Thursday, 3 April 2025
Volume 783
Sitting date: 3 April 2025
THURSDAY, 3 APRIL 2025
THURSDAY, 3 APRIL 2025
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Speaker’s Rulings
Oral Questions—Transfer of Questions
SPEAKER: Members, yesterday I undertook to reflect on whether it is appropriate to transfer to another Minister questions that involve a quote from a Minister.
The House has long recognised that the Government has the right to find the appropriate Minister to answer questions, Speaker’s ruling 173/2—and indeed has a duty to do so, Speakers’ ruling 170/4. That is a function of the collective responsibility of the Government for its actions. It is not for the Speaker to determine ministerial responsibility, Speakers’ ruling 170/3. The right and duty of the Government is recognised in the practice of previous Speakers not putting leave requested to transfer questions back to another Minister, Speaker’s ruling 171/1. The right to transfer questions is limited only by the requirement that it cannot be used to evade or obstruct answering questions, including supplementary questions, Speakers’ ruling 171/5.
The bar for the Speaker to refuse a transfer is a very high one. If the Minister to whom the question was originally directed could be the only person who had particular information on a matter, then the transfer would not be allowed. Opinions about whether people stand by particular statements are not matters that have been judged to reach that test, Speakers’ ruling 172/1.
The Speaker would not permit a transfer where a Minister has personal knowledge that no other Minister was likely to have. A question that asked why a Minister said or did something or whether a particular Minister had done something are the sorts of questions that are not likely to be transferrable. Speaker Carter did not allow a transfer when the question asked if the Minister had read a certain report and undertaken the actions recommended in it.
While the Minister to whom a question transferred must be in a position to answer supplementary questions, the Speaker cannot know, in advance, what the supplementary questions will be. So the Speaker cannot disallow a transfer because it does not align with pre-prepared supplementary questions. Since supplementary questions must arise directly from the primary question or the answer to it, this shouldn’t prove to be too much of a difficulty, Speaker’s ruling 196/5.
The answer to the specific matter put to me yesterday: questions that involve a quote from a Minister can be transferred, unless the Speaker judges that no other Minister would have the personal knowledge necessary to answer it.
Urgent Debates Declined
Government Response—Trump Administration Tariffs
SPEAKER: I received a letter from the Hon Damien O’Connor seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Trump administration’s announcement of 10 percent baseline tariffs and the Government’s response to this announcement. There is no ministerial responsibility for announcements made by Governments of another country. From the authentication provided by the member, the New Zealand Government’s response has been to confirm an earlier statement ruling out retaliatory tariffs. An urgent debate is a way of debating matters that have occurred. The absence of action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence which can be raised for debate—Speakers’ rulings 222/2 and 222/4. The application is declined.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the first of the annual review debates, covering the finance, transport, health, education, and housing portfolios. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled Effectiveness of arrangements for reducing child poverty. That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Climate Change
1. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister of Climate Change: What was the rationale behind the decision to give Tīwai Point aluminium smelter an extra $37 million per year subsidy of carbon credits?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Many of Tīwai Point’s competitors overseas do not face a carbon price, which makes the smelter less competitive. To address this, the Government compensates firms through allocations of emissions units. Without this decision, the smelter would have automatically received over $150 million a year. This compares with the $37 million as a result of this Government’s decision. This reflects savings of over $100 million per year to the Crown. Alongside these savings, the benefit of this decision is that Tīwai Point stays in New Zealand and provides jobs and economic growth to our regions.
Scott Willis: What advice did he receive that supported Cabinet’s chosen allocation rate, considering the Ministry for the Environment, Treasury, and a third-party reviewer all found a lower allocation of carbon credits would be better?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, it is fair to say that decisions such as this are highly complex, with no right answers. They depend on a number of assumptions and judgments about the broader economy, but also, importantly, how the electricity sector will develop over the next 20 years. Cabinet considered options from different experts and made a decision. But I think it is important to step back and reflect on the benefits of this decision: Tīwai Point employs hundreds of New Zealanders, it produces the most pure aluminium in the world, and it supports the Southland economy.
Scott Willis: Does he think it’s fair to give Rio Tinto an extra $37 million a year power bill subsidy, via free carbon credits, in the same week that households across the country are set to get a double-digit rise to their power bills?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, there you go again: the degrowth Greens would be happy to see jobs go offshore and aluminium produced in coal boilers overseas. This side of the House backs jobs and growth in our regions.
Scott Willis: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission that free allocation of carbon credits weakens price incentives for emissions reduction and that the current approach to allocation is not aligned with our climate change targets?
Hon SIMON WATTS: I’ll reflect back on my answer to the primary question. Without the decision that Cabinet took, the smelter would have automatically received $150 million of credits per year, and this compares to the $37 million as a result of this Government’s decision. You don’t need to be an accountant to work out the difference between 150 and 37 is more than $100 million of savings to the Crown and the taxpayer.
Scott Willis: Mr Speaker—[Gestures for quiet]
SPEAKER: That’s my job; just ask your question.
Scott Willis: Was the Minister aware that Cabinet’s decision will cost $300 million more to the public than the officials’ preferred option, and does he consider this consistent with the least-cost approach to emissions reduction?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I’ve answered that point in the answer that I replied in the last aspect in terms of the automatic position of $150 million versus $37 million that this Government has taken. But, again, I will reflect on the fact that Tīwai Point is a benefit of the decision—not only the fiscals that I’ve outlined but the benefit of this decision is to those hundreds of employees that work for the smelter in the Southland region. And, importantly, we should be very proud as New Zealanders that our aluminium plant produces the most pure aluminium in the world, and that is an important aspect in terms of broader climate change.
Scott Willis: Will he commit to reviewing the industrial allocation scheme as supported by the Climate Change Commission, or is he happy to continue with corporate welfare to emission-intensive industries at huge expense to our public?
Hon SIMON WATTS: I reject the premise of the question. Oh, how rich it is for the Greens—the degrowth Greens—to talk about the components around being de-competitive or anti-competitive. This decision benefits the Southland economy, it protects jobs, it keeps those jobs in New Zealand, and that is important for our regions, and it supports the economic growth that this country so badly needs.
Question No. 2—Health
2. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen on the Government’s health targets?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Today, Health New Zealand announced the quarter two results for the Government’s health targets. By measuring what matters most and holding the system accountable, we’ve seen improvements across three of the five health targets this quarter, compared to the previous quarter, but there is still more to do. Our Government’s record investment into health, alongside our focus on targets, will continue to drive improvement against these five targets. We are putting patients first and focusing our health system on ensuring that Kiwis get the care that they need.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress has been made for the shorter stays at emergency department targets?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Ensuring all Kiwis have access to timely, quality healthcare is a priority for this Government. That’s why I’m encouraged to see that wait-times in emergency departments have continued to reduce. The latest results show that 72.1 percent of patients were admitted or discharged within six hours, a significant improvement from 67.5 percent in the previous quarter and an improvement from 69.7 percent in the same quarter of the previous year. This is the progress we want to see, and I thank the hard-working medical staff in our hospitals up and down the country.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What progress is being seen for the faster cancer treatment and immunisation targets?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our faster cancer treatment and immunisation targets show stability, but there is still room for improvement. Access to faster cancer care continues to improve, with 85.9 percent of patients receiving treatment within 31 days—just 0.1 percent away from the yearly milestone—and 77 percent of two-year-olds were immunised in the second quarter of this year, up from 75.7 percent in the previous quarter. Both of these targets show a need for continued improvement to ensure more Kiwis have access to faster cancer care and more children get the immunisations that they need.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What actions are being taken to improve wait-times for elective treatment and first specialist assessments?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The data released today confirms that more work is needed to get on top of the wait-lists for elective treatment and first specialist assessments. Delivering more treatments and assessments at a faster rate than patients are being added is the key to reducing these targets. That’s why I’ve recently announced the elective boost, partnering with private hospitals to maximise operating capacity and expand procedures. This initiative will deliver 10,579 additional procedures by mid-2025. Patients are already seeing the benefits of this announcement, with 2,000 elective procedures already completed, including cataracts, and hip and knee replacements.
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: In the context in which the statements were made and while the facts on which they were made remain the same, yes.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon that “We’ve got to look after our seniors”; if so, why did he cut the number of beds for older patients by 50 percent in the downgraded new Dunedin Hospital?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We agree entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about looking after our seniors—after all, we invented the phrase “Looking after our seniors”, and that’s why we’ve done so much in the past. And we will fix up any need there is, not just in the Dunedin Hospital but elsewhere, as we get going and fix up the old people’s futures in this country.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can older Kiwis in Tairāwhiti have any confidence that they will receive the care they need and deserve, given that almost half of the roles for senior medical officers at Gisborne Hospital remain unfilled?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the issue with respect to older people is manifold in its contribution to the way they might live in the future. Just to name one little thing like that and think that that’s going to solve the situation is a very narrow—
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: But they don’t need a hospital?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I beg your pardon? Oh, no, no—well, if you were over here, then the answer would be precisely what you said: they don’t need a hospital. In our case, we’re going to fix all the hospitals up, man and woman them, empower them, get all the resources, and turn these disastrous results around that we inherited.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is his response to a senior citizen of Upper Clutha who said, “It is frightening to see how access to medical services has diminished”, and will his Government take any action to alleviate such fears?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’d tell that senior citizen to write to Winston Peters and Simeon Brown on this matter because they’re more likely to do something about it than the Labour Party, who just manufacture complaints.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Given the potential closure of Dargaville Hospital due to staffing shortages, will he admit that reductions in rural hospitals disproportionately affect Northland’s 42,000 older citizens, who are heavily reliant on local healthcare services?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as a former Dargaville boy, I’m very concerned about that as well, and I’m going to be talking to my colleague Simeon Brown about what we might do in the future. But there’s been a massive decline, over the last six decades, in medical services in the North. If you want to know something about it, Pāpāmoa had one, Paparoa had one—
Hon Shane Jones: Te Kōpuru.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —Te Kōpuru had a maternity unit, Dargaville had a successful hospital; at the same time, they had Air New Zealand calling there. A lot’s been downgraded, but the Provincial Growth Fund is turning that around.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with Aged Care Association CEO Tracey Martin that “this Government has tightened up on funding” and that there’s “no indication the minister is making a Budget bid.”, and, if so, will he urge Minister Costello to prioritise older Kiwis and work with the sector to increase the number of aged-care beds?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To question one, no. To question two, no. To question three, I’ve already done that.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he demonstrate some urgency in meeting the health needs of our regions and older Kiwis, or will he continue to allow scaremongering about the rainbow community, climate change, and water fluoridation to eclipse caring for our regions and our seniors?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are definitely going to stop the scaremongering about the rainbow community—and they’re writing to me right now in their thousands about the way they’ve been miscast by members of the Green Party. Oh, yes, most definitely going to do that. And we know why they’re resigning in massive numbers from the Green Party right now—because of the very same thing that that member mentioned. And on the other concerns she expressed, the answers are: yes, yes, yes. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Would we like to take a bit of a discussion break, because it’s just breaking up too much.
Question No. 4—Children
4. LAURA McCLURE (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What action is the Government taking to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children is at the forefront of decision making for Oranga Tamariki?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): The Government has continued to take action to ensure Oranga Tamariki is focused on their core purpose, which is the care and protection of children and young people. This week, the Government has been progressing the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill to deliver on the ACT-National coalition agreement. Children deserve to know that the people making important decisions about their lives are putting their needs and safety before anything else.
Laura McClure: How will the repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act help ensure the safety and wellbeing of children?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: While section 7AA was well intended, it has created uncertainty for social workers when making decisions about the best interests and wellbeing of a child, as it puts a child’s ethnicity first and their wellbeing second. Section 7AA created a conflict in legislation with section 4 of the Act, which makes it clear that the wellbeing and best interests of a child or a young person are the first and paramount consideration. Repealing section 7AA reinforces this message: that safety must always come first.
Laura McClure: How will the repeal of section 7AA affect Oranga Tamariki’s existing strategic partnerships?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have consistently said that nothing about this repeal will stop Oranga Tamariki’s existing strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations or prevent them from entering into new ones. During the select committee process, it was recommended that the part of section 7AA relating to the strategic partnerships should be retained in legislation. We considered this recommendation and agreed with the committee. I want to thank the select committee for their careful consideration of the bill and reiterate that where these strategic partnerships are working, Oranga Tamariki should seek and continue to strengthen them.
Laura McClure: What will the repeal of section 7AA mean for public reporting on the impacts Oranga Tamariki is having on improving outcomes for children, young people, including Māori?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The repeal of section 7AA does remove the requirement for the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to report to the public at least once a year on the impact of measures on improving outcomes for Māori. This is something that was considered carefully by both the Government and the select committee. The select committee decided by majority—and I agree—that there is a number of existing mechanisms for reporting, produced by both Oranga Tamariki and the Independent Children’s Monitor, for example. These include Oranga Tamariki quarterly and annual reports, the Safety of Children in Care annual report, and the Independent Children’s Monitor’s state of the Oranga Tamariki system report. The Independent Children’s Monitor can also request any information that it deems relevant from Oranga Tamariki, and the chief executive must provide it.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: I was wondering if there was going to be one. I thought there were several during the answer to that previous question.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why has she spent so much time pushing her hōhā, harmful political ideology on to our most vulnerable Māori children while, under her watch, reports of concern have increased by a massive—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.
SPEAKER: No, no—just a minute. I’m getting there. How on earth does that meet the requirements of the Standing Orders? You cannot start a question the way you have, so ask a question that is compliant with the Standing Orders. That question was not.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why has she spent so much time on the repeal of section 7AA while, under her watch, reports of concern have increased by a massive 35 percent?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m actually grateful that reports of concern have increased—that means that people trust that Oranga Tamariki are going to do something when children are at risk. I have spent much of my time on 7AA because I believe safety and wellbeing should always come first.
Question No. 5—Health
5. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Is the primary healthcare sector structured to serve the public good; if not, why not?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yes, the hundreds of GP clinics across New Zealand serve the public. Every day, around 55,000 Kiwis have doctors appointments. However, we acknowledge the long wait-times patients are facing in accessing their GPs. That’s why the Government is taking action to strengthen primary care and grow the workforce, by creating 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care, providing incentives to recruit up to 400 graduate nurses per year into primary care, and investing an additional $285 million over three years to support GP clinics. By doing so, we put patients first to ensure Kiwis can get the timely, quality access that they need.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he accept that the current funding model for GPs incentivises practices to be set up in wealthier communities instead of where GP services would serve the greatest need?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member will be aware, there is a range of different funding tools used. There’s capitation; there are also subsidies for people with community services cards. There are subsidies to ensure those under the age of 13 are able to access free GP clinics. There are also other subsidies to ensure that people can get the care they need. Is the system requiring improvement? Yes, and that’s why this Government has released a number of actions to ensure we strengthen primary care across New Zealand, for all New Zealanders.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What actions, if any, has he taken to prevent more GP practices from being bought by large corporations who prioritise shareholder profits over health outcomes?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is focused on supporting primary care to be able to care for patients. There are a number of business models which deliver that. Primary care is, ultimately, supported both by the Government, through capitation, but also by users who pay to see their doctor, and the Government continues to support initiatives to ensure primary care can get the support it needs from the Government.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Who is more likely to be in touch with the health needs of their communities: corporations or GP-owned health practices?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government wants to ensure people can see their doctor. They want to have appointments, and what we’re focused on is ensuring they have the funding and the support they need. That’s why we’re increasing funding by $285 million over three years for general practice. That’s why we’re supporting additional clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care. That’s why we’re supporting incentives for more nurses in primary care. It’s all about making sure that Kiwis can get the access they need to primary care.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he take responsibility for the higher doctors fees and the reduced access to general, urgent, and mental care because this Government continues to underfund community GP care, and, if so, does he commit to increasing funding for community care?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: If the member had listened to my answers, he would have heard that we are increasing funding for primary care. He’s trying to find a conspiracy here. The degrowth Greens are trying to find a conspiracy here. The reality is we are putting more money into primary care, we are supporting more training for doctors and nurses, we want to increase access, and there is a range of subsidies in place to ensure that those who need to be able to have that support get that support to see their doctor.
Question No. 6—Police
6. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen on the public’s perception of safety?
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Today, Radio New Zealand released the results of a poll asking if people feel safer in their own home and local community than they did 12 months ago—38.3 percent of respondents said they were not concerned about their safety, and 26.9 percent said they felt safer. The fact that 65 percent of New Zealanders feel safe or safer than they did 12 months ago is a reflection of the hard work of our police officers.
Carl Bates: Are there any other reports on public perceptions of safety worth acknowledging?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: The 27th Ipsos Issues Monitor, released last month, showed that law and order continues to drop as a concern for New Zealanders. After peaking as the second most important issue to Kiwis in May 2023, it is now the fifth most important issue in the monitor to voters. Trust and confidence in police, as I mentioned on Tuesday, has also increased for the first time in four years. This is not just sloganeering, as other members have said; it is a Government that backs our police to get out there and keep Kiwis safe. Our record on public safety beats alternatives like defunding or abolishing the police, any day of the week.
Carl Bates: What has the Government done to restore law and order?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: We’ve implemented a gang patch ban we were told would never work; we’ve stopped gangs taking over towns; delivered a new 24/7 station in the Auckland CBD; got police back out on the beat, with 40 percent more foot patrols; and seen violent crime drop by 2 percent. We’ve done all that after inheriting a police force that was understaffed and underfunded.
Carl Bates: Who has been part of this work?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I want to thank and acknowledge our police and corrections officers, who do outstanding work in a challenging environment, for their tireless dedication to duty. I also want to acknowledge Community Patrols of New Zealand, our Māori wardens, residents’ and ratepayers’ groups, business associations, and the various social service providers throughout the country who make a big contribution towards making our country safer. We have a long way to go, but working together we can continue to achieve a lot.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider that his failure to deliver 500 more front-line police in two years has contributed to the 31 percent of New Zealanders who now feel less safe?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: I consider that a survey that shows that 38.3 percent of the respondents said they were not concerned about their safety, and 26.9 percent said that they felt safer, a sign of success.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider that having 607 more gang members and Police’s top detective saying gangs are making “double the meth” and “double the money” has contributed to the 31 percent of New Zealanders who now feel less safe?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, at the end of last year, as police Minister, I signed off two more gangs going on to the gang register. This Government has shown that we’re determined and we’re focused on making sure that we clamp down on organised crime and gangs, and our results have shown that.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he seen the recent perception of public safety from the chair of Te Rūnanga-Ā-Iwi-O-Ngāpuhi, who called for urgent action from the Government to respond to the tide of violent crime and methamphetamine use in Northland; if so, what action is he taking to address reports of young people openly smoking methamphetamine in the main streets of Kaikohe?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, yes, I have seen a report, and I have had a letter asking for a meeting, which I will accommodate. I have spent the last 12 months going around the country meeting with iwi, tidying up the mess that we inherited.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What’s more likely to make progress against methamphetamine’s baleful impact on our community: either toughening up gang laws so that the police have more tools to deal with gangs, or giving money to Sonny Tau to do rehabilitation programmes in the Hawke’s Bay?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think, clearly—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: That’s it—sorry. We’re going to be quiet.
Hon Willie Jackson: Stupid, stupid question.
SPEAKER: Did you not hear me?
Hon Willie Jackson: What a stupid question.
SPEAKER: Is the member deaf? I’m just asking for silence—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Sit down.
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A very good point. The first one is: yes, hitting the gangs hard does make a difference in terms of methamphetamine. We can clearly see that in the latest waste-water testing in Ōpōtiki, where the police were very effective in taking down the entire Mongrel Mob Barbarians gang. And no—do I think the previous Government funding the Mongrel Mob $3 million for a meth programme worked? Absolutely not.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order.
SPEAKER: The Hon Ginny Andersen.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s a point of order.
SPEAKER: Oh, it’s a point of order?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes.
SPEAKER: Well, you should be a little clearer when you call. Sorry, I didn’t hear that the first time.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: I just wanted to make a correction. I said the wrong name.
SPEAKER: No, hang on. It had better not be a trivial waste of the House’s time.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, no, no, no. I referred to an incorrect person; I was meaning to refer to Harry Tam, not Sonny Tau.
SPEAKER: I’m sure Sonny will be very happy to hear that. [Interruption]
Hon Ginny Andersen: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: We’re just waiting. [Interruption] When are we going to get the respect shown to the person asking the question? The Hon Ginny Andersen.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he stand by his commitment to resign one year into the job if New Zealanders didn’t feel more safe and we didn’t have control back of our streets, given that 31 percent of New Zealanders feel less safe, there are more gang members peddling more methamphetamine on our streets, and he has failed to deliver the 500 police he promised New Zealand in two years?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, yes, I did stand by that commitment, because I watched, for six years under a previous Government, a raft of police Ministers coming through who took no responsibility. I wanted to take responsibility. I said that if people didn’t feel safer after 12 months, then I would resign. But the good news is that 38.3 percent of respondents who filled out a recent survey said that they’re not concerned about their safety, and 26.9 percent said that they felt safer.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Are workforce shortages in regional hospitals limiting access to health services; if so, when will normal services be restored?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Delivering access to timely, quality healthcare is a top priority for our Government, and a strengthened workforce is critical to achieving this. That’s why our focus has been on the front line, including increasing the number of front-line nurses at Health New Zealand by over 2,000 since we came into Government. Health target data released today also highlights that significant challenges remain, particularly when it comes to wait-lists, and there will always be districts and regions where we need more workforce and capacity. We’re stabilising the system and making record investments—an additional $16.68 billion over three Budgets—to ensure better outcomes for patients. Our focus remains on putting patients first and reducing wait-lists with initiatives like the elective boost helping to achieve this, which will see 10,579 additional procedures carried out by June, which will include cataracts, hip replacements, ear procedures, and knee surgeries.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he commit to filling the vacancies for obstetrics and gynaecology specialists in Whakatāne, and the restoration of abortion services in Whakatāne?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that Health New Zealand is actively recruiting for those positions to have that service restored within 12 months.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why, when all of Whakatāne’s obstetric and gynaecology specialists departed in January, were birthing women offered financial support for travel, but support was not offered for women seeking abortion?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I appreciate the question. I’m not aware of that. I will ask for advice on that particular question.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree with Simeon Brown that “too many abortions are occurring in New Zealand.”; if so, is that belief the reason why women in Whakatāne have to travel to access abortion care with no financial assistance?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have personal views, but that is an issue that I will raise with Health New Zealand.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did he say, with respect to abortion, “we’re not changing the legislation.” because his intention was to reduce services slowly through underfunding and inadequate staffing?
SPEAKER: No, no, sit down. Try again. You can’t imply improper motive to a Minister or any member of Parliament during question time. It’s quite clear.
Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That had no such imputation. It was a question as to what the motivation was. That has to be within the Standing Orders.
SPEAKER: No, stop there. In that case, I’m pleased it’s me making that judgment and not you. Do you want to have another go at the question?
Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I’ve heard it, and I’ve ruled against it.
Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, try again.
Hon David Parker: We have freedom of speech in this House. We ask questions of each other that we may not like. That question, with respect, was perfectly in order, and it is appropriate that the Opposition health spokesperson be able to inquire as to what was the reason for the lack of funding to which she referred.
SPEAKER: If it was a question that simply asked that—which was asked twice before and got an answer from the Minister that he would inquire because he didn’t have that to hand—that is, of course, in order, but to imply some other inappropriate motive is not in order.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: To the point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, we’ve finished with it. I’ve dealt with it. If you’ve got another question, give it.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it his view that fewer abortions should occur in New Zealand?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: My personal views are not a matter of impact when it comes to the Minister of Health. I am the Minister of Health and those issues are delegated to the Hon Casey Costello.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree that provision of surgical abortion services in regional New Zealand is important to enable safer, early abortions?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Those issues have been delegated to the Hon Casey Costello, and I encourage her to put those directly to her.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is the Minister of Health. There are previous Speakers’ rulings saying that the portfolio-holding Minister is responsible to respond to questions, even if they are delegated to associates.
SPEAKER: That is in part true. But where the House might be better served by a more specific answer, it’s not unreasonable for a Minister to suggest that an associate who has the full responsibility for that particular topic is a better person to answer it.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he agree that abortion is healthcare?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Those issues are delegated to the Hon Casey Costello. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government is not changing the law in that regard.
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, Standing Order 390 is very clear, and I’m surprised you have not ruled out a host of the questions that came from the member on the other side of the House on the basis of Standing Order 390. We started our session this afternoon by you elaborating a ruling as to what are the conditions associated with transferring questions. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the answer that the Minister gave in terms of delegations to another Minister. Yet this person continues to trample on the Standing Orders of the House, and it brings us all into disrepute.
SPEAKER: Well, 390’s a very long Standing Order. It has a total of five parts to it, with three subparts. The bit that I’ve stood on this afternoon is “arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions, or expressions of opinion,”. They can’t be included in an answer, and I’ve stopped two questions so far on that basis. But, I think, if you were to apply the full extent of all of the provisions under this Standing Order, there would be very few questions that could be asked in the House.
Hon Shane Jones: Well, where she’s concerned that would be a good outcome.
SPEAKER: I think it would be wise for you to let the argument go right there.
Question No. 8—Resources
8. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Resources: What reports has he received on the resources sector?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Recently, the welcome mat was laid out in Toronto as I travelled there after a 14-year period of absence to represent our Government in advocating for the revitalisation of our mining sector and to affirm that we’re open for business. I was greeted with great enthusiasm, did a great deal of interviewing, and showed them the mineral strategy and shared with them that New Zealand now has the most permissive regime for enabling extractive sector developments in the Western world.
Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen on other countries adopting New Zealand’s approach to fast tracking major economic initiatives?
Hon SHANE JONES: I have had a report referred to me which reflects imitation. The new Canadian Prime Minister, not long after my trip up there, announced that his Government, in the event that he prevails, is introducing fast-track legislation designed to cut away red, green tape in relation to the bureaucratic overkill throttling the minerals sector in that part of country. Not only is it going to emulate the New Zealand experience but I have no doubt that our model has gone long and far in such an extractive economy as Canada.
Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen around the resources sector supporting jobs and growth in the regions?
Hon SHANE JONES: Record gold prices. We are living through a golden time, fuelling investment into Te Tai Poutini, the West Coast. Development West Coast says that for every mining job in the region, two others are created elsewhere; 100 new jobs at a mine. But it’s not only in the West Coast; in Coromandel, the Wharekirauponga Underground Mine is likely to sustain over 1,000 jobs. There have been some allegations—completely scurrilous—put around by the green groups that mining 200 metres below the subsurface will create trembling and interference with animals living on top of the land. That is not right. That is something that we will not tolerate.
Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen around investment in New Zealand’s mining sector?
Hon SHANE JONES: More good news. In an area that was marginalised, undermined, recently a $20 million sum of investment capital was announced from Australia, thus bringing the Aussie super fund investment into a certain project in the West Coast over $160 million. Jobs, export earnings—something that every fair-minded member of the House should be concerned with. I omitted to mention that apparently the green groups are concerned about underground mining because it interferes with the reproductive patterns of frogs.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Incidentally, Minister, in the home of the formation of the New Zealand Labour Party, how many letters of congratulations or memos of thanks has he got from West Coast MPs?
Hon SHANE JONES: Heartland of New Zealand, the West Coast—hearty individuals. I have turned down a request for a bust to be made in the likeness of the leader of New Zealand First in that part of New Zealand.
SPEAKER: I believe that would be quite an achievement!
Question No. 9—Police
9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Police: Does she stand by the Minister of Police’s statement on the coalition commitment to deliver 500 front-line police by 27 November 2025, “It’s aspirational”; if not, why not?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): Yes.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Tom Rutherford, who told 95bFM that if someone is in the act of committing suicide, it is not a matter for the police, and, if so, is this change to police attending an event where there is immediate threat to life due to the increased pressure placed upon front-line police officers?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In my capacity as the Minister responsible for organised crime and recruitment, I would commend the fact that police are doing an outstanding front-line policing job. We did inherit a shortfall of recruitment numbers where our police numbers were understrength. We had no recruitment pipeline and we had no budget. We in this Government have invested $225 million to fund recruitment and equipping and training our police officers, and we are on target to deliver our 500 additional police.
Question No. 10—Children
10. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Children: Does she think provisions in the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill allowing the use of physical force against children in State care breach the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be protected from all forms of physical violence?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): It is precisely because children and young people deserve to be protected from violence that someone who is working with these young people must have the ability to prevent them from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming another person.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What assurance can the Minister offer to caregivers of tamariki in care, given that this bill will allow strangers to use force against their children?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In relation to use of reasonable force, I would have thought that instead of inciting fear, a member who themselves stated that they were the “smartest and most experienced”, as they declared themselves the other day, would understand the difference between reasonable force and physical violence.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can she clarify what is the difference between reasonable force or otherwise?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: When it comes to reasonable force, it would be used in a way where it is the last line of defence when a young person may be at risk of hurting or harming themselves and might need to be restrained so that they are not hurting or harming themselves or harming others.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I was looking for something that showed an actual definition of “reasonable force”, which is why I posed my question in that way as opposed to in some other rhetoric.
SPEAKER: Depends how you look at it, but “reasonable force” could be considered a legal definition, which is not a question that can be asked in the House. The answer that was given by the member indicated—which I think, for most people, would allow them to understand what sort of force might be used in the circumstances outlined. Have another go.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can she clarify what steps are being taken to ensure that tamariki do not internalise that use of force as an acceptable response during conflict resolution?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No young person would like the fact that reasonable force has to be used, but, at the end of the day, alongside training that has been put in place by Oranga Tamariki around de-escalation so that reasonable force is the last line of defence, I believe that this will make sure that our young people are safe.
Laura McClure: Can the Minister please explain to the House what kind of crimes these young people are actually part of this programme for?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The reason that we have had to put this provision—
Rawiri Waititi: So that gives them a reason to get a hiding, girl, like my lawns?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually reject the premise of what was just said there by that member. No one will be getting a hiding. It is not excessive force; it is reasonable force. So the answer to that question is: some of these members that are part of the military-style academy pilot programme have committed some pretty serious crimes. They must have committed at least two crimes of 10 years or more, if sentenced. We need to make sure that they are safe from each other and that the staff are safe, and this is the middle ground that will make sure that they are all safe.
SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear that the Māori Party have one more question under today’s allocation, if they wish to use it.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mr Speaker, I did take three supplementary questions, as I understand.
SPEAKER: Yes, I know. One was a re-go, from me, so—
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Hmm, what might I ask?
SPEAKER: Well, do you want me to help you out?
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, no. [Interruption] What? OK, “Why?” That’s a great one. No, what about this: what evidence does she have to give this House confidence that reasonable force upon young people that are already vulnerable and have, as referred to in her response, a longstanding, serious, harmful life—what reasonable force would be reasonable in that case?
SPEAKER: Look, it touches on the same question. The Minister can answer it in so far as she’s able to without giving legal opinion.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Reasonable force is the last line of defence, but the evidence is that if we do not have—
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was looking for evidence, which was why I posed the question. What evidence might she have? Thank you.
SPEAKER: Yes, I appreciate that, but if you think about what you’re asking for evidence for, it would require a legal opinion to be able to provide that evidence. So we’ll give the Minister the opportunity to respond, in so far as she can inside the Standing Orders.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The evidence has shown in the past that when we do not have safeguards in place for young people and staff, we end up with young people getting hurt. We need to make sure, alongside the provision of reasonable force, that training is put in place in de-escalation, and this gives our staff more tools so that they are safe and our young people are safe.
Question No. 11—Universities
11. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) to the Minister for Universities: Does he expect increases in tertiary sector enrolment levels, given the unemployment rate is 5.1 percent?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister for Universities: Tertiary sector enrolments happen for many reasons. I expect and welcome an increase in tertiary enrolments this year. An increase would be positive, as we know higher education contributes to higher earnings and employment rates, contributing to economic growth.
Shanan Halbert: What, if anything, has he done to address Universities New Zealand Chief Executive Chris Whelan’s concern that the Tertiary Education Commission may not have enough money to subsidise growth in domestic tertiary enrolments this year?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: All those questions regarding the Tertiary Education Commission should be directed to the Minister.
Shanan Halbert: Point of order, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: Well, just bear in mind what I had to say at the start of question time. The question is clearly directed to the Minister responsible for universities, so is there more you can say than “Direct it to the person I’m answering on behalf of.”?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, I’m speaking on behalf of the Minister for Universities, and the Minister for the Tertiary Education Commission is someone else.
SPEAKER: I was unaware there was a split in that particular portfolio.
Shanan Halbert: Given that answer, what has he, as Minister for Universities, done to alert the Minister in charge of the Tertiary Education Commission about the risk that the Tertiary Education Commission may not have enough money to subsidise all the growth in domestic tertiary enrolments this year?
SPEAKER: So just—
Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister for Universities, the relevant Minister for the Tertiary Education Commission and I continue to undertake something called mahi tahi, or working together, and we’ll do so with the “Mana pūtea”—the Minister of Finance.
SPEAKER: Can I just indicate to the member that starting a question with a question word is a good idea—not the word “given”.
Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I’ll take that on board. Will universities still be funded to enrol students for semester two if they have already met their annual enrolment target in semester one; if not, why not?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister for Universities, as I’ve mentioned, there are more expected enrolments, but the final first semester numbers will come later in April—this month—and after that, there will be a process that is undertaken around further assessment.
Shanan Halbert: Will there be further workforce shortages in places like health and education as a result of this Government’s failure to adequately support the tertiary sector?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister for Universities, as this House is well aware, this Government is very committed to the going for growth agenda, which includes ensuring that there’s an increase of talent in the workforce that will contribute to getting the country back on track.
Question No. 12—Building and Construction
12. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to support tradies?
Hon Chris Penk: Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: I’m sorry; the Hon Chris Penk.
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, sir. Just checking you were as ready as I am.
SPEAKER: That’s all right. First-class Minister—carry on!
Hon CHRIS PENK: Oh, thank you, sir—first-class Speaker, if we come to that. This Government has made several announcements this week to strip back needless regulation getting in our tradies’ way so that they can get on with the job of delivering homes and the other infrastructure that Kiwis need. New Zealand’s economic and social prospects are literally built by tradies. Some 10 percent of the GDP of our economy and 11 percent of the workforce is in the construction sector.
Paulo Garcia: How will allowing more overseas building products to be used in New Zealand help tradies?
Hon CHRIS PENK: Legislation passed just last night with the unanimous support of the House—I’m pleased and grateful to acknowledge—will see up to 250,000 new products available to flow into New Zealand this year alone. This means that our designers, builders, and DIY Kiwis will have far more choice for the products they use. More choice means more competition, greater resilience in terms of supply chain, greater innovation, and downward pressure on prices.
Paulo Garcia: Is the building consent system a barrier for tradies, and what is the Government doing about this?
Hon CHRIS PENK: We know that bureaucratic blockages in the consenting system are forcing our tradies to battle through piles of paperwork. We are right now finalising decisions on major initiatives to speed up that process, streamlining inspections, empowering trusted builders to be able to sign off their own work, where appropriate, and adopting a more balanced approach to how we handle liability for defective work.
Paulo Garcia: How will the Government’s moves to crack down on cowboy builders back our tradies?
Hon CHRIS PENK: The vast majority of our tradies are actually highly competent, highly skilled professionals, and ethical ones at that. But I do understand that there are a minority of operators who might be characterised as cowboys, who tar the good with the bad. That’s why our Government is making it easier for Kiwis to identify the trusted professionals. So we’re strengthening the disciplinary process, including greater transparency, publishing the fact of builders having been disciplined or suspended, and establishing a new waterproofing licence pass for licensed building practitioners. These changes are being welcomed by Master Builders, because they help to bolster the reputation of the sector as a whole.
Cameron Luxton: Supplementary? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Look, just wait for quiet.
Cameron Luxton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What feedback has he received from building industry professional representatives on the self-certification proposals?
Hon CHRIS PENK: I thank the member for the question, not least of all because he’s a building professional himself. He will, hopefully, agree with me, therefore, that the sector’s been overwhelmingly positive about these changes, and I note that there’s been great advocacy over many years; for example, by Master Plumbers, Greg Wallace, and others who have pushed successive Governments to recognise the work of their members. We have listened. We’re acting on that.
Arena Williams: To the Minister for Building and Construction, how—
SPEAKER: No, stop. It’s too late now. Sorry, you’ve actually used up your allocation, but I’m going to—
Arena Williams: How does he respond to the overwhelmingly negative feedback from the—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Wait! Just a minute. Sorry. We’ll have absolute silence when the question’s asked. It’s a Thursday. This is a bill supported widely by the House. I’m being generous.
Arena Williams: How does he respond to the overwhelmingly negative feedback of the industry to the vocational changes to the way tradies and builders will be trained?
Hon CHRIS PENK: That member would know about overwhelmingly negative feedback. I would say, in relation to vocational educational changes, my colleague and friend Penny Simmonds is consulting diligently on that. We’re very confident that we’ll end up with a model that appropriately represents industry involvement in setting standards in giving that training to our wonderful tradies in this country.
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a moment while those who have to leave do so quietly and without conversations on the way.
Bills
Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill
Instruction to Justice Committee
TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I seek leave to move a motion without debate or notice to authorise the Justice Committee to deal with submissions on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill after it has reported the bill to the House.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
TODD STEPHENSON: I move, That the Justice Committee be authorised to table and release or return submissions on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, as if the bill were still before the committee, after it has reported the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Anzac Day Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: I present a legislative statement on the Anzac Day Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Anzac Day Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.
I will start in quite an unusual fashion if I may and invite any members who are giving contributions on this matter the opportunity to wear a poppy. I’ve placed a number down by the Mace along with some pins if any colleagues wish to avail themselves of that opportunity. Of course, there are only a few short weeks until Anzac Day and there will be other opportunities, of course, for members to express their support for our veterans through the RSA welfare league, and I’m encouraged to see the response already in that regard.
I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, whose name technically is on this bill, but as the Anzac Day Act is a matter of considerable significance to our nation’s veterans, I am very pleased to be able to speak to it on behalf of the Government and to recognise the impact of the changes that will be felt by our ex-service personnel.
In a way, the bill that we have before us is a way of symbolic recognition, but symbols are important, not least to our armed forces. Poppies, medals, flags, silver ferns, and other symbols represent the ideals for which generations of men and women in this country have fought and, in some cases, paid the ultimate sacrifice.
The bill that comes before the House today is designed to provide for broader and more inclusive recognition and commemoration on Anzac Day of those who have served our country in wars and warlike operations. The Anzac Day Act 1966 currently restricts recognition and commemoration to those who served in six specified conflicts, ending with the war in South Vietnam. By being limited to the specific named conflicts, the Act is currently too narrow. I think that for many of us who have attended Anzac Day services—and I acknowledge the members across the House who inevitably will have done that in their respective local areas—clearly the mood in 2025 and, of course, in many recent years has been that we must take a much more broad and inclusive approach, and it is appropriate that our legislation catches up with that.
We must take account of the recent conflicts and other operations in which our people have served, as well as conflicts actually before that time that are not specified in the legislation. The restrictiveness of the current law excludes a number of circumstances where Kiwi personnel have served our country with bravery and distinction, and where recognition from their fellow citizens and, of course, the Government, on behalf of those citizens, is richly deserved.
The wording of the Act does not at present include military service by personnel in the New Zealand armed forces or others in allied forces in wars or warlike conflicts such as UN missions or multi-force groupings or organisations. I think of service like the UN peacekeeping force on the Sinai Peninsula, among others. And neither does the present version of the Act cover non-military service in a war or warlike conflict involving New Zealand—for example, the Home Guard defending New Zealand, medical personnel, members of the merchant navy during the world wars, and members of the New Zealand civilian surgical team who served in the Vietnam conflict as well. In other words, we aim to be much more comprehensive and fair in recognising all these people in this way.
New Zealand residents and others also served in allied forces in the two world wars, and some New Zealand armed forces personnel who enlisted to serve their country died in service training incidents. They too should not be forgotten. And neither should we forget those from other allied forces countries who were there with the Kiwis when the first allied troops landed on Gallipoli in 1915, such as India and France, on whom the Act is currently silent. By naming some countries’ service personnel but not others, we have, perhaps unwittingly, excluded in a very real way those who also served.
And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that there were others who served nations with whom we were then in conflict but with whom we have very friendly and cordial and constructive relationships, including in a security sense, but, of course, more broadly, people-to-people links, and economic relationships such as trade and so on.
We aim to keep Anzac Day and the commemorations that take place annually on 25 April as relevant this year, and next year and so on, as they were last year and all the years previous. The change being made is a small one, and I acknowledge that, but I think nevertheless—and I hope that members will agree—that it is a powerful one. It will create a new section 2 in the Act, and this will broaden recognition and commemoration of all who have served New Zealand, including those who have passed away but not only those, in times of war and warlike conflict.
The Government, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, bears the significant responsibility of improving the way that we honour and acknowledge those who have served our nation humbly, courageously, and with great loyalty. So I do just want to mention in my remaining time that this is, of course, a broader stream of work that has been undertaken over a number of different years and across the successive Governments, and there are others in the House, including previous Ministers, who will recognise the discussion that has been held about, for example, having in law a recognition of a kawenata or covenant that would recognise the service of our armed forces to the people of New Zealand.
Those are beyond the scope of this bill and so I don’t intend to traverse those subjects today. But with Anzac Day coming soon, no doubt these conversations will soon come to the fore again. It’s appropriate they do so, and, as I stated publicly, albeit within the Whakatāne RSA but reported more widely in response to a gesture made by Warrant Officer Willie Apiata VC, I have heard those calls for a broader recognition.
Yes, it may be that it is appropriate to think about ways that we can recognise symbolically those who have served New Zealand as veterans in a way that doesn’t threaten the integrity or the current structure of the Veterans’ Support Act. Those conversations, as I say, are for another day. For now, though, I do wish to acknowledge them. I do wish to point out that the commitment made by the Prime Minister at the RSA’s annual conference last year is being honoured by the introduction of this legislation, and we’ve committed to having it passed before Anzac Day of 2026. The support of other members of the House, including across the parties, as well as, of course, our friends and partners in coalition, will be very welcome indeed.
So, with that, I conclude simply by reiterating those themes upon which the legislation is based. Anzac Day must be much more inclusive. Its focus must be not solely on the past but also recognising already the comments that are quite rightly made around the country on 25 April that it represents to the future as well as the present. We have a duty to honour those who serve us. This bill will go some small way to ensuring that we do so. We will remember them.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): In the very same RSA in Whakatāne, my first Anzac Day as Minister of Defence, I began my speech by reflecting upon the situation or the position I found myself in, whereby my great-grandfather, MP of this House for 28 years, actively recruited for the Pioneer Battalion who served in World War I, and then continued to actively recruit, alongside Sir Apirana Ngata during his time here in Parliament, for active service for what became known as the 28th (Māori) Battalion in the Second World War, in which my grandfather, his son, served, and his final posting was as the commander of the 28th (Māori) Battalion. Then I found myself, as a defence Minister, speaking in the very same RSA in Whakatāne and acknowledging that our people are involved in conflict and in wars and in peacekeeping services right around the world. While it may be an unspoken thing that when we show up to an Anzac Day, we acknowledge them and we remember them, I think this move with this particular bill is an important one and a symbolic one, and I acknowledge the Minister for bringing this here to the House.
When we commemorate Anzac Day, it’s a special time. It’s emotional. It allows us to reflect on our past, to think about our current day, and also to plan for our future. We support this bill. What I say to those who are proposed to come under the remit of this particular bill, in changing the Anzac Day legislation, is that I want them to continue to remember the specific days that are important to them. We know, for example, the Merchant Navy Day is a different day to Anzac Day and they have their own services—in fact, I’ve been to a number in Tauranga, and I know members across the House have been there. It is important we continue to remember them all during Anzac Day. But I want to just offer a word of encouragement to those who will finally come under the remit of this legislation through this bill—that they continue to remember the days that are important to them, that are significant to them. And I’m sure they will. But those are the kinds of testaments and memorials that we hope never to be lost in time, and I do continue to encourage that.
I also reflect on the time, in my first term here in Parliament, where there was a significant push for recognition of the New Zealand Wars, to which we unveiled a plaque in this House to remember that. While these gestures are symbolic and they may take some time, we acknowledge that we’ve come on a significant journey, certainly over the past decade and even beyond then, to allow the recognition through this particular bill, which is why we will continue to support this bill. We will encourage, of course, many of our veterans, our service personnel, current and past, to make sure that their voice is heard, that there are submissions on this particular bill, where we might have, through the passage of time, forgotten a particular conflict or something or rather—you know, something that’s important to them. I think it’s important that their voices continue to be heard through the process and the progress of this bill.
The Labour Party support this bill. Once again, I encourage submitters, and I also encourage those with significant days to continue to commemorate, celebrate, and come together on those days to remember the deeds of those who have served and who continue to serve.
Finally, from my side, I acknowledge the comments of the Minister for Veterans with respect to the kawenata and with respect to the ongoing work when we look towards the acknowledgment and the honouring of veterans. I know that’s a significant piece of work, from both my time and the time of subsequent Ministers. And of course, I acknowledge the act of my cousin Willie Apiata VC in handing the VC to the Minister for Veterans—which comes with a huge burden. We want to say to the Minister and to this Government that, in a true bipartisan approach, we would be more than happy to make sure a door is open so that we can have those discussions to honour these people in the way that they deserve. We leave that door open to the Minister, and we look forward to ongoing conversation on this bill and the matter that I’ve just raised. We support this bill.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki—the Green Party. I think it’s important for us to fill the gaps for those who have served New Zealand in various contexts around conflict and military service, including UN peacekeeping. I remember talking to a veteran who was onboard the ships—I think it was the Pukaki—that went to Christmas Island in 1958 for the British nuclear testing and was exposed to radiation. He was one of the 10 servicemen on board the vessel who was tasked with the job of spraying down the fallout after it had landed on the ship, and he said he was the last of those 10 still alive. He was not recognised—because he had never actually been in warfare—for that service, even though it cost him his friends and cost them their lives because of the radiation exposure.
This sort of bill helps to capture all of those who have served in such a manner as to give themselves for, supposedly, the good of the country. One thing I find concerning, though, is in all the background documents, there’s sort of a glaring absence, and it’s one that the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, alluded to: there’s no mention of the New Zealand Wars. Now, I believe that the proposed wording for the new amendment, which says “commemoration of the contribution of all those who have served New Zealand … in time of war and in warlike conflicts”, would capture those in the New Zealand Wars. Certainly, it would capture tangata whenua Māori who served in the New Zealand Wars, and it is right that it should do that.
It mentions other conflicts, as I’ve said. It also mentions, for example, those who served in the Home Guard. Well, I can’t think of a better example of the Home Guard than the tangata whenua Māori who defended New Zealand from 1845 to 1872 against British invasion. They certainly must be included, and I find it concerning that there’s sort of a silence in the background documents and the commentary on that inclusion. For context, we know the great sacrifice of New Zealand soldiers—the great losses of New Zealand soldiers—in the First and Second World Wars, and particularly, we know of the Māori Battalion. Those wars saw around 336 Māori die in the First World War and 649 die in the Second World War. But it is estimated that, in the New Zealand Wars, around 2,154 Māori died, and 745 British or colonialist or kūpapa soldiers died. This is a significant number. Those wars—from 1845 to 1872—ran for 27 years. That is a huge part of our war history in this country. That is essential to understanding the history of New Zealand—the colonial history—and we should move ever more boldly, as we recognise that part of our history, to acknowledge those who died in the New Zealand Wars.
I just want to reflect on the nomenclature of New Zealanders, because, of course, the first group of people to ever have the term “New Zealander” applied, whether they had sought to have it or not, were tangata whenua Māori. They were referred to as “the New Zealanders”, so both in terms of time and in terms of nomenclature, the first New Zealanders are Māori. It seems that this will be captured by the legislation, but I would love, Minister, if there was more explicit acknowledgment and clarification—and certainly, I’ll put it to you in the committee of the whole House—that this legislation now acknowledges those who served and died in the New Zealand Wars.
War, in the end, serves nobody—we know that. I sometimes feel remiss at Anzac Day commemorations when there’s a glorification of it, when I know the soldiers, when you read their diaries, who returned from that First World War wanted to make sure it never happened again, and we should always remember that it is an absolute last resort, to go to war—especially in the times we’re in now. Thank you.
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I’m honoured to speak in support of the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. The changes that this bill makes will allow us to formally recognise more veterans who have served New Zealand, specifically in the conflicts which have occurred since 1966, which was when the Anzac Day Act was last updated.
Our day of commemoration on Anzac Day currently honours the part played by New Zealand servicemen and women in six specified conflicts: the First and Second World Wars, the South African Boer War, the Korean War, the war in Malaya and Borneo, and also the war in South Vietnam. I’m pointing to the plaques on the wall which commemorate and acknowledge.
The Anzac Day Amendment Bill will allow those who have served or died in other conflicts, in times of war in the past—and God forbid, in our future—to also be commemorated and recognised. It serves as validation for the significant personal sacrifices that they have made, including time away from home and family, enduring difficult conditions, and facing both physical and emotional challenges. Being recognised for their service is a deeply meaningful acknowledgment of their dedication, sacrifice, and contributions to our country. Recognition also connects their individual contributions to something much larger, a commitment to not just duty and to honour but to also protect others. It underscores that their role was not just about the job itself, but about the greater good to society.
This recognition will also be about the legacy left behind. It means that their service will be remembered for future generations and for their families and also for the communities that have been impacted by their service. Ultimately, recognition for service as a way of us saying, “Your efforts matter and we really appreciate what you have done for us.” It acknowledges the courage, the commitment, and the sacrifices that our servicemen and women have made.
Many of us, when we get up in the early hours of Anzac Day to attend a dawn service, are doing so to honour a relative who may have served. I like to reminisce and think back to what my forefathers did to ensure that we live in a free and democratic society. I only had one grandparent growing up. It was my maternal grandfather, and he constantly talked about the war and its effect on him and his friends.
The impact this had on me surfaced when I first started shooting sports. When I started with a service rifle, I picked up the trusty old .303. I’ve never been interested in shooting the modern service rifle; I just wanted to use the same type of rifle that my grandfather used, and I wanted to be a part of a society that respects and commemorates in that way. The Lee-Enfield is a bolt-action, magazine-fed repeating rifle that served as the main firearm for the military forces of the British Empire in Commonwealth during the first half of the 20th century. It was the standard issue firearm to the British Army and other Commonwealth nations, including New Zealand and Australia in both the First and Second World Wars. When I’m at a range using a .303, I’m connected to that history. Lest we forget.
And how could we forget when we’re standing in this Chamber? Look around. We are surrounded by reminders of our military history. This place in which we stand was at one time dedicated as a memorial to the First World War. The carved circular wreaths around the balcony bear the names and places where significant battles were fought by New Zealand troops during World War I. And there are 18 carved plaques on the wall panels which were added in 1961 and include later war service by New Zealand troops. How appropriate then, surrounded by all of this history, that we now move to formally recognise those who have taken part in more recent warlike conflicts, including our peacekeeping forces. It is my absolute honour to commend this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I’m going to carry on from the Hon Nicole McKee and her speech. It is an absolute honour to rise to speak to this Anzac Day Amendment Bill and to do so in this room which is surrounded by memories of conflict past and the role that New Zealand has played in those.
I want to thank the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage for bringing this bill to the House, because this is something that New Zealand First has always stood very proudly behind—our service personnel—and also very proudly behind the Anzac Day commemorations. It’s really been very, very heartwarming to see the resurgence of interest of Kiwis of all ages in supporting our service personnel through the Anzac commemorations.
We often say “Lest we forget”. We say “We will remember them.” This bill is about making sure that that remembrance is more inclusive than it has been through the legislation as it stands at the moment. In terms of “Lest we forget”, one of the things I had the privilege of doing—I guess it was a self-generated privileged—when I was a city councillor in Wellington was to recognise that we had quite a number of street names which were named for people, places, and events from the First World War. As part of the World War I commemorations, the 100-year commemorations, I set out to tell the stories of those places and to recognise those streets, with a poppy sign and a little bit of the story behind those. Look, we hadn’t forgotten the battles—people had remembered those, but they had forgotten the people. In this town, the people back in 1917 had actually said, “Well, we want to remember some of those people who were special to us have gone and died.”, but we had forgotten them many generations later. So to be able to put a sign up there and say “Let’s remember those individuals.” was, to me, a really important thing to do.
This bill is all about being more inclusive. It’s about recognising the conflicts since 1966. It’s about recognising peacekeeping activities and UN missions where they are in dangerous situations. These are still people who are going to serve New Zealand and put their lives on the line in risky situations. The Home Guard we’ve already talked about. It’s also about recognising those who’ve served in allied forces as well. For example, my wife’s grandfather and his brother both served in the Second World War, in the Royal Air Force, and both of them died in the RAF in active service. So those things come very, very close to home and it is good to be able to recognise them. It’s about recognising, too, the people who died in training activities or from sickness as well.
Two other groups I particularly wanted to talk about—one is the medical personnel who may well not have been military medical personnel but who went to serve, to support our service personnel, and it would be good to recognise particularly our nursing personnel who went. In the First World War, we lost 16 nurses in active situation, either through illness or, in one case, 10 nurses died when the Marquette was sunk in the Aegean, and, of course, that was there in the Aegean to support the Anzac operation. So it is absolutely right and proper that we recognise the service of, if you like, people outside of uniform or in a different uniform—our nursing personnel.
The other group I wanted to mention was the Merchant Navy. Obviously, New Zealand is a trading country, and in those days that trade was particularly with the United Kingdom. Getting product to and from the United Kingdom—and that’s absolutely essential for the war effort—was really, really dangerous. Something like 160 Merchant Navy personnel died in the Second World War in New Zealand colours, if you like. In preparing for this, I particularly recognised some of the courage not only to be able to sail there at the threat of being potentially torpedoed and what might happen then but also the situation with the Otaki, which was a New Zealand Shipping Company—
Tim Costley: Bisset-Smith, Otaki.
ANDY FOSTER: The Otaki, yes.
Tim Costley: Captain Bissett-Smith.
ANDY FOSTER: Yeah. It was a New Zealand Shipping Company ship which actually was engaged by a German auxiliary cruiser and it fought back. It lost but it showed the courage that our Merchant Navy personnel showed in that situation.
So it is right and proper that we have a piece of legislation which is amended to be able to recognise the courage of all of these people. I wish to commend this bill to the House and I look forward to the submissions, accordingly.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou, e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei. Nōku te hōnore ki te tuku kōrero, ki te tū ki tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira hei reo owha, hei reo tākiri, hei reo whakataunaki i ngā hōia katoa o te motu. Kei ngā ika a whiro, te pae o Tūmatauenga, ngā waewae kai pakiaka o te whawhai mō Aotearoa, Niu Tīreni, nei ka whakamānawa i a koutou. Rirerire hau pai mārire.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to us all in the House. I stand to voice the position of Te Pāti Māori today. It is my honour to stand and talk about this prominent issue, as a voice of salute, of thanks, and of support for all soldiers of the land. To the veterans, the bench of the War God, the adventurous ones, who fought for Aotearoa, this is my adulation to you all. May the beautiful message of God deliver widespread peace.]
On behalf of Te Pāti Māori, we support this bill and this kaupapa. We understand that this bill amends the Anzac Day Act 1966 to recognise those who served in more recent conflicts but who are not currently recognised nor provided for. Following Anzac, many wars and conflicts have occurred since then and are still ongoing.
Māori make up a large proportion of those serving in the Defence Force, and Te Pāti Māori stands with you and all those served before, after, and alongside you. They might be your brother, your father, your mother, or your sister. They walk among us and they carry the experience of conflict without due recognition.
The effect of the World Wars on Māori has been decimated paepae across the country, stripping te ao Māori of its means of cultural survival and favour. Te Pāti Māori supports formal recognition of veterans of more recent conflicts, including those involved in peacekeeping, to be provided for under the Act. Many of our people, especially those in the Defence Force, are so humble that in times like this we must advocate for them in the way that they require. The late Tā Bom advocated for similar recognition of the Māori Battalion, including through the tribunal.
We must heed these lessons of history and avoid repeating the same failed mistakes of the past. As I look around this House and as I look around the room, I can see all of the wreaths, and I think of my tūpuna who served in World War II, my tupuna Peter Tauatahi, who was in the Māori Battalion, and also my tupuna Duncan McNicol, who served in World War I.
However, it does bring huge mamae that there is nothing in this House that recognises the Māori Land Wars, Te Pūtake o Te Riri. Te Pāti Māori brings this conversation of our tūpuna, and I would like to thank the Green Party and the Labour Party for recognising and acknowledging our tūpuna who have fought in the New Zealand Land Wars, Te Pūtake o Te Riri: Rangiriri, Ōhaeawai, Pukehinahina, Rangiaowhia, and many more who were only recently being acknowledged by this House, like recently in the Ō-Rākau battle site reading, where that was the petition of the Homai He Rā [Give a Day campaign], bring us a recognition date for the Land Wars that occurred here on our own soil of Aotearoa.
This bill must be brought forward to ensure that this country remains in keeping with its promise of our past, present, and future to the servicewomen and men.
We honour that recently Willie Apiata VC and the Minister, with the hope that the Minister truly understands the mana of such an undertaking and appropriate tikanga. E te Minita, e wewera ana tō pūkoro i te mana o ngā whakahau kua taupokina ki runga ki a koe. Ko te mānuka kua takoto, kua kawea kia mau ki te kupu. Mana te kupu, tapu te kupu. Tēnā rā koutou, e te Whare.
[To the Minister, your pocket is warm, due to the responsibilities that have been entrusted to you. The challenge has been laid and accepted, so be true to your word. Words have power and are set apart. Thank you to the House.]
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to rise and take a call on the Anzac Day Amendment Bill today, and I’d like to start by acknowledging all past and present New Zealand Defence Force personnel for their service that they have provided to New Zealand, through the challenges that may present, the opportunities that brings, the friendship, the camaraderie, the skills, and ultimately the service, upholding the values and freedoms that we hold so dear in New Zealand.
This bill today actually formalises a lot of what happens around the country, and I take great pride in attending Anzac services around the Waikato every year. I get to as many as I can, and you can see, out in our communities, that there is a strong sense of the importance of attending those services—of remembering the service, the sacrifice that has been made, whether that was quite some time ago or quite recently. I think, in that context, it’s encouraging to feel that formal recognition is already occurring in our communities, and yet today we are now formalising that through legislation, as well we should.
We’ve heard a bit about some of the plaques around Parliament, as well, and indeed World War I is clearly recognised; World War II, and beyond. But there are more modern plaques as well, with Timor-Leste and Afghanistan, noting indeed already in this Chamber we have those plaques and appreciate the service that was made. This legislation will now formalise that, to bring it more into line with where we are. It’s an important step, because, although this is, largely, already happening, actually, it is really important that the Government of the day, this Parliament, shows a clear sign of appreciation for what has been done on its behalf by the brave men and women who have pulled on the uniform.
That formal acknowledgment is really important, not just for those personnel who have served recently but, indeed, for any personnel who have served or died in training incidents as well—that’s an important one that I think we need to pick up on, because it is critical, when you are training in the Defence Force, that you train in as realistic a scenario as possible, and, of course, that comes with an inherent level of risk. Sadly, there have been instances where lives have been lost in different training scenarios. So, of course, we should acknowledge those personnel too.
The other thing from the Minister’s speech that I wanted to pick up on was acknowledging—again, right back to the definition of “Anzac Day”—not just UK, Australian, and New Zealand forces but actually expanding that to acknowledge other countries that were represented and that contributed through their endeavour as well, and India, in particular, is one I’ve had some conversations about quite recently. So I think it’s very fitting and appropriate that we are now acknowledging those soldiers who served during that time as well.
I am very pleased that we are now able to formalise this. I have the privilege of chairing the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and so I look forward to our committee’s consideration of this bill. I would encourage anyone who has an interest in the bill, the detail of it or potentially proposing some amendments or suggestions, to take the time to submit through that process and to enable myself and my colleagues on the committee to consider that, to ensure that we are getting this piece of legislation in the best state possible, to appropriately reflect and honour those service personnel.
I think that, basically, covers where we are at—a great progression, building on, I think, what has been a growing momentum of work in terms of acknowledging veterans’ service. We’ve heard about some of the other work that has been considered by the Minister—that, hopefully, will come to this House in due course—and, indeed, the collaborative comments from the Opposition in terms of their desire to support this appropriately, as well. So I am very encouraged by that, and I think it’s a fitting time as well, when we think of not just those who have been before but indeed those who continue to serve in a time of increasing uncertainty around the globe. There is never a time when we are safe, when peace is perpetual. We must continue to stand up for those values, for those freedoms, and always be ready to serve this country.
I just want to end, again, by acknowledging those who have done that, because it is very important for all of us. Lest we forget.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): This is a bill that expands the people that we honour and remember and are grateful for on Anzac Day, and it’s going to expand to persons serving in warlike conflict, and if they serve in response to an armed conflict that has occurred, is occurring, or may occur or reoccur.
I wanted to start, and I have never done this before, with a poem, and it’s from Sassoon, and it was from the First World War. I picked it because I find him to be a poet who is very unsentimental in his view of war, but also because I think the sentiment in it is one where we really need to look at the people that we hope to include under this bill, and look at what the reality of what they’re doing is. So, although it’s about World War I, I think it draws a really good link. It’s called “Attack”, and it says:
At dawn the ridge emerges, massed and dun
In the wild purple of the glow’ring sun,
Smouldering through spouts of drifting smoke that shroud
The menacing scarred slope; and, one by one,
Tanks creek and topple forward to the wire.
The barrage roars and lifts. Then, clumsily bowed
With bombs and guns and shovels and battle-gear,
Men jostle and climb to meet the bristling fire.
Lines of grey, muttering faces, masked with fear,
They leave their trenches, going over the top,
While time ticks blank and busy on their wrists,
And hope, with furtive eyes and grappling fists,
Flounders in mud. O Jesu, make it stop!
It’s an incredibly great honour to speak in this House on something as serious as the commitment that people make to our armed services, and the risks that they take. One of the people who will be covered in this Act is Private Leonard Manning, who fought in a peacekeeping mission. There was an ambush while he was on that mission. He faced the same fear and was as brave and made as great a sacrifice as the person and the people that are referred to in the poem I’ve just read. He deserves our gratitude and our respect, and we need to remember the fear that he would have been in at that time.
We have an incredibly proud record of peacekeeping in this country. In 1945, the UN was created and New Zealand was a founding member of that. Since then, we’ve had our greatest contingent in Afghanistan, in the Bamyan province. We’ve been active in Sinai in 1981, Yugoslavia in 1993, Somalia in 1992, and Bougainville and East Timor from 1989 to 1997. In East Timor, we lost Private Manning, in the incident that was an ambush. In the Solomons, we were active between 1998 and 2003. In all these situations, our peacekeepers have made a very real difference to the peace of our world, and their work is not done. It will continue. We do live in extremely uncertain times, where the humanity that they bring to their role will be much to the betterment of the work they do to, hopefully, stabilise unstable situations.
Finally, I just want to turn to my own area of Mount Albert. It has this wonderful RSE in it—the Grey Lynn RSE. On Anzac Day, I run from service to service in my area. This little Grey Lynn RSE is one of the most wonderful environments. It has an incredible little service. It’s very sparky. It’s called an RSE, not an RSA, because it includes the merchant shipmen, and it did so at a very early time. So, everybody who’s spoken in this House about how we’ve already moved on in New Zealand and we are including more people, that little RSE has done that job for a long time in our community. I always think when I’m in that particular place of the people around me and who would be missing in that community as a result of war. I know that it’s very real for my electorate. In Mount Albert, I have Mount Albert Grammar, where so many of our people died, and I honour them. Thank you.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): In three weeks’ time, our nation will stand in silence at dawn and we’ll remember all of those who have served our country in conflicts around the world. On Anzac Day, as I stand and I hear “The Last Post” and observe the minute’s silence—hopefully, with a helicopter flypast approaching—invariably, in my mind, I drift back 15 years ago to my friends, all of whom served overseas but who were killed in 2010 in accidents in New Zealand. I think of Nick Cree and of Hayden Madsen, Ben Carson, and Dan Gregory.
That experience of Anzac Day may be my reality and it may be the reality for many, but the law currently states that only those who served up until the war in South Vietnam are officially recognised. Many who served before me and all those who served alongside me are not.
There is a tension here, and if I’m really honest, I always feel a little inadequate on Anzac Day as I stand there in my medals and I reflect on my grandfathers’ war service and I think what they would have gone through. How can I compare my service in Afghanistan or in peacekeeping missions around the world to what they must have endured?
But then I’m reminded of Leonard Manning. Last year, I made the trek across Timor-Leste, up the hill and through the bush, to the place where he was ambushed and where he lost his life in action. I’m reminded of Leon Smith, who lost his life in action in Afghanistan, a month after earning his New Zealand Gallantry Decoration. He was trying to save the life of his SAS comrade Dougie Grant while under fire. I think of those New Zealanders who lost their lives in action in Afghanistan, like Tim O’Donnell, Pralli Durrer, Rory Malone NZGM, Luke Tamatea, Jacinda Baker, and Richard Harris. I think of John McNutt, who lost his life in Kuwait. I think of Richard Absolon, who lost his life in the Falklands War—and, in fact, I’m wearing his school tie today—and I think of those Kiwis who lost their lives on these operations but not in action, like, in East Timor, Tony Walser, William White, Boyd Atkins, and Dean Johnston, and, in Afghanistan, Cliff Mila and Dougie Hughes. We must remember them all.
The same Anzac spirit that saw 100,000 Kiwis march off to Europe in 1914—that spirit lives on in the women and the men who serve New Zealand today. In them, we see the same willingness to serve—to put on their uniform each day to do whatever their country may ask of them and to go to whichever country this House may ask them to go—and wherever they serve in the world and wherever they may serve in the world, the very essence of service and sacrifice endures. The scale of loss may appear smaller, but the significance of the loss is no less, particularly to those families who for ever bear the scars.
That is why we must support this bill. The words in it may be small, but they are significant as they honour all of those who have served and those who have laid down their lives in conflict around the world. Now, I will for ever be proud to have served and I am immensely proud of those I’ve served alongside, but I will always be in awe of those who went before me, and particularly of those who never returned home. Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou—lest we forget.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): That was an excellent speech by Tim Costley. I just want to acknowledge what a great contribution that was to this debate.
Like, I think, all members in this House, I have so many images in my mind about Anzac Days over the years. The smell of gunpowder at Waikumete Cemetery at six in the morning; every year, the Te Atatū, Swanson, and Henderson RSAs with their services. Anzac Day always provokes in me a lot of reflection and thought about how I feel about war and peace. All of my political life, I’ve been a critic of the many imperialist wars and foreign adventures that this country and others have taken part in. It’s been part of my kind of political journey through life.
For a couple of hundred years, my ancestors were on the wrong side of every British imperialist conflict you could imagine, from Waterloo to Crimea, the suppression of the Indian Mutiny, the Boer War, World War I. I have an uncle who was shot escaping from a Japanese prisoner of war camp building the death railway through Thailand in World War II. The Vietnam War—or the “American War”, as the Vietnamese call it—was one of the great political events that shaped the views of generations around the world, including here in New Zealand and for me. I marched and opposed and organised against the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq. I’m a member of a party that has a proud tradition of opposing unjust foreign wars.
But I’m not a pacifist. Hitler had to be stopped in World War II. Putin should be stopped in Ukraine. I supported the New Zealand Defence Forces being deployed in Timor-Leste and in the Solomon Islands, in Bougainville, in the Pacific. I recognise that if you want to be able to defend your nation and if you want to be able to put an armed force into the field to defend the things that you hold dear, then you have to take that very seriously, and you must make an unqualified commitment to support and to respect and to honour the people who put on the uniform and put their lives at risk in defence of the nation.
And Gallipoli, which God knows was the most ill-conceived fiasco where so many young New Zealanders and Australians were needlessly slaughtered because of the stupidity and incompetence of the British officer class, stands in history as one of the supreme examples of the needless carnage of war. We still, rightly, remember and honour the people who served there and who gave their lives. I remember one of my constituents who was a Gallipoli veteran who I met in my first campaign doorknocking in my electorate, who was a regular at the Henderson RSA. I was amazed that this guy was still there who had fought as a youngster in Gallipoli, and was still there only a little over a decade ago.
It’s very important that we recognise the supreme contribution that people make when they serve in the armed forces. They don’t get to choose the conflict that they serve in. They make an unqualified commitment to serve their country, and they do so really subject to the decision making that happens in this House, in this Parliament, and by the Government of the day. It’s right and appropriate that this bill we’re considering in the House today modernises the way that Anzac Day recognises the contribution of our defence personnel across numerous different conflicts and numerous different ways of serving.
I also want to say I support colleagues both from Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori in their call for the New Zealand Wars to be considered properly as well.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I’m honoured to speak on this bill. Thank you. Thank you to those who served our country in the past and also in the present, because they are the heroes of our country. They serve our country. They protect our country. They are the heroes who sacrifice for our country, and they are the heroes who deserve the respect and the acknowledgment of every single citizen in this country.
It is an honour to serve our country, but serving the country often involves significant personal sacrifice, including putting the needs of our nation and fellow citizens before their own comfort, career, and family. For that, we will never be able to fully repay them. It is critical to acknowledge and appreciate the sacrifice made by those who serve, both in uniform and other supporting roles, as their dedication contributes to the wellbeing and security of our nation. New Zealand wouldn’t be the beautiful country on planet Earth without their sacrifice.
New Zealand will always remember and honour those who have served New Zealand. Anzac Day is one of the ways they want to show it. They want to show their appreciation to them on Anzac Day. This is why this bill amends the Anzac Day Act 1966 to cover other conflicts and people who have served New Zealand in times of war, in warlike conflict, or peacekeeping operations in the past and in the future that are not currently covered by the Act. They are our heroes. We will remember them. It is my honour to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I acknowledge all speakers on this bill for the reverence demonstrated today.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Anzac Day Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.
Bills
Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 2 April.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is the third reading of the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. When the debate was interrupted, we were up to call number four, which is a National Party call.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of this bill. This bill aims to help Oranga Tamariki focus on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of young people, making sure they are safe from harm. The key point, probably, I would make at the outset of this is that, ideally, the Government would have no role in raising children or taking care of children. But we want children to be in the care and protection of their own families, their own whānau, and their own communities. But, unfortunately, we live in a country where that is not always the case. And—
Ricardo Menéndez March: Then why are you cutting funding for front-line organisations?
JOSEPH MOONEY: Pardon? We live in a country where that is, unfortunately, not the case, and there are young people who are not cared for by their families and they are not cared for by their communities, and there is a backstop where the State has to, unfortunately, step in and take care of those children. That is the role that Oranga Tamariki does in very trying circumstances and in a very fraught and difficult area, but it’s one that must be done because, at the end of the day, a society that doesn’t take care of its children is no society at all.
Every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their individual needs, with their safety and wellbeing put first before any other considerations. This is designed to ensure that Oranga Tamariki is entirely child-centric and is making decisions that ensure a child’s wellbeing and best interests and that there’s no confusion about that.
Some concerns were raised about this. I’m going to address those briefly. The biggest concern raised in submissions at the Social Services and Community Committee were about the removal of our strategic partnerships in statute as part of the repeal of section 7AA, and there was also a key concern raised by the Waitangi Tribunal when they did an urgent report on this bill. I want to make it clear that the Minister for Children had made it clear throughout, including at the outset, that the strategic partnerships framework would continue with those iwi and Māori organisations that wish to do so. There would be no change to the existing relationship that existed under the legislation and that if any other wanted to take that opportunity up, they could do so.
However, the select committee listened to the concerns that it wasn’t going to be encoded in statute, and recommended that, in the repeal, that aspect of it be retained. The Minister agreed with that recommendation, and the bill we have before us today incorporates and retains that strategic partnership in the statute to address that concern that was raised by the Waitangi Tribunal and that was raised by submitters. I have to say there was a little bit of disappointing politicking from the Opposition, who voted against retaining that at select committee. They have an opportunity to support the bill now but I don’t anticipate that they’re going to do so, given the things they’ve been saying, which, unfortunately, haven’t been based on fact.
I’ll just read a little bit of some of the provisions that are incorporated now in the retention of the strategic partnerships, for the record. So it includes provisions such as “[providing] opportunities to, and invite innovative proposals from, those organisations”—iwi and Māori 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 [iwi and other Māori] organisations:”. I was surprised that the Opposition would be opposed to that. Isn’t this what it is all about? This is literally what it’s all about.
Rawiri Waititi: We should have left it alone.
JOSEPH MOONEY: The other thing that has been—well, Rawiri Waititi said, “should have left it alone.” The point here is that the strategic partnerships are being retained and are being kept, and it would be helpful, I think, if the Opposition were clear in their communications that this is something they support.
The other thing that’s been raised as a concern is a change in the reporting requirements. That was in section 7AA, but I’m going to go through the reporting mechanisms that Oranga Tamariki is subject to. Actually, if you go through it, there are seven different reports. I’m just going to list those now. Oranga Tamariki prepares and releases a range of regular reports including: (1) an annual report, which measures their performance against standards agreed as part of their annual appropriations; (2) a quarterly report, which gives an overview of the progress Oranga Tamariki is making towards its strategic direction—the report provides measures against the Oranga Tamariki outcomes framework and appropriations, which, among other matters, sets out how the agency is making a difference for children and young people, tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and their families and whānau; (3) safety of children in care annual report, which reviews and measures the findings of harm for tamariki and rangatahi in care; and (4) under section 44(8)(b) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Minister for Children is required to report to Parliament every three years on whether existing legislation, Government policy, and other accountability documents are meeting the needs of children and young people, particularly tamariki and rangatahi Māori.
In addition to those four reports, the Independent Children’s Monitor is required to report on outcomes for Māori children, young people, and their whānau. So I’ll go through those. The first report is that, at least once every three years, a state of the Oranga Tamariki system report must include an assessment of outcomes being achieved for Māori children and young people and their whānau. Secondly, there must be an annual report on compliance with national care standards regulations, which must include specific information relating to the level and degree of compliance with national care standards regulations for Māori children and young people and the impact of this on Māori children and young people and their whānau. Third, there must be an annual report on outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau, which must include an assessment of outcomes being achieved by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki for Māori children and young people and their whānau and the impact of measures taken by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki in improving outcomes for those Māori children and young people who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki.
In addition, the report must assess the extent to which practices within the Oranga Tamariki system have regard to mana tamaiti and the whakapapa of our Māori children and young people and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi and the strategic partnerships Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations. And there is an availability for the Independent Children’s Monitor to require information from the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, to which the chief executive must respond.
I think it’s worth, also, just mentioning section 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which did not change, has not changed, and will not change and includes provisions such as “The purposes of the [Oranga Tamariki] 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—(i) 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: … (iii) are culturally appropriate and competently provided: … (c) assisting families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and family groups” at the earliest opportunity—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! It’s getting a bit noisy and too often.
JOSEPH MOONEY: So I’ll go on. Section 4, which sets out the purposes of the Oranga Tamariki Act so that it must assist “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) recognising mana tamaiti (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 “promotes their … best interests and acknowledges their needs;”.
This is a sound, robust set of responsibilities that are encoded in legislation that have specifically referred to the importance of whakapapa, the importance of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and the importance of strategic partnerships and Māori organisations. I, frankly, cannot understand the Opposition opposing this. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. It’s a Government bill—part of the National and ACT coalition agreement—which New Zealand First will support.
Now, as per the general policy statement, the intent of the bill is to enable Oranga Tamariki to renew its focus and to focus on the safety of the child above all other considerations. The Government is concerned that the introduction of section 7AA has led Oranga Tamariki to prioritise cultural factors over the safety and stability of children; hence, this bill was introduced into the House last year—in May 2024—so we’ve had about a year of this process.
I was on the Social Services and Community Committee. There were a lot of passionate and emotional submissions, and it was quite an emotional time to sit through it—I’m not shy to say that. During the submissions process, there were a number of themes which were summarised by the officials, and the themes that they summarised these submissions under were wellbeing and safety, Treaty obligations, evidence, legislation and practice, equality, and equity. With those key messages, the focus of putting duty first and the safety and wellness of the child first is what has led to this bill. On behalf of New Zealand First, I will commend it to the House.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand to address the “Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Culture, Repeal of Custom, Repeal of Safety, and Repeal of Protections and Prosperity) Bill”, soon to be lorded over all mokopuna and their whānau by a Government and their spokesperson who knows nothing about Māori culture. Culture not only keeps mokopuna safe; culture enables mokopuna to thrive, to flourish, and to grow into fully expressed indigenous Māori individuals, exactly like the thousands that gathered peacefully and powerfully on the steps of Parliament to remind us that they are here and they are not going away.
In August of 1840, just seven months after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our very first tupuna was removed as a baby by colonial hands. The justification of this—listen up, people—to save a Māori baby from the so-called evils of the pā, the evils of our people. This is your and our shared history. This act that has set the tone for generations was at that time summarised by one simple term: “uplift”—a word coined by the coloniser to mask their statutory act of thievery. That word still stains Māori lives 184 years later—no surprises. The coloniser continues to use it to describe their theft of our children—a term that absolves them of accountability and then allows them to maintain the presumption that Māori are so inferior that we can simply be taken.
This repeal affirms exactly that: our children can be uplifted from their whānau without legislative accountability of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki. I’ll say the words “Oranga Tamariki”—because I keep hearing it pronounced so poorly—to ensure these Māori children—
Laura McClure: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I don’t believe that this is relevant to the bill that’s at hand.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That’s my call.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Speaking to the point of order—this is my speech—[Interruption] Blah, blah. Right. This respect affirms exactly that our children can be uplifted, they can be removed; the legislated accountability of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki can be removed. These Māori children remain within the safety of their Māoritanga, a safety that was recognised under section 7AA.
Through the committee of the whole House stage, the Minister for Children volunteered her own story as if that would sanction this outcome. Sadly, all that showed us was how deep internalised racism runs and the harm it can cause. I offer that she do some work to get well. This racist rhetoric—this racist rhetoric—is destructive, unhealed trauma masquerading as care and protection. Clearly, the apology and crocodile tears from the Minister to the survivors of abuse in care—
Hon Chris Penk: Point of order.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —was more fake news, and within the same week—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, the Hon Chris Penk.
Hon Chris Penk: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the member, but it’s a clear breach of the Standing Orders, apart from anything else, to imply, or actually suggest in outright terms, crocodile tears and fake news, as though to bring into question the integrity and the honesty of the member the Hon Karen Chhour in bringing forward her policy. That’s before we even consider the offensiveness of a diagnosis on a medical basis—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand the point of order. The member is correct, so I’ll ask the member to resume but to tone it down, please.
Rawiri Waititi: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, every day, we hear that coming from the Government—and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, where he talks about other members having their tongues flapping around in the wind and all of that type of stuff. That has never been pulled up. It’s double standards and it’s hypocrisy.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We’re going to resume, and we’re going to treat each other with respect. Thank you, member.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Clearly, the apology and tears to the survivors of abuse in care is more fake news, because, at the same time, of course, the same bill—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I just warned the member. We have just been through this.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Oh, I didn’t—sorry, Madam Speaker—
Hon Member: Point of—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —I didn’t name a particular individual; I was just making it a generic statement.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m just warning the member, we’re getting very close to being disorderly.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: This is nothing more or less than a direct attack and direct assault on our mokopuna and on us all for being Māori.
As was stated back in 1840—and here we are again in 2025, referring to the evils of our people. I have chosen to take this bill very personally. How could I not? I challenge every Māori in this Whare and every non-Māori—and part-Māori, because I’ve heard that recently—that is responsible to and for mokopuna tamariki Māori, to check your privilege, to check your fragility, to check your white tears, to check your racism, and to check your sexism and misogyny and get some counselling and education and free your mind. This is what happens when you internalise the racism and thank the oppressor for the experience. All that’s missing in this bill is a clause saying, “Thank you, massa.” Te Pāti Māori condemns this bill—[Interruption]
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Order!
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and all its intent. Tēnā tātou.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I think it’s far more outrageous that the Government feels so much offence at the truth than the harm that they’re causing to our communities out there on the streets who are bearing the brunt of this Government’s policies. It’s really, really telling that we’re seeing a level of outrage here that is not manifested when we are seeing tamariki Māori sleeping on the streets—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, I’m sorry to interrupt the member. When members are in the House, they are to be seated and not to conduct a separate conversation, apart from the member who is speaking. My apologies to the member—please resume.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: That’s OK.
I go back to the main issue, which is that I think the Government members tend to feel far more outraged at Opposition members pointing out the truth than, actually, kids sleeping rough on the streets, keeping them stripped away from the communities that they belong to, and the gutting of funding to the prevention services that are actually supposed to help keep kids in their communities and in their families.
To me, it’s so telling because they have nothing but bumper stickers and vitriol to throw at us, when, instead, they could make an attempt to provide empirical evidence for why we need the repeal of section 7AA, something that has not been able to be produced by the Minister in charge of this bill, despite calls from the Opposition and from submitters for the Minister to front up with her so-called evidence to justify this bill. This bill is nothing but a dog whistle that aims to attack tamariki Māori and to not pay attention to the bridge that has been created by the Crown that has led to so many tamariki Māori being split from and detached from the communities that they belong to. Tauiwi mā [To all non-Māori], we have a responsibility to stand against the attacks against Māori from this Government. We are here by virtue of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have a responsibility to fight back against policies such as this one, that do not serve and do not recognise the history of this country.
Joseph Mooney: Then why did you vote against the strategic partnerships? Why did you vote against it. Oh, is the Green Party against strategic partnerships?
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I keep hearing the Government member to my left talking about strategic partnerships, but, at the same time, if this Government cared so much about strategic partnerships, they wouldn’t be gutting funding for these very same strategic partnerships. It is absolutely distasteful for the member on my left to be talking about the very same thing they’re undermining. They’re undermining provisional services. They’re undermining State housing, the very same thing that can help keep a family together if they have been in hardship. They’re undermining benefit increases, the very same thing that gives families a livelihood and allows them to stay in a safe and stable home—things that have been spoken to us about by survivors of abuse in State care.
These members just seem to have the report on their bedside table and not give a damn about it, or read it and simply ignore it, because the things that this piece of legislation is doing is actually a disservice to the very same voices who came to our select committee and presented to the inquiries that led to reports that paint a harrowing picture of the realities that tamariki Māori have faced under our care system, that is supposed to keep them safe. All this repeal of section 7AA will do is invisibilise the very same gap that exists between Māori and the rest of us in the care system that is supposed to keep them safe.
Joseph Mooney: That’s completely wrong.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It is absolutely right. I’d like for the member to my left to try and take a call, and I’d be happy to yield my time if the member was able to actually produce any evidence in relationship to this bill, because all that we have heard is rhetorical commentary that does not justify this bill.
I think, to me, it says a lot when the Government members are so happy to brush sides with the likes of Hobson’s Pledge, with the likes of campaigners who have been running a strident anti-Māori campaign, that they’re now pushing ahead with anti-Māori legislation that is not based on evidence, when, actually, their so-called anecdotal evidence that the Minister for Children produced is not even in relationship to section 7AA. It’s disgusting that we have a Government that, rather than addressing things like homelessness, rather than addressing things like income support—all the things that keep people in their communities—they’re wasting our time in the House to repeal a piece of legislation that helps address the gap between Māori and the rest of us. This is a Government that cares nothing about inequities, nothing about outcomes, because even if they say they do, members of the public can see the papers that this Government produces, when it comes to their Budget, when it comes to the figures that they’re putting in and the support that they’re giving to organisations. It is the organisations on the ground that are calling out for help because they’re having to close when there’s no other option available—the very organisations that keep our tamariki safe.
I am not going to buy the rhetoric from the Government’s members, who are claiming that they actually care for tamariki Māori to be safe, when they’re underfunding and under-resourcing the organisations that are supposed to do so. This bill is a disservice to the very same people doing the most to help our communities, and the Government is not on their side.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Madam Speaker, thank you. The children that we are speaking about in this debate in this House this afternoon are children who have had to be brought into the care of Government because of the dire situation that they faced where they were. They are victims themselves, and suffered trauma in the environments where they have been. Children start off their lives with their families, and in the spaces where they live, they have had to be removed and put into the care of Government. It is sad that we speak so many words and we can say we are disgusted and we can play a lot of blaming each other across the House, but the fact remains that these children have had to be taken into the care of Government.
The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill seeks to improve the service that the Government provides in this very difficult situation for all children that come into the Government’s care. The repeal does take away section 7AA. However, the cultural considerations which are the focus of section 7AA, the methodology for maintaining the respect for cultural considerations in 7AA, have been retained in the Act. The bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from continuing and developing these relationships that they have already had and want to have with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. The object of that is clear: to make sure that the children get to stay connected with the greater family that they may be connected to. That is not repealed. The Independent Children’s Monitor will have the opportunity to check on that and report on that.
The reporting duties of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki remain. It had gone through select committee consideration, and, by majority, the decision was to retain the requirement of the chief executive to report.
The object of all of this is to protect the children who are already victims and who are already traumatised. We want them not to be continually victimised by the politics of the appearance of this situation. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am really saddened to talk about this kaupapa. I regard it as one of the saddest bills that this Government has ever put through—this repeal of section 7AA. I want to mihi, though, to our lead, Willow-Jean Prime, who has done a great job, and also some of the kōrero that has come from Te Pāti Māori and the Greens, who give the right view in terms of identity, because that’s what people are talking about here: the loss of identity. The great civil rights activist Maya Angelou once said, “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.” That’s what survivors talk about—they talk about culture and being lost and not knowing the language. They look at people like Peeni Henare over here, “Doc” Ferris over there, and they see beautiful Māori language speakers, people who are well in tune with their culture, and there’s something missing in them. There is something that they crave for. That was the genesis of this kaupapa.
Survivors talk about their kuia passing and the refusal of caregivers to allow them to attend tangi; the inability to connect with other siblings because their caregivers wanted their privacy. The perpetual questions in their mind were: what is their name, what is their marae, what is their hapū, and what is their iwi? This is what has driven this kaupapa from the start. This is what, I suppose, has driven te ao Māori into, at times, hysteria—because we have seen survivors sacrificed in terms of Government legislation. In 1986, we even had Pūao-te-Āta-tū, which was a ministerial advisory group led by the great John Rangihau, talk about this and plead with Government that there had to be a different way, in terms of treating our culture, in terms of treating kids. They said, “The Maori child is not to be viewed in isolation, or even as part of nuclear family, but as a member of a wider kin group or hapu community that has traditionally exercised responsibility for the child’s care and placement.”
It was incredible work by that group, led by, as I said, the great John Rangihau, my uncle Tamati Reedy, my other whanaunga uncle Neville Baker, and my wife’s relation Donna Hall, who all talked about why things had to change in terms of the system, and why babies had to be placed in the right families. I want to say to the Minister over there—Karen Chhour—I respect what happened to her, in terms of her upbringing. She brings her experiences to the table. I do respect that, Minister, in terms of what you have revealed. I’m not here to mock you today, but I am here to ask you to listen to what te ao Māori have been saying.
The Minister for Children has had some excellent advice, but it’s hard to sort of work outside her own experience, which was not a fortunate experience at all. I hear her. I’ve heard her tears. I’ve watched her cry with regards to this kaupapa. I am, as I said, not here to mock you, Minister; I’m asking you to listen to what our people have said—great people, like Rangihau; great people, like Naida Glavish—
Laura McClure: I think she did listen. Tell us, are the partnerships staying? That’s called listening.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —I wish that member would just shush for a minute—great people, like June Mariu; my mother, June Jackson; the great Titewhai Harawira. These were incredibly important people who said—and this Minister has had this advice—that we had to tie our babies back towards their whakapapa. I want to say to the House: 25 years ago, I was probably of the same view as the Minister that first and foremost we had to make these babies safe. That is still my view—absolutely. There are a number of us who had not seen the research, who had not seen what our experts were saying in terms of the importance of whakapapa, in terms of the importance of te reo. We hadn’t seen that. When we saw that, we all came in behind.
So I want to mihi to those kuia who that woman over there rubbishes—and rubbishes me. I’m trying to put on the table today how important this is to Māori; why we had the June Marius, the Naida Glavishes, the Titewhai Harawiras, and the June Jacksons say that you had to tie these babies back—back to their whakapapa—so they’re not lost, so they do not become statistics in terms of the nation. I ask that Minister to not just bring her anecdotal stuff forward, which was incredibly important to her but is not in line with what te ao Māori is saying.
That was recognised by the National Party and by the Māori Party, which was a kaupapa driven by Whaea Tariana Turia and accepted by the National Party—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Back to the bill.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is all part of the bill, Madam Speaker, because this is what is being repealed. This is what is being repealed: an agreement between Te Pāti Māori and the National Party that talked about the importance of whakapapa and identity, all repealed because of the ignorance of this Government—all repealed. The fear in our communities is that we could go back to where we were. The statistics show us that once these babies are tied back to their marae, tied back to their whānau, tied back to their identity, they have a much better future and better opportunity.
We all oppose this bill on this side of the House because of the risk of harm, the breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the lack of evidence for repeal, a breach of children’s rights, and the removal of the objective of reducing disparities and reporting on efforts to do so. The Waitangi Tribunal was absolutely clear that this was a breach of the Treaty and it posed serious harm to Māori tamariki. Repeal will destroy the trust that is being restored through partnerships based on Te Tiriti and undermine the ability for the Crown to continue to repair and improve relationships—
Joseph Mooney: The partnerships are in the bill. Try reading the bill, maybe—it might help.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m not sure what the other side understands here. But we know that the ACT Party has no respect for the tribunal and has no respect in terms of te ao Māori. But it has been clearly outlined by our people this is a breach of tikanga Māori—[Interruption] Sit down, you fool.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! That was unnecessary, Mr Jackson.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Madam Speaker, I’m getting sick of these clowns on the other side.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): You will withdraw and apologise.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: An apology is going to be tough, Madam Speaker, but I’ll do that for you. I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, it was quite clear in that instance, whilst I make no comment on your ruling then, that a member was interjecting whilst they weren’t in their seat, which is clearly against Speakers’ rulings. If you are going to pull members up, quite rightly, for making commentary in response to that, you probably should have pulled the other member up for doing that.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Understood. I did not see the member standing, and my apologies for that, but I did hear a direct inference to an individual, which is different.
Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I don’t think there’s any need to, Mr Court.
Simon Court: Well, Madam Speaker, if I may, the member has made the assertion that I was on my feet while interjecting. I was—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There’s no need to continue, thank you.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I’ll go back to the tribunal and the clear breaches in terms of this kaupapa—article 2, tino rangatiratanga. They’ve made it very clear it’s an absolute breach of the Treaty.
In terms of where we go, we’re about to see a real change in terms of what’s happening in terms of te ao Māori. Solutions to deep problems have been worked out between State departments and the Māori population. They’ve failed to serve by resourcing community groups to step up and solve these problems for themselves. Section 7AA obliged Oranga Tamariki to work with those community iwi, and removing it allows the State to seek the cheapest option. Now, I know they’re saying that it’s still there.
Joseph Mooney: It’s still there, Willie.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It is still there, Joseph, but it’s not a priority anymore—it’s not a priority anymore. There are other options. That’s the worry, I think, from so many of our people and so many of our community: that the Government has taken away the Māori priority and the Māori option.
So I implore the Minister to continue with those relationships with iwi, to continue with those relationships with Māori organisations, and to reflect on what’s happened with this, because it has so upset the Māori nation, te iwi Māori, Māori organisations. They don’t know where they’re going now. They don’t know what the Government is going to do next, because something that has been thought about since 1986—that was put in by a National Party - Māori Party coalition Government—is now being removed. That was something significant that even people like John Key, Bill English, and Anne Tolley saw as incredibly significant. It’s a sad day for this Government and for this country, to see something so important be removed, and I ask that Minister to reflect on what she’s done.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I think we’ve heard a lot of different speeches from different parties. Obviously, none of us agree with each other, but I think there’s one thing we all agree on across the whole House: we are here to fight for the best interests of our children—for our children in care.
For me, as an immigrant, I understand that cultural identity is very important. I also want my daughter to learn Chinese as well, to get her to understand my culture as well. But I need to think about it: what is the most important thing for my daughter? I think it’s love and care. I think this is the love and care I received when I first came to this county, and I received it from different backgrounds of people—people with different ethnic backgrounds. I think love and care is what every single child needs.
We are talking about the best interests for children. I think love is without borders. It is unfair to label all Māori families that they can’t provide love and care to Māori children. I think that is very unfair. So, with love, I commend this bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It’s with rage that I rise to my feet this afternoon. In fact, to hear from a Government MP to say that they do this in love, I cannot fathom that—I cannot fathom that. This piece of legislation is not loving; this piece of legislation causes anger, causes strife, and causes more division.
Carl Bates: Stop scaremongering.
GLEN BENNETT: From across the floor, I hear that this is scaremongering. This is not scaremongering. It’s like—what is it?—spare the rod, spoil the child. It’s just outrageous that people would say this is something loving we’re doing, on behalf of this Government, for Māori whānau throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. That is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous.
I think and I listen as I’ve participated over recent days on this piece of legislation. I think of bell hooks, the First Nations activist from North America, who, sadly, passed away. She said, “Love is profoundly political.”—love is profoundly political—“Our deepest revolution will come when we understand this truth.” Love is profoundly political. To be political today and to show love is to stand up, to cross the floor, and to reject this piece of legislation. I challenge the member Dr Carlos Cheung, if he believes in love, as he just said, then he will cross the floor and vote with this side of the House to be political and to show love, because this legislation is not loving.
I find it fascinating as we hear the Government talk and speak on their laser focus on the cost of living; their laser focus on getting tough on crime. And what have we had in the House this week? We’ve had the repeal of the Plain Language Act and we had this, the repeal of section 7AA. To me, is this laser-focused on the cost of living? No, it is not.
All legislation in this House has to be debated within the context of the legislation in front of us. But we also always need to look beyond it in terms of what is going on in the context of the timing; the context of what is going on in our society. That’s why we have to consider the fact of the royal commission and the survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care. If you do nothing else, I challenge and ask people to read the whole of the document, but if you can’t, that’s fine; read the 138 recommendations and what they say. Time after time, you’ll see in terms of cultural capacity, cultural understanding. We need to look at this piece of legislation with what else is going on, and that is one of them.
Within that, I think it was recommendation 2, that was for the Prime Minister to make an official apology—and, thank you, he did. I was looking it up earlier, part of that recommendation was the apology should acknowledge all survivors with specific mention of Māori survivors and their whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. It goes on to say—and that’s why the context is important as we debate this this afternoon—that it emphasises the need for culturally responsive care systems that recognise and incorporate Māori perspectives and practices.
Now, this piece of legislation is taking away a tool from the tool box. I think and believe if we are looking at our most vulnerable; if we’re looking at the challenges of those who are on the margins; if we’re looking at the fact of our tamariki, our rangatahi, we need to consider every single tool we have in the tool box to ensure their care, their protection, and their wellbeing. Cultural understanding, a cultural lens, is key to that understanding.
People might say, “Oh, he’s just banging on again, doing his old thing.” Yes, I will bang on again and do my old thing. But I know this well because I have been in this space as a caregiver, I have worked for many years and continue to live my life with young people who’ve been through the State care system, I was there at a time when this was not in legislation, I was there at a time when this wasn’t even a factor that we really considered or even paid attention to, and I’ve seen the effects and implications of that.
So this is a terrible day, and I challenge Government MPs to choose love, to cross the floor, and to vote against this bill.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This afternoon, we have heard from across the floor an attempt to say that this is doing something which it is not. The speaker prior to me, Glen Bennett, literally said to be political and cross the floor, because that’s what the Opposition is trying to do; they’re trying to play politics with our children. This Government wants to put children at the centre of the decision making, and not politics. As a father, as an uncle, and as a community member, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Speaker, if you’ll indulge me, I’ll speak Māori in this part. Kia tau taku ngākau, kia oati au i taku oati ki taku mokopuna ki a Te Omeka, ka oati au i taku oati ki aku tamariki, ka oati au i taku oati ki ngā mokopuna Māori huri, huri noa. Ka tangi hotuhotu taku manawa i te hunga Māori i pākinotia ki roto i ngā tau, ā tātou māhuri tōtara, ā tātou tamariki mokopuna huri noa i te motu whānui. Te hunga kīhai i rongo i te aroha o te kāwanatanga me ngā tari o te kāwanatanga. Ki a tātou tamariki mokopuna i pākinotia ki roto i te maru o te Karauna, o te Kāwanatanga, ki roto i ngā tau tekau, ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei. Kia oati au i taku oati ki taku mokopuna kia kaua e pērā anō tēnei mahi ki ō tātou tamariki mokopuna. Kua rongo atu ahau i te mamae ki roto ki tēnei Whare, mai i ngā kokonga katoa o te Whare nei. Me pono taku kōrero ki a tātou, kua rongo atu ahau i te mamae.
Heoi anō ki roto i ētahi o ngā totohenga o tēnei kaupapa, e hoa ki tāku e titiro nei, i ngaro atu te reo me te aronga matua ki ō tātou tamariki mokopuna. Nō reira ka oati au i taku oati ki taku mokopuna kia kaua rawa ngā tūkino o ngā tau maha ki muri nei i pā ki a ia, i pā ki ō tātou tamariki, i pā ki ō tātou mokopuna.
Mehemea he uri koe nō Rāhiri, he uri rangatira koe, he uri koe nō Ngāpuhi. Heoi anō tāku atu ki aku mokopuna o Ngāpuhi, anei te oati a tō koutou matua kia kore e pākinotia tēnei tūāhuatanga ki runga i a koutou. Kia tiakina au, otirā o koutou whanaunga, o koutou huanga katoa o Ngāpuhi i a koutou e taimaha ana i tēnei wā, e pōkaikaha ana i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e ngā mokopuna, e ngā tamariki huri noa, ko ngā kokonga o te ngākau a tēnei pāpā, a tēnei matua, a tēnei Māori, ki a koutou katoa.
[May my heart be settled. I pledge my oath to my grandchild, Te Omeka, I pledge my oath to my children, and pledge my oath to all Māori children. My heart sobs for the Māori people who were affected over the years, our young leaders, and our grandchildren and children of the land. The people who did not feel the benevolence of the Government and its departments. To our children who were abused while under State care, in the past 10 years, the many preceding years. I pledge my oath to my grandchild that our grandchildren will never again have this happen to them. I have heard the tears of pain in this House, from all corners of this House. I must truthfully say that I too have felt this pain.
However, as we debate this issue, my friends, we have lost sight and lost the voice of the main purpose, and it is our children. Therefore, I pledge my oath to my grandchild that the abuse of the many years past will never affect him, or our children or grandchildren.
If you are a descendent of Rāhiri, you are noble, indeed you are a descendent of Ngāpuhi. My word to the grandchildren of Ngāpuhi is to say that this is the pledge of your elders that this type of abuse will not afflict you. Your relatives and kin, all of the members of Ngāpuhi will be cared for, those who are burdened at this time, those who are bewildered. Therefore, oh, grandchildren, and all children, I offer you the inner corners of the heart of this parent of yours, of this Māori, to you all.]
I want to acknowledge the emotion in this debate and in this topic, and rightly so, because we are speaking of the most precious taonga and the most precious part of Aotearoa New Zealand, and they are our children, our mokopuna. I know members right across this House have quoted people like Dame Whina Cooper, who talks about the way that we raise our tamariki, for they will be the future of Aotearoa. I know that many in this House have spoken words, in particular the words of my ancestor Meri Ngāroto, who said, “He aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? Māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” [“What is the most important thing in the world? Let me say that it is people, it is people, it is people.”] It is with those in mind that I heard the passion throughout the longevity of the passing of this bill. I want to acknowledge each and every one for their perspectives.
For my part, in the Opposition and as a proud member of the Labour Party, we stand by our opposition to this bill. We stand by it on the premise that was led by our wahine toa Willow-Jean Prime, who made it clear and continued to come back to the evidence justifying why we continue to oppose this particular bill.
I said in Māori that as a father and as a grandfather and as a matua who proudly calls himself a Ngāpuhi man, each and every one of us must continue to make that commitment in this House, that we will protect our tamariki and our mokopuna regardless—regardless—of what happens in this House and outside of the walls of this House. It’s hard not to get so emotional. If I’m honest with you, Madam Speaker, I’ve only ever cried one other time in this House. But this is one of those times where it feels like, you know, the dam might just break out of frustration, out of love, out of care, out of an acknowledgment that for much of the voice and debate in this House on this bill, I couldn’t help but feel that sometimes our children’s voices weren’t being heard simply over the voices of adults in this Parliament. So I want to bring our attention back to that, that our tamariki and our mokopuna must continue to be at the forefront of everything that we do, not just this bill but every bill, because it impacts them and their future.
In this, the third reading of this bill, we’ve heard the evidence that’s been presented to the Waitangi Tribunal, we heard the evidence that was presented to the Social Services and Community Committee, and I want to remind New Zealanders that this particular bill can’t be seen in isolation from the royal inquiry—and my colleague Mr Bennett and other colleagues from the House have referenced that inquiry—into the abuse that took place in State care. That is part of the platform of the opposition to this particular bill, because of what happened to so many tamariki, Māori and Pākehā, right across the country. We all sat in here and we heard, at the release of the report, the speeches made. The same emotion I feel today, it was the same emotion I felt on that same day. This can’t be seen in isolation. It’s with that institutional memory of a whole generation that have been treated the way they had been treated that is what continues to inform our debate on this particular matter and, of course, our opposition. I’m proud to stand alongside members of the Opposition here today to continue to oppose this bill.
I’ve heard members from the Government benches say that parts of it are still in the bill and there’s still scope here for strategic partnership. I’m not going to relitigate those matters, but I will say this: for every kaimahi out there, whether you work for an iwi organisation, a community organisation, we say, kia kaha. We thank you for your mahi. We’re here to continue to support you in your important mahi in our communities. We say to each and every one of our tamariki who need these services, firstly, an apology—an apology because we can do better. When I say “we”, not just the members in this House but our communities can do better, can do better by our tamariki.
So I know this debate has got heated, and I hope that in my contribution, the last from the Opposition benches on this matter through the third reading of this bill, that I took the opportunity to remind my colleagues, all colleagues around this House, of the importance and the passion that we all express around this bill, and bring us back in my final two minutes to the importance of our tamariki.
When I grew up, I was fortunate—and the Hon Willie Jackson made mention of it—to have had the cultural connection to my people, to my family, and to my language. As the first kohanga reo baby to become a member of Parliament and as the first kohanga reo baby to become a member of the executive, I carry that burden of the privilege that I was honoured to have.
There’s a song that reminds me of my upbringing, an upbringing that I enjoyed and loved in the caring arms of an entire family and community. And the song goes like this:
Te taonga o taku ngākau
Ko taku mokopuna e
He mokopuna korikori
Hei aha, hei aha rā
Ko te mea nui ko te aroha
Kaua e patu taku mokopuna
Me awhiawhi ai i taku mokopuna korikori e
[The treasure of my heart
Is my grandchild
An active grandchild
Playing doing random things
The main thing is love
So don’t smack my grandchild
But cuddle my active grandchild]
It’s a beautiful waiata. It’s simple. It speaks of saying that despite my child and my mokopuna being playful, cheeky, I ask that you never lay a hand in anger on our mokopuna. That’s the same plea I leave on the floor of the House here today for reflection for all members across the House, but, more importantly, for Aotearoa. We oppose this bill.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to acknowledge that this bill has been a very emotive one, and I understand that, because it is about our most vulnerable: it’s about our children. As a parent and a father myself, the safety of a child in need should always be the priority.
This bill will help Oranga Tamariki focus on its primary duties, which is the care and protection of those who are vulnerable, making sure they are safe from harm because every child deserves the same level of care and support based on their needs, and their safety and wellbeing put first before any other consideration. This bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or from entering into new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. I commend this bill.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
I am privileged to present this bill in the House today on behalf of Minister Goldsmith, because it again shows this Government’s commitment to timely access to justice. The bill increases the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000 to provide an affordable forum for resolving lower-value claims for New Zealanders It will improve access to justice for around 2,000 claims per year, according to the Ministry of Justice modelling.
New Zealanders do not have an affordable place to resolve civil disputes between $30,000 and $60,000. It is uneconomic to take claims of this value to the District Court due to the significant legal and court-related costs. The result is that people either abandon the value of their claim over $30,000 to fall within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, or they accept a loss by not pursuing their claim at all. The justice gap does not support a well-functioning justice system and is inconsistent with the rule of law.
Expanding the disputes tribunal’s jurisdiction will mean that a cheaper and more accessible forum to resolve disputes is available. The tribunal has features that will make it well suited to resolving small claims up to $60,000, and they include that the tribunal takes an inquisitorial approach and referees support the parties to put their case forward without the need for lawyers; that hearings are held in private with no standard right to legal representation, which creates an even playing field for both parties and eliminates legal fees; that it limits appeals to issues of unfairness or prejudice, promoting the finality of decisions; and that the statutory basis for the tribunal’s decision making, including that it shall have regard to the law but not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, promotes the flexible and pragmatic resolution of issues.
The disputes tribunal has one of the fastest disposal rates of all courts and tribunals in New Zealand and it is one of the busiest forums in the civil justice system. I believe it is well placed to effectively manage higher-value claims, and I expect that claims will slowly increase as people become aware and confident in taking higher claims to the tribunal, and this will also be closely monitored by the Ministry of Justice.
The tribunal is funded by the Government and by users by paying a filing fee. Most of the tribunal’s costs will continue to be met by the Crown as there is significant public interest in upholding the rule of law and ensuring citizens consider there is a viable method to enforce their rights. However, a new filing fee of $468 for claims of more than $30,000 will aid in cost recovery and help maintain current service levels.
It is appropriate that tribunal users help recover some of the costs of administering the tribunal, given the private benefit to people in having their disputes resolved. At higher values, the private benefits are greater, and with this change to the financial jurisdiction, parties will be able to recover up to $60,000.
It is important to note that this is the only fee that users will pay and the disputes tribunal will remain significantly cheaper than bringing proceedings in the District Court, where there are additional court fees and also legal fees. I’m aware that the requirement for the applicant to front the cost of the filing fee for an application can still be seen as a barrier, particularly where the applicant is not seeking any financial compensation. This Government is separately progressing proposals through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, which will give disputes referees the discretion to order the respondent to repay the cost of the filing fee to a wholly or partly successful applicant. This will help ensure that the costs of pursuing justice do not fall on those who have been wronged.
I’d like to thank the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill, and I thank submitters who shared their views on the bill. The Justice Committee has recommended that this bill proceed without amendment. My hope is that the disputes tribunal will continue to be seen as an affordable and accessible way to resolve disputes, and we will improve access to justice for many New Zealanders by expanding the financial jurisdiction to $60,000. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. We support access to justice, and we support the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. We were disappointed that suggestions made, and which were alluded to by the Minister in the Justice Committee, weren’t accepted.
The disputes tribunal used to be called the Small Claims Tribunal, and it has exactly the same design as it did when its jurisdiction was $500. Some of the features of that design are: no lawyers, an obligation only to have regard to the law and not to apply the law, and no right of appeal. Now, we are a long, long way away, at $60,000, from a $500 claim. Sixty thousand dollars is more than a year’s income for someone on the minimum wage, so if they are being sued for $60,000, that could be absolutely devastating. If they crash into someone’s BMW and it turns out they don’t have insurance, and they’re being sued for $50,000 or $60,000, that could be absolutely devastating; the disputes tribunal referee doesn’t have to apply the law, and if they get it wrong, there’s no right of appeal. So the first thing we would say about this is that, if we are going to have good access to justice, a summary jurisdiction for civil disputes, which we agree with, we might need to think a bit more carefully about the kinds of protections that need to be in place in there.
The other thing we noted was that the $468 fee is a lot if you’re on the minimum wage, and minimum wage people and other people on low incomes do have disputes of $50,000 or $60,000, whether it be a building dispute or some other kind of dispute that they want to bring. Now, if you go to the District Court, where the filing fee to file a claim is $260, you can apply for a fees waiver on the basis of hardship—for a fee that’s $200 less. But you can’t apply for it under the Disputes Tribunals Act. Now, we consider that access to justice would be further improved by allowing a hardship fees waiver. We accept that, in almost all cases, citizens should bear a share of the cost of the delivery of justice, but, in that small band of cases where someone hasn’t got the money—they’ve just been ripped off, so they’re poor; they’ve been scammed by the builder down the road and they’ve paid their deposit for the garage that never got built, they’re broke, and they can’t sue, because they can’t rustle up $450. So we really do think there should be a fees waiver. We mooted this at the committee, and we think that, at the committee of the whole House stage, it is something that should be seriously considered, and I’d invite the Minister to put an Amendment Paper in at that point. I’d prefer it if that happened, because I haven’t got the resources behind me to draft a good one, although I’ll have a go.
Look, we do support this—summary justice is good; informal justice is good—but, once you get into life-changing decisions, and $60,000 is for many people, we need to have some more stringent controls and guards around it. I am saying no more than was said in the regulatory impact statement, which pretty much came to the same conclusion. So, yes, we support the bill. We support all of the objectives that the Minister outlined, and we agree that we need to take load off the District Court. Tribunals are a great way to do that, but we have those concerns, which were not dispelled. I must say that Minister Goldsmith, when he introduced this bill and listened to me at the first reading debate, indicated a willingness to engage on some of these other matters, but that indication was not fulfilled in the committee process. I hope it will be fulfilled in the committee of the whole House process. We support this bill, but we have reservations, which we will pursue further.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of this bill. The previous two speakers have already mentioned terms of the context of some of these bills. Specifically, this bill is looking to increase the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals—currently, the cap is $30,000—to $60,000. There are other measures, and transitional measures, as well. But in discussing that, I think, again, in the second reading, it would be nice to sort of encapsulate all of the things that were discussed during the select committee stage.
In this case, during the select committee stage, the Justice Committee received 107 submissions, out of which 43 were in support and 57 were opposed and a few others were uncertain in terms of which way they felt about this particular bill. As a select committee, we thought that was quite interesting, mainly because of the fact that when we’re going into the select committee and we’re going through the first reading—from a Green Party perspective, we thought that this is something that will, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden being placed on District Courts. So we were pleasantly surprised and willing to dig a little bit deeper on why some people would oppose this particular bill.
But just in terms of the people who are supporting it, we do have a lot of feedback, like the previous speakers have mentioned. We do have a lot of feedback around the fact that it will alleviate the burden. It will be somewhat of a more streamlined process, compared to the District Courts. We know there are delays in District Courts, due to a variety of bills that have been introduced—just in terms of backlog in general. In that sense, that was one of the reasons that people wanted to support it. Also, I think, on balance, people have commented on the fact that the application fee to the disputes tribunal is still lower compared to the District Court.
However, there were other concerns, which I thought was really interesting and I think definitely deserves highlighting. I think the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, raised one of the really important ones that people feed in on, which is around the new tier of the fees. At this stage, the fee is capped at $30,000, which is the maximum, currently. The fee is, I think, from memory, $234 for the filing fee, and there is this assumption that because now you’re doubling it to $60,000, the application fee would also double to $468. I think, on balance, that sort of mathematics makes logical sense, but the difference is that the doubling of the amount would include—let’s say your claim is $30,001. Understandably, having some sort of a tiering system makes logical sense, but there is the idea—that some people have suggested—that doubling the amount that can be claimed and introducing a doubling of the application fee is in some ways more disproportional to the other tiers. That was one of the biggest feedbacks that we received.
The other one that we received is around accessibility barriers, because some of the submissions did oppose the bill because of the fact that they think that this higher amount will create that barrier to some of the applicants. Particularly when it comes to the fact that, unlike other courts, there’s no mechanism for the tribunal to waive the cost of the filing fee presently, although there have been suggestions that other bills might be introduced that may address some of these concerns. It’s also important to note that some of the submitters who oppose this bill looked at the increased complexity of cases and the impact this will have on the disputes tribunals. Understandably, claims that are under $30,000, although they will have some complexity, the fact that now the threshold has been increased to $60,000—there might be also an increase to the complexity of the cases. In those cases, whether the disputes tribunal currently is able to handle the increased complexity was some of the feedback that we have received. At the same time, there is also the concern that transitioning from the disputes tribunal to a District Court—for example, if cases get too complex—may also present additional challenges.
Other submitters that have submitted on this bill recognise the impact it will have on Māori, particularly from a tribunal’s perspective versus a court perspective of the understanding of tikanga Māori in some of these circumstances and how that could be a part of the decision-making process for the disputes tribunal. That was some of the feedback. I would just also like to add that as we’re seeing an increasing number of diverse communities within Aotearoa as well, what we also need to be aware of is the fact that—for example, within the Chinese communities—there is still a growing understanding, but often it’s not quite there, but a growing understanding of contractual obligations and what it means when claims are being made or, alternatively, claims are being made against someone else. Those are some of the broader concerns that were addressed during the select committee stage by people who felt that the bill wasn’t in some ways quite appropriate. I think those definitely deserve attention, as we are discussing this in the committee stage to follow after this.
The other thing that has also been mentioned and touched on as well, both by the submitters but also by the previous speakers, is the fact that there isn’t an ability currently for there to be a right to appeal—well, the right to appeal is limited in some ways. That is something that has been raised. Again, also another factor to consider here are the transitional measures. There are definitely submitters—and as part of the select committee process, there have been discussions around the transitional measures, the fact that if you make an application prior to the commencement date of this particular bill, you cannot increase that threshold as part of your claim. I think some people have made comments on whether that is an appropriate setting. But, again, I think in those kinds of cases, the select committee recognises that a decision must be made to start the process or to start the bill in some way, and it’s not always the best idea and the wisest idea to have retrospective measures.
Finally, as part of the select committee process, one of the things that’s also been discussed was around whether there should be a built-in review as a part of this. It has been suggested having a three- to five-year built-in review of whether the increased threshold to $60,000 will provide the right setting and whether $60,000 is actually sufficient if a disputes tribunal is able to, for example, increase that amount.
Fundamentally, one of the things that we did here as part of the select committee process was look at the wider issue here of access to justice and some of the wider reforms. We have seen a number of justice-related bills that have been introduced in this House over a period of time. I think that, particularly from a court’s perspective, the last bill we had introduced here is around the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, which increased the number of District Court judges. But I think, as we are seeing with some of the broader justice reforms—I wondered whether the reason for a bill like this to be introduced is because of the fact that we are going to be seeing some of those increased demands and increased burdens on District Courts, and above in some of the higher courts, through the more justice-based reforms that this Government is undertaking, such as the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and other such bills.
Although I think, in many ways, it is a good idea in isolation as an individual bill, I do echo some of the sentiments that some of the submitters made on how it doesn’t actually address the broader accessibility issue that we might be seeing in some of the other courts. So, although the Green Party supports this bill, we look forward to committee stage; I think there are definitely a lot more things to discuss during that stage.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, thank you to Minister the Hon Nicole McKee for introducing the second reading of this bill on behalf of the Hon Dr Paul Goldsmith, and thank you to both of you for the work you’re doing in justice and to make the system more streamlined and efficient. I also want to thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who stated it’s rational to have a higher fee for a service and for a higher level of claim. I celebrate with that member of the Green Party their new-found commitment to user-pays. So thank you, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.
Key changes: increase in financial jurisdiction, allowing the disputes tribunal to resolve claims up to $60,000, and improved access to justice. A better access to justice, to quick, low-cost dispute resolution for individuals who either cannot afford or choose not to take their claims to the District Court due to higher fees, is a great improvement. An additional new filing fee tier of only $468 for claims over $30,000 and up to $60,000 will aid with cost recovery, and reflects the higher private benefits of using the tribunal for higher-value claims.
I’m also interested in the modernisation and efficiency benefits that this bill introduces. It’s part of an effort to modernise and streamline the dispute resolution process, making it more efficient and accessible to the public, and part of an overall programme of work—which the ACT Party supports—to make the justice system more efficient, more accessible, and more timely in the decisions that it delivers back to people who use it. I’m also taking part in and looking very carefully at the work going on to modernise the disputes tribunal, when it comes to how we might apply these concepts to resolving planning disputes in the resource management system, in another area of work that I’m involved in. Having a relatively low-cost, quick turn-around process that provides tension on those who are participating in a system, whether it’s the planning system or people involved in building and construction, actually means that there’s more tension on people to behave better, to perform their roles better, to deliver their contractual obligations better, than if they have to muster up the cost and all of the reports that are necessary to go to a higher court. I’ll have more to say on that policy once final decisions are taken.
But just to re-affirm, the ACT Party supports this bill. It’s part of a fantastic programme of modernisation and efficiency that this coalition Government is working on. Through that, we will deliver a much better, leaner, meaner, faster, and cheaper Government for New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, which New Zealand First will of course be supporting. New Zealand First is committed to delivering efficiency and pragmatism in our justice system, and I think that’s really important in this narrative that we’re bringing forward. There is a huge piece of work that is continuing to be driven to ensure we have a fit for purpose justice system, and that involves access to not only timely justice but good justice systems.
This pathway to resolution being expanded to the $60,000 is an important addition not only to remove some of the pressure within the District Court system but to also empower the tribunal system to expand its scope of work. I take on board the discussions around fees and the prohibitive cost of filing fees, but the alternative in this space is to have no access at all because the cost pressures of the District Court system and lawyers would create even greater pressures. So I think it’s a good opportunity to expand the way in which we look at justice and look at all of the aspects to which people can address their concerns and which they can be given equal access to a resolution.
The complexity of a court system can be really challenging—and sometimes even questioning whether you have a claim, where it fits and where it sits. The reality is that there are more and more issues in this space. We see it across the scamming space. We see it across the fact that people who aren’t as astute or as aware of their rights, that aren’t able to understand what they should have checked off in their contracts or their arrangements, the misunderstandings—all of those things tend to target those that are sitting in this space where we’re not quite sure where our jurisdiction covers us. So I think it’s really useful to expand this to the $60,000 threshold. The reality is that $60,000 is not the huge sum that it used to be, and that is the reality of the cost of living that we’re faced under, but it is a really important sum to allow those frustrations that you have when someone has not met or honoured their side of the bargain.
So it is really good work and I commend the Justice Committee for the volume of work that they’re putting through. This is a huge workload. The Justice Committee has been the recurring name in just about every bill I’ve spoken on recently, and I hope that they continue to keep this volume of work moving forward. The Minister of Justice and Minister McKee are also working very hard to make our courts and our justice system effective and pragmatic, and this concept of timely access to justice—I mean, justice delayed is justice denied. I think this is another really important piece of work that will support small businesses, families, and regional communities. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Steve Abel.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this amendment bill. The bill, as has been very thoroughly outlined, amends the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to increase the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000, with the aim of improving access to quick, low-cost disputes resolution for claims of higher value where action in the District Court would be unaffordable or would cost more to claimants than the value of the claim. The bill also introduces a new tier for the filing fees for claims worth more than $30,000 to support cost recovery and reflect the higher public benefit of using the disputes tribunal for higher-value claims.
The Green Party is committed as part of our justice policy to achieve a just and civil society through improving access to justice. The financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal has been increased a number of times. It was only $7,500 in 2009, and we have supported, as a party, increases to the threshold previously.
While this would increase access to justice for those with claims between $30,000 and $60,000, there are fewer legal protections for claimants in the disputes tribunal than in the District Court—for example, claimants must represent themselves and there is no judge. By having a legal referee who runs the hearing, outcomes in the disputes tribunal can be less predictable, as they make decisions on the merits of the case rather than on precedent. However, it is totally up to the discretion of the claimant whether they take their case to the disputes tribunal or the District Court, and so the lesser legal protections for claimants at the disputes tribunal are not a significant risk to justice and are outweighed by the expanded access to justice. Many claimants will also value the greater flexibility of the tribunal process, which is why we are supporting this legislation.
We did have a look at the particular impact on Māori and Te Tiriti, and there are no clear specific impacts on tangata whenua or any inconsistency with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, although it’s notable that Māori tend to be under-represented in the use of the disputes tribunal. This bill is unlikely to change that, but it may be yet another example of where our justice system is either inaccessible or not attractive to tangata whenua Māori in certain instances, and perhaps that is a place for work—that certainly is a place for work. So we’re very happy to support this bill. Thank you very much.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee, we received 107 submissions on this piece of legislation, though only three made oral submissions to the bill. But it does make a prudent change to the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal, lifting it from $30,000 to $60,000. I would point out that in 2022, the Rules Committee released the Improving Access to Civil Justice report, and the report recommended increasing the financial jurisdiction to $70,000 if sufficient resourcing exists. This is moving in the right direction so that people can have access to quick, low-cost disputes resolution, so I commend the bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you. We support this bill. As has just been said—in a very succinct and concise manner—it is a step in the right direction. It improves people’s access to justice, which is always a good thing. There’s nothing worse than feeling aggrieved and having a grievance and having nowhere to ply that and nowhere to seek resolution, and that is the position that we find ourselves in if people are unable to access that mechanism to seek that resolution.
So raising it from $30,000 to $60,000—the Justice Committee heard from very few submissions, but we received just over 100, and three oral submissions. It wasn’t unanimous in so far as to whether that was the magic number or not, and there were some people that certainly suggested it should be higher to capture a few more of those small businesses, in particular, that find themselves in dispute. But this, nevertheless, is where we have landed.
The improved access to justice is not just a sort of catch phrase; it is something that is profoundly important to the orderly manner in which a society feels included and that it works properly. The disputes tribunal obviously offers this much more low-cost, informal avenue for resolving disputes. By raising the cap, it may quite rightly—or quite predictably—change the nature of some of those cases. So we do need to be vigilant that the people working within this system have the requisite skills, that it doesn’t just become dominated by the big end of town—so far as $60,000 can be conceived “the big end”—but that the genuine small claims that we used to think of when we remember the small claims court don’t get lost in the mix.
That, ultimately, is a question of funding. With so many departments and ministries and public servants really under pressure in terms of making those cost savings that have been dictated by this Government, this is one more avenue that we have to be vigilant in to make sure that it runs properly and doesn’t suffer from a “cheap and nasty” sort of version of itself.
We think that the Rules Committee recommendation is worth adopting. We think the core efficiency and the case load management is obviously something worth trying. Many times in this House we talk about the backlogs and the fact that if the system gets clogged up, it has real-life repercussions for people that get kind of stuck in limbo and can’t move forward with their lives. So anything we can do in that direction is worthwhile.
We do still feel quite miffed about the relatively high fee, and therefore think that would have been something through the select committee process that would have been good to look at a little bit more seriously. And, obviously, also that lack of a right of appeal, which remains a sore point as well. But, nevertheless, the good things outweigh the bad and so we recommend and commend this bill to the House.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, in the second reading. My colleagues across the House have really traversed the essentials of these changes quite well. What I’d like to add, if I may, is when we’re talking about the application fee that has been doubled, for me, I find it logical that if the financial jurisdiction is doubled, therefore the application fee is doubled. Indeed, I saw this when I used to work in the small claims tribunal in Australia while I was studying law. But what I would like to say is that what is good for us to know—and I’d like our listeners to know—is, as our Minister Nicole McKee mentioned earlier, there is a suite of changes taking place currently in the regulatory tribunals bill, so part of that would mean that section 3 of the Disputes Tribunal Act will be amended to allow costs to be awarded to the applicant, should they be successful. With that, I commend this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Greg O’Connor.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. A couple of the speakers before have mentioned this in relation to the justice system, particularly Minister Costello, and it’s very interesting to put it in that perspective, because as the justice system has changed, and—more importantly, in my experience—the policing system has changed, many of the issues that now end up before the tribunal are things that would’ve been dealt with in the past by the criminal justice system.
I can actually remember a time when police used to attend people who turned up and got their credit card turned down by a retailer. Police would be called because it was an attempt to commit fraud, and, often, someone would actually end up in the system for that. I’m talking about people who actually did drive-offs from petrol stations; in the past, that was very much a police issue.
The courts and various changes in the system over time determined that where the retailer had then given the service or given the product to the person who didn’t then pay, then it was a civil case. So from years when the police or the authorities may have become involved, very quickly the lexicon became that it’s a civil case. That threshold has moved considerably over the years, to the extent that things like dine and dash at a restaurant will now be treated as a civil case, it might be surprising for many people to learn.
The remedy for the retailer in those cases is actually to go to the small claims tribunal, which is of course what it used to be called, and it’s now the disputes tribunal. So moving the threshold up to $60,000 does make considerable sense, but I think it’s important to realise that we’re now increasing—as we change the justice system—the number of people that will require this system to actually obtain their justice.
The court filing fee: that will be a barrier for many people. There’s another little bit of irony here, that not long ago we were discussing a piece of legislation—and I congratulate New Zealand First for supporting that—the theft by an employer of wages intentionally. In the past, I heard many of the speakers say, “That should go off to the tribunal. Why are we making this a criminal offence where an employer steals money off an employee?” This is the sort of thing that’s pushed that threshold back over the years, and I’m very pleased to see that that legislation did pass, because it stopped that particular piece of action, of theft, of crime being pushed into the civil jurisdiction as well.
One thing that will be of interest to anyone who’s watching this: who are these referees? Are they judges? Well, no; the people who are appointed this job are people because of personal qualities, knowledge, and experience, and many referees have training in dispute resolution and the law. I like to see that description for the people that’ll be in this tribunal, actually, because over the years it’s been a bit of a mystery as to how people become judges in both the District and the High Court. If you ask anyone how they got there, there’s not really a well-trodden path, a well-understood way in which people do end up—there’s shoulder-tapping; there’s all sorts of things. So it’s actually quite good to see in the criteria for these referees there is a criteria—you’ve actually got to show that you’ve got a background in having dealt with disputes, a background in having referees. So I think you’re more likely in these tribunals to get—particularly if you’re unlucky enough to get someone who’s new to it, at least they will have a background in this.
These tribunals are actually becoming more important, and, of course, $60,000 compared to the old limit—I believe it was $500 when it was the small claims court. It is quite a lift. I heard my colleague Duncan Webb there talking before about how the sorts of amounts we’re talking about now are ones that will make a massive difference to people’s lives: $60,000, and even that, I think, $468 filing fee. Trying to put that sort of money together, for a lot of people, is actually quite difficult. When you’re living hand to mouth on your wages, try and find that—you see how much difficulty people have actually getting school uniforms together, which I’m sure every MP here knows they’ll have people who are having those sorts of difficulties.
So this is a sensible move, but, I think, again, it should be taken in the context that this is a reflection on how we’ve seen changes to the justice system that have required more and more people to actually use the services of this tribunal; whereas, in the past, they might’ve had alternatives. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Hello, Madam Speaker. This is a good bill—$30,000 to $60,000; a doubling. I hear the comments from the other side, I understand that perspective about the filing fee, but remember it only applies to the portion above $30,000. There is no barrier that isn’t already there. There is nothing new for the $0 to $30,000. If people want to go to a higher threshold, which we’ve seen is an issue—we’ve heard through submissions that that is an issue—there is now a pathway. This just gives them an extra option. I have heard the criticism from Labour that this swings too far in favour of quick and final justice. Actually, like Greg O’Connor just shared, quick and final justice is what people are after through this, particularly with a number of civil complaints that used to be more criminal, and the dine and dash was an example he gave. So this makes a lot of sense. I commend it to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I’m really interested in this piece of legislation, because I can see the advantages and the disadvantages of it. I’m glad that we’re supporting it, because I think that there are a lot of people presently in a position where it’s just too expensive to litigate and this is really an alternative that we need to be available to people up to $60,000.
I, too, think my colleague Greg O’Connor has his feet on the ground when he says that $400-plus is a lot of money to a lot of people. It’s particularly difficult if you’ve just lost a lot of money because somebody hasn’t paid you or you’re in a position where you want to exercise your rights to get that money. So it’s a bit of a vicious circle there. I also think that, by lowering the fee, there may be a real advantage in that people would come to the court or to the disputes tribunal more readily and not take an option up of going to the District Court. So it probably would pay for itself very quickly to have a lower fee.
The reason that the Labour Party is supporting this bill today is because the system at the present time is acknowledged as not working. I have been concerned about the people who have been in the debt area where it’s just not worth them recovering the debt, and I think it sinks a lot of our small business, that kind of weight of financial debt that they have.
I also am quite in favour of having other options that don’t involve lawyers as much as possible, because lawyers have become such a heavy burden in terms of their cost. Yesterday, I think, one of my colleagues on the other side of the House suggested it was strange I was suggesting that lawyers should be left out or that there was a negative force, given that I was one and she was one originally. But, actually, I stand by that. I think that the way that lawyers have become so necessary to so many people is a real problem.
I wasn’t on this select committee, and I can see some things that perhaps I would like to see added to this regime, because I’m concerned about what my colleagues who’ve made a report under this are concerned about—the issue about $60,000 and the lack of appeal, meaning that there aren’t enough checks and balances in the system. I think we do need to think of some other ways of making checks and balances. One thing that we could look at is: actually recording these processes, because we now have a real technological advance and we could look at something where we recorded those, and we’d have a high-level supervision of the decisions that are being made at this level.
I’m also concerned that we’ve moved to a lot more mediation, a lot more quick arbitration-style approaches, because legal fees are so expensive but also because the delay has got out of hand. Today, I went to meet with one of my ex-clients, because they’re a union and I was talking to their members about the processes that they had to go through. They told me that, presently, to get a mediation in the Employment Relations Authority, it’s taking 10 weeks. I think about that issue that it’s not just in one place; it’s in all our little tribunals and our courts that we have got these extended delays. I think that it was the New Zealand First member who talked about “Justice delayed is denied”. It certainly is.
If you are an employee and you are waiting—or an employer—for that mediation, and you’ve lost your job or you’re waiting to resolve something, things go sour in 10 weeks; you can’t resolve them in the same way. In this situation, it’s very, very important that people aren’t opting for this because the rest of our system is broken. This should have a benefit that is well beyond that.
We should be proud of our justice system. I would love us to focus on that delay, and getting rid of it in our courts and our tribunals, because, quite frankly, it is just not good enough. It shouldn’t be that people move to what is a quick, maybe sometimes flawed, process of judgment because they have no other option, because it’s not possible. So I would urge the House to think about that, about how important it is that we look at delay and how important it is we look at systems when we bring systems like this in where we are cutting out the lawyers—which is, I have said, a good thing—that we also try and balance that system by making sure there are checks and balances.
Now, that might not be appeal rights—or you could do a limited appeal right. That’s what my colleagues on the Justice Committee have suggested, that perhaps the appeal in this situation at those higher amounts might be more limited to matters of fact and law. It might be able to be constrained. So that’s one way of doing it. Other ways of doing it are: that people can look at these judgments, we can see if they’ve gone wrong, we can see the quality of the hearing. So we’re not sending people into situations which are unsafe legally, when they are actually going there because they simply cannot afford the alternative process.
I want to come back to the fee and the $60,000. It’s a lot of money for a lot of people. It’s not a lot of money for the people in this House; it’s simply because our salary allows us. It would still hurt. It would hurt a lot, for most of us, but it wouldn’t sink us. There’s a whole lot of people out there that it would sink—a lot more people. The average salary in this country is under $70,000 and we are all on salaries that are about, I think, $170,000. We have a lot more capacity to make choices.
I want to come back to the rather glib comment from my friend in the ACT Party who talked about congratulating the Green Party in terms of joining the user-pays movement. I think that my friend misses the point. We have a whole lot of people who cannot afford to exercise their rights in this country. It’s not a glib matter that they have to pay $460 as a filing fee, and it’s not a glib matter when they’re owed $60,000. But it’s really important that we get it right for them. These are the people who are most vulnerable in our community, and we need to make sure we get it right.
Actually, if we do, and we don’t sink people in this situation and we don’t disempower them so that they’re devastated because they lose their house, they can’t pay their mortgage, and they feel the system is unjust towards them—if we don’t look after them, actually what we find is that they are angry, they end up with mental health issues, they end up with their children in dire situations because the whole system breaks down.
We’re a community and we need to support everyone in it. It is a very, very big part of the Labour Party that we believe there is our community: they are our children, they are our friends, they are our whānau, and we need to make sure that our system works for everyone in New Zealand, whether people are earning a minimum wage or less or they are earning a lot more. We are part of the same whānau.
So I commend this bill to the House, and I urge the parties to consider the delays that are occurring across our country in our courts and look at rigorous solutions that make sure that people are treated with justice, despite our urge to get rid of that delay. Justice is part of that. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We need to—as the Minister said—improve court timeliness and access to justice so that Kiwis can get on with their lives. The change in the level at which you will be able to apply to the disputes tribunal will mean that a Master’s degree student who was paid just $9,000 for a full year’s worth of work, who had to cut her losses and abandon the claim for the $41,000 she was owed, would be able to actually take that claim under this new law. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Kieran McAnulty. This is a split call; the other half of call six. Thank you.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill makes sense. The New Zealand courts’ Rules Committee recommended that the cap be upped. Why wouldn’t we listen to them? They know what they’re talking about. The fact is that most members in this House have provided examples where, because the cap was at $30,000, people who would have claimed and won and would have got more were restricted by the cap. That doesn’t make sense.
Of course, originally, the cap was at a level where $30,000 was a lot more than it is now. But also, we’ve got to recognise that this bill proposes a cap of $60,000. Now, $60,000 is still a lot of money. I would hazard a guess that there wouldn’t actually be many members in this House that could just stump up with $60,000—“Oh, well, I’ve lost the case. Here’s 60 grand.” It’s a big amount of money. People would have to refinance or put it on the mortgage, or whatever. We are actually on high incomes. For people who are on average incomes or—heaven forbid—low incomes, this is a big deal—a massive deal. Think about the minimum wage. It only went up 35c a couple of days ago. There’s no way in hell they would be able to stump up with $60,000. I’m only saying this because it’s important to recognise the significance of the amount.
So if we do agree on that—that $60,000 is a lot of money—it is of concern that the bill doesn’t recognise that, in the sense that it doesn’t contain a right of appeal. The simple question is: what if a mistake were made?
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: They are made.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, they are made; that’s right. I mean, you only have to look over there to see that many people make lots of mistakes! But the point is that if a mistake is made in a tribunal like this, they have to start all over again. And they only go to the same level—it’s not like in the courts, where you can appeal to a higher level of court and look at it from a different angle. It’s the same tribunal looking at the same issue if a mistake is made.
Why wouldn’t the Government want to consider the prospect of having a right of appeal, not to dispute matters of fact but maybe just matters of law, so that people can have confidence in the process. Yes, it’s a good thing that the cap has increased—and I’m very pleased to hear the example of the employee that would have been awarded $41,000 but couldn’t get it all, because of the cap. I’m pleased that that’s recognised in this House, and perhaps we might wish to refer to that and the reference to that case by Government parties in future debates. It’s good that they’re recognising that that’s important today, but without that right of appeal, we feel that this is missing something, and we feel that this could actually lead to some level of injustice in the future.
We recognise that the fee—$468—reflects the costs that are incurred to run the disputes tribunal, but we also must recognise that $468 is actually quite a lot for many working people, especially people on very low incomes, like the minimum wage, or lower if they’re part-time, of course. When you consider that the filing fee for the District Court is $260—almost half—surely there could be some wriggle room there, some flexibility. We’re talking about claims that could be very, very small, and when the fee to make that claim is actually a decent chunk of cash, there is a bit of an issue there. It would be good, in the committee of the whole House stage, if that was explored further.
Given that, we support this—and we’ve had a few instances of this in Parliament this week, where there has been broad support for bills. They could have been bills that started under us and this Government has finished off, or that this Government has introduced, building on work that the previous Government had done. There has been broad support. Here comes another one. So I hope that the Minister enters the committee of the whole House stage in that vein and actually takes seriously the amendments that we will put up. They will be around the right of appeal. They will be around flexibility of the filing fee. I think of an instance this week where the Hon David Parker put forward an amendment to the Hon Chris Penk and, essentially, he conceded that he agreed with him, but, “Oh well, we’ll figure it out later.” That’s a shame. I’ve had that happen to me when I’ve put an amendment forward to Chris Bishop. He’s said, “Yep, good idea, but nah.” Hopefully, this Minister has a bit more of an open mind and we’ll be working with him in that stage.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Privacy Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Privacy Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Privacy Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The purpose of the Privacy Act is to provide a framework for the protection of an individual’s right to privacy and to give effect to internationally recognised privacy obligations and standards with regard to personal information. This bill will uphold that purpose. Its main objective is to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information and to better enable people to exercise their privacy rights. It achieves this by introducing a new obligation on agencies who collect personal information indirectly by third party.
This change is reflected in Part 1 of the bill, which amends the Privacy Act 2020 to introduce a new information privacy principle: 3A. Agencies must now take reasonable steps to ensure that an individual is aware of the indirect collection of their personal information, as well as the purpose for which that information has been collected, the intended recipients of that information, and their rights under the Privacy Act information privacy principles. In making these changes, the bill updates New Zealand’s privacy laws to be in line with international best practice. Many countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom, already require notification where information is collected indirectly.
I want to draw the House’s attention to the origin story of this bill. Since 2012, New Zealand has held European Union “adequacy” status—one of only 15 jurisdictions to do so. This is an assessment from the European Union that New Zealand’s privacy framework affords comparable protections to its own, and is a vote of confidence in our law. Holding EU adequacy means Kiwi businesses looking to work with their counterparts in the European Union are able to share information without more onerous contractual requirements. It provides what one submitter on this bill called “a mini free-trade agreement” for the cross-border flow of personal information.
In its first review of our adequacy status, the European Union highlighted a transparency gap in our Privacy Act where personal information is collected indirectly. This bill represents the missing piece of the puzzle that is needed for us to maintain our prized “adequacy” status. As I’ve already mentioned, the bill will improve transparency about who is collecting our personal information, and that is important. Knowing which agencies hold information can empower people to exercise their privacy rights.
The bill also makes a number of technical amendments to address some minor issues that have arisen since the principal Act came into force. These small fixes will improve the operation of the Act and make it more workable for agencies.
Some time has passed since the bill was originally introduced in 2023, and I want to acknowledge the many people who have been involved in the process, including legal and privacy professionals, former and current members of this House, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
I’d like to thank again the members of the Justice Committee for its work in considering this bill. The committee received 55 submissions on the bill, including a significant contribution from galleries, libraries, archives, and the museum sector. The major change to the bill at select committee was the addition of an exception for archiving in public interest, and I know Minister Goldsmith was pleased to see how the committee incorporated the submissions from this sector into its report.
As acknowledged at second reading, the new requirement in the bill will mean that some agencies may need to make additional effort to comply with the Act. There are several design features of the new information privacy principle which aim to reduce unnecessary compliance burden while upholding the privacy of individuals.
At second reading, Government shared with the House its intention to submit an Amendment Paper to maintain a six-month implementation period for the new information privacy principle to help agencies prepare to comply. It has since been decided to extend this period to a full year. A 12-month implementation period will allow agencies more time to get up to speed on what compliance with the new principle looks like for them. I’d like to thank the House for agreeing to this Amendment Paper during the committee of the whole House last week.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which is developing guidance for agencies on applying the new privacy principle. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is carrying out targeted engagement to understand what issues matter most to agencies when thinking about compliance with the new principle. More information about this can be found on its website.
In conclusion, it is important that New Zealand maintains our commitment to strong privacy protections, both for individuals and for the businesses that benefit from our privacy framework being aligned with international data protection standards. This bill supports us to achieve that, and I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 April 2025.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.