costs at the council level, too. We think it’s something that would be helpful for all participants in the system.

But my question to the Minister is: is the net effect of clause 6(2) that large players that exist in the market already become the large importers of products, and has he had advice on that? PlaceMakers and Carters are vertically integrated companies that involve manufacturing, residential development, and construction. So what will the Government do to ensure that independent suppliers and merchants have the opportunity to import and compete with them?

This was a question that was raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, and we haven’t had an answer for it in this section. I want to give the Minister a chance to think about not only those players, but the five major merchants: PlaceMakers, Carters, ITM, Bunnings, and Mitre 10 that dominate the distribution of those then imported products and supplies, and whether the Government will progress work to address competition concerns related to their market power.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you. I said to the Hon Kieran McAnulty that I couldn’t provide the assurance that he was after. The performance of those five major current players in terms of the retail outlets and any others in the system is not something I can personally guarantee or speak to.

I will say, however, that a more competitive system is one in which there is a broader and deeper range of products available. Of course, in terms of vertical integration and other ways in which the economies of scale and corporate design might make a company tend towards market dominance, it’s worth reflecting on the fact that economies of scale also do tend to produce products that are at least theoretically able to be offered at a lower price. So it’s a balance and we think the principled but also pragmatic approach is the one set out in this bill.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to stand up and ask the Minister for Building and Construction to elaborate on the answer that he just gave prior to the member Scott Willis about the way the industry is trained and skilled up. The Minister did mention licensing and schemes, but I wonder, in regards to new section 25B, inserted by clause 8, do you think that as licensed building practitioners (LBPs) go about their training and reskilling, a points system which is currently in place, that LBPs, depending on what class they are, need either 12 or 18 points—do you think that schooling up on some of these new products and methods that are going to be coming into the country could be used as a way to add to those skill points for that two-yearly renewal of licensed building practitioners?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to respond to that point. I was remiss, perhaps, in previously not mentioning that to maintain the status of a licensed building practitioner, or LBP, that person must complete skills maintenance relative to their licence class every two years. I will say, however, that the member himself, Cameron Luxton, being a licensed building practitioner—I think the only one in the committee—will have an in-depth knowledge that I’d be grateful if he would continue to share with me, and I thank him for his contribution.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon David Parker’s amendment to insert subsection (5) in new section 25B in clause 8 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other provisions of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 9 to 17, “Amendments to other provisions of principal Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I want to ask the Minister about the way that clauses 9 and 10 will operate. This isn’t a long issue that we need to traverse really thoroughly, but it is something the select committee looked into and wasn’t necessarily finished with as a topic of discussion and also with submitters.

The issue is around the advice from the building advisory panel that’s created under section 171(1) of the principal Act. And the question from the select committee was: is it appropriate for there not to be a provision that protects the Minister if he does not seek industry feedback on one of his decisions? Because this is a bill that’s designed for a sort of back and forth with the industry. This is something that has been used by successive Governments, particularly in this area of building products and the building system, to make sure the industry is very closely tied in with Government decision-making. But at the same time, you want to ensure that if the Minister is scheduling decisions either at the beginning of this process that are anticipated and are largely non-controversial, that Minister could do so without a consultation requirement; but also in future, where there is a particular public interest in making an allowance for overseas products very quickly, that the Minister wouldn’t be in any way held up from doing that because of these, what are meant to be, enabling provisions for a Minister to seek advice or input from a sector.

I will also ask now the question around monitoring “emerging trends in building [and] design, etc,” and reporting annually. Does that “etc” include competition issues and those good things that this bill is heralded to achieve, and that Labour supports?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Arena Williams for her questions. In terms of the Minister or the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) taking advice, I think he or she would be well advised to seek such advice, unless one is a technical expert oneself, and, in fact, even if that’s the case, I think it’s prudent to seek a wide range of views that are expert. So the consultation that we’ve talked about in a couple of other contexts earlier today, I think would be something that a prudent decision maker would undertake in terms of a particular scenario in which a quick decision might be made.

I suppose I should make the obvious comment that a consultation that’s reasonable in the prevailing circumstances would be wise. I suppose, in terms of challenging these decisions, as always, a Government decision maker—an executive decision maker—can have their decisions challenged by way of judicial review. That’s not usually very practicable, as the Hon David Parker referenced in relation to scraps over the issuing or non-issuing of building consents. I will say, however, for the sake of completeness, that the MBIE determinations route is available for those who are having such discussions or disputes to resolve those.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I thank the Minister for Building and Construction for that advice, and that is helpful to clarify his thinking.

If it is the intention that, in all circumstances, the Minister or the chief executive would be seeking consultation before making a decision to recognise a particular scheme or a particular product, then I guess the question in my mind is: in a particular crisis like the one that New Zealand experienced in the availability of plasterboard, would we be looking to, say, an expert task force to be providing that sort of quick consultation? It’s been well canvassed in the first part of this debate that there are competition issues at play in the New Zealand market, and so a consultation with New Zealand players on any given product might result in feedback through that consultation which wasn’t conducive to increasing the market power of importers. It might not be the sort of useful advice that the Minister might be seeking in any given time, so I just wanted to clarify that.

My other question is: does section 169 and the change to the regulation-making power here consider that it would be useful for the chief executive to report annually on competition issues in the building sector?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her latest questions and comments. I attempted to cover the scenario that she’s described in the case of building-supply shortage, perhaps through supply shops, as we’ve experienced previously in this country, by saying that the consideration of expert advice should be, as you know, reasonably necessary in the circumstances. And, of course, if the circumstances dictate an expedited process, then that might well be the prudent course of action for the Minister or the chief executive. I do note, however, that we haven’t set up a specific legal requirement. That, itself, could be a matter of unnecessary bureaucracy or time when, of course, the whole purpose of the legislation, in the first instance, is to be more enabling in this space.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The committee has considered the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Plain Language Act Repeal Bill

First Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service: I present a legislative statement on the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill.

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

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

This bill repeals the Plain Language Act 2022. The purpose of the bill is threefold. It repeals an ineffective Act, it removes an unnecessary compliance burden on Public Service agencies, and it ensures Government resources can be used more efficiently.

Clear communication with the public is important, so let me be very clear—put it in plain language, if you will. We are calling on an Act implemented by the Labour Government in 2022 that created a problem where there wasn’t one. It is yet another example of wasteful spending on bureaucracy that Labour is so fond of but that this Government has no time for. Time is money, and at a time when many people are doing it tough, we want to make sure that taxpayer money is spent on the things that actually matter, things that grow our economy. Appointing plain language officers, as this Act requires, grows nothing but bureaucracy.

It is an example of Government overreach. You cannot legislate for or against something that is subjective in nature and open to interpretation. That’s why we would never know whether the Plain Language Act 2022 resulted in a meaningful improvement in communication. The only clear outcome is that it placed an unnecessary administrative constraint on Public Service, and it created a box-ticking exercise for agencies. Government agencies should always communicate in an easy-to-understand language, and it is the Government’s expectation that agencies always strive for and uphold the highest standards of communication.

But it is a mistake to think that laws can fix every problem. As much as we would like people to make good choices, it is not something you can achieve with legislation. Plain language is achieved through clear thinking, commitment, and common sense. It is the responsibility of every public servant to communicate using clear, easy-to-comprehend language. It doesn’t take a plain language officer to know that gobbledygook and word salads mean nothing to anyone. Words are just words if no one understands them. This bill is not about abandoning high standards in clear communication; it is about freeing up our Public Service from an ineffective law. The Government is 100 percent committed to communicating clearly with New Zealanders. We want Government agencies to write and speak in a manner people can understand and appreciate. Public information written in plain language makes life easier for people relying on Government services, it makes it easier for people to make informed decisions, and it makes it easier for people to understand their rights and responsibilities.

The Plain Language Act 2022 cannot make these things happen. The Act has not fixed a problem; it has created a problem. The Public Service has better things to do than appointing plain language officers, producing guidance documents, and reporting to someone on something that is unclear. The Government is determined to spend taxpayer money more efficiently. The Plain Language Act 2022 has created unnecessary activity, unnecessary compliance, and an unnecessary use of resources. Repealing this Act cuts red tape and will allow the Public Service to get on with what really matters: delivering services for the people of New Zealand.

I could speak for another five minutes, but I believe that I have put the Government’s position clearly and concisely, and—dare I say it!—in plain language. I commend the bill to the House.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, well, well—look where we are. A Government which was elected on the promise of reducing the cost of living has set out its priorities very clearly. They put us into urgency last week and we went through more legislation as a result, and, unfortunately, it appears that their legislation has dried up. So Chris Bishop, as Leader of the House, has thought, “Don’t worry. I’ll just open my drawer entitled ‘Pet Peeves’.”, and this petty Government has pulled out a repeal of a sensible Act and is wasting New Zealand’s time and this House’s time by repealing what is, essentially, a sensible Act that everyone agrees with. How interesting.

How interesting that a Government that says it is focused on the things that New Zealanders care about decides to bring up a grudge from the last Parliament that was particularly irksome to the Leader of the House and decides to waste Parliament’s time on something that we all, essentially, agree with, and that is—

Tim Costley: Sit down, and we’ll move on.

CAMILLA BELICH: It’s not my job not to waste Parliament’s time, Mr Costley. It’s my job to hold the Government to account, and I say, on behalf of New Zealanders, that this is a waste of our time, and we wish that we had a Government that would focus on the things that New Zealanders really care about: jobs, health, homes, and the cost of living. Instead, our petty, small-minded Government is repealing an Act that does this.

Joseph Mooney: Who passed it into law?

CAMILLA BELICH: This is a good law, and I will tell the member opposite why it’s a good law. It is clear that it is an important part of our democracy that Government organisations and agencies communicate in a way that people can understand. This is an important democratic right.

I think we can all agree that we are in an important time in our politics, both domestically and internationally, where we should be focusing on the things that keep our democracy strong, and communicating in a way that is clear is essential to participation in our democracy. I agree with that; those members opposite agree with that—we all agree with that. The one thing that I would take issue with is not the content of the original Act, and not the intention of the original Act, but the fact that those opposite decide that it is of such importance that only part-way through the first term—not even towards the end—they have run out of legislation and they have decided only to bring a petty repeal of what was a member’s bill to the House, a member’s bill which actually strengthened our democracy and actually made it easier for people to communicate with their Government and understand the things that are essential to them. It is such a waste of time to even have this before the House.

I want to pay tribute to Rachel Boyack. She was the member who brought this member’s bill to the House originally, and it turned into an Act. Let me tell you, the hypocrisy of this is just extreme, because what the Government says is the reason that they’re repealing this is that it’s not strong enough. They say that it has no legislative teeth and that the reason that they want to repeal it is because it’s going to cut red tape. Well, this is work that public agencies should already be doing. They should already be focused on making sure they communicate clearly to the public. They should already be focused on making sure that the things that they do are easily understood by people in our democracy.

If I may reflect quickly on Rachel Boyack and the reason she brought this to the House, it was because as an electorate MP, she saw again and again and again the issues that people had. They were maybe people who had recently moved to New Zealand who had English as a second language, or maybe people who were just confused by the writing by Government agencies that was so difficult to understand and who wanted to see something clearer. She was having to deal with that. She brought a bill to the House to make it clearer for New Zealanders so that they knew what the Government was doing with their taxpayer money, so that they knew what the Government’s agenda was and so that they knew what their obligations were.

No matter what the other side says, it does not impose a lot of red tape. One of the criticisms is that there’s no legislative enforcement in a court of law, but still this petty, small-minded Government chooses to repeal it, when they could easily be focused on the things that matter.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud today to rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this out-of-touch bill that fundamentally shows the Government’s lack of understanding of what’s actually happening in the real world.

When we talk to everyday New Zealanders, there’s a sense that they’re conveying to me—and that’s a sense that I’m sharing—that New Zealand seems to be unravelling at the seams. Unemployment is at record high. The cost of living is spiralling out of control, with a recent report, actually, that a quarter of New Zealanders sometimes or often go without meals. That’s a scandal, in a country as prosperous as New Zealand, that a quarter of New Zealanders sometimes or often go without meals.

We know that the public services that everyday New Zealanders are relying on are getting worse thanks to the Government cuts. We’ve all heard of doctors having to do admin work or janitorial work just to keep the lights running. This bill is a manifestation of how this Government seems to be doubling down on their agenda of prioritising private profit over public good. We can see it in the wider Government actions, but we can also say, in this bill, why is the Government prioritising repealing an Act that enabled a wider variety of New Zealanders to participate in interacting with Government and that made legislation and the things that the Public Service did more accessible?

Now, when the original bill was brought before the House—and I acknowledge the member Rachel Boyack; this was her member’s bill—the original bill was supported by a wide variety of organisations. It was supported by disabled and disability advocacy groups such as Blind Low Vision New Zealand, it was supported by Deaf Action New Zealand—and I actually acknowledge their submission, which was a really short submission; it was a very plain language submission, and I think it said something along the lines of “We support this bill.”, so very in theme—and the National Disabled Students’ Association. Even the Free Speech Union, which is not really an ideological bedfellow of members on this side of the House, supported it to select committee.

We know that the benefit of plain language benefits all New Zealanders. Accessible language benefits New Zealanders with disabilities. Plain language benefits new New Zealanders—and, look, we shouldn’t get into generalisations about the English language skills of new New Zealanders. My colleague to my left here, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, is demonstrating in his skills in the committee of the whole House stage that new New Zealanders can actually have a mastery of techniques of English language and rhetoric and oratory. So we shouldn’t generalise and say that new New Zealanders necessarily have poor language skills, but this does help the new New Zealanders who actually do struggle with English. There’s going to be more of them because one of the things that this Government has done is repealed the English language requirement for overseas investors. So this will actually help all those new New Zealanders who are able to come here because they’re on investment visas, and it will enable them to access the legislation, which is actually pretty important.

Plain language enables a variety of perspectives that otherwise wouldn’t be heard. I mean, you know, for my sins, I’m one of those overly educated New Zealanders. I’ve got an honours degree, and a master’s degree, and I’m working on the second one. But I don’t think government should just be for people with too many university degrees. I think using plain language enables more New Zealanders to access that. But who does this repeal actually benefit? It benefits lobbyists and private interests because this reduces the ability of New Zealanders to engage and debate every day the stuff that the wider Public Service and the Government are doing.

Now, one of the interesting things that I’ve read over the past month was an article on Newsroom, and it went into detail about how this Government had slowed the lobbying reform that the previous Government was working on. I’ll just read here a quote: “It seems like a way of killing off a reform work stream without actually getting the bad publicity for having done so—just by kind of freezing it and going to ground and ghosting everyone on it.” That was said by Dr Bryce Edwards, who was the supervisor for my dissertation. Look, I agree with what he said. It just seems like by slowing down the lobbying reform and repealing this bill, which had plain language, we’re just helping them out. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand, today, on behalf of ACT and support the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill. I actually remember when this bill was put up as a bill, and I actually thought it was satire when I first saw what the bill was trying to achieve. I thought, “This can’t be for real, here.” We’re creating a whole new layer of public-servant bureaucracy to achieve asking officials and asking our people working for us to write in language that everybody can understand and to appoint officers—plain language officers—to oversee that people are writing in plain language.

Camilla Belich is right. We are a Government that wants to focus on things that matter, and we are a Government that is looking at how our Public Service works and making sure that it is efficient, making sure that we are getting value for money, and making sure that we are focusing on the people that we’re trying to serve. Having plain language officers sitting around, making sure that someone is writing in plain language, is not an efficient way to be using taxpayers’ money, in my opinion.

So I am really glad to see the repeal of this bill so that we can get back to focusing on what is important to New Zealanders and so that our Public Service is actually there working for them. When I first became a Minister—I do understand—sometimes you get documents across your desk and you’re looking at all these acronyms and words you may not understand and you do have to have a word with them and say, “Hey, could you please bring this back to me in a language I can understand?” And that’s pretty simple. “Please bring it back to me in a language I can understand.” And guess what? The next time it came across my desk, it was in a language I could understand. I didn’t need an officer to stand over those public servants and make sure that they wrote it in plain language for myself. It’s not that difficult.

I think the objective of making sure that people do understand what is in front of them is important, but I don’t believe adding another layer to our Public Service is a way to do that. No wonder our Public Service bloated and grew under the previous Government, with ideas like this to grow the sector and with no actual objectives apart from creating a job that’s pointless, quite frankly.

So we’re making sure that we’re not going to do that any more, and we’re going to save that money and we’re going to reinvest it back into the people that we serve, which is the public, who wanted us to make sure that our Public Service is efficient and that we are spending their money well, and that’s what we’re doing. I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill. Firstly, New Zealand First, unfortunately, was not in Government when this bill was passed. So, interestingly, as this goes through select committee will be a time, I guess, we will hear the pros and cons of what was actually achieved from this bill. But New Zealand First is committed to streamlining bureaucracy where necessary and ensuring accountability alongside efficient use of Government funds and resource.

The Plain Language Act 2022 is repealed by this bill, and repealing this is a display of what New Zealand First believes will be common sense. The Act added unnecessary administrative requirements, as the Labour Party loved to do, and they did not deliver tangible outcomes, as the Labour Party also loves to do. We have long been a proponent of reducing bureaucracy and in our 2020 manifesto committed to cutting excess regulation and red tape, and we maintain this position today.

This bill will tangibly lessen time wasted in Government agencies. It reduces reporting requirements and will ensure public servants focus on the basic responsibilities and are not burdened by reporting standards. Individual autonomy is maintained in this bill and it still allows Government agencies to use plain language voluntarily. That’s something I think everyone in this House understands across the sector, where things are put into terms by officials where many of us need that opportunity for the language to be used in a way that we all understand. And it is our thinking that we don’t need that to be legislated through a mandate.

We are very pleased to prevent wastage of expenditure on the measures that add no value to the public. I just want to go through section 5 of the original Act. If you actually read section 5 of the Plain Language Act, I think it’s something most of us would all agree with: is to be “appropriate to the intended audience;” that the language being used is “clear, concise, and well organised.” I think that in itself is something that is common sense.

But as we heard from the last speaker, the Hon Karen Chhour, when you get to section 11 of the original Act, “Plain language officers”—and this is where this bill took on its own life, and adding extra bureaucracy for something that should have been simple and common sense has not been achieved. I’ve also heard, talking to a number of people about this bill, they said originally it was very much like a word salad. It was very much off target in that sense.

Through that, New Zealand First is willing to hear the views through the select committee. But for today, we commend the bill to the House and support it through its passage. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pika, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei mō tēnei o ngā Pire arā ko te Plain Language Repeal Bill. Engari i roto i tōku ake reo, in my first language, ka kōrero katoatia au i roto i te reo Māori nā i runga anō i tēnei mea kua tino kite au i ngā tāmitanga o tēnei kāwana ki tōku ake reo. Kua kite ahau i ngā mea e tāmitia i tōku ake reo, nā reira he āhua uaua ki te kite i tēnei momo mea te Plain Language Repeal Bill nā runga anō i te mea ko tēnei momo Pire kua kite i roto i te kotahi rau rā o tēnei Kāwanatanga.

Kua kite i ngā kupu kua whakaparahakotia, kua hāmene, nō reira, āe, he āhua uaua ki a au. Nā runga anō i te mea, ko tōku reo tuatahi ko te reo Māori. Nō reira ko taku whakareanga, ko te nuinga o tō tātou reanga, ko tō mātou reo tuatahi ko te reo Māori. Nō reira, āe, te plain language i roto i tō koutou reo, engari pēwhea mō tōku ake reo. Koirā te tino pātai e pātaitia nei e au. Āe, mō tō koutou reo, engari pēwhea mō tōku reo Mō tōku reo, mō ngā reanga? Tahi miriona o tātou kei te haramai, ko te manako ia ka tae mai ētehi atu o taku reanga ki roto i tēnei Whare.

Engari, me te mea anō hoki, mōhio ana au ehara tēnei kaupapa i te kaupapa tino hohonu. Engari, ko taku whaea, karani, ko Hana Te Hemara tērā, i kawea mai te petihana reo Māori ki tēnei ake Whare i roto i te tau tahi mano, iwa rau, whitu tekau mā rua. Ko tana petihana ko te whakaū i te reo Māori hei reo tūturu mō tēnei whenua. Nō reira, koirā tā māua whakaaro mō tēnei pire. Āe, mōhio pū ana ahau ehara i te mea me tino, kāore au i te mōhio ki te tino kupu, enagri he aha te kupu Māori mō te bureaucrat? Aua. Engari mō ngā kupu, me kī ao mātauranga nei, āe e tautokotia ana i tērā. Me mārama te katoa, mē mārama te katoa, āe, me whakatairanga i te reo, i ngā kupu e mārama ana i tō mātou reanga, i tō mātou ahurea engari me mana ōrite ngā mea e rua. Mēnā ko te reo Māori te reo tūturu o tēnei whenua me mana ōrite. Kāore anō au kua tino kite i tēnei reo e kaha kite ana i roto i tēnei pire. Nō reira koirā taku āwangawanga ki tēnei—

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, greetings to all in the House. I stand to voice the position of Te Pāti Māori today about this bill, the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill. But I will do so in my language, in my first language. I will speak only te reo Māori as I have witnessed the oppression by this Government of my language. I have seen the things that oppress my language, so I find it difficult seeing things like the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, as I have seen this type of bill within the first 100 days of this Government.

I have seen the words that are offensive and penalising, so therefore, yes this is difficult for me, due to the fact that my first language is the Māori language. My generation, for most of us the Māori language is our first language. So, plain language, in your language, but how about in my language? This is the genuine question I am asking. Yes, in your language it is fine, but what about my language? My language for my generation? There will be 1 million of my generation soon, and the hope is that some will enter this House.

I know that this issue may seem mundane and not too profound, but it was my grand-aunt Hana Te Hemara who carried the Māori language petition to this House in 1972. Her petition’s aim was to affirm the Māori language as an authentic language of this land. Therefore, that is our opinion with respect to this bill. I am conscious that there may not be a pressing—what is the correct word, in the language for bureaucrat? I am unsure, but in terms of the words, of the academic world, I support that. Everyone should understand what is being said and that the language should be promoted, and the use of words that my generation understands, our culture, but that it should be equitable with respect to both languages. The Māori language is the authentic language and should be treated equally. I am still not seeing this language in this bill. That is my concern—]

Tākuta Ferris: Kei hea te pire mana ōrite mō te reo Māori? [Where is the equity bill for the Māori language?]

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Āe, kei whea te pire mana ōrite mō te reo Māori. Koirā tā mātou whakatau me tā mātou whakaaro ki tēnei pire. Āe, Plain Language Repeal Bill he mea e mārama ai te katoa, engari mōku ake, mō tā mātou reanga.

[Where is the bill about equality for the Māori language? This is our stance and our position with respect to this bill. Yes, everyone but my generation understands the Plain Language Repeal Bill.]

Cameron Luxton: Is it the Māori Language Act?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Āe, it is about that, actually—the Māori Language Act—because it’s about the experiences that I have as a first-language speaker. And my constituents, who, roughly, are—

Tākuta Ferris: Kua whatia te reo e te hunga rā. [The language has been broken by those people.]

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yeah. For those who want to know on the other side—yes, it is about that, because—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t conduct a dialogue across the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I’m speaking through the whole House. This is who I represent; these are my constituents. My constituents are mainly first-language speakers in te reo Māori, so this is what this—we were not brought up at all on this. Yeah, it’s not really a big deal of a bill, but for us it is, and we want to be represented in bills across the board, across all legislation. Kia ora.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Hello, Madam Speaker. This is a great Act to repeal—a terrible Act. That’s what’s happening here. If you’re following along at home, the Act did two things. The first one should have just been common sense. Someone rings up and says, “Hey, I don’t understand how to fill in this passport form”, “Oh, well, I can help you with that”—problem solved. But instead, what they did is said let’s create some more of the extra 18,400 bureaucrats that they created—I appreciate it’s hard to find the word in te reo Māori because it’s actually an invention of the Labour Party. That’s what bureaucrats are. But what they did is create these plain language officers in section 11 of the Act, plain language officers that would have to deal with these problems. And then they would report up through layers of the agency to the chief executive. And the chief executives would report to the commissioner, and the commissioner would report to the Minister. All these layers of bureaucracy created to solve a problem that wasn’t really there.

And it wasn’t just that, because this is what Rachel Boyack in her first reading speech wanted the Act to do: she wanted these new plain language officers that would be created both inside and outside agencies—in other words, new people; “Hire some new people, please. We’ve only got an extra 18,000 so far. We can do better.”—to do things like training agency employees, to deal with complaints, and to manage requests from the public. And on and on it goes. In fact, the Greens called it a really cute fluffy bill. It was all fluff. That’s all it was. It was nothing but fluff. It’s probably more like a furball, to be honest, because that’s what it looks like it came from. I love it!

I read some of the speeches that people wrote. This is what Rachel Boyack said: “That’s part of the role of plain language is actually, like that sentence I read before, any sentence that’s longer than 20 words is actually considered under plain language rules as being too long.” What she’s saying is you can’t have a sentence in any document that’s longer than 20 words. The problem is her sentence to explain it took 34 words. You think that’s bad, wait till you get to Naisi Chen’s speech—102 words. I don’t have time to read out—two of her sentences alone hit 200 words.

So let’s go down to Glen Bennett. He’s only at 40 words. He’s only at 40 words, is Glen Bennett—so only double the allowable length. Goes on about “wonderful, wonderful, huge”, “spoons in your mouth”, and “under your tongue” that he’s talking about. Finishes with “Be not afraid because you can still continue with your large and big words.” I mean, this is the grasp of the English language on the other side—maybe we do need to think about this legislation again. I mean, the bitter irony of this must weigh heavier on the Labour Party than a full volume of Roget’s Thesaurus. I mean, honestly, this stuff is terrible. We heard that there were a couple of people that supported it. They left out people like the Law Society that opposed it.

Camilla Belich finished by saying, you know, “What are the other ideas of the Government?”, despite the fact that they were willing to set aside a lot of time in select committees and the House to push this legislation that wasn’t needed through. I’ll give you some better ideas. Here’s one: the Modern Slavery Reporting Bill. That was in the ballot at the time in 2022, and the House could have spent its time on that, but, no, we did plain language officers. It could have been changes to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act through things like bringing back national health targets or a three-day post-natal stay. But no, no, no—Labour had better ideas: “Let’s bring about plain language officers and create some more people.” What about the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill under Nicola Willis’s name. That was great. What about life jackets for children and young persons, repealing the regional fuel tax, gang free ports, enabling restricted drivers to get to work—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): What about coming back to this bill?

TIM COSTLEY: —and I could go on. But this is about this bill because that’s what this bill was brought in against: all of those bills that could have been picked up, that could have spent time going through the House, but the House’s time was consumed with a rubbish bill that we don’t need. It was a furball, it was fluff, it was not required. They couldn’t even stick to their own rules in speaking about it at the time. And that’s why we are pleased to pass this bill now, which removes it. I commend our bill to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Thank you for the opportunity to give a contribution on the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill. I would like to begin with our demographics of Aotearoa New Zealand first. So the 2023 census data tells us that there are over a million people in Aotearoa New Zealand now who are people with ethnic community background. When you look at the numbers of Pacific people, there are over 450,000 Pacific people here. You add the number of tangata whenua Māori to that—it’s well over 900,000. That’s close to 50 percent of the overall total population of Aotearoa New Zealand now.

So if you were to ask “Is there a need for plain language for our legislation?”, I would say yes, when close to 50 percent of the total population of our country is made up of people who do not necessarily speak English. When we look at the largest city in this country, Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, more than 40 percent of the people who live in the largest city in this country were not born in Aotearoa New Zealand; they were born overseas. So do we need the Plain Language Act? I would say so—yes, absolutely. The Labour Party absolutely opposes this bill, the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill.

One of the contributions that we just heard from across the floor just now said that if you were to ring a Government department, then just take someone else with you. If you don’t really understand the English language, have that person help you. But when you ring a Government agency nowadays, most of the time you talk to a machine; you don’t actually talk to a human being. If I’m to go to my electorate office in South Auckland, in Ōtara, I have so many people that come to see me who don’t speak very good English. They’re Samoans, they’re Tongans, they’re Indians—they’re from all over the world. A lot of the times, when they do come, they actually bring a child with them who can interpret for them and on their behalf because they do not speak good English. So the question again: do we need plain language for our legislation? Absolutely—yes, we do.

So the aims of the bill that is being repealed were to improve effectiveness and accountability of Public Service agencies, to ensure documents are clear, concise, well organised, and appropriate to the intended service. Now, one of the things that this Plain Language Act Repeal Bill says is that in order for better administrative costs, we should repeal this Act. However, when we look at the transitional provisions of the original bill that’s being repealed, it was very clear. They stated that plain language requirements only apply when new documents are brought in—then plain language applies—or older documents when they’re updated, but only when they’re substantially revised.

So the question is: is there going to be a lot of administrative cost for this bill that’s being repealed? I actually don’t think it’s going to be as much as what the Government partners are saying that it would cost. If you were to ask whether it is important that close to 50 percent of our country understand the laws that we write, I would say yes.

I would also refer not to just laws but to Government documents. If I’m to go back to the times of COVID-19, there were so many documents that came through and they weren’t actually written in plain language. But not only that, we had to actually ensure that it was written in plain English, but we also needed to interpret it—to translate it—into the majority languages that people would understand. Why? Because we needed them to understand the importance of why they needed to be vaccinated, the importance of why we all needed to ensure that we save each other’s lives if we’re to get vaccinated. So we absolutely oppose this bill.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on this Plain Language Act Repeal Bill in its first reading. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa, who just sat down. I do agree with her in terms of the struggles that many ethnic communities, who now make up a large population, actually have. But in her argument she was talking about how, during the vaccination campaign in COVID times, the vaccination information needed to be translated in their own language. That is what was needed—not necessarily simple English; it was needed in the language that they understood. The other thing that she actually talked about is how there are many people who come to her electorate office with a child to translate for them. This Act has been in place since 2022. It’s now 2025, and she still has people coming to her office with a child to translate for them, so, obviously, the Plain Language Act has not actually worked.

This is the very reason. This doesn’t need a lot of time to debate. One of the issues that I have with this Plain Language Act is that as a migrant who grew up speaking English as a second language, I could not understand a lot of things. And, yes, I was that child who interpreted for my parents, but how many times do you actually see parents going through pieces of legislation? Often, it is the lawyers, the accountants, or the doctors who actually speak to them who they don’t actually understand in their day-to-day life. It is not legislation or law that requires plain language. As long as it actually makes good law, I don’t have a problem with it.

One of the pieces of advice that I actually got from a mentor many, many years ago, when I first began in Parliament, was that members’ bills should not cost taxpayers any money. This was a member’s bill that is costing taxpayers because they’re having to put in an officer to police plain language in our Government and our bureaucracy. I completely support this new bill to reduce what that former Government actually created. I completely support this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I’m actually a little bit shocked at the amount of fluff, on the other side, on this bill. If a Government’s going to repeal an Act, it had better do a good job justifying it. And what I want to do is just go plainly through what this legislation did and what we will miss, because this legislation wasn’t just about Acts of Parliament; it was about documents that interface, in terms of law, between what the Parliament decides and Government departments do and how they actually impact on ordinary New Zealanders.

If you have a look at section 6 of the Act that will be repealed, you’ll see that it applies to a range of documents. That’s your forms. That’s your documents that make people comply. It’s things like filing and registering and lodging information. It’s explaining how the public can comply with the requirement, it’s providing information to the public about that requirement, and it’s providing information as part of a public education initiative.

All of those things are really essential for people to know and to have plain words put around them so that they can be absolutely sure, if we’re going to run a democracy and if we’re going to run a place where people know what’s required of them and have a decent chance of complying.

And, yes, we have to meet people as they are, not as the people that we might be ourselves. We might have been to university or we might be able to go and ask a lawyer, but not everybody can do that. As a lawyer, I have seen the confusion that happens when people don’t know how to access information like this. They are confused by the words. It happens, despite people’s best intentions, because people bury into what they’re doing and they don’t know that, in fact, what they’re doing is not comprehensible to someone else. So this puts a bit of rigour around it. It said that someone in the organisation is going to be responsible for making sure that when we produce a document which is going to mean that the public have to comply or is a form that they’re going to need to use, we are going to have someone in our organisation who looks at that document and, actually, is also responsible for getting the feedback from the public and making sure that they’re correcting it when it needs to be corrected because it’s not plain.

Now, I want to tell you a very funny little story about this. I’ve seen a public document—we had an Act the other day—that was very much this. I urge people to have a look at the customer data information that came through. That is actually a really good example of where plain language is used, and is used well, in an Act.

But, in terms of forms, I went the other day on a website where I was trying to download some Warriors tickets. Now, it was almost impossible. I was tearing my hair out by the end of my interaction with this particular website, because the person designing the website had not thought what it was like for somebody who’d never been on the site before. And it wasn’t self-explanatory. That’s the kind of thing we can tolerate if it’s a Warriors ticket. We can’t tolerate that if it’s something where if you don’t comply, you’re in trouble with the Government or you won’t get the benefit that you need. That’s where we can’t actually tolerate that, because once we start tolerating that, we have an us and them society, don’t we? We have a society where people are frustrated and disempowered. And so that’s why I say this is so important. If the Warriors people would like to fix their website, I’d be thrilled—if they’d look at it through their eyes.

But this officer that’s been demonised in this situation which we’re talking about it—that’s the person who’s already likely employed. That’s why it was a member’s bill that didn’t have the cost associated. That’s a person focused on making sure that the law does what it says and that people know what it does. That is not a terrible thing, and it is not a good use of the time of this Parliament to be repealing it.

But, more to the point, what on earth does the Government do when it has a piece of legislation like this in front of it? Who are the people who do not understand the predicament of the ordinary New Zealander and who come along and sweep this away? As the Hon Melissa Lee says, “They simply could get a lawyer.” That’s what we’re saying—“Get a lawyer.”; that just plays into the hands of the wealthy. That’s not what the Labour Party is about, and that’s why we’re sad that this bill has come into the House today.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to speak in support of the Plain Language Act Appeal Bill because this Government stands for common sense, for efficiency, and for a Public Service that is focused on delivering outcomes for New Zealanders.

New Zealanders are very sick of red tape—things that are in front of them that are stopping them from making progress—and this Government is about cutting red tape. I’m very glad this Government has picked up this bill and made it a Government bill. I had this as a member’s bill in the biscuit tin, and I acknowledge the Hon Chris Bishop and the Hon Judith Collins KC for picking up this work, for their leadership, and for their support on this bill.

Now, let’s be very clear, we are all about supporting common sense, clear, and simple communication—this is not in question. But the Plain Language Act 2022, which is exactly what we’re trying to repeal, did not actually improve or make it easier for people to understand. What it did, though, is add costs to budgets, for officers and for very unnecessary compliance requirements. Creating a solution for a problem but not really identifying what the problem is, is exactly why this bill needs to be repealed.

Now, this Act requires the public agencies to appoint a plain language officer to report on compliance—to have someone on the headcount to simply go around and look for a problem that didn’t really exist. Now, agencies are then forced into ticking the box and make sure that there is something that has spent time and money—trying to tick a box and show that they’ve done something good.

To be clear, plain language is not a principle. Plain language shouldn’t be a policy that forces people to follow it. Plain language is actually a writing standard. Plain language isn’t something that we should be trying to regulate through law. This repeal is not about opposing plain English; it is about respecting also the judgment calls of our public servants. It is about trusting their professionalism and removing the bureaucratic requirements that have actually served no practical purpose but to increase the headcount and the salary cost that we are adding through the officers. And let’s not forget—let’s not forget—many of the agencies were already using plain language all along, before this Act even existed. So this isn’t about abandoning the good practice; it is actually about removing the cost, the extra cost, the extra layer, and the extra level of legislative requirements and letting people get on with doing their jobs.

To those who have said before me that this Act is symbolic, well, actually, it is, because it symbolises the end of wasteful Government spending. It also symbolises the beginning of an approach that prioritises outcomes rather than ticking boxes.

Now, I’ve also heard members before me talking about how—I think Helen White, the last member who spoke, actually talked about getting a lawyer to do the work. I studied law too. I was actually a bit offended by that comment because it sounded like lawyers are there just to make money. That is not true. Lawyers are there to help, to understand—to really help people who are in need—

Andy Foster: That’s not what Labour thinks.

NANCY LU: Well, that’s what Labour thinks—that is what Labour thinks—and I don’t know why she would put that to our audience.

Repealing this Act is a very small step in our legislation, but I think it is a big step for accountability, for cutting out the red tape, for improving efficiency, and for actually having some common sense in Government. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Oranga Tamariki Act 1989

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 5, “Amendments to Oranga Tamariki Act 1989”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take this call on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions, and we have some amendments that we would like to speak to throughout this committee stage as well, but I want to first start my contribution by saying how extremely disappointed I am in the Minister for Children for failing to listen to the majority of submissions that were opposed to the repeal of section 7AA, for not listening to the evidence that section 7AA will cause harm to tamariki Māori, for the Minister’s failure to present any empirical evidence that there is a problem that exists with this section. Throughout the select committee process, no empirical evidence was provided to the Social Services and Community Committee to support the Minister’s repeal of section 7AA.

I want to start by asking the Minister: where in the bill will there be an obligation on the chief executive which replaces section 7AA(2)(a), because in the repealing of this section, that entire section is being removed and there is no proposal, no proposed amendment by the Minister, to address this issue? This is an important clause that is being repealed, because the whole purpose of section 7AA was to ensure that the duties of the chief executive set out in this section are imposed in order to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Now, what section 7AA(2)(a) says is that “The chief executive must ensure that—(a) the policies and practices of the department that impact on the well-being of children and young persons have the objective of reducing disparities by setting measurable outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department”. My question to the Minister is: why is she repealing that section? Why does the Minister not think that it is important that there be an obligation on the chief executive to ensure that the policies and practices of Oranga Tamariki reduce disparities for tamariki Māori? What is the point of retaining a strategic partnership if the purpose of that is not to ensure that we are reducing the disparities for tamariki Māori?

So my question to the Minister is: why is the Minister doing that? Where else in the bill is that obligation placed on the CEO, and what is the point of having strategic partnerships if it isn’t to do the fundamental objective of this section, which is to ensure that they are reducing disparities for tamariki Māori? This is important, because tamariki Māori make up two-thirds of the children in State care. That is why we have this section. That is why this is a very, very important debate in the House this evening.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. Today, we are talking about the disparities that tamariki Māori face in care, and these are historical disparities that we still are dealing with today in 2025. I have an Amendment Paper, 240, and the purpose of this amendment is that it elaborates on and clarifies what is meant by requiring regard for Māori culture, values, and beliefs and why that is so important for our tamariki Māori to have safety, security, stability, and aroha, which is their birthright. It requires specific attention to be paid to the inherent value and dignity of tamariki Māori and their whakapapa in all actions taken and services delivered by Oranga Tamariki.

A Māori worldview is one where children don’t belong just to their parents; they belong and have that sense of belonging not only to their parents but to their whānau, to their hapū, to their iwi, to their maunga, to their awa, and 7AA was the bare minimum for acknowledging their rights under article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Green Party agree with the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that repealing section 7AA would lead to clear breaches of article 2’s guarantee to Māori of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga and of the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection. This bill fundamentally misunderstands that tikanga Māori and the role of whānau in a child’s wellbeing. Tamariki do not just belong to their parents; they belong to their whānau, their hapū, their iwi, their river, their maunga. Māori have long understood this, and children thrive within their whakapapa.

Just a few weeks ago, I attended the St Patrick’s Day event—and we’re talking about the Irish people, another people who had their language, their culture try to be stamped out of them, but their Government took it seriously, and that was what they called the re-Gaelification of Ireland. Seeing those tamariki so proud of their culture, even though they live here in New Zealand and maybe had never been to Ireland before—they were so proud that they knew about St Patrick’s Day. They knew about their culture, and that made them feel so, so safe and stable and loved, because we know, and they know, that a child shouldn’t be disconnected from their culture.

We know that it has only been a short time since the royal commission of inquiry came out, and one of the main things that came out of that was that disconnection, and being pulled from their whakapapa caused actual harm to them, harm that they are still trying to heal from today. Section 7AA is the only legislative tool that comes close to addressing the failings of our Government, and its repeal will not only breach Te Tiriti but actively put tamariki Māori at risk. There is no conflict between tikanga and safety; rather, they are inseparable.

This amendment strengthens the obligation to uphold the dignity and whakapapa of tamariki Māori. I know the Minister for Children was really concerned about the interpretation of 7AA by Oranga Tamariki staff and that was what motivated her to bring this to the House, because of that interpretation. Well, this is a way, by amending this and accepting my Amendment Paper 240, to put that back in. So I want to ask: will the Minister accept this amendment?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): First of all, I’ll just give an answer to the Hon Willow-Jean Prime around the reporting and the obligations of assessing outcomes for Māori children. This bill does not alter those obligations in any way. There are many ways that Oranga Tamariki is assessed on outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau. One of those ways that is reported is produced by the Independent Children’s Monitor reports, and of any questions the Independent Children’s Monitor requests information from Oranga Tamariki on, Oranga Tamariki is obligated to provide that information. That’s one of the ways that the chief executive is making sure that the outcomes being achieved for Māori are going well. But what I would say is that Oranga Tamariki’s focus should be that all children, and outcomes of all children, should be a focus of Oranga Tamariki—and all children that are in State care should be receiving the same love, care, and respect. That’s the first point.

The second one is speaking to Amendment Paper 240. I will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment is not consistent with the policy intent of the bill to repeal section 7AA of the Act. The suggested amendment exists in the context of the chief executive’s responsibility to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act to promote the wellbeing and best interests of children, young persons, their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups in particular.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister. But that wasn’t actually what my questions were. My questions were not about the reporting—I’ll come to reporting later and the questions that I have around reporting. My questions were specifically about the legislative requirement of the CEO under the current clause 7AA(2)(a), which is being repealed, and that puts legal responsibility on the chief executive to do something, not just to report on something but to actually do it. I’ll read it again for the Minister because this is important. This is the whole reason we have section 7AA, to address this issue. It says, “[The chief executive must ensure] that—(a) the policies and practices of the department that impact on the well-being of children and young persons have the objective of reducing disparities by setting measurable outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department:” This isn’t about reporting what sorts of outcomes there have been. That is what the Minister answered in her question. The question I have is about the legal responsibility of the chief executive to have policies, practices, and measurable outcomes to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. The Minister jumped to the reporting on something, but what are they reporting on? This section is being taken away.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I think I’ve made it very clear that I do not feel it’s necessary to have separate obligations based on race. We should be treating all our children with the same level of respect and care and making sure that they are all taken care of, in a way. And the chief executive has an obligation to the Independent Children’s Monitor to report on those disparities and to have multiple reports and multiple obligations. Adding more red tape to how we deal with this, and writing reports rather than actually doing our job, is not accomplishing that. So, at the end of the day, every child deserves to be treated with the same level of care and respect and meeting their needs—and if “meeting their needs” means that it is te ao Māori approach, then that should be happening. But I am not going to treat our children differently.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I’m sure that last year, we were all told that we can’t wear our party emblems and things in here, but I see that the leader of the ACT Party is over there with an ACT pin on his chest.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you for pointing that out. Are the ACT Party members wearing any noticeable—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Yes, indeed. I forgot that I’d put it on, and I’m really pleased to see Te Pāti Māori trying to uphold the protocol of the House instead of dragging it down, for a change.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): In that response, the Minister for Children said that she doesn’t believe that there needs to be separate or specific policies for different ethnicities, or race, or so on in her answer. My question to the Minister is: given that Māori make up two-thirds of the children in care, does the Minister not think that it is important to have a requirement on the chief executive to look at policies and practices that would reduce those disparities for tamariki Māori that don’t exist for everybody else because they do not make up two-thirds of the care system?

The Minister referred in her answer to reporting on all of these things, but what is the point of having a report if there is no legal obligation on the chief executive to actually do something about it? Let’s be very clear, the Minister—in repealing this section 7AA—is very clearly removing the obligation on the chief executive to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. I want to understand from the Minister why she doesn’t think it is important to have that legal obligation on the CEO for tamariki Māori, who make up two-thirds of the care system.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to speak to my Amendment Paper 241, which talks about the obligations of the chief executive (CE). Now, responsibilities—pay attention to what that means for tamariki Māori. What is focused on is what is addressed, and this needs to be enshrined in law because we know that tamariki Māori are not treated equally. We know that, because history has shown us over and over that tamariki Māori have been let down by the system. I’m sure the Minister has been party to far more documents and information and empirical evidence than we have, and I really implore the Minister to look at that empirical evidence, because I believe in all of our ability to decipher between empirical evidence and evidence. That is what we’re talking about here when we—it is not good enough to just expect something to be reported on and to leave it up to the Independent Children’s Monitor. When something is enshrined in law, it happens.

With the CE being responsible for the disparities that tamariki Māori face, that means that those disparities can actually lessen, and that’s the goal, right? Wouldn’t it be amazing if we didn’t have to have it, if in fact that would be the ideal? But at the moment, what the Minister is asking us is to walk around in a pitch-black shed with a torch, shining at these issues, shining a light on the darkness that happens within State care. But what we need to do is have that chief executive turn on the lights so that we can see the whole picture of what is happening, and shine a light on all of the darkness so that our tamariki Māori can have everything they deserve: all of the safety, which I know the Minister has said she’s really, really focused on; to have the stability that all of our tamariki deserve and need, and that aroha. When we boil it down, that is what all tamariki need: safety, stability, and aroha.

When we look at the evidence, we can see that when we have reported on these things, when we have reported on the disparities of tamariki Māori, actually, the proportion of Māori tamariki in care has reduced. It is working. So the concerns that the Minister has about section 7AA—well, let’s keep the really cool stuff that’s in section 7AA, the stuff that means that tamariki Māori are connected to their whānau, are connected to their culture, and that the CE is responsible for making sure that those disparities continue to decrease.

I want to know about why this proposed repeal of section 7AA—which the Minister has raised concerns about, particularly around those statutory duties of the chief executive to ensure that the policies and practices of the department—the department being the regional offices of Oranga Tamariki—and of any services and outsourcing for community providers and partnerships actually have the objective of reducing disparities of tamariki Māori. Because isn’t that what we’re here for: to make sure that all tamariki are treated with that safety, stability, and aroha? But having the lights off and just pretending that that doesn’t happen, and ignoring that section 7AA actually has helped reduce those disparities, is doing a disservice—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. When we suspended for the dinner break, we were debating Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to stand to speak to the member Kahurangi Carter on Amendment Paper 241, set down by the member for the Greens. I appreciate the questions that were asked in regards to this amendment. I will not be supporting this amendment. The Social Services and Community Committee considered the reporting obligations imposed on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki by section 7AA. These include an obligation to report on the impact of measures taken to reduce disparities for Māori. By majority, the committee was satisfied that there are sufficient mechanisms outside of section 7AA for reporting outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori, produced by both Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor. The majority recommended no amendments to the provisions in the bill around reporting duties.

I’d like to also include that there are other ways that this is reported upon. These include the annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau; the state of Oranga Tamariki system report to be released at least once every three years, which requires an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children, young people, and their whānau; and the annual compliance report against the Oranga Tamariki (National Care Standards and Related Matters) Regulations 2018. These standards set the standard of care for all children in care, and achieving these is a priority for Oranga Tamariki. We also have several reports from Oranga Tamariki, including its annual report, which refers to measured performance against standards agreed as part of the annual appropriations, and its quarterly report, providing regular updates on progress towards ministerial priorities, its strategic direction, and key appropriation performance measures, among other matters. These reports publicly set out how the ministry is making a difference for children and young people and their families. We also have the annual Safety of Children in Care report, which publicly reviews and measures the findings of harm for Māori children and young people in care.

Now, in one of the questions or speeches prior to the dinner break, there was a comment made that we didn’t listen to the submitters. I would like to just push back against that because I actually went away and I did listen to the submissions in regards to the reporting, and I asked Oranga Tamariki questions around what we report on and how many reports are made. There were multiple reports that reported on just this. I also asked what kind of resources it takes to do the report that the chief executive is obligated to do right now. The resources were around four fulltime-equivalents to get this report put together. I believe that those resources are better allocated elsewhere. We’re actually putting the services in front of the young people rather than writing about it.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I thank the Minister for her response to questions on that, and I will come to that point, shortly, myself. But I do want to note that the questions that I had earlier haven’t been answered yet, and that is right back at the beginning around section 7AA(2)(a). I was not asking about reporting; I was asking about the statutory obligations on the chief executive that are now being removed with the repeal of section 7AA.

To come to the reporting, the Minister just then said that she has listened to the submissions and has come to the conclusion, based on what she had heard, to her satisfaction, that there were other reporting obligations and requirements in the Act, and, basically, that is a waste of money to spend it on four fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) to properly report against what is in this section. Essentially, what I was hearing is that she doesn’t think it’s justified to have four fulltime-equivalent positions to do this reporting, because the Minister doesn’t believe that this reporting is important.

But the point I would like to make and to ask the Minister about is—I’m pleased to hear that you said that you listened to the submissions and read the advice and asked your officials for further advice on this, because what you would have seen in the report is that some of us consider that clause 10 of the bill should require the monitor to carry out the reporting that Oranga Tamariki itself would have done under the principal Act. Some of us also note that, following submissions from the public, advisers recommended the committee consider two prospective amendments to the bill to move both strategic partnerships and all the reporting requirements contained in section 7AA to other sections of the principal Act.

Now, the Minister said that she listened to the submissions, sought the advice, and then was satisfied with the advice that it wasn’t necessary to do this. Now, the point I want to make to the Minister and to the committee is that what is there is not exactly what is being taken out. It is not like for like. It is not a complete replacement of that. So the Minister stood up here and gave us a big long answer of all the sorts of reporting that Oranga Tamariki is required to do—and it sounds like a lot, and it is a lot, and it should be a lot—but the point is that it is not what section 7AA required them to do. That is being lost now.

After the submissions, the advisers recommended that the reporting requirements, as they originally were, be continued. It was the choice of the majority, and for anybody listening in tonight, the code for majority is the Government, not the Opposition. So the Government members who make up the majority of the committee recommended that they were satisfied that some reporting was fine and you didn’t need this actual reporting to be required in the legislation.

Joseph Mooney: Who voted against the strategic partnerships?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right. No, no, no. What are you talking about?

Joseph Mooney: Who voted against strategic partnerships in the committee?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Are they the same, Joseph? What is the point in having—

Joseph Mooney: Who voted against strategic partnerships at the select committee?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Madam Chair! What is the point of having a strategic—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please call Joseph by both names.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Mr Mooney, chair of the select committee, what is the point of having a strategic partnership if there is no obligation, no responsibility, nothing in statute on the chief executive to actually achieve anything in terms of that? So let’s just window-dress this. Let’s just have a partnership for partnership’s sake, but not actually say we’re committed to reducing disparities and not actually say that we are committed to reporting on what was in section 7AA. No. “We’re going to cherry-pick one of the recommendations.” That’s what the committee did and said, “We just recommend this within this limited scope of what we want strategic partnerships to do.” Be under no illusion, I say to this committee, that that replacement that they have got in there, that retention of that one section—[Time expired]

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for that, and I believe that that addresses some of the member’s amendments that have been tabled.

The member’s amendment that was tabled at 6 p.m. in regards to including outcomes for Māori children and young persons in section 7(2): “after paragraph (g), insert ‘(h) report annually on the impact of the chief executive’s duties on the outcomes for children and young people, including Māori children and young persons, and the reduction of disparities.’ ”—I believe that I have answered already my reasons as to why I would not be supporting that.

To the member’s amendment tabled at 5.31 p.m., requesting that in clause 5, “Section 7AA repealed”, be replaced with “Section 7AA”, I would answer that by saying that the whole reason I’m repealing this section is that I believe that it brings in a conflict when it comes to the chief executive actually making good decisions when it comes to the care and protection of our young people. This is the main reason why I’m repealing the bill, and so I won’t be supporting that.

The member’s amendment tabled at 5.32 p.m., which says, “Clause 4A(1): Section 7(2)(h), after subparagraph (v), insert ‘annually report on progress made to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department’ ”—I believe I have already answered as to why I won’t be supporting that.

I think we need to also have a conversation about what we do expect to be the obligations for the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. Part of why I’ve brought this bill to the House is to make it very clear that the expectation on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki is to get back to the core purpose of what Oranga Tamariki is there for. It is there to protect our children, and, yes, I do agree that there are some disparities for Māori children, but we need to get out of this idea that these children come to us in one piece, all whole, with no trauma.

Oranga Tamariki is the last line of defence for these young children. They have come here when everybody else has let them down. Everybody who is supposed to love them, care for them, and treat them with love and respect has not done that. Now, Oranga Tamariki is having to step in and pick up the pieces, and, as far as I’m concerned, the main obligation on the chief executive is to make sure that that child is safe, that child has a roof over their head, that child is fed, that child is loved, and that child has every chance to grow up to be the best that they can be.

They are not to be seen just as only a certain colour or a certain race or from a certain background. They’re to be seen as a child and we need to assess their real needs, which could be medical, which could be disabilities, or which could be all kinds of issues, and if we address those issues, we address the disparities.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Kahurangi Carter. I just wanted to make the point that this committee, while things that happen in select committee are part of the discussion, we don’t have any intention—or I don’t have any intention—of us relitigating what happened in the select committee process. It can be mentioned, but members are not to re-debate it.

Also, I would just make the point that this is a very tense and emotional bill. We are looking for questions for the Minister, and I did notice that when the Minister was talking, we had several people who were having their own discussions and not listening to the answers. So I think that perhaps if we be a little respectful across the Chamber, we’ll get a lot further, because this is something that does upset people, and we are not going to come to a decision tonight that everybody is going to like. So if we can just follow good process, and I was going to call Kahurangi Carter—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Just on a point of order, Madam Chairperson, if I may.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this a point of order?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Just a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order. Thank you. I hear it—I hear the direction from the Chair, Madam Chair. The point about it being very emotional, I get that too, but we’re talking about Māori children, and there are only very few Māori in here that can actually relate and understand that single, fundamental issue. So my colleagues—these two on the side here—think that they can discuss it up, like white men often do, because they come at it like it’s a white man talking to a Māori woman about Māori children. That’s the point of order—

Hon Member: Look at who’s the Minister.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I’m speaking to no one else but Madam Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for that point of order. I was just going to make a statement on that point of order. I do understand, actually, the very point that people are wanting to make points from their different perspectives, and I’m trying to make sure that we’re not attacking each other through this. It’s always going to be a little difficult—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can I speak to the point of order again, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think I had someone else who wanted to speak to that point of order first.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Just to point out that that’s actually highly insulting, to be calling race into question in that point of order. Plus, we’re actually discussing the welfare of all children.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Speaking to that—

Hon Peeni Henare: That’s not a point of order.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: No, it’s hardly a point of order. It’s preposterous—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet during—excuse me, the member is speaking to the point of order. Can we, please, have silence.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: In that regard, it is as preposterous as thinking that any man can talk about what is best for women. And every woman in this Chamber right now will understand exactly what I’m talking about. So when the two on my left think that they can tell me, as a Māori woman, what is best for Māori children, they will always be wrong and out-ruled, as such. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): What I’m asking for, in terms of this debate, given that we’re not going to agree, is respect across the committee. I understand it’s emotional. Just let’s not beat each other up through this process. We’re going to get to a place that we’re not going to agree on, but the point of this is actually to ask the Minister questions, not to beat each other up as a Parliament.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m speaking to clause 4A(1AAA) which is part of my Amendment Paper 241—and I do ask again whether the Minister for Children will accept this—because I want to talk in response to a few things that the Minister has talked about in her answers.

So the Minister outlined the reporting that is required of Oranga Tamariki, the Independent Children’s Monitor, and other bodies, none of which are enshrined in legislation—none. We know that our laws have to reflect the country that we want. The Minister has said that she wants our tamariki to be safe, and to have stability, and to have everything that they need to thrive. When we’re talking about reporting annually or reporting quarterly, it really ignores the everyday day-to-day operations that are going on, the everyday care that we have for tamariki, and the need for the chief executive (CE) to be responsive to that.

So, for example, the Independent Children’s Monitor brought out a scathing report just a few weeks ago. So, naturally, what will happen at Oranga Tamariki and other bodies will be that there will be changes to processes and policy. What’s really important is that the CE has a legal obligation under our law to actually respond to those discrepancies that happen for tamariki Māori, which were outlined clearly in that report. By saying, “No, we don’t need to have that law in there for reporting.”, it takes away that real opportunity to have the CE have an overall view of what happens for these tamariki, because that report showed us that these tamariki aren’t getting educated, they’re not enrolled with a GP. There are so many things that are happening that really need us to take seriously that what is reported is what is addressed. By only doing that annually or in these quarterly reports, it really takes away from the importance of the CE having it in there.

I want to respond also to the Minister talking about the four fulltime-equivalents (FTEs). Now, we know that about 600 jobs have been cut from Oranga Tamariki under the Minister’s watch, and that’s leaving us with about 419 less people working at Oranga Tamariki. So it feels ingenuine that the Minister is saying that four FTEs is a really big deal when over 400 jobs have been lost at Oranga Tamariki. So if we really are serious about providing safety, stability, and that being paramount here, then let’s enshrine it in law. Let’s make sure that the CE is reporting on those disparities. Even the Minister herself has just said and accepted that there are disparities for tamariki Māori.

I just want to go to Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown’s select committee submission. Now, Dr Luke is a lecturer at the law facility at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington with expertise in child protection and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and completed their PhD on the topic of decolonising child protection in 2022. Now, in part of his submission, he stated, “The stated purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children in care is paramount. Overall, as I’m sure my submission makes clear, this misconstrues how the law operates, as section 7AA in no way undermines safety and wellbeing.” He adds, “I oppose this repeal.”

So I ask the Minister again to please reconsider my Amendment Paper 241 because we’ve worked really hard to listen to what the Minister wants from this bill and this amendment will go a long way to achieving the purpose. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. This will be the last time I answer to this question because I’ve answered it multiple times. But what I will say is that Independent Children’s Monitor (ICM) reports are a statutory obligation. The power for the ICM to require the information from Oranga Tamariki is a statutory obligation, and the chief executive has a legislative obligation to respond to the ICM and the ICM reports on these issues.

The other area is around the standards. When I talk about Māori having disparities within Oranga Tamariki, we know we have a high level of Māori children that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. What happens before they come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki is the responsibility of not just Government but society and multiple agencies to get involved before they get to the point where they end up in Oranga Tamariki. But when they do, we need to make sure that we are meeting the standards for these young children—and we know we’re not. And that needs to be the focus for all children within Oranga Tamariki.

Now, Oranga Tamariki has an obligation in many places to report on multiple things, and the National Care Standards are one of them. They have a legal obligation to report on the National Care Standards. There’s around 80 of these National Care Standards to make sure that we are meeting them. What I want to do is focus on making sure that we are assessing all these children for what they need, and, when they have those needs, that we’re meeting them. Oranga Tamariki needs to get that focus back, and this is the intention of this bill: get back to the core purpose of Oranga Tamariki, which is to make sure that we have the care and protection in place for these children, and also making sure that we are getting young people who come to our attention in front of the right people. That’s what these strategic partnerships and enabling community programmes are about: they are about making sure that we are putting these young people in front of the right people who can meet their needs.

I take the point of the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, pointing out that the one thing that the submitters really did want to keep was those partnership and enabling community programmes. And the very party that’s supposed to be fighting for that voted against it, which I really can’t understand—why a party that wants things done for Māori would vote against the strategic partnerships for Māori and the enabling communities for Māori staying within the bill. I mean, that’s where we listened to what the submitters were saying and what they wanted, and we agreed to those changes.

So I think we need to be very careful with accusing people of nitpicking at little bits and pieces because, honestly, for the party that talks about wanting to do things for Māori to vote against one of the biggest things that they asked for is actually quite disappointing.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for Children’s contribution just then, then what’s the point of throwing the baby out with the bath water? If the Minister is prepared to sit there and accuse members, in particular in the Opposition, of cherry-picking matters within the bill that we choose to support—we’ve raised this from the start of this Government’s plan with regard to section 7AA, about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But I’m going to leave that there, and I want to bring the attention of the committee and the Minister to a number of questions that I have with respect to clause 4A, “Section 7 amended (Duties of chief executive)”, and I want to touch on two key points here. One, it says there, in in the proposal of the bill, “partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations”, and then it says, “including iwi authorities”, as if to differentiate between an iwi authority and an iwi. This begs the question that I have for the Minister and the officials here who support her: the definition of iwi. What does that mean for those who are—if the definition is what I suspect it will be with respect to settlements—yet to settle, for those who present, whether it be through resource management and other matters, to be representative of iwi? Just a little bit of guidance there from the Minister on that particular matter. It is a broad term, and the Minister’s that committed to making sure she gets it right. We want to make sure that in her working with others in this most important sector, she’s working with the right people.

Then I come down to the third point there: “enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information between department and those organisations”. I wonder if the Minister is of a mind to extend the definition of “information” to include “clear data”. There have been a number of challenges to this Government, and previous Governments, to be fair, about what data set to share, the protection of data, how crucial that data is to make informed decisions, and to make sure that they’re able to support the people that they’re there to support. The term in this particular bill says, “information”. I wonder if the Minister has considered, or if the advisers have given her any advice about, making that far more explicit in saying “clear data sets”, or is this just a broad sweep for information that the department is willing to share and has the discretion of doing so? That’s of huge concern. If you’re entering into a strategic partnership, you want to make sure that they’ve got the information, they’ve got the data, they’ve got all the things to make sure that this is a successful strategic partnership and not one still simply run by the department, which continues and has continued over many years to let communities down, whānau down, tamariki down.

So just two clearer points for the Minister: one is around iwi; the other one is around the expression of information and whether or not that extends into data. I think those are two important questions that the Minister can help us to understand the broader aspect of the plan that she’s tried to describe in her contributions, not just in this particular committee of the whole House but throughout the whole passage of this entire bill. So I’ll leave those questions on the table for the Minister’s consideration.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Just to start with this context, I worked in Child, Youth and Family Services—which was called CYFs back then—in 1989 and 1990. I registered as one of the first family group conference coordinators and was a care and protection social worker and youth justice social worker, so all of what we’re discussing now, there are probably very few in the House that understand it like I do. So when I’m running this line and when I’m talking the way I’m talking, it’s not because I’m talking through a hole in my head; it’s because I’m smart and experienced. And I’ve been a Māori for a while, so I can talk to those things with clarity and I’m not traumatised by it. I’m not traumatised by it. All right? So I want to put that context there.

I want to follow up also just in support of some of the questions that have already been placed to the Minister for Children. I am curious to understand, when you’re benefiting from Māori organisations or iwi and you love all that Māori kōrero, those kupu, but you won’t treat and acknowledge mokopuna as tapu, and you won’t because you can’t understand—well, actually, let me just ask you if you understand te tapu o te mokopuna [the sanctity of the grandchild]. I’d really be interested to know what you understand and how you can articulate that in the context of this bill. If you can do that, that might be really useful for me to understand and, well, fathom where this is at.

These are important questions because the core of this is about mokopuna, their tapu, their whakapapa, and their whanaungatanga, despite the fact, Minister, that you yourself might not recognise it in you, therefore—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually a Government bill, so let’s not make personal attacks on the Minister.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: It is a Government bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do get that, but it is held tightly by a Minister who at times has borrowed her whakapapa and nearly held it up—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No. No. Stop—stop! I’m not going to wait for the point of order. Can we please go back to the piece of legislation and not focus on the Minister.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: You know what, Madam Speaker—see, that’s the missing piece that is completely misunderstood or the huge gap of knowledge on the other side of the House. You cannot separate those things. You cannot separate them. So that’s why, when I’m standing up to be this and talk like this, it’s not because—

Laura McClure: Point of order.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I’m still talking so I’m going to keep going.

Laura McClure: Point of order. I want to take some relevance on the previous member. If we could just stick back to the bill. I believe she’s completely irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. I’m watching for the questions and I’m just waiting for some answers, but I am concerned we’re going back to where we were about 15 minutes ago, where we’re starting to actually point the finger at each other and move away from the legislation. So I would like this to move clearly to questions to the Minister, not comments about the Minister, because actually this is a Government bill and the Government is totally responsible for the fact that this bill is in front of the House today. So can we please focus on the piece of legislation and can we please focus on questions. I know it’s hard; it’s very narrow.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Thank you. Thank you for clapping. I would like the Minister to respond to my question on her work to work with iwi and how that will occur. I’d be interested to hear that, particularly Ngāpuhi iwi, because, of course, there are far too many people in State care, Ngāpuhi people. So I’m interested to hear what her response might be to that. Ngāpuhi—yeah, that’s a big one for us. I’ll just sit there for now and see what else I can come up with in the next minute.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take a moment to respond to the Hon Peeni Henare around section 7, which will be maintained within the Act, and around the wording regarding iwi authorities and data. The wording will stay exactly the same. The wording is not changing within that section, and it will stay the same as in the current Act, the interpretation developing over time in the normal way. But what I would say is that when it comes to data, I hear that everywhere I go around New Zealand and when I’m visiting the strategic partners and the people with their enabling communities, that is something that has been a real problem for a very long time.

So we are running pilots at the moment, around how we can share that data in a more open way and be a bit more transparent. I have set my expectations that Oranga Tamariki make sure that we are making those connections, and with those connections should come the data—that has been something that I’ve been very passionate about. And making sure that we can do that in a safe way and work together with iwi and hapū to make sure that they know where the children are so that they can step in and help and do what’s needed. So I appreciate that question, and we’re working on it.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start my questions in response to the Minister for Children’s statement. She said that the one thing, or the main thing, that submitters wanted was to keep strategic partnerships. The Minister should be careful with the words that she chooses to use, because that mischaracterises what the submitters were actually asking for. To be very, very clear, many of the submitters were asking to stop entirely the repeal of section 7AA. They also asked to retain the requirement on the CEO to ensure that the policies and practices are to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. They also asked for the reporting requirements to remain. So, no, they didn’t only ask for strategic partnerships. They asked to keep Te Tiriti. They asked to keep the entire section 7AA. They asked to keep strategic partnerships. They asked to keep the reporting. So to say that was the one thing and then the Labour Party—who purports to represent this, that, and the other thing—vote against it, like we are the bad guys and letting these submitters down, is not a reflection of what actually happened in the committee and the submissions made by the submitters.

Now my question to the Minister, because I see that she really wanted to dismiss my proposed amendments, move past them really quickly, and say that they have been addressed—I don’t believe they have been addressed, because what I need the Minister to confirm for me is they cannot be addressed because they are not like for like. So the big, long list that she ran off about the reporting requirements of Oranga Tamariki; I need to understand from the Minister whether she agrees and acknowledges that what she has listed in response to my proposed amendments around reporting—just to remind everybody what those are, the annual report on progress made to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department—has not been addressed by her answer. Those things she listed do not do that.

Now, if the Minister read the departmental report, on page 20, the official said, “There are no other provisions in the Act that provide for … public mandatory”—mandatory; this is a keyword, “mandatory”—“reporting on measures taken to reduce disparities for Māori children and young people in state care.” And on the basis of that conclusion that officials came to, they recommended on pages 21 and 22 that “clauses equivalent to subsections 7AA(5) and 7AA(6) regarding reporting duties of the chief executive in the other parts of the ACT.” be inserted. So it wasn’t just strategic partnerships; the officials also recommended these reporting requirements. Why? Because nowhere else in the Act is it mandatory for anybody—the Children’s Monitor, Oranga Tamariki themselves, the Children’s Commissioner, nobody—to do what has been taken out today.

So can the Minister please confirm for me that it is in fact the case that with the repeal of this legislation, there will not be a replacement for this, that this monitoring and reporting function is not in fact being done in those other reports that she has spoken to this evening.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to go through a couple of points with the Minister on this. Just in terms of the reporting, can the Minister confirm that Oranga Tamariki regularly prepares and releases a number of reports, including its annual report; its quarterly report, which is an overview of progress scores and strategic directions; and the Safety of Children in Care annual report, another one reporting on findings of harm for young people in care. Under section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Minister for Children is required to report to Parliament, in addition, every three years on whether legislation and Government policy meet the needs of children and young people. In addition to that, the Independent Children’s Monitor must prepare annual reports on compliance with national care standards and regulations, and outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau, and the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki must prepare a written response to any report produced by the monitor in relation to Oranga Tamariki. The monitor can request any information that it deems relevant, which the chief executive must provide. Can the Minister confirm that all of those reports remain in place?

Now, the next thing I want to ask is around strategic partnerships. Can the Minister confirm the original bill was repealing section 7AA in its entirety? Concerns were raised by a number of submitters. The Waitangi Tribunal also recommended that the requirements in section 7AA to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations be retained. Can the Minister confirm that there’s been an amendment, following the select committee process, to retain that aspect of section 7AA to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities, noting that those were still going to be available but now have been specifically retained in the legislation?

Clause 4A amending section 7 includes things like: “(i) provide opportunities to, and invite innovative proposals from, those organisations to improve outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and their whānau who come to the attention of the department: (ii) set expectations and targets to improve outcomes for Māori children and young persons who come to the attention of the department: (iii) enable the robust, regular, and genuine exchange of information between the department and those organisations: [and] (iv) provide opportunities for the chief executive to delegate functions under this Act or regulations … to appropriately qualified people within those organisations:”—and, just to clarify, those are iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities. Those concerns that were raised around strategic partnerships—can the Minister confirm that those have been specifically addressed and are now being retained in the legislation, to address those concerns that were raised?

Just one other, final point: can the Minister confirm that the purposes section, section 4, of the Oranga Tamariki Act has not been changed, was never going to be changed, and includes things such as “(1) The purposes of this Act are to promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups by—(a) establishing, promoting, or co-ordinating services that are designed to affirm mana tamaiti (tamariki), are centred on children’s and young persons’ rights, promote their best interests, advance their well-being, address their needs, and provide for their participation in decision making that affects them:” and “(iii) are culturally appropriate and competently provided:” and go on to “(d) assisting families and whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups, at the earliest opportunity, to fulfil their responsibility to meet the needs of their children and young persons (including their developmental needs, and the need for a safe, stable, and loving home):”, “(g) recognizing mana tamiti (tamariki), whakapapa, and the practice of whanaungatanga for children and young persons who come to the attention of the department:”, “(h) maintaining and strengthening the relationship between children and young persons who come to the attention of the department and their—(i) family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family group; and (ii) siblings:” and “(i) responding to alleged offending and offending by children and young persons in a way that—(i) promotes their rights and best interests and acknowledges their needs;”?

Can the Minister confirm that all of these purposes, which are specifically spelled out in section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, have never changed, were never going to change, and are being retained in the bill?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, I can confirm that all of those things are within the Act and they will not change. The Act already has provisions that protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi. There is section 4(1)(g), section 5(1)(b)—and another part of section 5(1)(b)—5(1)(c), and 13(2)(b). All have protections for whānau, hapū, and iwi within the legislation. My point, which I will repeat again is: if we are taking care of the real, assessed needs of these young people that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki and we put them in front of the right things that they need at that time through a proper assessment process across multiple agencies who have a role to play with these young people, we will address those disparities, because we will have Māori children that don’t have a GP. But we will also have non-Māori children that don’t have a GP. We will have non-Māori children that don’t go to school. We will also have Māori children that don’t go to school.

These children do not come to Oranga Tamariki for no reason. Oranga Tamariki is the last line of defence for these children. They have been let down by everybody who is supposed to love and care for them, and, now, Oranga Tamariki, a Government organisation, is having to take care of these young people and take care of their needs that are often caused by the very people that are supposed to love and care for them. Sometimes, we need to listen to the voice of the children, too, not just all the adults in the organisations trying to make decisions for them. What if a young person doesn’t want a Māori approach? What if a young person wants a different approach? We need to create the options so that if they do want that, they can, but we are not going to be forcing young people to do anything. We need to listen to their voices.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): 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 (Barbara Kuriger): I will remind members that we will have silence during voting, thank you. I did hear some comments. I’m not going to make anything of it right now, but we’ve got a few votes to go through and we’ll take those in silence, thank you.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 240 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 241 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 242 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4A inserting new subclauses (1AA) and (1AB) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 4A(1) inserting new subparagraph (vii) into section 7(2)(h) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting section 7AA is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

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

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.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 6 to 11, “Consequential amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Children questions specifically about clause 7, which says, “Section 24 amended (Annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau)”, that that section be replaced with these words: “When preparing the report, the Monitor must consider and be informed by any information obtained in accordance with this Act.”

My question to the Minister is: is it correct that that information will no longer be any reports that were published under section 7AA(5) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989? Oh, no answer?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason I ask that question is because, as we were debating earlier, the point is that what the list that was read out from the other side of the Chamber—the things that the Minister referred to—what they were referring to is not the same as what is being taken out of the legislation. To tell the public; to tell this committee, “It’s OK, There’s all sorts of other reporting that Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor and others are still required to do.”; the point is that none of them are required to report on the things that section 7AA reported on.

So is it correct, Minister, that there will no longer be provided to the Independent Children’s Monitor, who does the oversight of Oranga Tamariki, any reports published under section 7AA(5) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989? And which, of all of those reports that she has listed in her previous answers, is going to replace the information that the monitor would have been required by law to receive?

So this is the issue: it was mandatory reporting before, and now there is no mandatory requirement for that. There is nothing to require Oranga Tamariki to give that same information to the Independent Children’s Monitor. So can the Minister please tell us exactly which reports, which information, which part of the section of any of the pieces of legislation is going to require Oranga Tamariki to give exactly that information to the Independent Children’s Monitor so that we can get accurate reports on what Oranga Tamariki are doing in terms of their policies, their practices, and their strategic partnerships to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I will repeat this one last time: this amendment removes references to section 7AA but retains the requirement to report on outcomes for Māori children, young people, whānau, and, especially, improving outcomes for these children through the Independent Children’s Monitor annual report.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sick and tired of being an angry Māori wahine, but I am an angry Māori wahine, and the repeal of section 7AA is cause for anger. It is also cause for deep sadness and talks to the intergenerational trauma and pain that this Parliament has inflicted on tamariki Māori. It was actually the National Party who brought in section 7AA because they saw the outcry of New Zealanders when it came out that newborn Māori tamariki were being taken, ripped, from their mothers’ arms without due cause. This was happening just a few years ago.

When we brought in section 7AA—when the National Party brought in section 7AA—it was a part of helping heal that intergenerational trauma, and since that has come in, there has been an improvement with less tamariki Māori in State care, because there was a focus on reducing the disparities. Now, Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown said the decision to repeal section 7AA is one of several recent actions which ignore, diminish, or directly breach te Tiriti. These include the decisions to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora, the removal of Treaty provisions in the Corrections Amendment Bill, Government directives relating to te reo Māori, the planned introduction of the Treaty principles bill, and many others. We cannot look at this in isolation. We have to look at this as a bigger picture of what is happening to tamariki Māori.

I want to talk to Part 2, clause 8, which replaces section 57(1)(e)(i). My Amendment Paper 242 replaces new section 57(1)(e)(i) to include direct reference to section 7(1)(c) and (2)(baa), (c)(i), (g), (ga), (h), and (i). And the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that earlier changes related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, measurable outcomes, and public reporting are fully integrated and operational throughout the entire Oranga Tamariki Act. We cannot remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Oranga Tamariki Act when two-thirds of tamariki in care are tamariki Māori. By referencing section 7(1)(c) and (2)(baa), (ga), (h), and (i), it ensures that the oversight system consistently upholds these key principles and requirements, providing a cohesive framework for accountability and transparency across the Act.

I am asking the Minister to please listen to the people who are experts in this field, to the people with lived experience, to the tamariki who came to select committee and poured their hearts out, the tamariki with experience of having the State as a parent, a State who is supposed to fill that gap when, as you say, they haven’t been shown that love in their life and who failed miserably. And they asked you, Minister—they asked you—to listen to them and to keep 7AA. I understand that it is your belief that 7AA is not being operationalised correctly, but this is your opportunity to listen to those tamariki and to make sure that we, as the Government, are accountable to them and to all the tamariki in every future generation after so that this generational trauma that has been inflicted by the State can have some healing. Please consider my Amendment Paper 242.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I wholeheartedly agree. I stand here sick of being an angry Māori too. I get sick of seeing an organisation making the wrong decisions because they’re not putting the safety and the wellbeing of our children first.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You have no evidence of that.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have no evidence of that. OK, I’ll read you some evidence that came through the select committee. Caregivers shared experiences of having a child being removed from their care to be placed with whānau, or Oranga Tamariki attempting to remove the child from their care. They submitted that in their experience, their best interests were not prioritised. One caregiver shared that in order to keep a child in their long-term care, they had to seek legal support. They raised practice concerns, including about a former social worker and a supervisor who prioritised placing the child with whānau, and, by the site’s own admission, were so set on sticking to 7AA that they failed to look at the child’s best interests.

A second caregiver spoke of their experience with providing emergency placements for children while more long-term placement arrangements were being sought. The submitter shared one case where a child was moved from their emergency care to live with whānau, which had ended with the child being harmed by another member of the whānau. This submitter also shared that in their direct experience with three other placements, the focus by social workers on whānau placement had meant the children were moved between placement several times where whānau placements fell through, sometimes in a matter of weeks or within matters of months. A third caregiver shared that when section 7AA came into place, they were told that tamariki Māori in their permanent care were no longer arraigned with them because they were Pākehā and he was Māori.

Now, I do not expect that Oranga Tamariki would have been able to say that section 7AA had resulted in poor practice decisions. It’s not like a social worker is going to record a case note saying, “I’m removing this child from a safe, stable home because 7AA tells me to do so.” I refer to paragraph 48 of the regulatory impact statement, which states, “There have been examples of decisions where the safety and stability of children was compromised.” While the regulatory impact statement notes that these cases appear to be the result of poor practice decisions rather than section 7AA, I would contend that it is legislation which drives the culture and the practice. And 7AA created a conflict for social workers between safety and liability on one hand, and cultural considerations on the other. This bill removes the conflict and makes it clear that the wellbeing and best interests of the child is a paramount consideration. I will quote from the initial advice I received from officials regarding the repeal of section 7AA, saying, “we acknowledge that there have been times where social workers may have used Section 7AA to justify decision making in relation to care arrangements for Māori children which may not have been safe or in their best interests.”

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I rise as a bit of a grumpy Pākehā, actually, just looking what is going on in this place this evening. I don’t know if it’s a debate—I don’t even know if it’s contest of ideas, but I want to look at clause 11—

Hon Matt Doocey: From your side it isn’t.

GLEN BENNETT: I hear it’s from our side, but I completely disagree with that in terms of what has been coming from the Minister’s chair. But what I want to ask about is in clause 11, “Regulation 8” where it says in the new paragraphs (a) and (b) “an assessment of the outcomes being achieved by the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki for Māori children and young people, and their whānau”, and then it goes on. I’ll talk about paragraph (b) shortly, but my question to the Minister is: the Minister has made it very clear throughout the whole debate that the Minister doesn’t believe that decisions should be based on race. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: why has the Minister allowed it to continue to be in this legislation? Obviously, from her perspective, is this not race that we’re talking about here, or do you have a different opinion on that?

So the question to the Minister is: is clause 11, inserting new paragraphs (a) (b)—are they decisions based on race, or are they decisions based on responsibility, which I believe is what it is all about?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pika, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and greetings to all in the House.]

This is my first opportunity speaking to this whole kaupapa around section 7AA so I’m going to tread really lightly to make sure I don’t—phew! I’m just coming to Part 2, section 27, around amended annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, could the member just clarify Part 2—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Part 2, clause 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, clause 7. Sorry, I thought you said 27. I was trying to find it, sorry.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: It’s OK. Part 2, clause 7 and then section—oh my God, so many numbers. But anyways, you get my drift. “Section 24 amended (Annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau)”.

I also just want to note that I did want to have an opportunity but I didn’t get called in Part 1, 4A, after section 7(2)(g) of the principal Act but I wasn’t called. So there may be some references that I’ll still intertwine into the Part 2 clause that I will talk about because I wasn’t—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can refer to it—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Refer to it, yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But make sure that your question is related to Part 2.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Related to the question. Yep.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yep. Ka pai.

So my question is around an annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau. One of those relates to the post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) that we have in my rohe of Hauraki-Waikato and them having a whānau-based approach in their reporting and the way that they work with their tamariki.

That is because we have a post-settlement iwi under the Treaty settlement—we’re coming up to our 30-year this year post-settled. That is with Waikato-Tainui and that kaupapa is Mokopuna Ora. Mokopouna Ora—if I just get out my phone and reference: in 2020 to 2021, Mokopuna Ora successfully improved the wellbeing outcomes for 94 Waikato whānau, with reports of concern for 260 mokopuna. An overwhelming majority—99 percent—of those cases had their—

Laura McClure: That’s great. They can still do it.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Laura, it’s not your time—99 percent of cases had their care and protections concerns addressed with solutions informed by whānau-led processes, of which 70 whānau and 203 mokopuna successfully exited the Oranga Tamariki system completely—completely. This was one of our King’s last kaupapa and projects that he ran, and I will make sure that I’ll bring this into the committee and put it on the Hansard that this was a successful outcome that was brought in not just by whānau, but PSGEs—post-settlement iwis.

I think of my other iwi like Ngāpuhi, who haven’t had the opportunity to settle yet, and what will those relationships be like? Because when we put the overall blanket name of “iwi”, that can mean many different things. Is that PSGEs? Is that iwi? Is that whānau? Is that hapū? That’s a blanket name approach.

Joseph Mooney: Māori organisations as well.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: So I want to find the differentiation. What’s that, sorry?

Joseph Mooney: It says iwi and Māori organisations.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: That’s a differentiation between PSGEs and iwi.

Some of their strategies that they used were attending pōkai, rugby clubs, communities, kapa haka, reo programmes, taiao programmes, Waka Ama, mara kai, whakapapa sessions. These heavy loads shouldn’t just be put on Oranga Tamariki themselves, because you know what? They don’t have the capabilities to—they shouldn’t have that pressure or responsibility to go into those sections that PSGEs and whānau are already doing in the communities.

Now, I stand here from a privileged position because I have had all of this. I am the antithesis of this bill; my upbringing has been the antithesis of this bill. And this shouldn’t be a privilege; this should be a right for every tamariki Māori across this nation. And this—[Interruption] I don’t know why people over there are huffing and puffing because this—

Hon Members: Where’s the question?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: You don’t—sorry, Madam Chair. [Interruption] Madam Chair, please. I didn’t get to speak on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for her question.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: This dangerous, dangerous bill—the whole thing—the fact that there isn’t anything liable or holding to account for this Oranga Tamariki to have engagement. There’s nothing holding them to account.

And I’m just really sorry, actually, I’m really aroha for the Minister for Children that she never got these opportunities and that, actually, this should have been a basic right. So I want to use this time to actually also talk to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve got a point of order from the Minister.

Hon Karen Chhour: This is not about me personally, and I actually take objection to you mentioning—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Quiet during a point of order.

Hon Karen Chhour: —that I never received that. How would you know? So keep me out of the debate.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Point taken. I’m just referencing her as a Minister. We’ve had different—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That is a fair point of order and we’ve gone through that in the committee already tonight.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I’m still yet to finish my—four minutes.

Laura McClure: You have to ask a question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not necessarily. I’m waiting—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I will, Laura.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m waiting for the question. [Interruption] Stop. It is Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s time to talk, but I am specifically asking for a question.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Yep. Noted.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why are you doing this?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: So I’m specifically—yeah. Why are you doing this?

Hon Member: What’s going on in your head?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Ko te pātai e pātaihia ana e au ki te Minita, he aha te take kei te whakaparahako ia, kei te hāmenetia, kei te kōhurutia i ngōku whakapapa, i tōku reo, i ngā ahurea Māori ki roto tonu i tēnei whenua? He aha te take? He aha te take? Arā tō koutou pātai, arā. Arā ngā pātai, kōrerohia ināianei. He aha te take?

[The question I am posing to the Minister is: why is he discriminating against, why is he penalising, why is he murdering my genealogy, my language, my Māori culture in this land? Why? Why? That is the question posed for you all. If there are more questions, ask them now. Why?]

Hon Willie Jackson: Could you repeat that please? For the monolingual bunch in the room?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: He aha te take? Nā runga anō i te mea, kua kite au. I roto i tōku rohe ake o Hauraki Waikato, ētehi o ngā tamariki tē taea te whai, tē taea te rapu, tē taea te tiki i ēnei momo āhuatanga e whai wheakoranga i roto i te ao Māori. Koirā taku pātai.

[What is the reason? This is based on the things I have witnessed. In my region of Hauraki Waikato, some of the youth who are unable to find, unable to search, unable to access these types of things that allow them to gain experience in the Māori world. That is my question.]

Why would you take it out? Why would you take these amendments out?

Because the cases that the Minister referred to before, those three cases—my reference—weren’t actually section 7AA. They weren’t section 7AA, those three cases. So let’s be really clear out there for the constituents listening and for everyone listening. And, yeah, this may sound a little bit cliche. However, I have 300,000 followers on my platform and I want to make sure that they know when we put this out that those three cases weren’t section 7AA and to make referencing: stop criminalising my culture; stop villainising my culture. Yes, obviously there are whānau who aren’t looking after tamariki. We know that—we know that and we’re intervening. That’s why Mokopuna Ora was established. That’s why our PSGEs intervened. That’s why our King made those different projects.

So I don’t understand why you would take them out if they aren’t causing any harm. I mean, there’s so much evidence in that.

Stuart Smith: What’s that got to do with Part 2?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: What’s that got to do with what, sorry?

Stuart Smith: Part 2, what you’re supposed to be debating.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Because it’s the whānau. How are they supposed to report back? How are they supposed to report back on the PSGEs, on the whānau interventions, on the programmes I’ve just talked about? How are they supposed to have any accountability with the organisations themselves, with Oranga Tamariki themselves, to the Minister? There’s no evidence. Those cases weren’t section 7AA—

Stuart Smith: There’s no evidence coming from you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Those words—I’m telling you, you have no evidence. It’s really sad, and to talk to the tamariki, those—heaps of questions in that, actually.

To talk to the tamariki and to use my platform: I’m not going to waste my time and my energy on the State issues that have happened and occurred for centuries—centuries. This isn’t just a business case for us to be talking about different clauses or parts. These are real, lived experiences that no one probably knows on that side of the Chamber, that we have to bring in for our constituents and represent them.

So with my 30 seconds left, ki ngā tamariki o te ao e whakarongo mai nei ki a au [to the children of the world who listen to me], from Aboriginal to Kanaka Maui, to Native American, to Māori. You may not know your whakapapa, but your whakapapa knows you. You may not know your reo, but your reo knows you. You may not know your whānau or your heritage, but your heritage and whakapapa know you. I’m honestly aroha for the Minister and I don’t want this to happen to any other tamariki.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you for that, but I don’t think I’ve actually asked for you to sympathise for myself. I would say to the rest of that conversation, in regards to Mokopuna Ora - Waikato-Tainui, they are a strategic partner with Oranga Tamariki. They will continue to be a strategic partner with Oranga Tamariki. None of that will change. Nothing within this legislation will change that fact, and those wonderful things that the member spoke about will continue.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a question from Steve Abel, but I want to stress that we’re on a very small part of the bill, and in the speeches that we’ve had so far, I am not hearing as many questions as I would like to, in terms of this being a committee stage. So can we, please, focus on the questions? Thank you.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I assure you I have questions specifically relating to replacement section 24(2), inserted by clause 7 in Part 2. I first of all want to recognise on behalf of the Green Party the critical importance of cultural competency, whānau-led solutions, and the genuine partnerships with iwi Māori organisations that are necessary for improving outcomes for tamariki Māori.

The intent behind the original introduction of section 7AA, of course, was to address the deep-rooted issues with the Oranga Tamariki system, particularly the disproportionate number of tamariki Māori in State care. Now, in terms of addressing for the purpose of improving outcomes for Māori children and their whānau, requiring a deeper level of engagement and consultation with Māori communities, that is the key to it. That is why we obviously reject these changes. But what I’m seeking clarity on is an assurance that Māori rights, perspectives, and experiences are actually going to be integral to the system’s design and operation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Mr Abel, can you tell me what part of Part 2 you’re speaking to.

STEVE ABEL: I’m on Part 2—replacement section 24(2), inserted by clause 7, which amends the reporting requirements related to outcomes for Māori children and whānau.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you.

STEVE ABEL: I’ve got several concerns. These amendments appear to fall short in ensuring that Oranga Tamariki is truly responsive to the needs of Māori children, young people, and their whānau. So my question to the Minister: the replacement section 24(2) states that “the Monitor must consider any information obtained in accordance with this Act.” Can the Minister clarify how this new wording ensures that information specific to Māori children and their whānau, particularly data relating to Māori outcomes, is meaningfully integrated into the annual report?

Secondly, in section 24(2), it also mentions that the Monitor must be informed by the information obtained under this Act. Can the Minister for Children provide assurances that this will include direct consultation with iwi Māori organisations and Māori communities rather than relying solely on data collected by Oranga Tamariki?

I just want to point out, Mr Chair, that earlier—when the previous Chair was in the seat—the Minister referenced some specific examples of issues that the Minister used to justify the legislative change in the amendment in the first place. Given the Minister spoke to them, I want to briefly point out, though it has been pointed out in this House before but not necessarily in this debate, that the regulatory impact statement made it very clear that the problem definition had constrained the assessment of the legislation, and it outlined the cause of various instances of poor practice. The regulatory impact statement said, “There is a lack of robust empirical evidence to support the problem definition. Departmental evidence demonstrates that the problem more likely stems from flaws in the practice of individual staff.” I just want to remind the Minister of that, lest they were to go on to make further anecdotal examples.

But those are my two questions. Section 24(2): can the Minister clarify that information specific to Māori children and their whānau, particularly data relating to Māori outcomes, is meaningfully integrated into the annual report? And can the Minister provide assurances that this will include direct consultation with iwi Māori organisations and Māori communities, rather than relying solely on data collected by Oranga Tamariki? Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I believe that those question you’ve just asked have been asked multiple times and have been answered.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I can just remind members that I have been watching this debate since the start, so I’m well aware of what has taken place. I will take one more speaker at this stage, but whoever speaks will actually speak to a section of the bill—they will identify it, and they will come back to it continually, till I understand the reference to it.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this—the first of the evening. My question is really about measurable outcomes in Part 2, clause 10. The amendment to regulation 6(1)(d) requires the inclusion of “an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau;”. While we support the inclusion of an assessment, could the Minister clarify what specific metrics or frameworks will be used in this assessment to ensure that it is both meaningful and genuinely reflects the outcomes for tamariki Māori?

My additional question is: will the Minister ensure that this assessment is made publicly available in a transparent and accessible way so that iwi, Māori organisations, and the public can hold the department accountable for the outcomes being reported? My question—Part 2, clause 10—relates to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, which has long been a cornerstone of child welfare in Aotearoa. I’m not really interested in anecdotes dressed up like Christmas turkeys. I’d rather have some evidence, and I want to understand how the Minister is going to provide that so that we can have some measure, because what we know is that the application of the Oranga Tamariki Act has fallen short when it comes to Māori tamariki and their whānau, when we have seven out of 10 tamariki in care as Māori.

My question—Part 2, clause 10—is to the Minister. Will the Minister ensure that this assessment is made publicly available in a transparent and accessible way so that iwi, Māori organisations, and the public can hold the department accountable for the outcomes being reported? I’m very interested in what the Minister is going to say because we can’t afford to have things falling through the gaps, and we do not want to hear more anecdotes. We want to understand where the evidence base is going to be. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Willie Jackson. And you will have heard my previous instruction.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Oh yes, quite right too, Mr Chair—quite right. But I do want to just follow up on the last speaker. And I note Helen Leahy here today, who’s been involved in so much of this work. I want to acknowledge her work because she worked with Tariana Turia, who would be very concerned in terms of section 7 and the section 24, “Annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau”, which is in Part 2.

What I need to know, and what I haven’t heard from the Minister for Children as yet, is the level of consultation with pan-tribal organisations—I have not heard that from the Minister tonight—particularly given the work ground level from pan-tribal organisations that has gone on over the last 20 years. It’s an important question for me, given there’s been a major concentration on iwi, which is fine, but so much work is done at ground level, as the Minister will know, by pan-tribal organisations who do not have the benefit of Treaty settlements, who do not have the base and foundation that many of the big iwi have. But what they do have is a workforce who are committed and who will get out there and support the kaupapa, who are particularly proud of and happy with the former National Government, run by people like Bill English and with leaders like Anne Tolley, who would never have gone along with this rubbish that we’re rolling out today, who absolutely saw the benefits of having legislation where a priority was given in terms of whakapapa for our tamariki.

What we’ve missed in the debate—and sadly, what they miss out on the other on the other side—is the uniqueness of that decision, that you would have a National Party and Minister who actually agreed with Te Pāti Māori at the time, who were driving it—and even some of the fools in ACT actually agreed with it at the time; they actually understood the benefits and why that had to happen. They were not persuaded by the nonsense that we’ve heard, sadly, from the Minister and some of her colleagues, that “Oh, this is about we are the world; we are one.” and all this sort of bloody nonsense—with respect, Mr Chair. They knew that an emphasis on whakapapa was incredibly important in tying our babies back to their people and getting them right for what was happening in the future.

So I ask this question tonight because it’s incredibly important. When—as I said, I acknowledge Helen Leahy up there in the gallery—I think about June Mariu from Waipareira, who died recently; I think about my mother, June Jackson; Titewhai Harawira—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: They won’t know any of them.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: These were the champions at ground level, and the ACT Party wouldn’t know who they were if they fell over them. They would be concerned today to know that we’ve got this being passed and we’re deviating.

So I would ask the Minister: was Dame Naida Glavish part of this consultation? She plays an incredible role in terms of our tamariki at ground level and has the ability to traverse between the urban environment and the iwi environment, and she is one of the real mana wahine in terms of te ao Māori today. So what sort of involvement did she have? I’ve heard the Minister talk about the consultation process, but I’m still yet to hear about where that occurred. Was that with Waipareira? Was that with Manukau Urban Māori Authority? Was that with Wellington? Was that with our organisations in Hamilton? It is a worry at the moment. So we need to know: what sort of comprehensive consultation occurred, and who were the key leaders for the Minister? I’m sure she probably spoke to some of them. But is she able to give me some assurances that at ground level, in terms of Maata Waka Walker and in terms of urban Māori authorities, a respectable consultation took place? Because it’s incredibly important going forward.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Just to answer in regards to the member Scott Willis, in regards to his question around Part 2, clause 7, amending Section 24 of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act: the annual report must address outcomes for Māori and improvements of outcomes. This is in regulations and is supported in this bill. And, yes, the Independent Children’s Monitor (ICM) reporting is published. The ICM consultation with Māori—the oversight Act requires, in section 7, appointment of a Māori advisory group for the ICM, and, in section 18, collaboration with that group. In section 19, the ICM must try to develop arrangements with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): 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 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Kahurangi Carter’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 242 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to talk about clause 1, the title. We have heard in this debate about the Waitangi Tribunal findings that repealing section 7AA will cause actual harm to tamariki Māori because repealing 7AA does not honour article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the intrinsic rights that tamariki Māori have to be connected to their culture and everything that that has to offer. I wonder if the Minister for Children would consider changing the title of this bill to the “Oranga Tamariki (We Will Hurt our Tamariki) Amendment Bill”.

We have also heard in this debate that removing the reporting on disparities that tamariki Māori face—and we know that there are huge disparities. Seven out of every 10 children in Oranga Tamariki care—that means that the State is their effective parent—is Māori. We’ve heard from those tamariki, from tamariki who are still in State care, that they want to be connected to their culture. In fact, those tamariki, when they do surveys, what comes out of those surveys is really telling, and we need to listen to our tamariki. They’re saying that those activities that are provided to them, that connect them with their culture, like carving, like kapa haka, like seeing their siblings, like seeing their whānau, contribute to their wellbeing and are some of their favourite parts of their lives. I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title to the “Oranga Tamariki (No Accountability) Amendment Bill”.

We have also heard about the difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence, and I believe in everyone’s ability here to understand the difference, the difference between some really poor practice that goes on and the actual empirical evidence which shows the bigger picture, which shows what really happens at a system level. Unfortunately, the Minister and the Minister’s officials have not been able to provide any empirical evidence to show that this repeal is necessary. I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title to the “Oranga Tamariki (Lack of Empirical Evidence) Amendment Bill”.

We have heard through the select committee process from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai. We’ve heard from those tamariki Māori who had the State as a parent. They told us that being disconnected from their culture, sometimes being given a Pākehā name and being told to change their Māori name, some of them being told that they are not allowed to perform in kapa haka—I see you shaking your head, Minister, but these came out of the mouths of these tamariki. Are you saying that they’re not being honest? Is that what you’re saying? I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title of this bill to the “Oranga Tamariki (Trauma for Generations to Come) Amendment Bill”.

We have heard in this debate about people in select committee who had experience of abuse in care—tamariki and adults who were abused in State care—and who told us of being disconnected from their culture, that they are still searching for that healing. I implore the Minister to listen to the experiences of these people and to listen to the evidence—the empirical evidence, not the anecdotal evidence that has been cherry-picked, but the real evidence. I wonder if the Minister would consider changing the title of this bill to the “Oranga Tamariki (Another Royal Commission of Inquiry) Amendment Bill”.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I just want to congratulate the previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter. I think the Minister should look at changing the title, but I think there’s only one name for it: it should be “Oranga Tamariki (Kick the Māori Families in the Guts) Bill”. There’s just no doubt—there’s absolutely no doubt about it—the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick the Māori Families in the Guts) Bill”.

Jamie Arbuckle: How sad—that’s pathetic.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right. You are very sad, actually—being part of that stupid party you’re part of. But this is in fact—

Jamie Arbuckle: Point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: All offended, are we? We’re all upset.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): A point of order.

Jamie Arbuckle: Unparliamentary language.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’ll be the sole judge of that. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Chair, I should say, they’re very sensitive over there. I want to say this to the ACT Party, because this is about kicking whānau Māori in the guts. So that should be the title of this bill: “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”. That’s what it should be. And you should be ashamed of yourselves, because, as the previous speaker said so eloquently, so many of our kids—and we saw them all here in the House, didn’t we? We saw them all here in the House—beautiful day. And we saw tears from that useless ACT Party lot over there—“Aw, we love you”, and all this sort of thing—and then they go and kick them in the guts with this sort of bill. It’s just a shocker. You have our people, and when I say “our people”, I’m talking young—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No—I don’t, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I don’t.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies—sorry. We have people, New Zealanders, with experiences of trauma—trauma—because for years they didn’t know who they were, where they were from, didn’t know their language. It’s like their words mean nothing. We hear them in the House, we mihi to them outside, and then we insult them with this sort of rubbish that we’re rolling out today. That’s why I want to thank our previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter, for all those beautiful titles—beautiful. But there’s only one title: “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”. That has to be the title for this. Why? Because you keep putting the boot into whānau Māori. That’s a reality. There are so many statistics—so many statistics—when we look out there.

I’m proud of so many of our people who’ve come through the system. But all they have ever said is, “I wish we had that opportunity.” Well, that opportunity was presented by the National Party, who have betrayed people like Bill English and Anne Tolley and John Key. These are people who supported what we’re talking about today. All those National Party people should hang their heads in shame, including the guy who’s looking for the new leadership, James Meager, over there—we know he’s lining up. They’re putting him forward. Including Mr Meager—he should hang his head in shame because he’s going against the Englishes, the Keys, and some of the real legends of the National Party, who said, “Yes, we get it, Tariana Turia—we get it.”

You know, that’s how they worked. Bill said to Tariana—just for the morons on the other side—“I get it, Te Pāti Māori, I get it.” Oh, another one’s upset.

Hon Nicole McKee: Point of order. I don’t like the name calling, Mr Chair. I take offence at being called a moron.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no—I was talking about National.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It’s been a very emotional debate and we’re just—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: “Mrs Moron”—how would that go?

Hon Nicole McKee: Mr Speaker, I’ve just been called “Mrs Moron”.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: You know, I was just offering another option.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If that was a personal debate—did that member use that term?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Not directly, because I don’t know whether she’s “Mrs” or “Miss”.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, no. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. Carry on, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Gosh, I’m being disrupted. Tonight, I want to acknowledge our former Minister Willow-Jean Prime, who’s been absolutely terrific on this and put a challenge—

Hon Member: Back to the title.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, it was part of the title. She agrees with me that this title should be called the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”, so that’s why it’s about that. But the former Minister knows how terrible this is, because we have seen firsthand the consequences—what has happened to some of these young ones who’ve become older people who did not know their whakapapa, who did not know their reo. This legislation gave them an opportunity. So I want to mihi to those former members of the National Party, the Māori Party, Helen Leahy’s crew up there. Helen Leahy was inspirational and pivotal in this sort of stuff. I mihi to her—to you—tonight, Helen, for all that work.

Tariana would be ashamed of this lot, because to get a National Party—that’s the point—to actually, I suppose, get on board in terms of whakaaro Māori, in terms of a strategy going forward, I think, was a wonderful thing. So well done to Bill English, Anne Tolley.

This is a grave, grave mistake. So I urge the House tonight to support my earnest plea to you all that the title will be changed to the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau Māori in the Guts) Bill”. That’s a good title. I can continue if you like. I can see the Minister, because she quite likes the title, too. I can carry on if you like.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, and I’ll remind the member we’re on the title and commencement, and I’ll suggest continual referral to same.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori ): Ka pai, thank you. I appreciate some of the ideas that have already come up about the names, and I like all of them. I think they’ve got a particular truth to them. But the one that I would proffer, if I may, is the “Oranga Tamariki (Self-serving the Minister) Bill”. And the reason I say that is because all of what we’ve heard, which is the bulk of it, lacks the evidence, the actual empirical evidence; there’s a bit of story, quite a bit of story, and anecdote. So I like the idea of the “Oranga Tamariki (Self-serving the Minister) Bill”. So I’d like to put that.

If I may, I do want to also acknowledge Helen, who is in the gallery—Helen Leahy, who most of us on this side will know, but I doubt if anyone on the other side knows. And that is because ignorance is rife, it seems to me.

What we’re challenging tonight, in terms of the name and in terms of all the other pieces that are part of this bill: it all comes back to the oppression of mokopuna Māori and their whānau. But it is used as a convenient statement like, “Oh, no, no, mana ‘ta-mai-ti’.” You know, and it’s said like that because the bulk can’t pronounce the words properly. So we get mana tamaiti and whānau, or w’ānau, and hapū, and just the murderous way in which our language is used is a clear indicator—is a very clear indicator—that we are not understood and not appreciated. Not from our reo, because of the amount of poorly spoken te reo Māori in this House on a daily, minute-by-minute basis.

So how do I know that this is part of that? Because it reads that way and it feels that way and it is that way. Deculturation is a key element to this, and I maybe wanted to ask the Minister if she understands what deculturation has meant to many, many of our whānau when, in this instance—I don’t know, she might need me to use another word or the Minister might need me to use other words—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, no, the word the Minister will need is something relating to the title of the bill. You’ll note the other two speakers did, at least once every minute, refer to a title of a bill and I’ll expect the member to do the same.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: OK, so here’s another offering, then, in terms of that: it is the “Oranga Tamariki (Deculturation) Bill”. And deculturation is key and true. And unless, I don’t know, it takes—you’ve got to understand what that word actually breaks down to. But deculturation is key to the reduction and the taking away, the ripping away, and the reduction of whakapapa, of reo, of tikanga and all the things that Māori mokopuna are made up of.

I’m interested whether the Minister can understand that name, “Oranga Tamariki (Deculturation) Bill”, and I’d be keen to know what her understanding is in that regard. All right, thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I move, That debate on this question now close.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Chair. It is getting late, and it is important that we continue to prosecute the title and commencement because this is legislation. In my contribution, a question to the Minister is that a title that could be considered by the Minister is around some of the comments made throughout this debate this evening. One of the comments made was when the Minister mentioned that, yes, there are some disparities for Māori young people—just “some”—and I was quite shocked and actually offended by that because I would say that that is a horrific understatement. We in this House should be very careful with our language, and to minimise the fact that our rangatahi and our tamariki Māori are impacted hugely by the Oranga Tamariki system—I would like the Minister to consider that this bill should be called the “Oranga Tamariki (Even More Disparities) Amendment Bill”, because that is what this bill will cause. This bill will cause even more disparities.

The Minister spoke and said that there were just some disparities within Māori. But this is serious, and it is important for us to actually name it for what it is: it is about serious disparities for our young Māori in this community.

The second concept of a title that I have—and then I’ll get to the actual commencement—is around the Minister having spoken many a time about the fact that there are checks and balances: “It’s all OK. Don’t panic, people, it’s fine. We’ve got this covered. We’ll repeal section 7AA, but we’ve got it covered.” But then, of course, I looked at the regulatory impact statement, which has been thrown around this committee all afternoon and evening, and right near the end there is a piece that says that, currently, section 7AA plays some crucial roles. It goes on to say that it provides transparency—transparency—and builds trust and confidence with Ministers and with the public.

So I want the Minister to consider the fact that if the regulatory impact statement is saying that section 7AA and what it does in providing transparency and building trust for Ministers and for the community, she could consider that this bill could be the “Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Transparency and Trust) Amendment Bill”, because the evidence is here. The regulatory impact statement is here and is saying that that is what section 7AA does. It creates transparency and creates trust for Ministers but also for the public. So that needs to be considered this evening.

I want to come to my second question, which is around the commencement of the Act. Currently, as it stands, clause 2 says that “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” Now, we know that as we sit in this House week after week, these dates change and move. They can be three months, they can be six months, or they can be a year after the bill is passed into law.

I would like the Minister to consider this evening, because of what we’ve heard not only through the select committee through submissions—which, rightly so, the Minister has told us that she has read; she has even quoted some of them this evening in this Chamber—that for the sake of transparency, for the sake of iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations, for the sake of Oranga Tamariki, and for the sake of community groups involved in this system, there be time for them to get it right so that transparency and trust can actually be implemented to make sure. If she is convinced and so confident that taking section 7AA out of law and out of legislation for this bill will make things better and fix things, why not allow time for the different agencies and Māori groups to actually spend time to prepare, so that when it comes into force in, let’s say, one year from Royal assent, we can have more faith that it is transparent, that we can trust, and that we can actually see that the disparities—which aren’t just some, as the Minister said, but they are major and they are systemic, when you consider it.

So there are two questions. The first is around what the title should be, and then, secondly, around saying let’s get serious and consider the commencement date so that all can be on board with this.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I just want to finish off this debate with my last statement on this debate. This has been full of quite personal statements made about myself throughout this debate, so I do think I should have a right of reply to some of the statements that were just made in Glen Bennett’s speech just then to make out like I would minimise the thought around Māori that are impacted by being in care, to think that I’m minimising the disparities of Māori in care.

Now, many people have stood in this House, on that side of the House, and stated that they have a right to speak about Māori because they’re Māori, they have a right to do this because they are part of a specific group. Many in this House over time, since I’ve been here, have spoken to wanting someone who has had lived experience to sit at the decision-making table, but the minute you have someone sitting in this seat at the decision-making table that does have lived experience, no, it’s not good enough if they don’t think exactly the same as the people on the other side of the House.

I would never minimise the disparities of Māori within care; I was one of those Māori in care. I would never minimise Māori who were impacted by the care system, because I was a Māori in the care system. Every decision I make is based on what I am hearing from my community, what I have dealt with myself going through the State system, from family members who have dealt with the State system, and making sure that our children are safe, loved, and cared for. How do you think they got to Oranga Tamariki (OT) care in the first place? Because they weren’t looked after; they weren’t loved, and we won’t have the difficult conversations of the fact that OT didn’t put them there. We need to make sure, when we’re making those decisions about placing them back with whānau, that they are safe. It should not be whānau at all costs. That is the last statement I will make.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to talk about the commencement. The question that I have for the Minister—and it is a genuine question; please consider this suggestion. There is an existing mechanism within the Oranga Tamariki Act which allows for a full analysis of section 7AA. Section 448B requires the Minister to undertake a periodic review of the legislation, Government policy, and other arrangements, to ensure the needs of children and young people with whom Oranga Tamariki is concerned are met, including specific focus on the needs of Māori children and young people. This review is required no later than 1 July 2025.

A prudent and responsible way forward would be to stop the repeal of section 7AA and wait for this review to provide the evidence required for good, public decision-making and governance. This option has been available to the Minister all along. If the Minister had genuine concerns and wanted to know what the policy problem was with section 7AA and these perceived conflicts between the best interests of the children, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, section 7AA, and practice decisions that may have been made using section 7AA, the responsible way forward would have been to use the very section already in the Act to do that review.

But the Minister does not appear genuinely interested in this. The decision was already made to repeal section 7AA. There was no consultation with the strategic Māori partners prior to introducing this to Parliament. There was no negotiation that could take place. In fact, the Minister herself said, in terms of consultation, “Make a submission to the select committee.” How offensive. That is not consultation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. What a disrespectful way to treat your strategic Māori partners: you are relegated to making a submission to a select committee, in a process that is open to every member of the public. That is consultation, no opportunity to review how section 7AA works alongside strategic partners?

The suggestion that I have for the Minister is to delay the commencement of this repeal. Once done, the devastation it will cause, the damage you know it will cause to the relationship—because it was pointed out in the regulatory impact statement, the harm that the tribunal, that your own officials, and that others have said will be done to children if this is passed. Will the Minister pause this, delay the commencement until after the periodic review is done, as already provided for in the legislation? Because if the Minister is not prepared to do that, it tells us that she never cared in the first place and that it is true that this is all just about political ideology, ahead of what is actually in the best interests of our tamariki.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak on the title. I was thinking that I might have been a bit harsh, earlier on, when I was talking about the “Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau in the Guts) Bill”. I could see I upset a few members on the other side—and some of the ACT members. So I had a good think, I sat down, and I thought maybe I was just going a bit too extreme there. I don’t want to be extreme. So rather than call it, in terms of the title, the “ Oranga Tamariki (Kick Whānau in the Guts) Bill”, I just thought the “Oranga Tamariki (Rotten) Amendment Bill” might be—I thought that was a bit more subtle and a bit more sensitive to some of the New Zealand First and ACT members. I just thought that if we just insert “Rotten”—the “Oranga Tamariki (Rotten) Amendment Bill”—I think that does the trick.

But I want to address the Minister because I did hear some of her kōrero earlier, and I listened respectfully to what she was saying. Never once, I think, on this side, did anyone say that they were better Māori than her or whatever, and I actually respect what she’s been through. I understand it completely, and I think many of us do. I just asked the Minister, tonight, to think about what my colleague Willow-Jean Prime has been saying with respect that you’re not listening to what our experts are saying, you’re not listening with respect, Minister, to what our community leaders are saying.

When you talk about lived experience, I used to uplift babies in my former role. We used to go in where we had abuse happening in houses. We would go in and take the babies—take the babies. We didn’t care what the story was. We would go in, a team of us, so that, first and foremost, those babies were safe. And we did not care where those babies went to, as long as they went to somewhere safe. In those times, 25 or 30 years ago, Minister, they didn’t mind at all if they went to Pākehā families, Asian families, as long as they were safe. That was our thinking at the time.

But as the years went by and we were working for our urban organisations, we were told by our people, by our kaumātua, that these babies would benefit hugely if they went to some whānau who knew their background, who knew their whakapapa, who knew their language. And don’t get me wrong; Māori families didn’t get it right all the time at all. There were failures in terms of—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But neither were the Pākehā ones.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right. But we’re not saying every Māori family had it right—of course not. But the principle of tying these kids back, these babies back, to their whakapapa was, without doubt, successful.

And what we’re saying tonight is that should have been the driver. I had doubts myself 25 years ago, Minister. I had doubts myself because, first and foremost, I wanted those babies to be safe. I wanted them to be safe. We used to have to go in, in terms of abuse and gangs and abuse in terms of what was happening within partners. The main thing was to get the babies right. But as our kaumātua came through, as our leadership came through, they talked about the benefits of learning the language and of tying the whakapapa together. And then we were won over.

And, then, so from a community level, we progressed to a political level, and we started pushing those types of lines with people like Tariana Turia, John Tamihere, and others who, through the years, were always pushing the whānau ora message all the way through. And then we had different people from the Labour Party picking this up. Parekura Horomia—he was a big supporter of this type of thing. And then in the ACT Party, Rodney Hide was supporting it. And in National, Anne Tolley and Bill English were supporting it because they knew that the benefits of tying kids back to their whakapapa would be really good for the communities and good for iwi.

So I say to the Minister, tonight, in all seriousness, I hear your kōrero. We hear your kōrero. But the problem is you’re not listening to our kōrero. You’re not listening to our iwi. You’re not listening to our community. And we know you’ve been hurt, but our community is hurting, our people are hurting, and this is very, very dangerous going forward. Our fear is that we’re going to be put in the same type of position that we were in 25 years ago.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): 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.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading next sitting day.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m pleased to bring the bill back to the House today, and, as I said in the first reading, this is all about good regulatory practice and reducing red tape and unnecessary compliance. Let me briefly remind the House of what’s in the bill, and then I’d like to touch on some of the changes that have been recommended by the Primary Production Committee.

The bill as introduced amends 14 Acts and repeals five, which are all administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). Changes range from fixing typos and small areas that have crept into legislation over years. I recall an energetic discussion at first reading over the misplaced bracket in the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act. It goes on to minor policy shifts that will make the regulatory systems work more efficiently.

There are four key themes to the amendments that the bill makes. These are reducing administrative burden and cutting red tape—for example, allowing for renewals of registration under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, rather than requiring people to submit a whole new application when their registration expires. The second is clarifying and updating the statute book to better reflect the policy intent—for example, in the Animal Welfare Act, adding that MPI can take any history of past breaches of export conditions into account when considering an application for an animal welfare export certificate. Thirdly, addressing errors, gaps, and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation—and I mentioned the misplaced bracket earlier. Finally, ensuring that the regulatory systems remain up to date—for example, changing overly specific consultation methods to become a list of options so that the most appropriate method can be chosen to fit the circumstances. This reflects the changing way that people receive information, especially through the internet.

I’d like to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee for its work on this bill. I’d also like to thank the Business Committee for its indulgence in agreeing for me to recommend two rounds of additional amendments to be added to the bill. The Primary Production Committee worked through these very well, with the support of officials, and I’d like to recognise their hard work and understanding.

These additional amendments were proposed because of the kinds of changes that could be suitable for the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill being identified all the time. I wanted to make the most of the opportunity this bill presented to fix errors, reduce red tape, and, of course, improve the quality of regulation. Let me give an example of an additional amendment added during the select committee phase. Under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act, the Horticulture Export Authority charges fees for monitoring horticultural exports. In some circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Authority to provide an exemption, waiver, or refund of these fees if a fee-payer has not been able to use the Authority’s services because of an adverse event, as an example. This is what happened following Cyclone Gabrielle. The authority wanted to refund those fee-payers who had not been able to export any product that year and had been unable to use the authority’s services—the Act doesn’t allow for that. So we’re making that change to provide the flexibility that’s needed.

One other example of this is quite a technical one—when setting a levy under the Commodity Levies Act, an industry body will hold a weighted referendum where the vote is counted by the amount of the commodity produced or the amount of land under production or some other appropriate criteria dependent upon the commodity in question. To calculate that amount, the Act says that the industry must use the previous 12 months before the referendum was held. This doesn’t always line up with the seasons or industries where it would make more sense to pick a date and say, “All animals owned as of this date.”, as an example. So the bill will amend the Commodity Levies Act to provide more flexibility in how a weighted referendum is calculated, so that it is the most appropriate method for each industry.

Now, in the consideration of the bill, the Primary Production Committee added three Acts to it. So for those who might be keeping count, it now amends 17 Acts and repeals five. I’ve talked about the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act already, and I’d like to turn now to the two other Acts added: the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act and the Organic Products and Production Act. Given that these are fairly recent pieces of legislation, members may wonder why there was a need for changes to them. These two Acts were still before the House at the time this bill was being drafted, and because they were adapted from existing legislation—for instance, parts of the Organic Products and Production Act were adapted from the Animal Products Act—they contain some of the same issues. So all the changes to these two Acts replicate existing amendments already in the bill; they’re just applying them in different legislation. This will improve consistency across legislation—it means that there won’t be different regulatory regimes with different requirements for the same thing.

During the select committee process, some submitters raised points of concern with some amendments. For example, there was a proposed change to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act that would have enabled information to be shared more easily with police in the case of stolen livestock or in emergencies. However, submitters were concerned that this would weaken privacy protection in the Act and allow for farmers’ personal information to be used inappropriately. That amendment has come out of the bill. The Ministry for Primary Industries will continue to work on improving information sharing, while maintaining privacy protections separately. Again, I’d like to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee for their work on this bill and thank those who took the time to make submissions on the bill or to be heard in person. This bill is going to reduce red tape and improve regulatory quality, and it backs our farmers and our food producers by helping to simplify and get costs down. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise in support of this piece of legislation. Just want to acknowledge the Minister of Agriculture, who has just resumed his seat, or just finished speaking, and I want to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee, who worked on this piece of legislation. I think I refer to these regulatory systems amendment bills as somewhat more of housekeeping-type bills, where a general look is done across the system and different things are picked up—for example, minor errors, duplications, gaps, inconsistencies, and perhaps something that was once put in place that is no longer relevant in more modern times.

The bill was referred to our select committee on 27 March. We only had a few submitters, but none the less they were very important and valuable submissions for us to have. The select committee did make some changes to this legislation, and, well, there’s heaps and heaps of lots of little bits and pieces of legislation, so I’ll just touch on a couple of those changes that have been made, one of them being—for example—just making a change to clause 34. Currently, laboratories that are exporting samples of animal material or product overseas for tests that can’t be performed in New Zealand have to meet relevant export requirements. This is definitely deemed unnecessary, because, actually, these products aren’t being exported for trade or any sort of reward. So one of the changes has been to make an exemption on goods such as this that are just being sent overseas for testing.

One of the other things that I wanted to point out, and the Minister also mentioned this, was particular to the setting of fees or waiving of fees for those involved in hort export. The Minister, he has mentioned it too, but I do think it’s really important that we’ve made this change to the legislation, particularly in light of extreme weather events such as what we saw with Cyclone Gabrielle, where people were unable to export their goods and would have—prior to something like this being set in place—had to still pay their fees. So what this does is allow for a waiver or an exemption, and I think that’s only right and it is only fair.

One of the other things that the select committee looked at was—well, one of the changes was proposed to some of the wording with regard to the milk price panel. The proposal was to amend new section 150E(2C), inserted by clause 132A, to “one vacancy” rather than “any vacancy”. Fonterra’s submission opposed this, and upon hearing their argument, whereby they discussed the members that are on that milk price panel—and they are independent—they felt that even if there was more than one vacancy on that panel, there would still be enough members remaining to be able to continue with the appropriate duties of that panel. They were also concerned that if we continued with the original proposal in this piece of legislation, they wouldn’t be able to carry out their functions for a certain period of time should there be a vacancy due to unforeseen circumstances, and it would actually be quite dire because it could force the base milk price calculation process to come to an absolute halt, which would undermine the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act’s base milk price oversight regime. We certainly don’t want to see something like that happen.

The other thing that we looked at and considered—and the Minister also mentioned this in his contribution—was around the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012, or, as we referred to it, NAIT. Part of that was to allow for the sharing of information in certain situations, and it was, as the Minister alluded to, to deal with things such as issues around, perhaps, stealing of livestock or what have you. Listening to the submissions on this, it was quite interesting. There was some genuine anxiety out there on what that information could be potentially used for—what if it got into the wrong hands, etc. And so the ministry proposed to delete this provision to enable further work separate to the bill to be able to address the submitters’ concerns around the scope of the information sharing. So as a select committee we were quite happy and agreed to that position that the officials took.

One of the final things that I just thought I would mention is around the Walking Access Act 2008, and this is pretty much just modernising that. The Act established the New Zealand Walking Access Commission, but times have changed, and it now has a board role relating to access, and so it’s not limited to just walking. It’s since rebranded itself as the Outdoor Access Commission, and the Minister proposed amending the Act to reflect this change. We also recommended changing the name of the Act to the “Outdoor Access Act”, which makes perfect sense. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green): I thought I might be off the hook tonight with one minute to go.

Hon Rachel Brooking: One more minute, Jo!

STEVE ABEL: That was a fantastic, Jo, and I appreciate it.

It’s been pretty clearly outlined that this is a one of those sort of omnibus bills that makes a lot of inconsequential changes to pieces of legislation to make them more functional; clarifies and updates statutory provisions to give effect to the purpose of various Acts and their provisions; addresses regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within—

Suze Redmayne: Typos.

STEVE ABEL: —and between different pieces of legislation—it’s all right, guys, we’ll get out of here about 5 past—ensures the regulatory systems remain up to date and relevant; and reduces administrative burden for regulators and regulated parties. The bill is a vehicle for smaller regulatory fixes to be made in a timely and cost-effective way. By their nature, regulatory systems bills are designed to make many necessary and varied amendments across the sector and in multiple Acts, as long as there is broad support for them.

Now, one thing that I am struck by is it just happens to be, by dint of circumstance and history, that this bill is repealing the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000. In terms of the impact of that, I will be asking the Minister of Agriculture to clarify that in the committee stage. But I have a particular association with that piece of legislation. For those who don’t remember, the West Coast Accord—originally 1986, I believe; perhaps it was 1987—was an agreement between foresters on the West Coast and the conservation movement to ensure the protection of a certain segment of forests while permitting the logging of other sections of native forest on the West Coast. Now, that was seen to be a necessary deal, if you like, made by conservationists to ensure that some of the finest lowland remaining native rainforests were not logged.

As time went by, and through the 1990s, it became clear that given we only had 7 percent of our lowland rainforest left, the loss of any of those exceptional remaining West Coast forests was a significant biodiversity loss, a significant impact on conservation, and a risk to the survival of a number of species but also to some of the most extraordinary remnant forests, such as Ōkārito, the podocarp forests that are an example of what used to occur throughout the entire country, which is these amazing podocarp forests that went from mountain to the sea. And we all know how spectacular that West Coast landscape is, but the loss of that connected forest ecosystem was a big loss for the natural heritage of our nation.

I happened to be part of the campaign in the 1990s to see those forests, allocated for logging in the West Coast Accord, returned to protection. That campaign in the 1990s—which was hard fought and where some of us ended up getting arrested for various reasons: blockading logging roads or locking ourselves to helicopters—led to the change of Government in 1999 to the Clark Labour Government, which was in part through a coalition agreement with the then Green Party that had first entered Parliament as the Green Party in 1999. It led to the creation of the Forests (West Coast Accord) Act 2000, which had the effect of gazetting 137,000 hectares of native forest as conservation estate. That was the effect of that legislation, and it became probably the most significant gazetting of very high value biodiversity forest that has occurred since that time. Nothing is comparable, and it meant an end to the logging of native forests by the State on Crown land.

Whereas other countries—including our nearest neighbours, Australia—are still logging magnificent ancient rainforests in the likes of Tasmania, New Zealand took the very wise decision, 25 years ago now, to stop logging our native forests on Crown land, and that is an example of where we have done the right thing in terms of conservation. I am very keen to understand what the consequences of the repeal of that legislation are and how it works in terms of the relevance of our protection of those forests in an ongoing manner. So I intend to be asking those questions of the Minister in the committee of the whole House. For the meantime, that’s me for the night. Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good night.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.