Wednesday, 9 April 2025

WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL 2025

WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions are to be presented. I present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Alt-F Reset: Examining the drivers of forestry in New Zealand. Those papers are published under the—sorry? Oh, the Clerk has a paper, as well.

CLERK: Ministry for the Environment and Stats New Zealand report on Our environment 2025 and the technical annex to it.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Three select committee reports have been presented.

CLERK:

Report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Hauraki Gulf Alliance

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Standard Estimates Questionnaire 2025-26

report of the Justice Committee on the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is set down for consideration. Two bills have been introduced.

CLERK:

Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, introduction.

Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. The House comes now to oral questions.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I am advised that a short time ago, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee announced its latest review of the official cash rate (OCR). I am informed that it reduced the official cash rate by a further 25 basis points, taking the rate down to 3.5 percent. This means that the OCR has now fallen 200 basis points—that is, two whole percentage points—in the past nine months.

Sam Uffindell: How does the OCR affect economic activity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Changes in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. Through these interest rates and other channels such as the exchange rate, a reduction in the OCR stimulates economic activity. Expectations are an important part of the story. The market was fully expecting a 25-basis-point reduction today, so today’s change has already been factored into long-term interest rates. Variable interest rates, on the other hand, may fall.

Sam Uffindell: What does the imposition of tariffs mean for inflation and the OCR?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The imposition of tariffs, from both the United States and those responding to that, is likely to unleash both inflationary and disinflationary forces. It’s not an easy task, and it’s probably premature at the moment to try and determine precisely what the net impact of these will be on New Zealand. I’m advised that this is something the Reserve Bank is considering and monitoring very carefully. I note that the market has recently been expecting more OCR reductions than it was before the tariff announcements.

Sam Uffindell: What have cumulative changes in interest rates meant for Kiwi families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in my primary answer, the OCR has been reduced by two percentage points over the past nine months. Families will all have their own unique circumstances, but I can give an example that helps illustrate the magnitude of these changes. For someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, a two-percentage-point drop in their interest rate would reduce their required repayments by around $300 a fortnight.

SAM UFFINDELL: How do Government policies support lower interest rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Monetary policy plays the predominant role in stabilising the economy, but fiscal policy can either be helpful or it can be unhelpful. When the Government is disciplined with its spending, it helps take the heat out of inflation and gives the Reserve Bank more room to reduce interest rates. That’s what our Government is doing. On the other hand, undisciplined, excessive, and pro-cyclical spending simply fans the fire of inflation and makes the bank’s job much harder. For a recent experience of that, see Budgets 2022 and 2023.

SPEAKER: That’s not an acceptable use—there should have been a full-stop after the word “bank’s”.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Rawiri Waititi: Love to. Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights?

SPEAKER: The problem with the question is that the Prime Minister doesn’t have responsibility in here, as Prime Minister, for the decisions made prior to the forming of a Government. There might be another way to ask that question.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights—

SPEAKER: No, no. That’s—

Rawiri Waititi: —through the introduction of the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: Mr Waititi, that’s the same question. He has not allowed it. It is a matter of Parliament expressing—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: —no, I’m in the middle of something—at the very beginning, confidence in the Government. Find another way to ask the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I agreed with your first ruling on the question, but I think you’ll find the addition of the words at the end of that question very much bring it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility. The introduction of a Government bill is the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, thanks. You’ve got better ears than I have. I didn’t hear that. Ask again. It’s not going to cost you anything as far as—

Rawiri Waititi: Love to. Is he proud with the cultural discourse facilitated by allowing one minor party to use Parliament as a platform to promote the erasure of Māori rights through the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: So where was the reference to a Government bill in that? It wasn’t there. Try—

Hon Members: Treaty principles bill.

SPEAKER: Give it a bit of an answer; just get rid of it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question.

Rawiri Waititi: Given he will be voting against ACT’s Treaty principles bill tomorrow—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t start like that either. You can’t pre-empt what anybody else in the House is going to do.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he be voting against ACT’s member’s bill that would erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order?

Rawiri Waititi: —and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

SPEAKER: It’s all right. I know what you’re going to say, because it can’t be considered ACT’s bill if it is a Government bill. I’m sure you’re about there. Just have another crack.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he be voting against—

Hon Member: Sesame Street.

Rawiri Waititi: Are you asking the question or me?

SPEAKER: He’s not going to be here to ask any questions shortly.

Rawiri Waititi: Will he be voting against a Government bill that will erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

SPEAKER: Well, what is the bill? Look, if you’re speculating about a bill that might come into the House at some point, you can’t do that either. You have to ask him about something he’s got strict responsibility for. Have one more crack.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he support the proposed member’s bill that will erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

SPEAKER: Well, yeah, so—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. The Prime Minister does not have responsibility for members’ bills.

SPEAKER: That is—

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, the member’s bill will be a Government bill. And is he responsible for that?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Just a minute. A member’s bill is a member’s bill; it’s not a Government bill. It’s heard on a member’s day. How caucuses choose to support or vote against the bill is a different matter. But there will be another way to ask that question. I’m sorry to be difficult for you, but it’s important to get these things right.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he support any bill going through this House that would erase Māori and Pasifika pathway spaces and scholarships from all universities across Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ll have to wait and see what bill comes before the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: God, he’s gutless.

SPEAKER: One more comment like that and it’ll be out.

Rawiri Waititi: What is more important to the Prime Minister: giving $12 billion to support United States’ war efforts or using that money to eliminate poverty at home?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Actually, on this side of the House, we can do both. And that’s why we’re working incredibly hard to get our economy well managed and growing again. That’s why you’ve heard me talk about “growth, growth, growth” all year. That’s what it’s about. But we also have obligations, and we need to make sure that we carry our end and we hold up our end and our obligations. And I’m very proud of the investment that we’re making in defence as well. That’s what actually supports people in the Pacific. It’s what supports people here at home. And we should be very proud of that investment. We are backing up our values with actions.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he support his finance Minister refusing to adjust the year’s Budget to account for the US tariffs when they are projected to have the same impact as the 2008 global financial crisis?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no disrespect, the member is a member of a party that talked about $200 billion being raised through some crazy Labour-Greens capital tax arrangement, which is just patently wrong. I just say to the member, the way that tariffs work is that any tariffs that are being levied on New Zealand businesses by the Americans are passed through to American consumers. That is why we don’t support tariffs and trade wars. That’s why we continue to advocate very strongly for no tariffs, no trade wars, and a rules-based system, and we will continue to do so. But that is levelled on businesses of New Zealand exporting to the US and it’s passed on to US consumers, and, of course, the concern is that that will lead to rising prices, rising inflation, slowing economic growth, and that will cause disruption in the global economy.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Mr Speaker, in that answer, the Prime Minister mentioned two other parties. Speaker’s ruling 205/4 makes it very clear that no party that isn’t involved in the asking of the question should be brought into the answer.

SPEAKER: That is true, but I do wonder whether in this day and age of coalitions where there has been a coalition and the Government is reflecting on a certain stance that they deal with as a result of that Government that that Standing Order can be strictly applied. But I’m happy to have a look at that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir. The only coalition that Te Pāti Māori have been involved in is a National coalition, not with Labour or the Greens. So I’m sorry, that doesn’t work. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me! That’s a very significant historical fact, but the reality is that the Prime Minister spoke about the support for, and I think that’s a salient point. I’ll certainly take a look at it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether he’s going to set aside any money in the next Budget for members of Parliament to be better prepared in terms of Parliament’s protocols, the Standing Orders, and Speakers’ rulings, or in the words of Ice Cube in 1992, “Check yourself before you wreck yourself.”?

SPEAKER: Yeah, none of that. Unless the Prime Minister wants to stand up and pledge an enormous amount of money to Parliamentary Service, that’s not a question he can answer.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he acknowledge that by not adjusting the Budget to these tariffs, unemployment will increase by 3 percent, Māori unemployment by 6 percent, and inflation by 4 percent, as it did in 2008?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think the member really struggles with understanding economics. The simple story here is that we do not advocate and we do not support tariffs and trade wars. We think that’s bad for the global economy. We think that’s bad for all countries. But how it works is that a tariff is levied by America on New Zealand exporters of 10 percent, that is passed through with higher costs and prices that American consumers pay, it ends up supressing the US economy, which has impact on the global economy, and that is of concern. That is why I just say to New Zealanders watching this debate, if you seriously think the alternative is Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori managing the economy, that’s not right.

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind Government Ministers: attacking the Opposition in an answer to a supplementary is contrary to the Standing Orders.

Rawiri Waititi: With over a billion worth of export goods by iwi authorities and Māori enterprises in 2022, what is his plan for securing trade agreements with a range of countries that will enable our products here from Aotearoa to reach and access global markets for the best possible price in the face of global financial insecurity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very pleased the member’s asked that question, because our iwi businesses are doing exceptionally well and are able to do commercial deals and sell their products and services all around the world, and I’m very, very proud of them. They accompany me on trade delegations—that’s where we’ve been to Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea, the UAE, the Gulf Cooperation Council trade deal, and recently India. So they are doing exceptionally well. That’s why iwi was a critical part of our Infrastructure Investor Summit, and I expect that there will be some great partnerships that comes as a result of that.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon that he’s “focusing on unifying the country”; if so, how does introducing the Treaty principles bill, opening up one of the most divisive debates on race relations New Zealand’s seen in a generation, contribute to unifying the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think, you know, we’ve talked before ad nauseam about the Treaty principles bill. There’s a range of opinions on that topic; they have been aerated in this Parliament. The bill will come before the House tomorrow, and, as a result, it’s going to get voted down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said before the election that David Seymour’s Treaty principles bill was divisive and that the National Party wouldn’t support it; if so, why did he break that commitment?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the National Party position’s been very clear on the Treaty principles bill, but we had a compromise in an MMP environment—as that member will understand how coalition Governments are formed. The ACT Party didn’t get exactly what it wanted, the National Party didn’t get exactly what it wanted, but we found a middle ground and a compromise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he agree to support the Treaty principles bill, given David Seymour has said it wasn’t a bottom line for the ACT Party in coalition negotiations, or were his self-professed excellent negotiation skills on the blink that day?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the last part of the question, they weren’t on the blink.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Simeon Brown that “It’d be a waste of Parliament’s time to be progressing a bill and hearing select committee submissions on a bill that we’re not going to be supporting.”; if so, why did he agree to progress the Treaty principles bill when he’d said all along he wouldn’t support it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s why it was supported at first reading, there was a select committee discussion about the debate, and it’s not being supported beyond that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he speak on the Treaty principles bill in the House tomorrow, given it is the most divisive and regressive piece of legislation this Parliament has seen in decades and he is directly responsible for the fact that it was supported at first reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As that member will be well aware, I won’t be here tomorrow to speak on the bill, but I will of course speak to media. Our position is incredibly well known and has been well articulated over many months.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why won’t he show up in person and bring an end to the fight that he himself provoked by telling New Zealanders why he would flip-flop, saying he didn’t support the Treaty principles bill, then he voted for it, and now he’s saying he won’t vote for it further?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just think the reference to flip-flops from “Mr Jandals” is probably inappropriate, but our position has been well articulated. I have spoken to it ad nauseam over a number of months, and I’m focused on the things that matter most to New Zealanders, which is actually working out how we navigate choppier waters in a global trading environment.

Hon Chris Bishop: With reference to divisive debates in our past, does he remember that—

SPEAKER: No, don’t start a question like that. Start with a question word.

Hon Chris Bishop: Does he remember the Prime Minister of the day saying that she would rather address Shrek the sheep than hundreds of thousands of people who marched down Lambton Quay when the foreshore and seabed nationalisation went through from the previous Labour Government?

SPEAKER: Good, that’s fine—no responsibility there.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made about Melling transport improvements?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Excellent news: last week, I was proud to announce as transport Minister that the Melling Road of Regional Significance will begin construction this year. I signed a delivery contract with AECOM and Fletcher Construction to get on with delivering this very important project—40,000 vehicles drive through this bottleneck on State Highway 2 right now. It is an important project for the Hutt Valley and the wider Wellington region.

Tom Rutherford: How do the Melling transport improvements fit in with the wider RiverLink project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Lower Hutt, as a city, as many members will know, is on a flood plain, and when the Hutt River floods, it is at serious risk of flooding. So for 20 years or so, there has been a plan to improve flood resilience along the Hutt River, and the Melling interchange project fits into that. Overall, it is a $1.5 billion investment in better roading transport, better public transport, better walking and cycling, and better flood resilience for the Hutt Valley.

Tom Rutherford: How much money is the Government contributing to this vital project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a billion dollars from the transport agency, $295 million from the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and $180 million from the Hutt City Council. The project has been challenging from a cost point of view, but it is a very important project for the wider Wellington region and, indeed, the Hutt Valley. We’re proud to make that contribution.

Tom Rutherford: How important is this project for the Hutt Valley?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many people in the Hutt Valley have been dreaming of construction on Melling starting for many, many years. There have been years of delay to the project. We are now able to get on with it—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He delayed it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and over the next 20 years it will be transformational. You cancelled it in 2017, my friend—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and over the next 20 to 30 years it will be transformational for the Hutt Valley.

Hon Nicola Willis: What community response has he received in relation to the Government’s wisdom in ensuring spades get in the ground on this project, and has that response included any congratulatory messages from the former MP for Hutt South?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The response from the community has been voluminous and overwhelming; and, no, I haven’t had any messages in that regard.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “we are witnessing a historically significant global economic event”; if so, what new policies, if any, has she announced in response?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and in answer to the second part of the question, the member will see policies in the Budget to drive economic growth forward, which will complement the extensive Going For Growth plan we already have under way. I note, also, that monetary policy may also play a role, in that the Reserve Bank still has plenty of room to move. I have noted that some members of this House have already proposed a radically different approach of more borrowing, more debt, and more taxes. I have decided not to pursue those policies. We’ve seen that playbook before, and it does not end well for New Zealanders.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out income-testing the Best Start payment for new parents in response to the potential reduction in Crown revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Having gone through my first Budget last year, and now being on the verge of announcing my second, I have made a decision that I will not be ruling things in and out, because that’s a game that gets very boring very quickly.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she rule out income-testing the winter energy payment for superannuitants?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I say, I’m not going to play the “rule in, rule out” game, so you might need to redraft your supps—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for a bit of silence.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she assure the New Zealand public that she will not cut Government contributions to KiwiSaver?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s a tried and true thing in this House that if you want to get good answers to questions, you have to adapt on your feet.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Should New Zealanders pay the price for her Government’s inaction in the face of this “historically significant global economic event”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I utterly reject the assertion in that question. This is a Government that has been vigorously pursuing better trading relationships around the world, that has secured new free-trade arrangements, and that is working very hard to deliver maximum market access for our exporters. This is a Government that is reducing regulatory barriers and red tape and that is firmly on the side of businesses who wish to invest, employ people, and grow. Those are the right policies to be pursuing. This is a country that needs to show the world we have stable macroeconomic policies and that we are pro-trade and pro-growth. That is the way forward for this country, and we’re going to keep pursuing it.

Question No. 6—Police

6. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen on public perceptions of safety in relation to the Community Beat Teams?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning it was reported that not only do 66 percent of New Zealanders feel more safe with police out on the beat, 66 percent of Wellingtonians feel more safe and 48 percent of Green voters feel more safe. This stands in stark contrast to reports from members of this House that Wellingtonians don’t want to see police everywhere and that it makes them feel less safe. The evidence is very clear: the police do a world-class job. The people are with the police on this.

Ryan Hamilton: How many people feel less safe with police on the beat?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Nationwide: 10 percent. Wellington was even lower than that at 9 percent. There is simply no truth to the claim that Wellingtonians feel less safe with police on the beat.

Ryan Hamilton: Has he seen the public response to the beat police first hand?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Last week, the Prime Minister and I were out with our beat team, on the beat in Wellington central, and we were both extremely proud to see members of the public approaching our police officers and thanking them for the outstanding job that they’re doing keeping our community safe.

Ryan Hamilton: What message does he have for MPs who think that the community feels less safe with police being more visible?

SPEAKER: No, you can try that question again. It’s going down the same line that I warned the House about earlier in question time today.

Ryan Hamilton: What message does he have for MPs regarding the latest police reports?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The message is very simple: get real.

Question No. 7—Education

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

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they’re given. Targeting effective learning support interventions for students with additional needs is part of my six priorities. It’s our intention to have a system that delivers the right service to the right child at the right time. I’ve heard what the sector has been asking for, and I look very much forward to outlining my plans in the space in the coming months. But in the meantime, our Government’s already delivering the knowledge-rich curriculum, the 836,000 high-quality maths resources being delivered to students, thousands of students now benefiting from targeted maths acceleration tutoring, and almost 1,000 primary schools benefiting from trained structured literacy teachers to accelerate achievement for year 0 to 2 students.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she proposing to cut the resource teachers who work most intensively with the kids who need the most additional support?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The member consistently conflates spend and outcomes for children. As a Minister, we are responsible for taxpayers’ money to make sure that the children in our classes receive the support that they need. What we are looking at in system reform is making sure that the supports and resources that that we have are optimised for the children on the ground, which is why we have invested in 1,000 schools with Tier 2 intervention teachers for literacy. What I will not do is stand by and have resources that are not optimised, that are not consistently applied across the country, and that are not equitable, which is why we are looking at reoptimising this service to front-line supports for children.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many of the 2,000 completed submissions on the consultation to cut resource teachers were in support of her proposed changes and how many weren’t?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have that in front of me, but if the member would like to put something to me in writing, I’ll supply that to her.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Don’t talk while a question’s being asked.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she concerned that her cuts to resource teachers who help the children who need it most will also have an impact on teachers and the entire class?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Again, the member was not listening last night when we had the annual review debates—that a cut is not what’s happening in this instance. What we have clearly outlined is a taking of a resource that is not optimised and is not working and reinvesting it elsewhere—front-line support to children in classes to make sure that they are getting the support that they need to raise achievement and close the equity gap. It is making sure that we are optimising the services that we have to get outcomes for children. It’s a shame that the previous Government didn’t learn that lesson.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why should the kids who need the most support pay the price for tax cuts?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can assure that member that the children in our schools who need literacy support are (a) already receiving it, and (b) if she waits till the Budget, she’ll learn more. A thousand primary schools are now receiving structured literacy interventions for those children who are being left behind. Not only that, but those Tier 2 intervention teachers will be given the very best professional learning and development that is available in structured literacy, making sure that they are specialist teachers.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government’s decision to defund contracts with 190 social service providers, including those providing support on family violence, all while police simultaneously step back family violence call outs, make our communities more or less safe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say to the member, again, that we are focusing on improving outcomes, and if we can redeploy resources with better providers that get better outcomes, if we can think about the roles that mental health professionals play alongside police, we’re going to do things differently.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government’s decision to defund Youth One Stop Shops to support young people with addiction, mental health, housing, employment, and education in Rotorua, Taupō, and Christchurch make our communities more or less safe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: These are operational decisions for the agencies to make, to make sure that they’ve got the best set of social service providers in order to deliver the best possible outcomes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government’s decision to defund food banks while demand reaches record levels of more than half a million New Zealanders needing those food banks every single month make our communities more or less safe?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m proud of the investment that the Government provides for people that need assistance with food. We have not historically always supported food banks. Over the COVID period we have, with time-limited funding, but, actually, we have money available through the Ministry of Social Development for people who need hardship grants and food support.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking of defunding, is the Prime Minister in favour of defunding “da Police”?

SPEAKER: Defunding whom? Sorry, I didn’t hear that. What was it?

Hon Chris Bishop: Defunding “da Police”.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no, I’m not. I’m in favour of actually supporting the Police. They do a great job of serving our community and protecting us and keeping our people safe.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that it was his Government who has, in fact, defunded “da Police” by 3 percent in its most recent Budget, with a 6 percent defunding of “da Police” by 2027-28?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are not abolishing the Police.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: are food banks a nutrition matter or a security matter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, food banks are a feature from the community to help support people in need, but this Government is very proud of the support that we can offer people. If they need food, they can get food payments and help with that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister seen the independent rapid review commissioned by his Minister of Finance, that “much of the growth of Police can be attributed to increasing demands of Police in areas of family harm, mental health, money-laundering, cyber-security, and financial crime”; and, if so, how he does he reconcile this with his Government’s decision to defund much of the work and community support on precisely these issues?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m incredibly proud of our police, and I’m pretty proud of this Government’s response to crime. That member was part of a Government where crime went through the roof—violent crime, retail crime, gang membership, ram raids. Now we see crime coming down. We see ram raids down 60 percent. We see police out on the beat up 40 percent. And, importantly, people are feeling safer in their homes, their businesses, and their communities, and they will tell us that, and that is a good thing that this Government has delivered under an excellent set of justice Ministers and police Ministers getting this job done.

Question No. 9—Public Service

9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her statement that “Serving the public must always be our top priority”; if so, have the Government’s public sector cuts affected essential front-line public service roles?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service: To the first part of the question, yes; to the second part, no.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with the 86 percent of surveyed healthcare workers who believe that the Government’s cuts will make it harder for people to access healthcare; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In terms of the Government’s focus, we have very deliberately focused on front-line services, reduced bureaucracy, and the need for backroom staff, and I’m pleased to see in the area of health an increase in the number of doctors and nurses.

Camilla Belich: Can she guarantee that Kāinga Ora will provide the same level of service to the public, given that a third of their workforce has been cut within a single year?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, our Government has been very clear about the fact that there is a need to get Government spending under control. Any decisions that are made about reductions in staff and where those roles are from come from the chief executive. But at the end of the day, for every worker, it is about getting on top of the cost of living, which means reducing excessive Government spending and focusing the staff in the Public Service on the front line and on improving outcomes for New Zealanders.

Camilla Belich: How can front-line workers prioritise serving the public in their front-line roles, as the Minister has demanded, when the Government is forcing front-line workers to perform administrative tasks in, for example, health?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, our Government has been very clear about the fact that we are focused on improving front-line service delivery—whether in health, whether in education, or whether in law and order. Individual decisions that are made about staffing levels and changes are made by chief executives, but we do not shy away from the fact that we are absolutely focused on reducing excessive Government spending to get on top of the cost of living crisis, and every worker—public sector or private sector—is affected equally by that.

Camilla Belich: What steps will she take, as Minister, to support the remaining public sector workers, given that over half of public sector workers report having “too much work to do everything well” following the Government’s cuts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m not sure where that member gets her information from, but the Public Service are very clear about why they come to work every day—that’s to serve the New Zealand public—and Government targets in areas in health, education, welfare reform, and keeping people safe on our streets is exactly what they come to work to do.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What actions has the Government taken to support the primary sector?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Acting Minister of Agriculture): This Government backs the primary sector, and today we’ve further committed our support for our hard-working sheep farmers. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon Nicola Willis, and the Hon Mark Patterson have today announced that Government agencies will be directed to use woollen fibre products in construction and refurbishment of Government buildings where practical and appropriate, thus fulfilling a fabulous commitment between the New Zealand First and National coalition.

Suze Redmayne: What changes will this announcement make?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Around 130 Government agencies that follow the Government Procurement Rules will be expected to use woollen fibre where practical and appropriate in Government-owned buildings. I don’t need to tell this House that wool is a wonder product. It is sustainable, it is healthy, it is biodegradable, and it is fire retardant. So these new requirements will encourage innovation in the building materials industry, which will lead to more investment and new markets opening up.

Suze Redmayne: What are the economic benefits of this announcement?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, the wool industry is the cornerstone to many regional economies, and this requirement will provide a much-needed boost for local farmers and producers. Last year, the sector contributed a half a billion dollars to the economy. This policy will help create jobs, drive economic growth in our rural communities, and encourage innovation in our building materials industry. And I note, Mr Speaker, how much you very much enjoy that the walls of your office are currently covered in wool.

SPEAKER: Yeah, they stink.

Suze Redmayne: What are the projections for the sheep and beef sector?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The projections for the sheep and beef sector are looking extremely positive indeed. With much growth predicted to occur in the industry, this Government will continue on its trajectory of backing the industry, as and where possible, as much as we can.

Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries

11. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Who will benefit from his proposed reforms of the Fisheries Act 1996?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The reforms related to fisheries will be of great benefit to every single Kiwi. Not only will the Act, when it is reformed, provide greater protections, it will also strip away red tape and enhance productivity whilst securing the opportunity for garden-variety Kiwis to catch a feed.

Teanau Tuiono: Who did he develop these proposals for: the seafood industry, who spent 13 months working on the fisheries reform package, or the recreational fishers, customary fishers, and non-Government organisations, who were only given eight weeks to submit?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the process of developing reform options and the long period of time available for consultation, which was extended by myself to enable the recreational sector to perfect their submissions, shows that it has been an opportunity for all Kiwis to contribute towards the resilience and the robustness of this sector.

Teanau Tuiono: Do New Zealanders deserve to know what is happening with our fisheries, considering fisheries are a public resource; and, if so, why is he attempting to advance deregulation of the fishing industry by reducing transparency and public participation, decreasing monitoring, and encouraging more wastage at the expense of the future resources that belong to everyone?

Hon SHANE JONES: Those dire potential outcomes are inversely related to what is actually happening. The submissions process draws to a close in a matter of days. It will be methodically worked through by officials, all of whom have great integrity, and I will seek to avoid any sort of catastrophic consequences that the member seems to be hinting at.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he believe that cameras on boats are an important tool for safeguarding the health of our oceans and species, or is it just coincidental that when cameras were introduced, reported fish discards increased by 46 percent, reported dolphin captures went up by 680 percent, and reported snapper discards increased by 1,000 percent?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of the snapper fisheries population, it is almost biblical in abundance, which is why the quota was lifted on the west coast of the North Island. Obviously, cameras are a feature of the fishing industry. A number of companies are very happy to have such cameras. I, however, remain very leery about those cameras turning into State surveillance of industry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister able to put the member right in respect to the claim about it being a public resource, when that all changed with the first privatisation of that resource by the Lange Labour Government in 1986?

Hon SHANE JONES: The fisheries resource was transformed in the mid-80s; however, as matters have continued on, these reform options will not only give greater certainty to industry; they will provide a greater opportunity for those who have a deep stake in the fisheries to ensure that they remain sustainable. And we will also address the ongoing litigious nature of a number of the ministerial decisions that are made, to effect better outcomes by inquiring who are the shadowy foreign forces behind a lot of the litigation currently blighting the Crown.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the 90 percent of seabirds, 80 percent of shorebirds, and 22 percent of indigenous marine mammals classified as threatened with, or at risk of, extinction benefit from his proposals?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, no member of the fishing industry deliberately goes out to do damage to wildlife, but it is a wildlife industry, which is why there is a buffer that fishers must operate within, and there are penalties in the event that there are egregious lapses of judgment or offences have been created. But we really must stop this drive to stigmatise and demonise God-fearing Kiwis out there following the law, earning a living, and boosting export results, and stop buying into this falsehood that somehow the fishing industry is a threat to the environment. It is a source of great wealth, science, and immense enjoyment.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Is he confident Government decisions involving mental health being made on his watch do not compromise worker or patient safety?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): My expectation is that mental health and addiction services should always strive to be delivered in a way that delivers the best mental health and addiction outcomes, and ensures patient and worker safety.

Ingrid Leary: Why are more than 700 psychologists saying his new associate psychologist role will risk patient safety, reduce clinical standards, and ruin public trust?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, if we want to talk about patient safety, how about those people who are stuck on wait-lists, unable to get access to timely mental health addiction support? I’ve always been clear that one of the biggest barriers is our workforce vacancy crisis. That’s why this Government published New Zealand’s first stand-alone mental health and addiction workforce plan and we’re going to double the amount of clinical psychologists who’ve been trained, as well as a new registration for associate psychologists that will support clinical psychologists.

Ingrid Leary: Isn’t it really the case that he, as the first mental health Minister, is ignoring mental health workers when, in recent months, first responders, nurses, unions, and patient advocates have all voiced alarm about safety?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, rather than ignoring mental health and addiction practitioners, I’ve been listening to them. They are saying they are getting burnt out because they are covering too many vacant roles. That’s why not only are we doubling the amount of clinical psychologist internship placements, we’re starting a new registration. Those students will be on campus at the start of next year and entering the workforce in 2027. That’s a lot to celebrate.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is now the right time for police to step back from mental health call outs, when there has been a 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use and he knows this increases the likelihood of acute mental distress and violent episodes within our communities?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Let’s be very clear: police will continue to respond when there is an offence being committed or there is an immediate risk to life or safety. But what this Government wants in a time of mental health crisis is a mental health response, not a criminal justice response. That member should reflect on her Government—the first thing they did in 2017 is cut the mental health co-response team pilots. We lost six years under that Government.

Ingrid Leary: When will he admit that he is over-committed, compromising worker and patient safety, and that he’s failing to deliver the mental health support he promised Kiwis?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, this Government is committed to improving access to timely mental health and addiction support. One of the biggest barriers is too many vacancy rates in our mental health and addiction services. That’s why we put a plan together to address that. In six years, they had no plan.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

In this week of a global tariff war with intense events of significant implications happening, New Zealanders would be forgiven for wanting some light relief. And so, on Monday night, many of them will have tuned in to the last episode of The White Lotus. When I gazed at the images of that White Lotus Hotel there in Thailand, my mind drifted to the Labour Party because there are very few entities which have as many competing storylines as The White Lotus, but the Labour Party’s competing storylines about its policy process and what it wants to do to New Zealanders are perhaps as manifold as they are in The White Lotus. Because this week, we’ve seen the psychological thriller start to play out within the party as some of its members start to mutter quietly about the policy that dare not speak its name. And we ask ourselves, when will the mystery finally be revealed? When will that bit that they don’t say out loud be spoken? When will the great reveal of the Voldemort of the Labour Party policy crypt actually be emerged?

I think that we’re getting closer because the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) have been the first out of the blocks. They’ve revealed their manifesto—well, they’re about to reveal it—and they’ve given us a teaser. It’s a teaser as good as a trailer for The White Lotus without the background music, and it says that the capital gains tax (CGT) will be at its heart. That’s right, I can say the words even if Mr Hipkins can’t: capital gains tax. And look, there have been some early supporters who have come out liking the posts and celebrating the post: Camilla Belich, I think you were the first to move. Then we saw Barbara Edmonds out of the blocks, excited about the CTU’s policy response.

But the challenge is this: there seems to be a word from Mr Hipkins, “Don’t talk about tax. Don’t let New Zealanders know that the secret to this particular psychological thriller is that the way we intend to pay for our profligate spending is by taking what you New Zealanders worked hard to earn.” We’ve already seen from Mr Hipkins and his party as many flip-flops as you see in a Thai spa. Because, at first, what we had was the sensible observation that those who seek to “defund da Police” and criticise our police are making comments that are “stupid”. But Mr Hipkins then got a telling off, I think, from Chlöe and Marama, and so he went back out and he said, “Oh yeah, that was a bit mean, wasn’t it? That was a bit mean of me to call that stupid.” So we’ve seen that he’s flip-flopping on that and I can anticipate he’ll be flip-flopping on tax.

So this leads me to reflect on where will the next episode of The White Lotus take place? Where will the next series be? Because we’ve had it in Hawaii, we’ve had it in Italy, and we’ve had it in Thailand. Well, I think it’s time that our golden paradise of New Zealand be the place for the next series of The White Lotus, and I reckon I picked the location for it. It needs to be somewhere where there’s a villain who’s prepared to take on others. It needs to be somewhere where frenemies will come together. It needs to be somewhere where a true battle can happen between psychological forces. So I’m picking the place where I reckon the real leadership and tax battle of the Labour Party will happen, and that’s the Wairarapa. Because in the Wairarapa we have a man called Kieran McAnulty. Sadly for him—although not for people of the Wairarapa—no longer the local MP, but I reckon he’s going to have a card to play as they grapple with their CGT tax policy.

But I just want to quickly say this: when we talk about tax, I can’t help but think about David Parker, and I want to sincerely say that his announcement of his resignation from Parliament this week I think is a loss for Parliament, because while I vigorously disagree with some of the policies he’s promoted, at least he had the integrity to fight for what he believed, and I think that Chris Hipkins should take note.

SPEAKER: I call—[Interruption] OK, that is all we are going to have on that.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): I would like to speak to the New Zealand Police force, because they have an enemy, and despite what these pathetic billboards have to say, it’s not me; it’s the people that claim that they back the police: the National Party, who have been sharing disinformation about a statement that I supposedly made. It is classic National Party dirty politics, and it serves to distract from the fact that that Government are the only people in this House that are actually defunding the police. Remember this, New Zealand Police: the New Zealand National Party are the only ones that have decided to defund the Police by $55 million over the next four years. They are the ones that have disestablished 170 roles within the police force, and they are the ones that are cutting the backroom officers’ jobs within the Police and leaving that to front-line officers to deal with instead, increasing the administrative burden for police officers.

On top of that, this is a Government that will put the police force into even more hostile, adversarial positions within their communities, because they are happy to introduce laws like the gang patch ban, which, instead of the intentional, relational, methodical work that the police were doing in communities alongside gang leaders—they have decided to throw that out and say to police officers, “We’re not going to increase your pay, but we will make you be at war with people within your communities.”

My suggestion that perhaps other professionals might be better suited to respond to some situations is not unusual. Police officers are not social workers. Police officers are not mental health professionals. Internationally, police call-outs for mental health crises have escalated. Even up until the 1990s, the police weren’t even in charge of doing things like enforcing traffic laws—that was left to the Ministry of Transport—but as Governments have progressed, they have increased the burden on police officers, meanwhile drastically cutting their funding and their work conditions. That is what the police Minister is afraid of being accountable for.

I acknowledge that for some people, the presence of police makes them feel safe, especially as communities grapple with soaring crime rates, but I won’t shy away from my view that a more visible police presence does not make me feel safer. It is not an uncommon view. It is held by people who faced the full force of the Red and Blue Squads during the Springbok Tour protests. It is held by Pacific people whose family and grandparents were dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night in the Dawn Raids. It is held by rural Māori who have been surveilled and tormented and terrorised and raided by the New Zealand Police force. It is held by people who grew up in neglected, impoverished communities who live under the constant suspicion and surveillance of the New Zealand Police. And it is shared by women who go to the police with complaints of domestic and sexual violence who are not believed and not taken seriously until it is too late. That is not a minority group of people. That is a group of people I am proud to represent, and I don’t care if I’m the only person in this House with the balls to represent those communities.

That’s because our people have a history with the police. I want to acknowledge the people that enter the police force with the hope of changing things, because that system is rotten in many ways. It is the exact same reason that I came to this House: to make this place fairer for the communities that I represent. That is because Māori are 5.7 times more likely to come into contact with police. We are more likely to be handcuffed, pepper sprayed, arrested, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Māori are overrepresented in police apprehensions and use of force and taser incidences.

This is what democracy is: it is people who are not afraid to criticise the systems that we have in place. If you disagree that that is what is happening, then you are part of the problem, and you need to be accountable for the decisions—

SPEAKER: Well, surely not me.

TAMATHA PAUL: —and the oppression that is sustained by the Government’s decisions.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nelson Hospital has been in the news. Here’s why people should care: Nelson Hospital is old, it’s crumbling, and it desperately needs replacing. There aren’t enough beds, and patients can’t get the care that they need.

Two years ago, the Labour Government agreed on a plan to rebuild Nelson Hospital. Last year, National cancelled that plan; they promised a new plan would be finalised by Christmas. Well, it’s April, and the joke’s on us. Medical professionals told us that one large-scale acute services building is what is needed to deliver the best care to patients and to care for our growing and ageing population. But instead, National want to downgrade these plans to smaller buildings.

But let me tell you: what is happening in Nelson is happening in many regions right across this country. Thanks to who? Thanks to the reckless choices that have been made by those guys over there.

Now, Nelson Hospital has also been in the news because of the lack of care provided to patients, not on the part of the doctors and nurses who go to work every day and do their absolute best; it’s about the cuts that National have put in place to our health system in Nelson.

Wait-lists have absolutely blown out, with one blowing out to over 1,000 people. It is the worst it’s ever been. A woman visited my office last week. She is suffering from severe anxiety because she was told by her GP that she might have cancer and she was referred to Nelson Hospital for a colonoscopy. Seven months later, she has not received her colonoscopy, and she feels her life is at risk.

Senior doctors are speaking out because patient safety is at risk. Nurses are speaking out because they are so frustrated with the lack of resources to do their jobs. This is the state of the health system as a result of National’s reckless choice to cut jobs and halt the recruitment of doctors and nurses in places like Nelson.

My office has been absolutely inundated with phone calls and emails nearly every day from somebody in Nelson who can’t get the care they need. They’ve been recently telling me that they can’t get their tests results back, delaying treatment by weeks, sometimes months. A mother came to see us last week. Her daughter has renal failure and needs a kidney transplant. She might be a match. The mother had tests done in December but still hasn’t received the results. So her daughter is left in limbo, not knowing if her mother is a match for her desperately needed transplant.

A woman with heart problems reached out to my office last week. She wore a cardiac monitor for a week in October last year and she still hasn’t received her results, further delaying her treatment. I’ve had members of my community tell me that they’ve had to put in Privacy Act requests to get their health records so that they can access the treatment they need and the care that they need. It is disgraceful.

Furthermore, I have asked Nelson Marlborough health for answers on all of these cases and they have not even replied to my office, on behalf of my constituents. That is a disgrace under this Government; it never happened under the previous Government.

Now, on Gisborne Hospital, National is also doing similar things there, with dozens of senior doctors writing to the Government, asking for urgent action. They’ve told the Prime Minister that Gisborne Hospital is on the brink of collapse. The doctors have no idea what plan is in place to address the vacancies in that hospital. The situation is dire and they’re not able to provide locals with the care they deserve. In Dunedin, the Government has been playing us off against each other, saying regions have to fight amongst themselves for the resources.

Every region deserves a decent hospital. I will stand up for Nelson and every regional hospital in this country. National need to stop the cuts and let hospitals hire the staff they need. They need to listen to the people on the ground, rebuild the Nelson Hospital like it was promised, and not continue to keep the business case languishing on the Minister’s desk. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, where do I start after a speech like that from the Green Party member Tamatha Paul? The only ones who are hostile and adversarial towards our police in this country are the Green Party, and they’ve shown that over the last couple of weeks.

I want to address a couple of the issues that they raise around money. As the incoming Minister, with the briefing to me, it became immediately apparent that the previous Government had underfunded cost pressures by about 4 or 5 percent. The Minister of Finance immediately made a one-off $120 million payment—

Mark Cameron: How much?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —$120 million—to try to actually address that issue, which increased the funding around cost pressures from 1 percent to 5 percent. There has been $226 million delivered on the extra 500 police officers, and by the way, when we came into Government, we were already 200 down—we were 200 down. That’s where we were starting from. There has been $424.9 million to support front-line policing, $242.2 million to boost police pay, and $62.7 million for front-line police vehicles and marine capability. By the way, on this side of the House, we would love to pay all of our first responders as much as we can. We were in a situation, as the incoming Government, where, basically, that lot had been driving us broke as a country, and we had to fix that, and we are fixing that. We’ve seen inflation coming down. We’re seeing interest rates coming down. We need to get stimulus and growth back in our economy. When that starts to happen, that puts us in a much stronger position as a Government and as a country to make those decisions around ongoing investment. And that’s what we’re doing.

There’s one thing that I really want to address, which I thought was a shameful comment, and that was highlighting what was called a “rotten” system—a “rotten” system. We’ve got the best, world-class police force in the world. I have no doubt about that. That is based off reports, that is based off my own personal knowledge of having worked overseas with many law enforcement agencies, and it is a huge slur on every member of our police serving now and on all of those who have come before them. I can tell you this: there are thousands and thousands of kind acts of humanity that are shown by our police officers every day in the service of the communities they serve. And let us never forget: yes, they are police officers, but they are mums and dads, they are grandparents, they are sons and daughters. They are in our community. They are involved in sporting organisations, they are on the boards of trustees of our schools, and they choose to put on the blue uniform and step forward and do a job that most of us wouldn’t, because they want to protect and serve the communities that they’re in. It does them a huge injustice to have a party in this Parliament come and attack them the way that the Green Party has done.

And, by the way, Labour, you’re not off the hook on this, because your leader—the flip-flop guy, “Mr Jandal”—came out and condemned those comments, and then all of a sudden he was on the blower to Marama Davidson and he folded like a house of cards. He folded and he came out and said, “Oh, you know what? No, actually, the Greens are raising some important points.” What are they? Come forward and tell us what they are. I’ll tell you what—I’ve got an idea—let’s see whether or not the Labour members in the House today—raise your hand if you disagree with these comments: “A visible police presence makes people feel more on edge.” No, no—no one is raising their hand. They all support that. Here’s another one: “She received nothing but complaints about police on beat patrols.” Who agrees with that? Who agrees with that? Labour again: “Wellington people do not want to see police officers everywhere and all the beat police do”—

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it’s not consistent with the Standing Orders for members, when they are giving a general debate speech, to require other members to act or respond in a certain way, and I’d like perhaps your reflection on that.

SPEAKER: Look, I can, over a number of years, recall various speakers from different parties, including the member’s own party, asking rhetorical questions of that nature across the House. And further, I can recall members on both sides of the House offering gratuitous comments about each other across the House in a general debate. I don’t set the parameters of what people can say. It is a general debate. It’s an open time, and there are very few restrictions other than the common decency expected in Parliament. The Minister, in asking people to raise their hand, is not requiring them to. It’s not a part of the Standing Orders. It is rhetorical.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m not surprised at all that the Labour Party—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to comment on that. Please, don’t comment on the point of order; just carry on.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK—

Hon Member: You’ve hit a nerve!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, that’s right. People can make up their own minds on that point of order.

I want to come to some stats—I want to come to some numbers—because I think they’re important. Let’s have a look at the record of the previous Government while they were in Government. Violence: 35 percent increase in violent crime. And that sits right alongside a policy that said, “Let’s empty our prisons. What a great idea! We can drive down the numbers.” By the way, neither the Greens nor Labour really like or believe in prisons, but it’s the only way right now as a society that we’ve got to actually keep the public safe. And this coalition Government actually takes public safety seriously. That is why we’ve seen a big increase in people coming into our prisons in the last 12 months. We unashamedly support that because we are focused on public safety. But let’s have a look at some of the numbers here. Ram raids: 293 percent increase under a Labour-Greens Government; 58 percent decrease under a coalition Government. Electronic monitoring on bail breaches: 128 percent increase under the Labour-Greens Government, 0 percent—[Time expired]

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): The only reference I’ll make to that last speech given by Mark Mitchell is that before I came to this House, I was the president of the Police Association. Because we had the right to associate—the police did—and because we had the right to advocate, the police were actually able to achieve much more by way of resource, by way of ability to police New Zealand, than they would have otherwise. And that leads me on to the subject of my presentation, which is veterans.

We have a group of people in New Zealand who as a result of having neither of those things—no right to associate, no right to actually have any advocacy—have ended up in a situation where we have veterans around New Zealand who are not on any register and who actually need considerable assistance.

But before I do that—and I am speaking on veterans as the spokesperson on veterans’ affairs and in the shadow of Anzac Day in two weeks’ time—I’d like each member of the House to have a look around and look at some of the names on the walls here. These are the names of all the battle sites where New Zealanders have fought. Behind each of these inscriptions, of course, are the many, mostly, men but also women who have given their lives over the years—and not only those people but also their families who remain behind.

So as we work up towards Anzac Day—and many of us are wearing poppies here in the House—it gives us great time to reflect on that sacrifice, which brings me to the subject of my presentation. This is not going to be political, because it’s a time when each party has recognised this, and through different papers, through different acknowledgments, and through different research projects both here and overseas.

I think an important point I’d like to start with is: what is a veteran? Now, one enters the military services by being attested; essentially, in other words, by being sworn in, and in doing so members give up rather a lot. It means that they are subject to military law, the absolute requirement to do as they are ordered, and at the same time they relinquish some of their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: freedom of movement, of association, of expression, of assembly; and the right to withhold labour.

Now, people who work at other professions have some of those things, but what other professions don’t have is the ability for their leaders, their bosses, to order them, to take them into situations of absolute danger where they don’t have any right to refuse and people do lose their lives as a result.

There are two classes of veterans. There are those who were in the services before 1974, when ACC was bought in, and they have considerable rights. Their rights are more along the lines of what most overseas forces have. Canada: any member of the Canadian armed forces who successfully underwent basic training and has been honourably released; Australia: since 1977, a veteran is defined as anyone who has served at least one day in the Australian defence force; in the United Kingdom, a veteran is anyone who has served in the UK armed forces and veterans need not have served overseas or in a conflict.

So these are people who are considered veterans and, as a result, are able to access veterans’ services. However, in New Zealand it’s much more defined. Since the 2014 Veterans’ Support Act, a veteran has to have had qualified overseas experience or operational experience or have been in danger. What this means is that there are a large number of our forces—approximately 40,000 people, but the extra 100,000 to take it to 140,000 people—who are not entitled to any of those things. And when they leave the service, they’re only entitled to what everyone else is entitled to.

The time has come, there has been agreement, it is going to be considerably expensive to do it, but it is time now for all of this House, as we sit around here, as we approach Anzac Day, as we acknowledge that service, the service that is currently being given around the globe, to acknowledge that service and redefine the term “veteran.”

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today I stand before you with great news: this country has a Government that is backing sheep farmers. Today marks a significant milestone in the wool industry, an industry that has faced numerous challenges over the past three decades. The directive has been issued: Government agencies should use woollen fibre products for both new builds and refurbishments, taking into account the whole-of-life cost, compliance with New Zealand standards, technical and functional requirements, supply, and sustainability and wellbeing. On that basis, we know that wool wins hands down.

It is not only the people in these buildings that will benefit from this amazing natural product. It will be our sheep farmers, our shearers, our rural supply stores and support services, our wool brokers, and our manufacturers. Their families will benefit and so will our rural communities.

Over the past few decades, the wool industry has grappled with many challenges that have threatened its existence. One of the greatest challenges has been the aggressive marketing from synthetic materials, which have infiltrated the market and overshadowed our natural wool. Synthetic materials are detrimental on many fronts. The production of these synthetic fibres often relies heavily on petrochemicals, or they are treated with environmentally damaging chemicals to enhance their properties. Don’t even start me on the impacts of synthetic fibres on our natural environment. In stark contrast, wool is a natural product—such as this suit that I’m wearing today.

Today, though, is more about coarse or strong wool. While not as fine as merino, it possesses its own unique set of qualities. Coarse wool is more robust and durable, making it ideal for applications that require strength and resilience. Historically, this wool was used in carpets, felts, and tweeds. Despite its coarser texture, this type of wool still offers excellent thermal insulation and natural flame resistance, making it a valuable material for various industrial and commercial uses.

Wool is a natural, non-allergenic material that can improve indoor air quality and reduce risks associated with synthetic materials. Unlike synthetic fibres that release harmful chemicals, wool absorbs and neutralises pollutants, creating a healthier living environment. Wool has excellent insulating properties, making it an energy-efficient choice for building insulation. This can lead to reduced energy consumption, and lower heating and cooling costs. Wool is naturally flame resistant, reducing the risk of fire hazards. Unlike synthetic materials that can melt and release toxic fumes when exposed to flames, wool chars and self-extinguishes—adding an extra layer of safety to our homes and our workplaces.

Wool is renewable and biodegradable, contributing to a lower environmental footprint compared to our synthetic alternatives. Wool production relies on the annual shearing of sheep, a sustainable practice that does not harm the animals. Furthermore, wool decomposes naturally, returning valuable nutrients to the soil and reducing landfill waste. The production and processing of wool generate lower carbon emissions compared to synthetic fibres. Wool’s lifestyle, from sheep rearing to final product, involves fewer energy-intensive processes, supporting efforts to reduce the overall carbon footprint.

In conclusion, the renewed support from our Government for the wool industry heralds a promising future for our farmers and for the environment, and I would like to acknowledge all those that have committed and contributed to the wool industry: the likes of Flock, Bremworth, Woolworks, and the numerous businesses and farmers that have committed to our industry. By choosing wool, we are making a conscious decision to embrace a material that is not only deeply rooted in our heritage but also aligned with the principles of sustainability, health, and safety. So let’s work together to ensure that wool continues to thrive, benefiting generations to come.

Wool is back on track, and I’d just like to acknowledge some people up in the gallery: my mother- and father-in-law, Adrienne and Dean Wright; and my wife and daughter, Kim and Cara. Good to see you. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to talk about, I guess in some ways, a different topic than what I normally talk about, which is education. But with my hat on as the Minister—oh my God! With my hat on as the spokesperson for ethnic communities—[Interruption] Sorry, my apologies. With my hat on as the spokesperson for ethnic communities, I would like to address a very serious issue that is currently facing the Congolese community of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Just for context in terms of the concern that has been raised by the community, for those of you who may not know, Congo has been in a decades-long war with its neighbouring country Rwanda, particularly on the eastern edges of Congo, where the mineral and resource - rich regions currently lie. We have been asked by the Congolese community to voice their concern in this House about the ongoing war and atrocities that have befallen their community, particularly in the east Congo region.

For those of you who may not know, just for further context, the war between Congo and Rwanda has been an ongoing war for over two decades now. There have been over 7 million people who have died in the conflict—that is a population greater than the entirety of Aotearoa’s population—with about 30 percent of them being children. More than 5 million people have been displaced within the country, and more than 1 million Congolese have sought asylum, mostly within Africa. In the months of January and February alone, at least 78,000 children have been displaced and families have been ripped apart. Again, we are bringing this to the House to also shed light on the dire situation that the Congolese community is currently facing and the anxiety within that community around their families back in Congo.

Further to this, what they are seeing is the contribution, and it’s the silence of the international community when it comes to addressing the conflict that is currently going on in Congo. While efforts were made between Congo and Rwanda in Doha earlier in March, we have seen that those particular ceasefire talks broke down when the Rwanda regime - backed March 23 Movement (M23) pulled out of those discussions at the last minute. At the same time, on top of M23 seizing the already fraught region of Goma, as those conversations were happening in Doha, we saw the seizure of Walikale in eastern Congo.

It is the intention of the Congolese community in Aotearoa that we take this situation seriously. It is important for us to remember what Aotearoa New Zealand stands for, which is that we, first and foremost, are a peaceful country. What is our responsibility in all of this? It is in terms of continuously shedding light on the concerns of our community, and continuously working with the international community on ensuring that the ongoing trauma doesn’t fall on more people around the world, whether it is Congo, whether it is Ukraine, whether it is Falastin, whether it is Kanaky, or many, many other regions, to name but a few.

I would also like to thank the Okapi Alliance of New Zealand, and particularly its president, François Kayembe, for the continual action and the work they are doing, both within Aotearoa and also within their families back home. On top of that, we should also be looking at how we can reunite these families by creating a special visa for all of them. That’s all from me—thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This month, we commemorate 110 years since the Anzac landings. That day and that campaign are etched in our national memory; even though many more Kiwis died on the Western Front than that, it was our baptism of fire.

Anzac Day is now a commemoration of all those who have served in conflicts and in peacetime for our country. It’s a source of pride amid reflection and sadness for so many lives lost or broken too young. This Chamber, as we’ve often observed, is a place of memorial for the first Anzacs and for all subsequent Anzacs. You’ve just got to walk down the corridor and see the painting of the Battle of Chunuk Bair by Ion Brown to see that. But Anzac also speaks to our national psyche, whether that psyche today is real or romanticised. What were those Anzac characteristics and how are they relevant today and indeed in our decision making? The words that are regularly used are those like courage, resilience, ingenuity, mateship, or togetherness.

The contemporary Australian official war correspondent and historian Charles Bean, and he wrote of course from Gallipoli, described Anzac character this way: “By dawn on 20 December”—as they withdrew—“Anzac had faded into a dim blue line, lost amid the other hills on the horizon as the ships took their human freight to Imbros, Lemnos, and Egypt. But Anzac stood, and still stands, for reckless valour and a good cause, for enterprise, resourcefulness, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance that will never own defeat.” We’re challenged today by a very uncertain and dynamic geopolitical environment. We’re challenged by our own economic circumstances, by years of poor productivity growth, and by the things that divide us. But we can and we should write our own history in the spirit of our Anzac forebears.

Every speech should have a point and mine is this: that as I travel around New Zealand, I see that Anzac spirit, that pioneering spirit, that enterprise, that resourcefulness, that innovation again, and again, and again. We’ve got a proud history in this country of boxing above our weight. We’ve been a global leader in so many ways. I mean, Richard Pearse with probably the first flight; Sir Ernest Rutherford—who was of course from Nelson, not from the USA—splitting the atom; Kate Sheppard, the first country to give women the vote; the HamiltonJet; Rocket Lab; the film industry; and, of course, we box far above our weight on the sporting field, as well.

Who was it who invented foiling in yachting, for example, and computer animation when we watch all of those sports as well? That was Sir Ian Taylor. I particularly pick on him because my question is this: we’re good, we’re often awesome, but do we back our innovators as we back our sporting champions? It was Ian Taylor who said, “I’ve often despaired that in New Zealand we’re very quick to talk up the innovative abilities of Kiwis, our can-do attitude, but when it comes to trusting in those same people to deliver, the walk often doesn’t match the talk. So many great little New Zealand companies are overlooked because decision makers feel safer with the big names from overseas.”

We as a Parliament need to support this spirit, to remove the regulatory barriers, the consent barriers, the concession barriers, and the like to ensure a responsive Public Service to support an education system that responds to the needs of and empowers our people and that heightens our ability to think, not tells us how to think. Just a note from India, where I had the privilege of being with the Prime Minister recently: we’ve met with some slum dwellers, people who’ve come out of the slums with a bit of support, who’ve then gone away and got Master’s degrees from Australian universities. That is what people can do with a bit of support.

New Zealand First has always been very, very strong on supporting businesses. That’s why I’ve been a strong believer in and a supporter of the Provincial Growth Fund, of the Regional Infrastructure Fund. We need a robust venture capital market. In this House, we gave a lot of praise to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund last year. Part of their remit is to elevate New Zealand; that’s about building and developing, and growing, and deepening a venture capital market. That fund clearly needs support at this stage to keep on doing that work—the question is: do we have the courage to back it?—and then making regional deals fly. We’ve got this desultory aspiration to have one regional deal this year and two next year. But what if we’ve got four or five which are good to go? There’s a lot of innovation, a lot of creativity, a lot of collaboration there. We need to back those people. I’ve seen a lot of great ideas from them.

As I said, as I meet people around this, our beautiful country, I see innovations. We’ve got world-leading innovation and intelligent pest control. They can sell overseas, but they can’t sell to our own Department of Conservation. We’ve got people who are inventing siphon technology to remove water and groundwater in flood- and slip-prone areas at a fraction of the cost of conventional drainage and pumping. We’ve got dealing with waste water, again for a fraction of the cost of conventional treatment. We’ve got an organisation which is on track to produce more whitebait than the entire national catch out of a single old, closed meat works near Bluff. New Zealand First is a proud supporter of our defence forces, of our Anzac traditions, and of innovation. That’s what we need to support.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Five minutes is never long enough for the general debate, but I thought I’d take this opportunity as it turns out to be my last week in the House for about six months—those of you at home that can’t see behind the desk, I am carrying a rather large, rotund beach ball around with me at the moment. Going up and down all of these stairs is something else that I’m sure many of my forebears have gone on to understand.

But I thought firstly, just in an acknowledgement and recognition of my colleague and previous speaker’s speech, just to touch on the upcoming Anzac services and Anzac Day. While I’m leaving the House for a little while, I am going to be working in my community for a little bit longer. I just want to be a bit closer to home and closer to my home hospital and my family, but also really privileged to be able to attend so many of the Anzac services that we have in the electorate. Just to acknowledge the Napier RSA and the Taradale RSA and the work they do, as well as the Rissington services, the Eskdale services—always on at the same time, which is such a shame for those of us that want to attend all of them. But gosh, what a special occasion it is for us to remember those that have served, and continue to serve, on our behalf.

Look, I really wanted to say, in this time that I’ve got, how much faith I have in this National-led Government to deliver the economic gains that we need to deliver to put more money in Kiwis’ back pockets. Because do you know what this reminds me of—in my journey into motherhood and creating a family with my husband? It is the people that I met with on the doorstep when I was campaigning before the last election; that were starting families themselves, had young families, that just needed to make more of what they had. They worked so hard. They wanted to be able to put their children into childcare, get back into work—to give themselves a sense of value, purpose, and the things that they enjoyed, to get to do those things. They wanted to feel secure. They wanted to be able to keep living in the house that they’ve worked so hard to buy, but then interest rates got out of control.

These are the things that we work so hard to fix. And today, to have another official cash rate drop of 25 basis points to bring people’s mortgage interest rates down again really makes the difference and it gives me so much confidence. So when people talk about, you know, “What is it that you do when you’re down in Wellington? What is it that you speak on?” I often say the one thing that I think is so important, coming from a business background myself, are the quarterly action plans. And I just want to remind those at home—and perhaps those reading the transcript later, if you’re so inclined—the reason we do that is to make sure that we are delivering quarter on quarter so that over the term, the three-year term, we have delivered tangible outcomes for everyday Kiwis.

Because you hear us debating ideological stuff here and there every now and again, but the things that we are doing are all to grow our economy—so we have a bigger pie rather than having to slice the pie smaller—so that more people have money in their back pocket. They can do things with it; they can feel confident in their homes. We talk about the things that they’re allowed to do, extracurricular things they can do with their children. For some people, it is just being able to go through the checkout without questioning what you have in your trolley. And that is what we are here to make a difference for.

I feel so proud and, gosh, I say it’s a slippery slope when I’m at home preparing to have my first child and whether or not I watch the Budget debates on TV, and I probably will be watching. But I know that we have heard many indications about how this is a Budget for everyday Kiwis and their back pockets. That is what I feel so passionate and so proud to be here for. I’ve just got to say, every little thing we do to really grow what it is that everyday Kiwis have when they go home and, at the end of the day, being able to work hard for something; that they love to come home and have a good quality of life—that’s what we’re here for.

So can I just finish by thanking my colleagues—incredibly supportive colleagues. I’m very lucky to have the Hon Nicola Grigg—not long had a child before me—offering me her cot, which I think—and then some of the things that she inherited from Camilla Belich as well. It just goes to show how collegial we are when it comes to motherhood in this House. You know, it’s really something special to have everybody asking how I am as I waddle down the hallways between select committee hearings. At the end of the day, we’re all here to serve our communities, and I feel very privileged that when I leave this place for a number of months, and go back to my community and really get to live in my community as a parent, I know that this country is being incredibly well served by my colleagues—as well as across the entire side of this Government—and the things that we have committed to do for the people of New Zealand. We have stood by that, and we continue to deliver, and it’s something I’m incredibly proud of.

So bring on the Budget—22 May. Let’s see if I beat Nicola Willis to it, in terms of delivery date, and I wish you all well. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I’m sure the House wishes the member all the best for the coming months.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you, Madam Speaker. How great is it to be a member of the ACT Party? Absolutely fantastic. And how great is it to be a member of a fantastic coalition Government? Those that take personal responsibility as being paramount in the way that we conduct ourselves. Those who want to look after the victims of crime because they haven’t been looked after for quite some years now. Those that want to make sure that we take ownership of the good, the bad, and the ugly, in order to be able to improve and to move on. How great is it to be a part of the ACT Party—a party that brings all of this together to make New Zealand a better place.

And then, I hear from the Opposition side, words like “defund the police”. I hear about how New Zealanders feel safer alone with a patched gang member than with a police officer. I hear comments about abolishing the police, about letting prisoners out because it’s all so bad. I hear from Te Pāti Māori saying that the justice system is a colonial construct that needs to be decolonised. I have to say, really? Then, we’ve got the Labour Party who think it’s fine to give $2.75 million to the Mongrel Mob to run a rehab programme for the meth that they are selling into our communities and that it’s all good. I think it’s nuts, myself.

But then I come back to why it’s so good to be a member of the ACT Party, because we don’t think along those lines. We think along the lines of making sure that personal responsibility for the good, the bad, and the ugly is paramount, and that the victims of crime are looked after.

When I recently heard another quote from Tamatha Paul in the Greens, where she said, “Wellington people do not want to see police officers everywhere, for a lot of people it makes them feel less safe, … it’s that kind of constant visual presence that tells you that you might not be safe there, if there’s heaps of cops.”—what a load of rubbish. That’s absolute rubbish. In a poll that Stuff recently ran, 86 percent of respondents said that police on the street made them feel safer.

Mark Cameron: 86 percent.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: 86 percent. Despite subsequent social media claims that the people supported her, it’s clear that they most definitely do not—not even the people in Christchurch who listened to that member speak about defunding the police and abolishing the prison, because a Star News poll said that 82 percent of those people in Christchurch did not agree with her either. Tamatha Paul went on to say that she didn’t care about the Sensible Sentencing Trust putting up billboards everywhere, because the people are with her. Well, it’s quite obvious that the people were not with her.

Let me tell the Speaker exactly what is happening in law and order, because this Government have made an impact on law and order. Our stats are telling us that unauthorised street and drag racing is down; ram raids are down; violent crime, including acts intended to cause injury, is down; sexual assaults are down; robbery, extortion, and related aggravated robberies are down; and the total victimisations are down. But do you want to know what’s up? Foot patrols around our communities.

Foot patrols are very important in cities like Wellington, where I also reside and am a constituent. When I was walking down the central city of Wellington, especially along Courtenay Place, and speaking to those people that are trying to run small businesses, including one lady in a convenience store—she said to me, “Please, bring back the foot patrol police, we need them here.”, and showed me a video of her being accosted by a person who walked into the shop, picked her up, and threw her against the glass fridges within the shop because that person had been in there earlier that day to place their drugs in there.

Perhaps, the 9 percent of Wellingtonians that do support Tamatha Paul’s movement are the ones that are putting the drugs into the fridge and throwing the people against the walls. It’s not on. While we look at making sure that there is the ability for picking people up, actually bringing everyone down to that standard does not work. So I am pleased to be a part of a coalition Government and a part of a party that will make sure law and order is kept in check.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): “Don’t break my heart, my achy breaky heart”. That was the top song in New Zealand in 1992. Now we heard earlier from the Deputy Prime Minister that his favourite song in 1992 was “Check yourself before you wreck yourself”. My daughter would say the best song to come out of there, or one of them, would be Whitney Houston’s version of “I will always love you”.

But 1992 wasn’t just famous for those songs; 1992 was the last time that New Zealand spent 2 percent of its GPD on the Defence Force. You have to go back through a number of successive Governments, right back to 1992—when some MPs that want to defund the police weren’t even born—to find a Government that put 2 percent into defence. That is what this Government is doing for the first time; for the first time in literally 40 years, it will be that New Zealand will get back to spending 2 percent of GDP, with an injection of $12 billion alone over the next four years. And you have to put that into perspective: we spend just under $5 billion a year on our Defence Force. We’re adding, over the next few years, almost $3 billion extra each year on top of that; almost doubling it in the short term, and by 2032 at that magical 2 percent number.

We’ve heard a number of contributions in the general debate today around Anzac Day, around the significance. And it is absolutely appropriate, as I said in the House last week, that we should be remembering those, particularly those that never returned home and those that came home with scars, both visible and invisible. But one thing that people often say to me on Anzac Day, families of defence, our defence personnel, is: “Now that you’re there, now that you’re in Parliament as an ex-serviceman, you need to not just remember those that have served, but you need to be supporting those who continue to serve today. Those that get out of bed and put on the uniform and serve our country. Make sure they get the support and the funding that they need so that they’ve got the tools to do the job, they’ve got the right people around them to do the job, and they can go and do us proud and look after our country in whatever environment they’re asked to serve.” And that is exactly what this plan has done. I could not be more proud of our Minister of Defence, Judith Collins, along with the Prime Minister, along with our Minister for Veterans, Chris Penk, who have fought hard to secure money for our defence.

This is significant. This is something that a number of people thought would never happen. I’ve had messages just this week from people and some of them were really simple. It said: “From all of us, thank you.” And that is the sentiment out there because this is truly transformational, and it is more than just the flash bits of equipment. Yes, there are new helicopters on their way for the Navy—long overdue. Great that we are committing to doing what should have been done a few years ago. Yes, there are new aircraft, both manned and unmanned, heading our way for the Air Force. And, you know, the number one rule of every operation is the comms will fail, the comms won’t work; and for our Army, new communications, new secure comms, as well as more equipment in the cyber space—information domains. That’s really important.

But this is far more than just about equipment. This is about investing in our people. That’s what someone said to me: “Well, what about the people?” This is all about the people. You know, right now we have Navy ships tied up because we don’t have the people because of the huge and significant attrition that we experienced through 2022-2023, record levels of people leaving our Defence Force because they weren’t being honoured, they weren’t being respected, they weren’t getting what they needed to get the job done. Now it’s coming our way.

You know, we have around 3,000 civilians in the Defence Force; we only have 2,000 sailors in the Navy. It’s all got back to front, and it needs to get fixed up. That’s what this is about doing and it’s about bringing back the people that have left, getting them into uniform where they can deploy and serve their country. That’s what they joined up to do. Let’s let them do it. But we need to support our people—that’s coming. As well as things like defence estate: giving them appropriate barracks to live in, mess facilities, working accommodation, and there’s a lot going into that. It is about recognising our defence personnel.

And most of all this is a sign of support. This is a huge and significant sign of how much our Government, how much the National Party, back our Defence Force, how much we value the role that they play in our community. Whether it’s a flood, whether it’s search and rescue, an earthquake, an island exploding off the coast where we have to send people into harm’s way. It might be a cyclone in the Pacific, it could be peacekeeping or conflict around the world. We support them and there is not a more tangible way than what we announced this week in the Defence Capability Plan to show the value we have. I’ve lived through this. I’ve been there when Labour Governments got rid of our air combat force and then the Army said, “Well, we need 40 Light Armoured Vehicles”, “Sure, we’ll buy 105”, most of them parked up in garages. We need to give them the right equipment, we need to give them the right support for the people, and most of all, this is a sign that our Government and the National Party back our Defence Force. This Anzac Day, we’re not just remembering them, we’re supporting them.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. The mood from the opposite side of the House has been quite sombre, if not depressing, today. Even they seem to be miserable under their own governance. That said, amidst all this depression and negativity, there is a beaming ray of hope in Aotearoa right now: Te Ōhanga Māori, the Māori economy. I’ve only held this portfolio for a few weeks, but what an exciting few weeks it has been. Because all the discussions I’ve had about the Māori economy are about hope, future, and action. Having almost doubled in six years, now sitting at just under $126 billion, from farming, forestry, and fisheries to asset holdings, the Māori economy is booming and poised to take the rest of Aotearoa with us.

People want to do business with the only indigenous economy featured on the GDP measure. How exciting is that for Aotearoa? We have the only indigenous economy measured in GDP. Why do they want to work with Māori? Because of the decision-making frameworks Māori businesses have. Māori cannot separate themselves from the whenua, whānau, and whakapapa, therefore ensuring longevity. That’s very attractive when you go into a trade partner; you want a deal for generations, not just for three years, not just for this crop. That’s why, in spite of many, many oppressive laws, Māori are thriving.

This Government is good—really good—at one thing: slogans. The latest being, “Go for growth.” Now, that’s fine on the surface, and I’m glad they’re proud to be good at one thing, and it’s slogans. Ka pai, give yourselves a round of applause. It’s good to see you’ve perked up. They are good at one thing, and that is slogans; the latest being “Go for growth.” That’s very fine on the surface and it’s probably well intended, but I’m not convinced. Because what they fail to recognise is that—as I’ve said before in this House—growth starts at the roots. Growth needs children with full puku. Growth needs whānau with the security of a roof over their heads. So if you’re going for growth and you support the further development of the Māori economy, you need to continue investing in our communities—rather than slashing them at the very roots—that will grow not only the Māori economy, not only communities throughout Aotearoa, but the economy and the GDP of Aotearoa. And it will achieve things the opposite side of the House espouse to support.

What’s good for Māori whānau is good for Aotearoa. Don’t think that this is a separatist initiative. The growth of Māori has invested $32 billion to New Zealand’s economy, to New Zealand’s GDP. So anyone out there who thinks this is a separatist thing, kaua e maharahara [do not worry], there is nothing to fear. By growing the Māori economy further, you’re going to grow Aotearoa, and there’s no stopping. Like I said, Māori are poised and ready to go global.

So to everyone over the generations who has done all the hard work to get the economy to this point, tēnā rawa atu koutou—thank you very much. Take a bow. To our farmers, our foresters, our fisheries officers, our scientists, our innovators, our dreamers, tēnā koutou katoa. And to our rangatahi who are coming forward, kaua e maharahara. As I said, 2026 is the time for change, the time to renew hope, and our future generations can have hope that they will truly be supported to continue growing, to continue to grow your whenua, and to continue to nurture your whānau, which are inseparable.

Heoi anō rā, i runga i tēnā [however, with that], I want to mihi to all the hōia who have gone before us as we head into Anzac Day, those who have inspired hope and growth across generations, e kore koutou e warewaretia [you will not be forgotten]. Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

[We will remember them.]

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 12 March.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the debate was interrupted, we were on call No. 2, which is the National Party.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to talk to the House, and to those watching, on this member’s bill in the name of Laura McClure. Sometimes it’s the way these debates fall, but, unfortunately, Laura spoke to this bill at the last members’ day, so I will sort of, I guess, reintroduce it and give people a little bit of an overview and just explain our position on this bill and where we hope this goes through select committee and what we hear.

Look, the member’s bill in Laura’s name is seeking to amend existing provisions under the Employment Relations Act (ERA) to enable termination of employment through mutual agreement between employer and employee. It allows for protected negotiations—discussions shielded from use in personal grievances—between employers and employees to end their employment relationship. The purpose of it is to help employers and employees avoid costly unfair dismissal or personal grievance processes and claims, reduce legal costs, and more quickly come to a mutually agreed outcome for both parties.

So look, for National, and for a National-led Government of course, we are very much on the side of self-responsibility, individual rights, competitive enterprise—you name it. For us, it’s very important that a workplace has the efficiency and freedom to operate, and is prioritising the relationship between the employer and the employee.

To make some points here, I think the thing that is most interesting to me here is the increased flexibility for employers and employees as described above. Something that we hear often from Opposition, in certain areas where we debate certain issues, is the ability to have an efficient workforce or an efficient labour market. I believe this would add to that. That allows people to be able to move from roles that are not suitable, that they’re not necessarily happy in—for either reason from both parties—rather than going through a difficult process.

Something just to add from a context point of view, I think it’s very important to acknowledge that we have around about 97 percent of our businesses in New Zealand that are small businesses. Small businesses don’t have the resources to have an HR department to go through these, to go through them thoroughly, to go through them properly. The amount of times that people come unstuck because they go through what they think is a normal or a natural process, say what they think needs to be said, and then people walk away and find that there’s an opportunity to take a case through the lack of process being followed, and then it uncovers itself into months, if not years, if not very costly situations for both employer and employee.

So look, I think it’s very important to note that while we support this bill, we really do want to go through a thorough select committee process. We agree to support it to select committee. There are a number of things that we’d be very keen to investigate further and really get some good insight into. I think the importance for us is to understand what the process would look like—timing, the pressure on both parties to go through the process, and what that would look like.

Of course, comparative to international situations—just to mention, of course, the United Kingdom’s protected conversations model, which has demonstrated efficacy in supporting the balanced consensual terminations. It would be very interesting to see this around the rest of the world and, of course, what the international precedent would look like.

Just going back to some other points within existing ERA requirements, currently the ERA—or Employment Relations Act, for those that don’t like acronyms—requires employers to demonstrate a substantive justification, a redundancy misconduct, and comply with strict procedural standards to lawfully terminate employment. There are many businesses that have gone through it. There are many businesses that take other actions to avoid doing that, employees that take other actions to avoid going through those processes, and for many people it ends in more distress, more financial implication, timing implication. Things can get messier and messier.

So I do appreciate the foresight or the thought of the member to bring this to the House, given that while this particular bill is not a coalition agreement, the coalition does have a view that what we want to do is simplify personal grievance procedures, and, of course, this leads to that. This is certainly an aspect of that as well.

Look, something else to add to it, of course, and why we’re really keen to hear from people—because, naturally, when we go through the select committee process, we’re hearing from businesses, we’re hearing from employees, we’ll always hear from people that have gone through difficult situations. We always hear from people that have wished or hoped that something like this would’ve been available when they’d gone through a process. But, of course, we also hear from legal areas, associations, business associations, and it adds significant context. Of course, naturally, the member’s bill process, while not Government bills, you know, we tend to hope that the select committee process irons out a number of kinks and works out the workability which we would hope that this process will determine for us.

Like I mentioned earlier, quite keen to see how the workability of the relationship between the employer and the employee in the process goes through this to avoid any implication of pressure on that process, or the relationship, and what this would do to streamline and smooth out that process as well.

So just to say that, you know, we’re certainly in support of small business, the ability to do what—in this particular case, a mutually agreed process would have us come to that conclusion and give people a far more simple approach. I tell you, some employers, especially in the case of trades, the trade industry—often, the case is that a builder has come up through an apprenticeship, worked for somebody else, created relationships, gone on their own, decided to start a business, gets into a position where they go well enough to employ someone else. They never went through business school; they went through, you know, the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation, let’s just say—got their apprenticeship, earned their stripes, but never studied employment law. Actually, you just about need a PhD thesis to understand the Holidays Act, for one part, and, of course, the rest of the Employment Relations Act—said by Dr Carlos Cheung.

Look, those people are the backbone of our economy, and this is something that we believe, with the right measures in place and making sure that the workability is certainly there and that can be gone through that process, is there to support those people in business that don’t have large HR departments and the funding for legal advice and the ability to work through all this stuff and follow those tick boxes, that have mutual agreement.

I think it’s really important to reinforce that this is not about giving one person more power over the other; it is about supporting and facilitating a mutually agreed process where neither party know where each other stands unless they go through a very complicated and expensive process.

So look, with that, as I mentioned earlier, we support this bill to select committee, really look forward to hearing the submissions. To anybody watching online or thinking about those that they know in business that are watching at home on TV, please get involved in the select committee submission process, because it is very important that we have a wide range of views, experiences, and expertise that are part of that because it does genuinely allow us to see all sides of the coin and what we can do to make sure that we make all of our legislation the best possible. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While it’s normal, and I do congratulate the member Laura McClure for having her bill drawn, it is not something—and I’ll say it straight away—that we, on this side of the House, the Labour Party, will be supporting.

I listened very carefully during the first speech that the member made and I’ve also gone back and read it in Hansard, and there is nothing in there that convinces me that this is in the best interest of employees and, in fact, employers. I listened very carefully to the member and her arguments around this. She talked about how this doesn’t impact on that power imbalance between employers and employees, and I cannot disagree more with that member. There is an absolute inherent power imbalance between employees and employers in an employment situation.

The bill undermines and erodes the fundamental rights of workers, which we are strongly in opposition to. It creates a monumental risk for employees. It is something that there are no parameters on, when an employer can negotiate an employee’s exit. In fact, it takes that power imbalance and makes it stronger—to the employer.

Now, I understand that the member spoke in her first reading speech about small businesses and how this is very much wanted, but the bill itself does not put a parameter around size. It doesn’t talk about this being specifically for small businesses. It is not two sided; it is very much putting that emphasis back onto the employer. The member talked about there maybe being a way that negotiations could happen around exit payments. There’s nothing that talks about minimum exit payments, nothing that talks about representation, and nothing that talks about urgent access to mediation services. And as I say, it doesn’t talk about being there for our smallest businesses.

I see this as being a huge, huge risk to employees. We see it as being a huge risk that really emphasises an equal power dynamic that exists in the employment situation; therefore, the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise, as with the previous member, the Hon Jan Tinetti, sadly to oppose this bill on behalf of the Green Party—congratulating, of course, the member Laura McClure for getting her bill drawn. It’s really great to have your bill drawn as a member of Parliament, especially for someone who—

Laura McClure: First-time MP.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: First term, exactly.

We’re opposing this because, like a lot of ideas this coalition Government has, it has a good idea at the heart of it but they actually seem to fail on the execution front. For example, this Government had adopted the mantra of growing the economy, but they’ve just succeeded in having record levels of unemployment and also having lower growth than we did last year. If that’s what they’re calling growth, I mean, they’ve embraced the de-growth philosophy.

This Government has this whole rhetoric around law and order, but, as my colleague Tamatha Paul has already articulated, they’ve actually defunded the Police by $55 million just in their first Budget as Government. Maybe they’ll double defunding the Police in this Budget. Maybe it’ll be cuts of $110 million this time for the next Budget. [Interruption] Well, finance Minister Nicola Willis said she’s not ruling anything in and out of the Budget, so maybe she’ll make billion-dollar cuts out of the Police. Who knows. We won’t see until the Budget—we won’t see until the Budget.

Look, I’ll get to the crux of this bill. As I said, I think the core at the heart of it is allowing mutual terminations. I mean, that’s not something that anyone’s opposed to. But as people here realise, some things are more or less mutual than others. You know, sometimes you have a breakup and then you call it “mutual” but you’ve actually been dumped because there’s power imbalances across any kind of relationships. [Interruption] It’s like that, you know. I’ve had that as well.

We’ve had the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) provide commentary on this bill. I think I’m very convinced by the argument they make.

Laura McClure: AI?

Mark Cameron: ChatGPT right there.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Yeah. No, no, it’s just old-fashioned notes from my researchers.

There is always a process for employers to engage in mediation with staff. This bill’s not needed to ensure that without prejudice conversations can occur. These occur frequently and play a part in resolving practically all employment issues.

Another employment law specialist, Lane Neave, agrees with the CTU analysis. They state: “There is no apparent limit on when an employer may try to negotiate an employee’s exit and a risk that [the] employee will have limited bargaining power to meaningfully negotiate. Further, by making any evidence of the pre-termination negotiations inadmissible, there is a risk of offers being made that support unjustified conduct that … give rise to a personal grievance save for the protections granted by the Bill.”

While we congratulate the member—and I’m sure all the coalition parties will vote for it anyway, so it will go through anyway—regretfully, we cannot support this legislation. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill in the name of our colleague Laura McClure. I just need to make sure that it’s not a Budget debate that I’m talking about here, and that we are in fact speaking to this bill. I will do my best to stick to the bill.

New Zealand First will support this bill through to the select committee. We will do that in this first reading. We do want to also say that there are some issues that we really want to look at thoroughly in the bill. I note that the explanatory note of the bill says that it’s a “mutual” termination of employment. It says that it will be mutual and even, but we do have a little bit of a concern there that there will be a bit of a power imbalance, and that is why we feel that it’s very important that this is really thoroughly looked at during the select committee process.

Another thing we want to investigate is to ensure that this provision doesn’t already exist—that there isn’t already a means and some way for there to be a mutual agreement in order to end an employment. So we just wanted to really traverse those ideas to ensure that such a provision doesn’t already exist.

The bill does mention that it could be the business owner that is the initiator. So this is where there is a little bit of a concern that it isn’t mutual—it’s a bit like, “I’m not that into you.”, and then, all of a sudden, the other party gets a surprise. So imagine what that’s like in an employment situation.

Tim Costley: Ask Fran.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Ask who?

Tim Costley: Fran.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Oh, right. If that does arise, where an employee is really surprised that the employer wants to go ahead and do something like this, it will make it uncomfortable for the employee to continue on in some way. So there’s one example. We just want to make sure.

Also, in the event that this does go ahead and there is a mutual agreement, it could be that the employee then maybe takes a little bit of time to find new employment if they feel that they were in some way pressured. We also want to ensure that if by chance the employer had that little bit of extra power in the relationship, the employee wasn’t coerced.

These are areas that I know might be rare, but we really do want to ensure that the employee is protected. We want to ensure there is fairness for the employee. We want to advocate for workers, so that is why we really do have a few concerns here. New Zealand First will support the bill to select committee, but we want to encourage not only businesses to make submissions but employees as well—the workers out there. And whilst they may not be able to come in person and give an oral submission, they can do it via Zoom—it’s only five minutes. We really want to hear from people who have felt in some way coerced; we want to hear personal experiences—so that is one thing I would encourage.

Again, congratulations, Laura—very lucky. I had a bit of “FOMO” when I saw this bill get pulled from the ballot, so it’s very nice. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and we commend it.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): E te Mana Whakawā, e ngā mema o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka tū au i runga i te mana o Te Pāti Māori me te tino aroha ki ngā kaimahi e hinga ana i raro i te taumahatanga o tēnei pūnaha.

[Mr Speaker, members of this House, greetings to you all. I stand on the authority of Te Pāti Māori with real compassion for the employees that are dying under the difficulties of this system.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori and the many Māori, Pasifika, and migrant workers across Aotearoa to say we oppose the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill. This bill would allow employers to make cash offers to employees in exchange for silence, silencing the right to raise a personal grievance, to speak their truth, and to hold abusive employers to account.

Let’s be clear: this is a bill that helps bosses harm workers. Believe me; I know. I’ve actually been in this situation. I’ve been a CEO that’s actually used this process, and we think it’s good, but it is actually an imbalance of power, of behaviour, of access to get rid of kaimahi. We think that it’s a great way, but, to be honest, it’s not great for workers, because one minute they’re here and then one minute they can be gone. This is a tool for quiet dismissal. It creates a new legal pathway where an employer can approach a worker and say, “Here’s an offer, here’s some money, leave quietly, and don’t ever speak of this again.” If that worker agrees, under pressure and fear or out of desperation, the law will not allow those negotiations to be used in court.

Who will this harm the most? Well, not the boardroom, not the CEO, not the middle manager; it will be Māori workers, wāhine Māori, rangatahi Māori, and low-wage whānau who will be most affected; those in cleaning jobs, call centres, hospo, and security; the ones without lawyers; the ones living pay cheque to pay cheque. This is who it harms the most. And we know, from generations of experience, when the law gives discretion to the powerful, the powerless get burned. This bill erodes fundamental rights, and we’ve heard from our Labour colleagues about those fundamental rights. It guts the rights to fair recourse, the right to speak out if you are treated badly or unfairly. It undermines the purpose of the Employment Relations Act.

Where is the Treaty in this? Nowhere. This bill was written without Māori, for the employers, by a system that still refuses to see us as decision makers. There is no acknowledgment of mana Māori, of tikanga, or of the collective approach we take to resolving workplace harm. There is no protection for the kaupapa Māori providers, the rangatahi workers, the wāhine leaders who might be pushed out of their mahi with no voice, no support, or no justice. This bill is a quiet legislative lay-off tool.

I ask this House: who benefits when a worker is silenced? Who loses when a mother of three living in emergency housing gets pressured into signing a mutual termination just to get her final pay? What happens to the trust in employment law when justice is made optional? Te Pāti Māori will not support this bill. We cannot support a law that widens the gap between employer and employee. We will not back a policy that opens the door to more Māori losing their jobs in silence with no path to redress. If we are to honour Te Tiriti and uplift the mana of every worker, we will put this bill to the side, where it belongs. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I do congratulate the member Laura McClure for having her member’s bill pulled from the ballot; it’s always an exciting opportunity for a member. Labour won’t be supporting this bill, and I’m going to talk a little bit about some of the experiences I’ve had supporting workers through processes like this, just to explain why I think this is a bill that is not needed. It will cause immense problems for workers and employers, in my view, and it’s a solution looking for a problem. So I’m just going to talk through some of those experiences.

One of the common themes when I was working as a union organiser was members ringing me and telling me that they’d been called into a meeting and told they couldn’t tell anybody about it. They’d been told: “I need you to come and have a quiet word to HR, but don’t tell anybody. You can’t bring anyone. You can’t tell anyone.”

One of the things that the Employment Relations Act explicitly talks about—and I would suggest members on the other side actually look at the Act itself because this bill, in my view, is inconsistent with the Act—the inherent inequality in power in the employment relationship between employer and employee. It is inherent. It’s similar to the power balance you have between a parent and a child; between a landlord and a tenant. These power imbalances are inherent. So—

Mark Cameron: Well, you’re going to have that relationship when someone’s paying wages and someone’s receiving wages.

RACHEL BOYACK: Take a call, Mr Cameron. One of the things I’ve seen in the employment relationship is employees called into meetings, told they can’t tell anyone, discouraged from bringing a support person or a representative—

Laura McClure: But that’s illegal under this, too.

RACHEL BOYACK: It is illegal, and you want to make it legal. That’s the point—That’s kind of the point. It is illegal. It happens all the time, and the member wants to stop it from being illegal and make it legal to have a secret little conversation and get someone to sign away their rights to any kind of process. It’s kind of crazy. That’s my point. You just made my point for me.

One of the things that’s so important about these processes—and, look, I’ve negotiated exit packages, so I have sat around the table and negotiated for people to be able to leave their employment with dignity—is that until you actually get to the point of signing, the conversations are what’s called “without prejudice”, and that’s what the member wants to take away: the “without prejudice” conversation. So they don’t actually mean that you’re getting to a final outcome until such point as you’ve signed on the dotted line. So you never take away that opportunity for the person to take a grievance or, on the other side, for the employer to actually go through with a dismissal.

I had one case where the person who had been sought for a meeting deserved to be dismissed—absolutely, outright deserved to be dismissed. The member sought my support to have his threat of dismissal turn into a resignation. The employer had to think long and hard about whether they wanted to do that, actually. While it was my job to represent that person, looking at it now objectively, from without that situation, given the conduct, I can completely understand why the employer would have wanted to not go through with a secretive-type conversation and actually make sure that this person had a dismissal on their record. So if you’ve entered into a secretive conversation where you can’t, then, continue through what is a good process that protects everybody through that process, it actually has the ability for that employer to not be able to go through with a dismissal.

This is a bill that is, as I’ve said, a solution looking for a problem. It will definitely harm workers. In my view, it takes away good process—in a time of high unemployment where we do sometimes see people being put on the scrap heap, for whatever reason—and it’s easy to discard people without thinking about it. That is a real concern for us on this side of the House. If people want to move people on from their jobs, they need to do it with transparency, following a proper process. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill in the name of Laura McClure, and congratulate her. She’s one of the list MPs based in Banks Peninsula so it’s great to be able to support this discussion.

So the previous speaker, Rachel Boyack, spoke about this bill as a solution looking for a problem. Well, actually, just last week I joined with Minister Penk as we visited a large manufacturer in my electorate. They’ve been growing their business, changing their process, really upping the ante on the productivity that they’ve been developing through their business. Really impressive ways that they’ve adapted their business.

When we sat down and had a chat about how things are going, what we could do as a Government to make things better for businesses, the chair of the board gave an impassioned plea to do something about the industry that has grown up around grievances. Personal grievances and the processes around them have become a minor industry for the legal profession. It’s not surprising to hear employment lawyers speaking passionately against this because by making this process a very quiet, mutually agreeable way that we can get things done and avoid the excess costs of going through and having lawyers involved—that’s what we’re trying to avoid. So of course, all of the unionists and the employment lawyers from the Opposition will speak very passionately about the requirement for employment lawyers to be involved in this.

This is the kind of thing where we can actually sit around and have a reasonable discussion between people who know that this place doesn’t really fit them anymore. They really want to be able to move on, but they want to have some dignity in it. I’ve been an employer and I’ve been involved with having to go through the entirely painful process of performance managing people out, the going through the various times of review and then something will happen—they behave themselves for six months and then they play up again. It’s painful. It’s utterly painful. And everybody who’s an employer in this place knows that the going rate for a personal grievance is about 10 to 15 grand. And most of the time they’re sitting there thinking, “How much can I—are we weighing up?” I would rather just pay them the money; I would pay them to get rid of them. Because the impact of having an employee in a place where they don’t belong, where they are bringing down the morale of other people around them is utterly destructive in a workplace.

This is one thing that actually is truly holding back growth in our businesses. This is something where there is the inability to expand the talent pool, because they’re stuck with people that don’t necessarily fit. They can’t go out and get new people that would fit better because they’re stuck in an employment relationship that is not working. They’re stuck working within the rules that they have, and they can’t get beyond that. So this bill is a sensible change.

We do have some reservations from the National Party. We don’t think it’s perfect. There are some things that we’re concerned that would need to be brought in through amendments to make sure that there are no places for coercion, because we don’t see that as being fair. We don’t want this to be an unfair situation, but we do believe that the processes that exist currently are upsetting the balances. It’s meaning that employers and businesses are not able to move on and grow and develop in the ways that they want.

So the National Party believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility. So this is one of the ways in which we are showing and sticking by our values. This is definitely in line with our party values and I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very interesting to hear that this bill is aligned with the National Party’s values. I think that we should get back to basics here and talk about some of the common goals that we share in this House and some of the common values that we share. One of those, I believe, and I don’t think I’ll hear a lot of debate from the other side on this, is fairness. I think that as New Zealanders we believe that we should have a fair society. So when I take that lens and I look at this bill, I am struck by the inherent unfairness and way that this bill will try and change the way that employment happens in New Zealand.

Just to respond to a couple of comments from the members opposite: the grievance industry that that person was complaining to you about is not about the fact that there are personal grievances. It’s about the fact that there is no regulation on who can take a personal grievance. There are lots of people who are unlicensed, untrained, not lawyers, who take personal grievances on behalf of other people. That is the grievance industry and I am fully in support and in agreement that there should be some regulation around the people who take those claims; people should not be taking valueless claims. But the people that they’re talking about are not trade unions and they’re not lawyers. They’re people who don’t have expertise and who take claims. So that is a separate matter, I believe.

In terms of having someone who is employed by you and it’s hard to performance manage them, I agree, it is sometimes hard to go through a performance management process. But do you know what is harder? Not you, Mr Speaker—does the House know what is even harder than going through a performance management process? Losing your job for no reason at all. Losing your livelihood and the way you make money for absolutely no reason. And this is exactly what this bill allows. The process in this bill is essentially that you can, without any agreement, call or offer someone some money to leave their job. This bill means that if you do that, that can never be brought up again in any employment proceedings at all.

There is a provision that, in that, you need to seek legal advice. The problem with that is the word “seek”. It does not mean “obtain legal advice”, it just means “seek”. We have other laws in New Zealand, like relationship property settlements, which require legal advice before they’re entered into, and I think that would be a much more prudent protective measure to have in a bill like this. So there’s no guarantee that they’ll get any advice; what my colleague Jan Tinetti said is absolutely true.

The second point is if the employee is not interested in that process, then none of that information can be used at all if they are then unfairly dismissed. So you have, essentially, the employer making an offer on one hand and then the employee not agreeing to it; and then on the other hand, the employer then needs to go through an entire process. The whole fundamental basis of that process in New Zealand employment law is the fact that that is not predetermined. If it’s a performance issue, they have to give the employee an opportunity to improve. If it’s a conduct issue, they have to go into the hearing without preconceived ideas. What a farce this bill would make for the very fabric of employment law in New Zealand.

Another very good point that my colleague from New Zealand First Tanya Unkovich made on this bill—and I do commend them for their thoughtful comments on this bill, and I think the Education and Workforce Committee would do well to consider them and perhaps they can look at that based on the evidence, which I’m sure will come out of select committee. The very thoughtful comment that they made is that this may lead to coercion for people who are employees. This is a really, really important factor in this bill and it could mean that people are in a situation where they feel that they’ve got no choice but to leave.

We live in a country that we’re proud of. We don’t have no-fault dismissals—unlike other countries, like in America, where for whatever reason you can be sacked. We proudly do not have laws like this in this country. I just say to the National Party, to the New Zealand First Party, please listen to reason at select committee. Do not vote for this bill. Do not change the fundamental basis of our employment law and allow people—your children, people you know—to be invited into a room and for no reason be told—no “performance reason”, that’s what it says here; there’s not a requirement that there is any performance-related reason to be sacked. This will be a negative—negative—thing for New Zealand. It will destroy people’s confidence, it will destroy families, it will get rid of livelihoods. It’s not needed. You can have without prejudice conversations already. As my colleague said, please vote it down.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take the final call as we commend this bill to the House this afternoon. Unlike my colleagues on the other side of the House, we are willing to take something to select committee that has a foundation for consideration, and that is a bill that’s worth seeing if we can make it work in the context of employment law in New Zealand, and to listen to reasonable feedback. The difference on this side of the House, though, is that when we listen to reasonable feedback, we don’t consider that we already know the answer.

All I’ve heard this afternoon from the time that I’ve been in the House listening to the colleagues on the other side, is that they’ve already made their minds up. They’ve already decided that this isn’t possible—they’ve already decided that this isn’t going to help productivity for business in New Zealand.

What we need in this country is more productivity. We need the ability to earn the taxes to pay for the things that the Government should provide: First World healthcare, First World education, and restoring law and order, including funding the police. In order to do that, we need to be prepared to review our employment laws. This, while not in the coalition agreement and while not a policy position that has already been decided, is something that aligns with something that is referenced in the coalition agreement, and that is looking at how we can simplify a personal grievance. As part of simplifying that, we think that there is potential for this bill to do exactly that. However, we don’t come here with an ideological bent, possibly because of our unionist background; we come with a view that is open to the consideration of the underlying reality that not all employment relationships are the same. Not all businesses are the same, and nor are they of the same size.

So there are some concerns—I have shared them with my colleagues on this side of the House—and there are some areas that we are going to be asking some questions about as we take this bill through the select committee process. Maybe the well-working, well-functioning, well-chaired Education and Workforce Committee will address these and help just strengthen them. I just want to put on record what a couple of those areas are so that the House can look to these in the second reading and see what we have done to address them.

Firstly, where are the boundaries for an off-the-record conversation? When does an off-the-record conversation start, because I think that’s important in the relationship and in the decisions that both employer and employee make. It’s been spoken about this afternoon as though you walk in, someone says that it’s time for one of these chats, and then you’re gone—and it’s a one-sided conversation. Well, this is by mutual agreement, and maybe we need some back-to-basics literacy in the House for some of my colleagues about what “mutual agreement” means. I’m sure that we could take some of our colleagues that aren’t necessarily electorate MPs into some schools and show them what we’re doing to ensure an hour of reading, writing, and arithmetic, as part of ensuring that they understand the concept of mutual agreement. That’s both parties being in agreement to end the employment relationship. But we want to understand, as the National Party, where the boundaries for that off-the-record conversation starts.

The second issue that we will be exploring as part of the select committee process is what a reasonable time frame is for both parties to go away and consider what the offer is. Now, that might have two parts to it. That might be both what is a minimum and maybe what is a maximum, because you can’t get an offer and sit on the offer for a week or two, or a month maybe, while the relationship continues to break down. So there’s going to be a discussion about where that relationship and that time for consideration should land, and I think that anyone who is listening to this debate in the House this afternoon who is looking to submit on this bill could look to give their views on that particular question.

Thirdly, we will be looking at safety rails. What are the safeguards—what are the safety rails—that go around this bill, should it become legislation. We think that it is something that could support business in this country to focus on what we need for all—including higher-paying jobs—and that is productivity. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): A five-minute call in reply—I call Laura McClure.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pretty excited to take the remaining five-minute call on this member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill, and I want to thank, firstly, my coalition partners for their support in taking this to a select committee. It’s excellent, and I think this is going to make a real difference to New Zealand businesses and employees.

Firstly, it’s not a surprise that the Opposition is opposing this bill. I mean, it’s no surprise to all New Zealanders. I don’t think they have actually been out in the community talking to businesses and talking to employees. Hell, I don’t even know if they’ve actually talked to their unions about this bill, because nowhere in this bill does it say that it’s a “fire at will” bill. Nowhere in this bill does it say that tomorrow I can offer you a sum of money and you’ll be coerced to take it. This bill is about having those mutual conversations that we know two parties are grown up enough to be able to sit down and have. The fact that it’s mutual in the first place means that even if an employer offers this out to an employee, to have this conversation, they can say, “No, I don’t want to talk about that.” There is absolutely no way an employee can be coerced into even having this conversation in the first place.

To target some of the points that I heard from the previous members, is there a power imbalance? Inherently, when you are paying somebody to do a job, there will always be some kind of power imbalance. But do you know what is a complete power imbalance right now? It’s employees pushing the boundary to employers and actually breaking the rules just enough that maybe they may get fired, maybe they may not, and the employers going through the process, if you’re a small business, and maybe you don’t follow something to a T—maybe you do follow it to a T—and then you have these “no-win, no-fee” guys out there come along and they say to a business, “Hey, we believe there might be a case for a personal grievance. This person here wants $20,000.”, and you’ve got these businesses saying, “Are you serious? This employee has given me grief for the last year.” But do you know what? They pay them to go away. They actually pay them because they’re afraid of what the process might be next. They’re absolutely terrified of what that process might be. On this side of the House, we live in the real world, so we know that this is a problem. No good employer would get rid of a good employee. There is absolutely no incentive to do that.

Do I agree that there are some potential concerns with this bill? A hundred percent I do. I want to acknowledge those concerns, and I’m pretty positive about what we could have at the select committee. There could be some timings suggested. We don’t want any pressure, and we want to make sure that these things are addressed. So I agree that there are some little weak points within this piece of legislation. But it’s a member’s bill—it’s a member’s bill—and it’s around the idea that we need to make it easier to do business in this country.

I was hearing quite a few different things coming from the Opposition, around eroding workers’ rights and all these convoluted things that employers might do to employees, but do you know what erodes an employee’s rights? Having to go through a performance review when you know that, actually, there’s a relationship breakdown between yourself and your manager. You know they’re trying to get rid of you, and you have to go through those steps anyway. What happens when you know that your company is restructuring you out, yet you’ve got to show up to work? We know that we’ve got things in place for this, it’s called going against your employer for a personal grievance (PG). But employers are using these mechanisms to move people on, because they’re unable to just have an adult conversation, a conversation about what it may mean for them to move on.

We’re not saying, “Hey, we want your job—see you later.” We’re actually saying, “Hey, we acknowledge that it’s hard out there. We acknowledge you may need to go through some steps to get other employment. We’re going to compensate you for that.” That is the right way to do it, and, do you know, the amount of conversations I’ve had with employees about this bill—nearly all of them, or I would say that 98 percent of those employees who had been through a PG, been through restructure processes, and been through performance management reviews, all said to me that had their employer approached them at the start and said, “These are the problems we’re having. This is an offer I’d make for you to leave your employment.”, they would have taken that because their reputation would be intact, their dignity would be intact, and they’d have something to actually walk away with.

I mean, that side of the House seems to think that low and middle income employees are going to be actually completely destroyed by this. Low and middle income employees in New Zealand often don’t even have redundancy packages or clauses in their agreements anymore, so how can they walk away with some coin in the hand and some dignity, and actually move on?

I look forward to having the select committee work on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

It is a privilege to rise in support of this bill, the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, which proposes a simple but meaningful change to increase the age at which New Zealanders may request automatic excusal from jury duty from 65 to 72. This is a targeted amendment to the Juries Act 1981 but one that carries wider implications for fairness, civic participation, and the evolving demographics of our country.

At present, any person aged 65 or over may ask to be excused from jury duty either for that specific summons or permanently, and that request is automatically granted. This may have been appropriate several decades ago, but it no longer reflects the reality of life today. Kiwis are living longer, staying healthier, and continuing to contribute meaningfully to society, well past the age of 65. In fact, I need look no further than my own mum. She’s passed that age—though, I should add, she certainly doesn’t look it—and she’s still working, still active, still capable, and still eager to contribute.

The current law sends the wrong message that once you turn 65, your civic responsibility ends, that there is no longer an expectation that you contribute to the judicial system or share the burden of justice with your fellow citizens. That’s not the message that we should be sending.

We also know that it has practical effects. With so many automatic excusals from age 65, courts must issue more summonses just to fill the jury pool. That is an inefficient use of our administrative resources. It is time that we updated the law.

The choice of 72 was not made lightly. A number of potential thresholds were considered. I expect and encourage the Justice Committee to consider this question in depth. The age of 72 reflects a considered and balanced approach. In New Zealand, judges must retire at 70 under the Senior Courts Act 2016 but may serve further on limited-term contracts up to the age of 75. That acknowledges their continued capacity while still maintaining boundaries. Most relevant to the proposal in this bill is the retirement age of the Ombudsman, which is set at 72. That informed the drafting of the bill. It is an example of a public-facing role that values and places value on experience, maturity, and sound judgment—qualities that are also vital in a jury.

Internationally, though, there is a spectrum of age exemptions. In England and Wales, 76 is the upper limit for jury service, with those over 70 being able to seek excusal. In Scotland, people over the age of 71 may be excused upon request. In Australia, five states [Music plays from Opposition member’s phone] and territories allow those aged 70 or over to permit permanent excusal. I feel like I’ve got my nana or grandad opposite me at the moment trying to use their cellphone! Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory all allow those over the age of 70 to seek excusal on a permanent basis. Western Australia takes a stricter approach: those over the age of 75 are simply ineligible. In the United States, some states such as Hawaii, South Dakota, and Maine allow excusal from jury duty at the age of 80.

So the age of 72 places us in the middle of a reasonable and global spectrum. It reinforces civic participation without placing undue expectation on our seniors—such as those who have just left the House. Let me be clear: this bill does not compel anyone over the age of 65 to serve; it simply lifts the age of automatic excusal, preserving the ability for any individual to still request an exemption if they have a valid reason.

The proposal did not originate from an academic paper; it came from the front lines of our justice system. In October 2024, I visited the Auckland High Court with the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. During that visit, Ministry of Justice staff raised the issue directly. The volume of excusals of those over the age of 65 was placing strain on registrars and making it harder to fill the jury benches. It is a practical, sensible suggestion that they made; one that stuck with me and led directly to this bill.

The bill makes a single, targeted change: amending sections 15 and 15A of the Juries Act 1981 to lift the age at which the registrar must excuse a person, on request, from 65 to 72. Anyone aged 72 or older will still be able to request an excusal, either for that particular summons or on a permanent basis.

The expected benefits are twofold. Firstly, it broadens the pool of jurors, including New Zealanders aged 65 to 72 and it adds valuable life experience, insight, and maturity to our jury benches. Second, it reduces the strain on court administration. Around 47 percent of excusals are currently granted purely based on the age of the applicant. Even a modest reduction in that number would represent a meaningful improvement in court operations. It is a small but practical change, part of a broader effort to restore confidence in law and order in this country.

As the member of Parliament for Whanganui—including Whanganui, South Taranaki, and Stratford—I regularly meet with constituents over the age of 65 who are still working, volunteering, running organisations, and making an impact. Their contributions are extraordinary. This bill says to them, “We see you, we value you, and we trust you to play your part in one of the most important civic duties there is.”, and that is jury service.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard-working Justice Committee, who, hopefully, following a vote in this House, will take this bill forward. I am confident that they will bring their usual rigour, insight, and care to examining this piece of legislation.

While other issues have also been raised with me regarding our jury system and jury duty—and there have been a number through this process that constituents, that people who have heard about this bill since it was pulled from the biscuit tin have raised with me—this bill itself has a very narrow scope, simply reviewing the age of automatic excusal. It is a focused reform, and the committee’s work will be vital in refining it further, and, as I said, exploring that exact age that would be appropriate in a New Zealand context today.

This is a simple change; a change that reflects the evolving realities of New Zealand society. It updates our laws to match our demographics. It honours the role that mature Kiwis still play and it strengthens the fairness and representativeness of our jury system. I urge all members of this House to support the first reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Let us recognise the changing face of our nation. Let us share the responsibility of justice and let us send a message that every generation, including those over the age of 65, has a role to play in upholding the law. I commend the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, may I just congratulate Carl Bates, who is in charge of this bill, for speaking for 10 minutes on a bill that does nothing more than raise the age of excusal from 65 to 72.

It’s not a bad bill. I’ll put you out of your misery; we’re going to support it. But of all the ways in which we could make New Zealand better, this member has chosen to raise the age at which someone can tap out of jury service. That’s it. Well, you know, you have another bill in the ballot. I hope you can do something a little more ambitious next time.

Juries are important because it’s the idea that ultimately, if we’re in trouble with the law, we’re judged by our peers. One of the important things about juries is that they’re representative. So I’m absolutely fine with people up to 72 being compelled to be summoned for jury service. But I tell you what, if we really want to have a representative jury, we probably should look at the $31 a half-day that they’re paid, because if you’re going to take a day off work, $31 a half-day doesn’t cut it. Or you could look at the fact that childcare is capped at $80 a day. If you want mums and dads to come along and serve on juries, and we do, we want to have a look at that as well and ensure that actual costs of childcare are covered and not just a token amount, or even as much as providing lunch. So if you get to serve on a jury and it goes over lunch, you’ve got to bring your own lunch.

Now, there are some pretty simple fixes, because the danger is—and we know this from juries, I’ve been in courts and seen juries selected—people who serve on juries are skewed towards people with spare time, people to whom it’s interesting and they haven’t got a job to hold down, or a child needs attention and can’t be put in care. So we do actually already have a skew towards older people who’ve got time on their hands.

So, yeah, we’re very happy for this bill to go through. I’m pretty sure it’ll get through the House. It probably won’t trouble the Justice Committee for too long either, but if we’re going to have juries that are truly representative from all sections of the community—not just those that can take a few days off—we really need to address the wider questions in juries as well. That’s a job that I’d encourage the Government to do. Kia ora.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with some of the points that have been made by the mover of this bill, Carl Bates. I’ve served on juries a couple of times—it’s quite a tough experience—and I’ve also been excused once or twice. I felt the role of being a mayor, leading the long-term plan, probably was a reasonable excuse and they agreed. I also appreciate the fact that experience, life experience, and age is no barrier—we already have no maximum age for serving on a jury, and I think that’s great.

It’s quite interesting, if I heard the member opposite correctly, that you can’t be on a US jury over 75. One could think they might be able to apply that a little bit more generally to important public roles, but I like the idea that there should be no upper limits—obviously, I like the idea that there should be no upper limits. But which generation is under-represented in juries? Is it the greyer generation that is under-represented in juries? I don’t think so.

My colleague from Labour, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, made some excellent points about the fairly shabby remuneration for jury service and the difficulties of childcare, and, in fact, the sheer unpredictability of how long one’s jury service might go on.

It doesn’t seem to me to have strong evidence as to whether it should be 65, 72, 103; whether there should be automatic right of refusal, if you like, at any particular age. But given our retirement age is 65—unless the member was suggesting that also move to 72—then why not pick an age that we already have generally accepted by the general population? I personally think that the Ombudsman and District Court judge ages and so on—of 72—I think that’s a bit young. I think there are plenty of people who are capable of contributing well past that—not that I’m there yet.

I note that, as far as I know, Grey Power doesn’t have an official position on this issue but generally feel that retirees should be able to recuse themselves from jury duty.

It’s not the worst bill in the universe, but is it really the best use of our time for governance? Should we be sending it to select committee without a really clear case for the time and energy to be engaged in this? At this stage, we say we will not be supporting it.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate the member in charge, Carl Bates—great to see that your bill has been drawn and it’s here for the first reading, and we really look forward to seeing the outcome of this bill going through the select committee process.

I’ve heard from members from the other side that this bill is a very simple bill, and sometimes those are the kind of things we need to do. It’s the simple things that can add efficiency, and that is what this bill is about, adding that efficiency to our justice system. As we have heard that 40 percent—47 percent, actually, of excusals are granted because of a juror’s age; juror being over 65, the person who is summoned to be juror is over 65. And that creates a lot of work for the registrar because when they deal with so many excusals, they have to then approach more people. And sometimes, I have heard, the numbers of people, those who approached, are multiple times more than the numbers of people who are needed. So imagine the kind of admin work that is needed to ensure that our justice system is able to work in a manner that it should. And having people, those who are over 65, coming and serving as jurors and basically lifting the automatic excusal age from 65 to 72 actually creates that window where more people of that age bracket between 65 and 72 can come and be jurors. And of course, excusal will be available as the member in charge has described in his opening speech—that for some reason, medical reason or any other reason, if that individual cannot be a juror, those kinds of things will be taken into consideration.

I have spoken to so many people who are summoned for jury service, and I have heard different kind of views. Views not about the actual experience of being a juror, but about them being summoned. So there is a lot of anxiety amongst people because all of a sudden when they see that they have to do jury duty—which is very important part for our justice system and it’s our role as citizens, except some people, those who are exempted from that role—to serve as jurors when they are summoned. But then people have responsibilities: young families have children and then there are sometimes elderly people in the family to take care of, sometimes the job commitments are such that they find it really hard. So it’s not excusals coming from only people who are over 65; there are a lot of other people applying for excusals as well on the basis of other grounds.

So we can imagine the workload for registrar to ensure that jury benches have enough people to conduct the trial. And the trial needs to happen in a fair manner. And jurors should reflect our community. And we know that we are living longer and there are a lot of people out there after retiring at the age of 65, they would still like to contribute in whichever way they can. And giving them the opportunity to contribute by being a juror, I’m sure our people, our senior citizens would be really proud of doing that.

It’s really important to note that, yes, there are some examples from other countries, but our country, if you look at the population in that age group, the ageing population is increasing. So we need to take those factors into consideration as well. And there is a lot of desire amongst older people to do a bit of work, not full time maybe, but do a bit of work that they really like, and they really enjoy. And I’m sure that our seniors really want to be part of our justice system, make the contribution to make our communities safer. Because when people are on a jury, everything is based on facts. The evidence needs to be taken into consideration. There is no place for emotion in there. It all needs to be based on facts. So that experience of dealing with things, we know that sometimes it comes with age, and those are the kind of attributes that we can definitely utilise amongst our older people on jury service.

So this is actually a good bill. It is to improve the efficiency of our justice system. And I really want to congratulate, again, the member in charge, Carl Bates, for bringing this bill to the House. The ACT Party commends this bill. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the member Carl Bates on this bill and how it’s been put together. It is in fact quite simple. It increases the age from 65 to the proposed 72, and I think that, as the member has said in his introduction today, this is something we’ll discuss at the select committee. And as I’m a member of the hard-working Justice Committee, it will be another bill that we will put our minds to—whether that age should sit at 72. The member has given some reasons around that, but the select committee process will also give the submitters the opportunity to look at that age and give some feedback, and I think that will be quite valuable.

Just reading the existing legislation at the moment, I found it really confusing. At the moment, in section 15(2) of the principal Act, the Juries Act, there is the term “must excuse”. To me, from my Resource Management Act background, “must” would mean that you cannot sit if you’re over 65. But then the existing legislation goes on to another section, section 15A(2), where it says that a written application will permanently excuse a person. So it seems that if you’re already over the age of 65, you’re excluded, but you can also write and be excluded, and I don’t quite get the concept there, so it will be for officials to explain the current legislation and how that matches together and, if we use that same terminology in this bill, just how that actually works.

I did want to tell a story about being on a jury, because it’s something that I’ve always wanted to be a part of, and in my life experience so far, every time I get the call to jury service, I’ve been Marlborough district councillor or for certain reasons haven’t been able to serve. I had the unusual experience on becoming an MP of being asked to be on a jury—prior to becoming an MP and obviously then being here as an MP and then trying to explain through writing some letters that I was no longer eligible because, as the Speaker and other members would know, we can’t sit as jurors. It ended up being quite an episode because, as you write letters and wait for responses, and with the post and the way that worked it was right on the narrow edge of possibly having to be there. But I was like, “I’m excluded. I’m excluded.” I couldn’t use the excuse of being over 65, so that was something, but that was the story there. Hopefully, increasing the age to 72 means that with a few more runs on my age, I might finally get to sit on a jury one day.

As the member in charge of the bill has said, there is a narrow scope to this and what it is actually asking, and I gather, after the story I just told, that there will be a number of people out there with similar jury stories and they may also possibly ask for the scope of this to be widened. But as we find through the Business Committee, the scope of what we’ll be looking at will be the age increase.

The member in charge of the bill has also said that just finding the numbers of people to sit on juries is harder, and I know sometimes they have to go through a number of different applications or requested a lot of different people before they can actually fill a jury. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this bill. The first thing I’d like to say is that I don’t have a conflict of interest. I just want to be clear about that. But I would like to offer my congratulations to Carl Bates for getting his first bill drawn from the “biscuit tin”, as he described it. It’s always a momentous occasion, and it’s wonderful that you’ve had that opportunity.

I think it’s probably unfair to say it’s a pretty simple bill. It is in a sense, because it does raise the age. But I think the significance of this is that juries, at the moment, have a lot of trouble getting sufficient people to actually turn up, and it is actually dealing with a very practical issue. So I congratulate the member for thinking about this and working his way through the deliberations around the actual age group. But I think it is an important issue, and I think he should be congratulated from that perspective.

The issue, of course, is whether 72 is right, or 70, or whatever it might be. I know that Mr Bates talked about the reference in New Zealand to judges at 70 but the ability to get a limited service contract up to 75, or Ombudsman, which you struck. There are other senior roles, but obviously the 72 is where you’ve landed, and that’s what the Justice Committee will be thinking. And you’ve noted what’s happened in Australia and America; we’re obviously somewhere in between. Which are good references points to what I think the Justice Committee’s going to have to deliberate on. I think where he struck the balance probably sounds right.

I think the important thing that the member did highlight is, at the moment, by having an arbitrary 65 age limit at which you could automatically be excluded, it actually does rob older people of the right to participate in our judicial system. I think it’s a pretty important principle. What people probably don’t appreciate is that the average life expectancy of New Zealanders has increased by broadly one year for every decade over the last 40 years; or in other terms, a month for every year that we’ve lived for the last 40-odd years. So bringing this into that scope recognises that people are living longer in New Zealand, as they are around the world. I think it is viable, and a good proposition, and I think, ultimately, we’re going to get a better outcome. Because as the member expressed, what we draw on by inviting and allowing older people—not old, older—people to participate is they bring experience, they bring maturity, and, as he said, “sound judgment”. So on that basis, I support the bill, and look forward to seeing it being debated in the Justice Committee.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise today to speak in support of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. It’s a modest yet meaningful change to our justice system. This bill seeks to increase the age at which a person may be automatically excused from jury service from 65 to 72. Sounds like a practical change to me, grounded in demographic realities and social expectations, and so we’re OK with it.

I mean, at its heart, the bill recognises that society is changing. People are living longer, working longer, and also engaging in public life for more years than ever before. So the idea that 65 suddenly looks a lot closer now to me, and should that be the cut-off point of participation in civic life—that doesn’t seem quite right. So something as fundamental as jury service; this seems to be outdated, so it’s a good amendment.

I’m interested to know or iron it out through the submissions process that the Justice Committee hear from many 73-, 74-, and 75-year-olds who might also want to participate. An interesting fact I’ve got here is that in the 2023 census, there were actually 466,000 New Zealanders aged between 65 and 74, and that’s a 35 percent increase on 2013 stats. So there’s a whole lot more people who will be able to partake in jury service.

There have been some reservations. We know that if we have more people from an older demographic, what impact that will have on juries. I’m sure there’ll be lots of good submissions from places like the legal fraternities that come together to put their heads together on what the impacts will be on the justice system. We look forward to hearing those submissions and understanding what other impacts it might have.

From a practical standpoint, it also potentially has some fiscal benefits, fewer automatic excusals, and less delays potentially if there are issues around getting people for a jury. So this seems to be a good place to be. In terms of what it does for our justice system, it’s not a radical overhaul in any way, but it does modernise the current system in a smart and thoughtful way, and it reflects today that people do stay engaged for a long time in their later years.

We support this bill because we believe in participation, we believe in inclusion, and we also believe in a justice system that evolves alongside of the society it serves. I commend the bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and contribute to this first reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of my good friend Carl Bates, the MP for Whanganui, who’s sitting to my right. I’ll tell you what: he’s a right-hand man because he’s a man of action. If I may, Mr Speaker, earlier across the House we heard someone struggle with their phone and the song “This Is How We Do It” by Montell Jordan played over and over on their phone. And “This Is How We Do It” in Carl Bates’ style: when he sees a problem, it’s a call to action to him to find a solution.

My friend Mr Bates spoke about how when he was visiting a courthouse with the Hon Paul Goldsmith last year, there was kōrero from the staff there about one of the shortfalls is if only they could have more people that are more ready to participate in jury duty. Carl Bates saw that, heard that, and “This Is How We Do It”. He wrote a member’s bill straight away, and I’m so glad that this member’s bill was drawn out of that biscuit tin that we refer to a lot in this House.

Now, essentially, the principal Act with which this bill is seeking to amend is the Juries Act 1981—I was one year old when that was passed. What we’ve heard so far is what we’re trying to do, and what Mr Bates is trying to push forward with, is that anyone; a person—we’re lifting the age with respect to jury duty from when they can be automatically exempt from the age of 65 to the age of 72.

I’m sure that my colleagues across the House, like myself, have been in a situation where people have shared their jury duty war stories, how much they’ve enjoyed participating in that civil duty where they’ve had a direct contribution to the determination as to whether someone was guilty of an act or not. It really is—for a lot of people that I’ve heard from—somewhat of a thrill in their lives. It saddens me to hear that the member across the House from the Green Party—Celia Wade-Brown—is not supporting this bill which brings so many of our elderly and our wise people enjoyment as they are in their twilight years.

I really appreciate how my colleague Carl Bates reflected on why the age of 72; what’s brought him to this decision to push for taking up the age from 65 to 72. As he said, it’s not arbitrary; it was quite a considered choice. In part of this consideration, he compared benchmarks here in New Zealand and he looked at the international examples. Thank you, Carl Bates, for reflecting on that and for sharing with us how you came to that Goldilocks sweet number of 72. I concur and I tautoko your conclusion with respect to that age.

Also, I really appreciate how Mr Bates spoke about how this change will bring about efficiency with the administration of our court operation. It’s quite an alarming figure that 47 percent of excusals currently are based on age. So being the man of action, showing that “This Is How We Do It”—to quote Montell Jordan—he saw that problem, he researched it, and then he said, “Let’s make a change”. You put your heart out there when you put a member’s bill in the members’ tin. I’m very glad and privileged that my one was drawn out a few days after my maiden speech last year, and I know the feeling that there’s something you’re passionate about and seeing it progress across the House.

I’m grateful that, so far, we’ve had support across the House—except for the Greens that, for some reason, feel that people don’t want to contribute to society after the age of 65. My mother’s in her early 70s and she says to me she’ll retire when she dies. I don’t like hearing it, but that’s essentially what she says to me and that’s the way that she’s raised me.

Finally, I’d love to quote the Lebanese poet Gibran Khalil Gibran: “Seek ye counsel of the aged, for their eyes have looked on the faces of the years and their ears have hardened to the voices of life. Even if their counsel is displeasing to you, pay heed to them.” I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I’d just like to say that I’m standing here speaking as the Labour Party spokesperson on courts, not as someone directly affected by this bill. I’d just like to make that quite clear right from the start. Also, I’m someone that is probably very unlikely to end up on a jury where I could be called, being an ex - police officer and an ex-MP. It would be the equivalent of me turning up with an RSA badge on my jacket. Any lawyer with challenges would very quickly isolate me out from the herd. So I say that to make sure there is no vested interest, no conflict of interest in speaking about this, a very sensible little change. Congratulations to the member Carl Bates for having this drawn.

Of course, having sat through a few jury trials as the officer in charge of the case, some interesting things happen to jury trials as the trials go on, particularly if you get a homicide trial, a long robbery trial, or a sex trial that might go on for several weeks. The jury becomes a very important part of this—well, obviously, the most important part of it because they’re going to make the final decision. But when you’re sitting in a courtroom—and, actually, there’s a lot of comings and goings but there are certain people that remain the same for all those weeks that a court case can go on. The officer in charge of the case will be one, the judge will be one, the defence will be one, and some of the court staff will be one; those people will be there and consistent. But that jury is sitting there, and everyone in the room, as others come and go, witnesses come and go, various other combatants—participants—in the trial, there develops a certain affinity between everyone in the room. And that’s where maturity on a jury actually really does become quite important. And you’ll see people look—they’ll start looking at different people in the room.

Good lawyers will know how to work jurors. Good prosecutors aren’t allowed to, they have to be much more, shall we say, within the rules. They’ve got to make sure that they don’t get involved in any of that. But a good lawyer you’ll see will very quickly work out who’s the juror that they need to work on. Often it’ll be one of the younger ones and they will know full well and by two or three days into the trial everyone will have worked it out just by where the jury is sitting. Often, those first two or three days, they might even take different seats in the jury room. But after about two or three days, you’ll find they’re all sitting in the same place and that’s when the games really do start in that courtroom. We shouldn’t probably really be talking about games because we’re talking about very real decisions that people are going to be making in response. But it is really a contest of wills, and the jurors are very important part of it.

That’s why it’s so important to get people that are happy to be there. The last thing anyone wants on the jury, whether they’re the defendant, whether they’re the prosecutor, whether they’re the defence, is someone who really does not want to be on that jury, who had hoped—they’d come along, they’d worn the right clothes, they thought that they would get challenged and they didn’t. They’ve probably got places they need to be. And they are the people that most people don’t want to have on that jury because they are more likely to influence the jury. They’re more likely to make decisions that go against justice.

The other thing around juries I’d like to say, too, is that I had a very good lesson: I used to be a detective in the Wairarapa—my very good friend Kieran McAnulty’s territory, although I don’t believe that we ever did meet professionally over there, Mr McAnulty. But one thing I learnt: we had great difficulty in getting jury decisions, and there was one particular lawyer who was very successful at getting them off. At one stage, we in the Wairarapa had—80 percent of the jury trials in the Wellington High Court were from the Wairarapa, that’s how busy we were. And when this lawyer finally headed off to London on some junket that he never returned from, he said, “Your problem over there, the reason why the juries will not convict is because every time during the trial it becomes quite clear that you as the detective know or have had previous dealings with the defendant. And as soon as you do that, a Wellington jury will instantly degrade the case down to something between the cop and the detective and it will diminish it in their brain.” He said, “You guys should be taking your jury trials to Palmerston North, where the provincial people understand much more about the way things happen.”

So I’ll hand back over to—speaking of the provinces—the member from Whanganui, who will no doubt sum up this trial. But yes, a good little piece of legislation, and congratulations.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that commendation. Thank you to all the parties across the House that are supporting this Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. There were some interesting contributions made, however, during that discussion, particularly from some members of the Opposition. I found the very first contribution from the Labour Party particularly interesting, because while noting that it was a narrow bill, while suggesting potentially that it was a little simple, while maybe suggesting that I didn’t need to take 10 minutes to explain it, the member spoke for approximately seven minutes and didn’t even address the one question that I asked in relation to the bill.

So, hopefully, during the select committee process, that member will be more focused on the question at heart, which is what the exact age should be: whether it should be 72 or if there is a more appropriate age. To that end, there’s also sort of a suggestion that maybe it’s not quite as meaningful as requiring the House’s attention. And I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for acknowledging the meaningful role this bill will have; I want to acknowledge my colleague on the Justice Committee the Hon Ginny Andersen for also acknowledging that this is modest but meaningful.

However, what is interesting is the number of speakers who sort of suggested that once you’re over the age of 65—or 72, when it gets changed—you no longer have to turn up. Well, that’s actually not what the law says, and that’s exactly why we need to lift the expectation from 65 to 72, because people expect at the age of 65 that they no longer need to show up. That is actually not what the law says. The law says you have the right to request excusal. And that has resulted in far too many people thinking that they no longer have a requirement to deliver their civic duty of turning up and being on a jury. That is exactly why we need to address this small, narrow problem as part of our focus on restoring law and order in this country.

What I found particularly interesting was the Greens’ view, which seemed to wander between “We don’t need age limits because that’s ageist.” through to “We should have jury duty at the age of 65 being allowed to say I don’t want to show up because I’m 65 and I’m retired now.” I’d be interested in the Greens’ view on whether voters should retire at 65, because that’s a civic duty. I’d be interested in the view as to whether or not the Greens think that criminals retire at 65, you know, or maybe some of their members, whether they should retire at 65 because it’s a civic duty. I’m sure that’s not their opinion, and so I am somewhat puzzled by the position they have taken on this bill, which is that 65 is OK and we should leave it at that and move on. But we might see how it goes at select committee. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and we will see that opinion change when this bill returns to the House later in the legislative process.

I was, however, somewhat disappointed not to have a call taken by Te Pāti Māori and be able to hear their perspective on the bill, because I think that there is an important demographic that they often claim they represent as though none of us do. But, you know, clearly I’m here as the member of Parliament for Whanganui because there is a demographic that voted for me, including a demographic that they claim stake on. But it was unfortunate that we didn’t have the opportunity to hear their position on this bill this evening.

I want to just acknowledge my wonderful colleague Rima Nakhle, who referred to the detailed comparison and benchmarking I’ve done on this bill in proposing the age of 72 to the House. Maybe it is the accountant in me that did that work and looked at the numbers. The numbers that also reflect, as I said earlier, that 47 percent of excusals right now are simply on the basis of age. It is something that we will have the opportunity to address in this House.

I want to thank those that are supporting this bill to select committee. Thank you for your contributions. I look forward to working with the Justice Committee as we delve into that age question in a little bit more detail. And, of course, I commend this again to the House.

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

Debate interrupted.

Fire Drill

Fire Drill

SPEAKER: The House is suspended until the bells ring again. We must evacuate the building. Everyone in the gallery must follow the instructions of the gallery and security staff.

Sitting suspended from 5.32 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, when the House suspended for the fire alarm at 5.30, we had not concluded the vote on the first reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, so I will put that question again.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill

First Reading

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I move, That the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

I, first of all, want to thank Adrian Rurawhe and Marja Lubeck for bringing this bill to the House, and I have inherited it from them. This bill is, essentially, about making sure that New Zealand workers have enough to eat and can actually provide for their families. In New Zealand, we’ve had a real issue with keeping our wages up, and we’ve ended up with a gap between rich and poor that is a real concern. But I want to just go through how we got there before I go to how this bill tries to address that situation.

In the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, the real wages of New Zealanders fell 25 percent. In the mid-2000s to 2010—

Grant McCallum: Who was in power then?

HELEN WHITE: Yes, I take the point from the speaker who just interrupted. He said, “Who was this?” I think this is something that actually every—every—party in this House has to face. What has happened in this country, with regard to wages, has been a disaster for our people. It has ended up with a situation where people cannot meet their ordinary bills. In a cost of living crisis, we need to face that fact—all of our parties—and we need to put it right. So I’d like to continue.

In the mid-2000s to 2010, there was modest growth of real wages, but there was much less growth of wages than there was of productivity. There wasn’t a decent share of that wealth with the workers of this country. In 2023, we get the first real average, ordinary time increase—6.9 percent—and that’s not perfect, but it looks like something is going right for workers in this country. Let’s talk about what that really means in terms of wages. In June 2024, the median wage of a man in this country is $33.56. The median wage of a woman in this country is $32.08 per hour.

The work that I did as an employment lawyer got me across a lot of different industries. I saw the difference for people who earned well and had all the respect that came with that and had all the self-dignity that came with that. I worked for industries like the Dairy Workers Union. The dairy workers earn good money, and they’re about 98 percent unionised. It’s a really good business, but it shares with its workers the actual profit in that way. Ninety-eight percent unionised meant good terms and conditions. That was something where the workers of this country participate in the wealth. But I also had other industries, which were not well organised and didn’t have that kind of agreement, and some of those were the labour hire companies. They did not earn well, and as a result, the Government ends up topping up those wages. But also, people live in a state of constant insecurity. They’re the people who go to the supermarket and can’t necessarily get what they need to feed their families. It’s a constant state of stress.

What this bill does is say that for people who are in a triangular relationship, which is a relationship where there is an employer—say it’s the port—and then there’s a labour hire company on site—say it’s a stevedoring company—if they don’t actually have a contract of their own, a collective agreement, but they’re doing the same work as the port workers when they’re brought in, they are entitled to ask to be on those terms and conditions that the primary employer is actually offering its own workers. It’s just a way of making sure that workers doing the same work get the same pay.

And what could possibly be wrong with that? An employer signed a collective agreement saying it can pay $40 an hour to its workers. If it brings in labour to do exactly the same work and they do not have the protection of that agreement, they should be offering the same money. And that’s the difference between a decent wage and one that won’t pay the bills. That’s what is achieved in this piece of legislation, and I ask all the parties in this House to really consider that. Do we want a New Zealand where we’ve got a constant dipping down of wages to the lowest common denominator, or is it time for us to use what we have in this House, the ability to structure the way that people work in a way that means that people can work with dignity, they can pay their bills? That’s what this is about today. It would make a difference to all those workers who are coming in in that second tier. It would make a difference to their families.

We talk a lot in this House about self-responsibility. It comes up a lot. Well, I know that my life is a lot easier simply because I know that I have a decent income. It means I can pay my mortgage. It means I can plan for the future. The labour hire people who would be most affected by this—that’s our cleaners, that’s our seagulls, that’s all those kinds of people who come in and top up in our medical areas. Often, it’s our health workers. All those areas of sort of second-tier workers coming into a workforce which is already controlled and it is already a workplace where people are doing the same work—they will have a real bonus if you vote for this tonight. They will be able to earn the same money that that employer can clearly afford.

It stops a use of contract labour which is not desirable from anyone’s point of view. That use is to undermine the amount of wages that they share with their workforce. That’s what it does. It stops that misuse. And it means that New Zealand workers can survive on their own two feet. They’re doing the same work. That labour hire person is standing there next to someone doing exactly the same work, and they should be entitled to the same pay. It’s as simple as that. So I ask you tonight to think about our role in setting the system up, making sure that people are on a level playing field, but I also ask you to think about whether you could make ends meet on the kinds of money we’re talking about here. It is often the difference between $40 and minimum wage. That’s the reality.

What actually ends up happening is that, if people earn a decent amount, they have a decent KiwiSaver; we don’t end up picking up the pieces in our criminal system, in our welfare system, and, actually, at the end of their working career, at the time of their retirement. So we will be doing this country a favour, but we will also be doing all the families and workers who depend on this work a favour if we just adopt this tonight. Thus, I ask you to support this bill to its first reading. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill. I read the title out because you could be forgiven for not knowing what this bill was about. The member who spoke prior to me, Helen White, talked a lot about increasing wages and really taking aim at labour hire companies. Really, this does something quite different to that based on what the bill is proposing. It’s very, very niche, and if the purpose, based on what the previous speaker has said, is to increase wages, surely there are many other ways to achieve this other than targeting labour hire companies in such a way.

It is our firm belief that this will have a far more perverse impact on small businesses. Yes, there might be large companies that make use of labour hire companies, whether it’s a port, whether it’s a mill. There are various reasons why companies engage with contractors, but at the end of the day, this is going to change the behaviour, the way the contractors operate, and that is going to have a strong onflow effect.

I will just run members through it. This bill seeks to ensure that employees employed by one employer but working under the control or direction of another business or organisation—for those that don’t understand what a triangular relationship is—are not deprived of the right to coverage of a collective agreement covering the work being performed for that other business or organisation. Now, that’s making the assumption that those labour hire companies are then contracting out their workers to companies that have staff covered by a collective agreement. That’s not always the case. But, of course, now those labour hire companies are going to have to change their behaviour, if this bill were to become law, in situations that aren’t covered by collective agreements, because they’re going to have to apply the same terms and conditions across all of the workplaces that they work with.

The purpose of this bill, as is written in the bill—but not obviously stated to us in the House by the previous speaker—is to provide greater security and rights to workers in such arrangements by ensuring that collective bargaining rights are extended beyond the direct employer in the employment relationship. So to hear that it’s about driving up wages makes me think that this is a solution looking for a problem, as is often the case with members’ bills from the opposite side.

We just want to go through some of these potential perverse outcomes, which I think are really important to run through because I think it’s important for people to understand. A very niche bill can only do one thing and that is take aim at an industry, and that is exactly what this is doing. That industry exists because there is a need for it. It is a need to serve businesses whose seasonal work ebbs and flows, whose contracts ebb and flow, and who need to take on contractors. All this is going to do is hamstring them and make our productivity more problematic, which is the opposite.

So this is, as I mentioned, likely to disproportionately affect small businesses and employers who rely on labour hire contractors. That is exactly the opposite of what we want to do.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! If the Opposition members want to have a conversation between themselves, can they please take it out into the lobby, thank you. I’m sorry for interrupting the member.

KATIE NIMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we often get the chance to say, at the moment, National’s values are of limited government and personal responsibility. And again, this bill is another step in the direction of overstepping government, getting involved in the relationship between the employer and the employee, which we do not agree on. More to the point, our focus on productivity and economic growth would tell us that we need to oppose this bill, because it’s likely to impose unreasonable burdens on businesses.

Now, again, what this is going to do is change the behaviour, the way we contract an event and the way we contract seasonal work, and all of these things are absolutely necessary to our economy—to our tourism economy, to our horticultural economy. Every time we engage in this kind of work, it is for a reason. The Opposition are trying to make it sound like people use contractors to get away with having to use proper terms and conditions for their staff—it is completely baseless.

Come to Hawke’s Bay for a summer harvest and see why they have to use labour hire contractors for the seasonal work. Go to a wonderful concert, whether it’s at Eden Park in Auckland or whether it’s a Mission concert in Taradale—these are seasonal event-based contracts that need this kind of employment relationship.

Now, we always talk about the unintended consequences because these niche bills that aim to do one thing actually end up doing a number of others. As it stands, it means that if an employee is a union member and their work falls under a collective agreement that that employer is party to, the employer can be bound by that agreement and enforce that agreement against the employer, against the employer’s preference, against the employer’s structure of employment. Now it’s going to then bring in those businesses into a collective agreement relationship, whether it’s bargaining. A company that has no involvement in a third party’s collective agreement or union arrangements then becomes involved.

There are so many companies around New Zealand that do this as a service to our productive economy, to give employees freedom and flexibility, and, actually, in so many cases, the fact that they are working contract hours—they are working and earning more than others because they are on a contract arrangement. I would love to know the research behind the assumption that every person working for a labour hire company is earning significantly less. Because that is not the case.

So at the end of the day—and we have made this very clear—this is not a bill we support. This is a solution looking for a problem, and all we see this doing is discouraging businesses from hiring workers through third-party organisations. It is taking aim at an industry. It will have a perverse impact on small businesses. It will affect the seasonal and event-based industries that we thrive on in New Zealand and that are the backbone of most of our economies, especially in the regions, and this is a very important thing for us to make clear.

We do not commend this bill to the House, we do not recommend that it go to select committee, and with that I will take my seat.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens, in support of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill in the name of Helen White, and I acknowledge the previous members who she received this bill from, as well. The Greens see this as a practical, targeted reform that addresses a growing issue in our workforce, which is the exploitation of workers in triangular employment relationships.

I do want to agree with the member Helen White in terms of her comments around the inadequacy of the minimum wage and how wages are going down in real terms. We’ve just had the new minimum wage come in, and the increase is a measly 35c—it’s a measly 35c; $23.50 is what that is. What are workers going to do with their 35c? Actually, what we should be talking about in this context—in all of the contexts—is the living wage.

Here I want to acknowledge the Unite union. I had the honour and privilege of attending one of their Poverty is No Joke, 1 April, union gatherings. I’m sure some of the members on this side of the House were able to spend some time with them, talking about the living wage, as well. So I wanted to put my acknowledgment of that on the record.

For those that don’t know what the living wage is: “A Living Wage is the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as active citizens in society.” So this is what we should be focusing on, folks.

Under the current law, we have workers who are technically employed by one company but are based under the direction of another, often through labour hire firms. We heard some comments from both sides of the House about that. They can miss out on the protections of a collective agreement. So what that means, for the people that are listening, is that someone can do exactly the same job as their workmates, under the same conditions, and they might be excluded from union protections just because of who signs their contract. That’s not right—that’s not right at all. So this bill seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act to fix that.

It does that in two ways, as I understand it. It expands the definition of employees who can be covered by a collective agreement to include those in triangular employment relationships. It seems straightforward and a sensible thing to do, to me. It also ensures that if those workers are union workers, they can benefit from the terms and protections of a collective agreement already in place at the workplace that they’re directed by. So if you have a bunch of workers at a particular place and you’ve got one lot on a collective agreement, another lot come in and they’re doing exactly the same job, surely for a hard day’s work, a fair day’s pay, they should be getting all the same conditions. It’s this kind of pitting workers against each other which is why real wages are being driven down. That is something that this particular corner of the House—and I’m sure I can say that for the other Opposition parties as well—will oppose.

This is something that falls within the ambit of our workplace policy, which is that we support legislative protection for people employed by labour hire agencies and preventing triangular relationships from being used to dodge workplace rights. That’s the corner here: that people are going to try to find kind of nifty ways, via contracting, to not pay people properly. So this is what, I think, the member is trying to do, and that is something that the Greens will certainly support.

This is, I think, also about equity. Labour hire and triangular relationships are disproportionately used in sectors that rely on Māori, on Pasifika, and on migrant workers, often low-paid sectors. So making sure that there are those protections in place is really, really important for Māori, Pasifika, and low-paid migrants. So we will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill, which is a member’s bill, Helen White’s bill. Congratulations for the bill being drawn from the ballot.

We gave thorough consideration to this bill and we have concluded that we will not be supporting this bill. We are not supporting this bill because we know that this bill is actually not going to do what the member thinks; it is actually going to be contrary to what the member thinks. It’s actually going to create a lot of implications for employers—and employees, as well. What this bill does is, basically, it just extends the powers of unions to third parties in triangular work relationships.

What we note is that the policy statement of this bill says it “seeks to ensure that employees employed by one employer but working under the control or direction of another business or organisation are not deprived of the right to coverage of a collective agreement covering the work being performed for that other business or organisation.” So here this bill actually really undermines the flexibility that we have in our labour market through triangular work arrangements that exist. Also, there is this assumption that somehow anybody who is employed should be in full-time and permanent employment; there should be no casual contracts and there should be no temporary filling up of positions.

But the reality is quite different from both sides. From the employer side, sometimes employers need some positions to be filled on a temporary basis because there might be a sick leave that has come up, all of a sudden, and there is a position that needs to be filled that cannot be left without any person being at that position. For example, receptionists are important at businesses and some admin work people are important at businesses. And also, for employees, a lot of people become employees of labour hire companies only because they want flexibility. We know that people’s circumstances vary. Some people might have responsibilities like young children or maybe an elderly person they’re looking after. Or it could be just a matter of choice and that they don’t want to work full time, 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, or seven days. That kind of flexibility should be available to employees and that kind of flexibility is available through the triangular arrangements that work.

So this bill, as I said, is going to deliver contrary to what the member thinks. This bill is not going to deliver anything in regard to pay parity. But what it will do is it will create more cost for employees because if there is a claim, there are then two parties to deal with that claim rather than one party to deal with that claim. When there are two parties involved, we know it is going to take longer, it is going to be expensive, and there is going to be this big legal risk that the employee will have to go through as well. So we do not believe it’s going to deliver for employees. As I’ve said, we know that it is going to deliver for unions, because this bill is just about extending the powers of unions to third parties.

We see that there are a lot of potential economic and operational risks with this bill if it goes through. We also know that labour hire companies actually do a great job. They fill in that gap that is needed in the labour market. With this legislation going forward—if it goes forward—then some companies, to avoid or to mitigate this cost that I have talked about before of that extended period of dealing with the claim, instead of two parties involved, those who can deal with it in a quicker manner, now, with this bill, if it goes through, there will be three parties. So, obviously, the process is going to take longer.

To avoid that there might be some businesses who would go out and try to hire staff directly instead of going through labour hire companies. So it’s not going to actually help the labour hire companies that the member cited. Actually, it is going to provide a lot of disadvantage to labour hire companies because they won’t be able to survive because there will be businesses not wanting to hire staff through labour hire companies. It’s very important that flexibility is important, because what we want to see is—we want to improve efficiency. We want to improve productivity, and that comes with the flexibility that we have in the labour market. Making things rigid and making everything about unions is not going to improve efficiency and it’s not going to improve productivity.

So we need to be mindful of this, that unions, of course, they come in between the employer and employees. But employees can talk directly to employers if there are any issues, they don’t need to always pick up the phone and call a third person to get involved to resolve any issues they might have with the employers. So we do not support this bill because this bill is not going to deliver what actually the member thinks it’s going to deliver. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): It’s a pleasure to rise for New Zealand First on this particular Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First always takes a very fair perspective on these bills. We agree with the member—Helen White—that’s proposing the bill. We do want to see real wages rising in this country, but we also quite profoundly believe in flexibility in the labour market. So I guess we try to balance those two aspects out. We have modestly described ourselves as Switzerland in these issues between the great blocs of the left and the right.

We have previously supported the primary Act that came to pass in 2019. I was actually on the Education and Workforce Committee when that bill came through and it was clear that we did have to tidy up these triangular employment relationships. That particular bill gave some accountability to the labour hiring company, to their workers, so that when they were contracted out, they could not be badly treated and not have any comeback on the actual labour hire company. So it did clarify some of those terms and conditions. We’re proud to bring that forward. We heard some pretty disturbing stories, as I recall, on that committee. Jan Tinetti was on that committee as well and that was a good bill. That was a bill that identified a problem and put forward a solution.

However, we believe on balance this time that the flexibility in the labour market that contract work and that these labour hire companies and those arrangements add to the employment ecosystem; that’s important. It’s really important. There are businesses that need to scale up for short periods of time. We heard Katie Nimon talking about the horticultural sector. It is probably the biggest user of these types of contracts. That’s an absolutely fair and reasonable and good thing to have within our employment relations ecosystem.

So we don’t want to add complexity into that, to add a three-way type thing where there’s all of a sudden a collective agreement with a third party that’s separate or in addition to the relatively simple mechanism that we have now where the labour hire company and the employee are the mechanisms that fit together, that’s where the employment relationship is, and then they are contracted out separately to a third-party employer.

So it is quite a simple arrangement now. We think this adds unnecessary complexity. We have not seen any evidence presented to date that this will add to wages, to what would be our primary driver if we were to support this to lift wages, because I think in a lot of times these temporary workers are actually paid—there’s a premium. To get someone in at short notice, you actually have to pay a premium. So those workers are very valuable to those businesses that need some surge capacity, so often there will be a premium. So what actually is the evidence here is that some are paid in net. We are actually making some gains in adding this extra complexity.

We don’t think that bar has been crossed by the member in bringing this bill forward, as well-intentioned as it is. There might be a suspicion that, as some of my colleagues over here have alluded to, this is more about appeasing a union base and trying to gain them more influence—which is fair enough; they are the Labour Party after all—but it doesn’t mean that we necessarily have to buy into that narrative or into that purpose. So on balance, we think this bill adds complexity to something that’s relatively straightforward, if possible, for a not defined outcome. So New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I stand this evening as the spokesperson for workers’ rights for Te Pāti Māori but also as a wahine Māori and as a grandmother, a mother, and a daughter of a hapori who carries the weight of the country on their backs in the hospitals, on the building sites, in the factories, and in the fields.

This bill, the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill, might sound technical on the surface, but, make no mistake, it goes right to the heart of mana tangata: the dignity, worth, and rights of every worker across Aotearoa. Right now, too many of our whānau are stuck in the shadows of the employment system, not because they don’t work hard and not because they lack skills, but because the system was never built to protect them. The bill seeks to change that.

Let me put a human face to this issue. Let me tell you about Hēmi. Hēmi is a Māori labourer. He’s employed by a labour hire agency. He does the same mahi as everybody else on the construction site. Every day, he walks on to the construction site run by a large firm—let’s call it Big Build Ltd. Hēmi doesn’t wear a different uniform and he’s not doing easier work, but, in fact, he’s hauling the same timber, pouring the same concrete, and taking the same risks as the workers directly employed by Big Build Ltd. But while those Big Build workers are covered by a union collective agreement with higher pay rates, proper cultural leave, and overtime compensation and safety protections, Hēmi gets none of that. Why? Because, he’s technically employed by someone else. He is doing the same mahi in the same direction, and is treated as less than. That’s the injustice, and that’s exactly what this bill addresses.

Under this bill, if Hēmi is a union member and he is doing work that falls under a collective agreement of the controlling company, then that agreement should apply to him. No more back doors for employers to undercut workers, no more tiered workforce, and no more treating contractors as disposable labour.

Let me be very clear: this bill comes at a time when workers’ rights in Aotearoa are under full-scale attack. Since this Government took power in 2023, we have seen the repeal of fair pay agreements, a move that stripped away collective bargaining power; they’ve brought back the 90-day trial periods for all businesses, allowing any employer to fire a worker without cause or consequence; they’ve proposed removing the right to challenge unjustified dismissal for those earning over $180,000, setting a dangerous precedent that links rights to income; and, more recently, they’ve introduced changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme that will deepen the exploitation of migrant workers—workers who already face tough conditions in the orchards and the vineyards of this country. These changes will make it harder for those workers to leave abusive jobs or to speak out about mistreatment, trapping them in silence.

These actions are not isolated; they are coordinated ideological attacks on the working class, on tangata whenua, on migrants, on women—on those with the least power and the most to lose.

Because we believe in kotahitanga and collective strength and because we believe in a future where every worker—no matter where they come from or who they work for—has the right to dignity, protection, and fair treatment, to every Hēmi out there, this bill says, “We see you, we value you, and we will fight for you.” Te Pāti Māori stands in full support of this bill, and we call on every member of this House to stand with the workers across Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start by acknowledging my colleague Helen White and congratulate her on bringing this bill to the House; and, prior to her, my colleague Adrian Rurawhe who had the bill drawn from the ballot; but really, really want to acknowledge former colleague Marja Lubeck, who saw some issues in the triangular relationship and had this bill drafted to ensure that we were moving in the right direction.

I’d like to just say that, yes, I was part of that select committee that the member the Hon Mark Patterson mentioned, and I think you’re right about 2019. We did hear, during that time, some terrible, terrible stories around what was happening in that triangular relationship. We heard about people who were entering into workforces where they were alongside people who were on collective agreements, doing exactly the same work—exactly the same work—and earning less money but being treated, as the member rightly pointed out, with terrible conditions and much worse conditions.

At that time, we sorted that out, but there is still something missing—and that is the pay conditions. It is not right that two people can be working on the same work site and doing exactly the same job and earning completely different pay. That is fundamentally wrong in this country, and that needs to be sorted. If this bill doesn’t go through tonight, then I would hope that members would collectively come together and think of a solution. Because it is absolutely wrong.

To say that “Oh, it’s not really happening; companies aren’t doing that.”, that is wrong as well. We, unfortunately, have some companies—and I’m not saying all companies—who are going through and making the promises through collective agreement bargaining and then, unfortunately, using labour hire companies to then withdraw on their promises that they made throughout that collective bargaining time. That is fundamentally wrong. We need to protect our workers. We need to protect them to ensure that they have the same rights, the same pay as the workers doing the same job as them in the same company.

Now, to say that “The collective agreement is extending the rights of the collective agreement to all is just not right” is unbelievable to me. The collective agreement protects workers’ rights and pay conditions. It stops the race to the bottom. It stops workers being exploited. Surely every single member in this House wants to see workers protected. Yes, we want to see growth, but we want to see the workers protected—growth not at the expense of workers. So I urge people to think carefully about that; I urge people to think that if this doesn’t go through tonight, we still have a problem tomorrow and it still needs a solution. Thank you.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I get to the matter at hand, I just thought it was appropriate to thank the member of the press gallery who’s retiring very shortly, Claire Trevett. I think she’s done a great job at servicing our democracy. So she’s now got her name officially on Hansard. There we go.

To the matter at hand—

Hon David Parker: What did you say about the cow?

GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! No, I’m not going to say that, Hon David Parker—that’s not the part that she would want in Hansard. Ha, ha! Very good, thank you—no.

Look, let’s get to the guts of the matter here. I find it really ironic that I’m standing here now after having the mover of the bill stand up and talk about the damage that was done to people’s wages in the late 1980s. Well, guess who was in power in the late 80s? Oh, that’s right: it was the Labour Party. It was a Labour Government, and that is what the mover was referring to. At that point, by the way, they had compulsory unionism, and let’s not kid ourselves here: this is, by stealth, trying to quietly bring back more and more compulsion around the union movement. So I just have to wonder: who actually wrote this member’s bill? Ooh, might it be the Council of Trade Unions? I would have to think there’s a high chance of that, wouldn’t you?

What are we going to achieve by actually bringing this in? Well, the member talked about the cost of living and the struggles that workers have because of situations like this. Well, actually, what affects the cost of living more than anything else? Inflation. When this Government came into power, the inflation rate was over 7 percent. That’s what makes it hard for households to balance their budgets.

The other thing that we had to deal with was high interest rates. That makes the mortgage payments high and high rents, and those are the sorts of things that will make a real difference to people, not just fiddling around with trying to bring back compulsory unionism by stealth.

If we go back and think about that, you know, the challenges that we would have if we went down this track of trying to work out who gets paid what for what, in a lot of cases when you employ contract labour like that, you end up—because it’s a short-term employment, you pay them more. That is so often the case; I’ve seen it happen many, many times.

You’ve got to remember, also: who is actually going to be the group that’s going to struggle the most with dealing with these issues, working out what they can and can’t do? I’ll tell you who it’ll be: it’ll be small business, because it’s small business that struggle, that have to deal with more paperwork, more red tape. Of course, that is what the Opposition specialise in: bringing in things to make it harder for business and to introduce more red tape. That will not advance the cause of workers, and it will certainly not advance the cause of businesses.

And guess what? Employees need successful businesses, and for a business to employ a contract worker, it means that they have to be doing well. You want your businesses to do well; you don’t want to make it harder for them and make restrictions on them growing. So that is something we have to keep in mind—really, really important.

But I just would like to remind everyone that we are in the Government that is focused on the things that really matter, which is growing the real wages of people and, as we’ve said, getting inflation under control and getting interest rates down. That is what is actually making a difference in this country, not bringing in this extra red tape so that we can then, by stealth, bring back compulsory unionism by stealth. That is not what we need in this country.

Hon James Meager: No.

GRANT McCALLUM: I certainly hear that support from this side of the House, and I thank the support of the other parties to do what we have to do with this bill, and that is to kick it back—back into the dim, dark past where it belongs. On that note, I do not commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a call on this bill tonight, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Helen White for bringing it to the House. I want to take a moment to just counter some of the comments that have been made from the other side, that, quite frankly, are just really, really wrong.

So I might start, first of all—and I do acknowledge the member from New Zealand First the Hon Mark Patterson, and I acknowledge that New Zealand First have supported a bill that was brought by the Labour Party recently. I do acknowledge that. There’s one particular area in his speech that I wanted to follow up on, and that was around the cost to employers, in that employers pay a premium for labour hire workers. They do. They pay a premium to the labour hire company. My experience having—and I’ll get to some of the types of employers that use labour hire companies, because, again, there’s been some interesting facts presented from the other side that I’d say actually aren’t factual. Yes, employers do pay a premium for labour hire workers. But that doesn’t get passed to the worker. There’s a ticket-clipping exercise for the labour hire company. And the experience I’ve had is talking to workers who are standing alongside permanent employees who are being paid less, but the employer is actually paying more for that worker because there is a percentage being passed on to the labour hire company. So that’s the first thing.

Related to that, I wanted to talk about the time frames that these people are working for these companies. I have spoken to workers, actual workers in my electorate, who have worked for the same labour hire company at the same large sawmill in Nelson for years—years. This is not about seasonal work. The seasonal workers in Nelson at Sealord are actually part of a collective agreement, for the record. So Katie Nimon could come and learn a little bit about that. But we’re talking about large sawmills, working there for years, the sawmill paying more money than they would to a permanent employee through a labour hire company. The most recent examples of this in Nelson have actually been exploited migrant workers. So it was in the employer’s interest to leave those people working for a labour hire company. Unfortunately, those workers are then unable to access the visas they need. So there’s a whole system tied up here that actually leads to exploitation. So I just want to counter some of the arguments presented on the other side with actually what happens in the real world.

Other members talked about choice. I’ve never, ever, ever talked to a labour hire worker—and I’ve talked to many of them—who doesn’t want a permanent job, who hasn’t asked the employer to be employed permanently.

Hon Karen Chhour: I was a labour worker. Didn’t want a permanent job.

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, you often haven’t talked to them! I’ve talked to lots of them in my electorate. They work in processing companies, they work in fish processing, they work for sawmills, they work in the horticulture sector. They want permanent employment. This is not about a choice. They go to a labour hire company as the choice of last resort.

The last thing is that there’s been a lot of comment about this hurting small businesses, and that it’s going to add all this red tape. The member’s been very clear: this only applies when a collective agreement is in place, and the majority of collective agreements are at large employers. It doesn’t add any other, extra party to this. All it’s doing is implying the same wages and conditions, so that John who’s standing here working in the sawmill, and Jane standing next to him, doing the same job, get the same pay. Katie Nimon started to talk about, “How dare we talk about lifting wages?”. Well, for goodness’ sake! We’re the Labour Party. We believe in people being paid a decent wage for a fair day’s work. That’s what we stand for. That’s why I’m a member of the Labour Party. That’s why I am a Labour MP. Because I fundamentally believe that if an employer can afford to pay somebody the same for doing the same day’s work, they should do that. And an employer who’s paying a premium to a labour hire company, literally for years, can actually afford to take that person on permanently and pay them the proper wages and conditions.

Laura McClure: They usually do, when they’re good.

RACHEL BOYACK: The funny thing is, I’ve talked to so many of them and actually done this as a job for years. They don’t. They actually don’t. This law needs to change. Congratulations to Helen White, and I’d encourage Mark Patterson to maybe rethink New Zealand First’s position, because I think you’ve made the wrong call on this one, mate, and I know we can get you there tonight.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill this evening. Whenever we talk about employment law in this House—anything to do with workers, with businesses, with employment relationships—the Opposition couches it as “We’re for the worker, and everyone else isn’t.” They couch it as “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.”, which we agree with. The difference is we don’t think we know exactly what that amount of money is for every employee in the country. We don’t believe we should be getting in the middle of the employment relationship and telling the employee, “Hey, this is what you should negotiate with your boss.” Nor do we think we should be getting in there and telling the employer, “This is the way you’ve got to run your business.”

Surprisingly enough, you can choose not to take a side in the debate. You can choose to be for New Zealand. You can choose to take views on what’s right in terms of employment law. You can choose to determine what’s right in an employment relationship in the context of what is right for a place we call home, for a place we call New Zealand.

We believe that people have the right to make choices themselves, that businesses have the right to negotiate, and, ultimately, we want them doing this to the benefit of this country. We want productivity and we want growth in New Zealand, and this bill counters that. This bill goes against that. This bill adds red tape. You hear the Labour Party want to say, “Hey, we don’t know what that red tape is.” Well, all of a sudden, every small business in New Zealand that is providing some form of labour to other employers for a temporary basis has to go, “Hold on a minute. What’s your relationship with your employer? What’s your relationship with your employee? Do we now have to pay our staff more because you’ve got some different relationship with your employees?”

I’d be interested to know: if the Labour Party thought that those employees were earning more than the employees at the controlling employer’s workplace, would it go the other way? Or does Labour have a one-way view on the cost of employment and a one-way view on productivity—downwards, of course—in this country?

Earlier in this discussion, Labour couched this as being about putting food on the table. Do you know what? I’m getting a bit sick of the Opposition talking about their interest in the average New Zealander, when they voted against things that literally put money on the table of those employees in this House last year. Tax cuts, tax cuts and tax relief, for the average New Zealander who would have then been helped by, supposedly, in their opinion, this bill. They could have just avoided the complication that this bill would bring to this House and simply voted for tax relief and put more money in the pockets of the average worker. But no, they chose not to do that because they think that they know best. They think they know best for the employee. They think they can get their head into the game of every employment relationship in this country and make it not only more complicated but make the decision for business, make the decision for employees.

On this side of the House, we have a different view. We have a view that we need to create employment relationships in this country that can be negotiated between employers and employees and can help us grow the average wage, the average salary, the productivity of this nation.

There is a role that flexibility plays for employees and for employers. There is a need for employment relationships that aren’t fixed, that allow what they are calling controlling employers to have employees come for a season, for a short period of time; maybe sometimes that’s for a long period of time—I don’t know what the business decision or the employment relationship decision is behind that particular example, because I’m not trying to get in the heads of every employer in the country and tell them how they need to run their business. And I’m not trying to get in the heads of every employee in this country who chooses to work for one of these businesses—and it is a choice. It is a choice that they make, and therefore we do not commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you for the contributions that everybody has made tonight. I remember an employer coming to talk to me in my capacity as an employment lawyer, and they wanted to know what they needed to pay workers in New Zealand who they were employing for a short time. They, first of all, asked what they had to pay for their casual workforce. I told them “Well, actually, there’s the minimum wage, but you don’t have to pay them anything extra.” They were shocked because, in Australia, they pay them 20 percent more and they have an award so people get paid on top of the award and then they get a weighting for being a casual. Then, they asked me what they would have to pay them for things like holidays. There was so little in the pot for workers in this country, I was ashamed and they were shocked—they were completely shocked at how little they had to pay our workers.

I tried to tell a story from the 1980s through to now in New Zealand about what has happened to wage growth in this country. The only part of that that the current Government were interested in was a bit that didn’t actually land on their watch. That was the only part they wanted to know about. That seems to me a little bit like arrogance, doesn’t it? We are supposed to learn from history. We are supposed to learn what works and what doesn’t. What did this country in, in a big way, was the Employment Contracts Act because it failed to recognise the reality of life, and, actually, it damaged New Zealand and New Zealand workers to such an extent that we are still mopping up—we are still mopping up.

This was supposed to be a little bit of that mop up, because what it said was that workers doing the same work who were being hired by labour hire companies could actually opt to go on the same terms and conditions. We were told that it was complicated and it was red tape. Well, I’m sorry, how silly are people? That’s not red tape. We have employment in this country, and it’s pretty simple: you calculate the amount that you pay the hire company based on the terms and conditions you pay your own workforce. That isn’t that hard. Our employers are pretty much smart enough to do that. That way, people who are doing that work can pay their bills. They can pay and, actually, the taxpayer doesn’t have to top them up. That is actually what’s really happening.

There is this myth that somehow the National Party are the people who understand economics. This shows the problem with the myth—it shows the problem—because it’s false economy if you underpay workers, if they never get a share of the wealth of the country, and it all goes offshore and it all goes to the 1 percent, then we end up with a mess of a country. We end up with crime. We end up with mental health issues. We end up with violence. We end up with all of those things because it is a very stressful place to live. It might not happen on somebody’s farm that they inherited from their parents in the North—it might not happen there—and it might not even happen for their kids, but it’s happening to our kids in this country. It’s happening because they cannot pay their bills. So this was actually an attempt to do that tonight, just a little nudge that people are paid the same amount. It’s not that hard.

When I was once involved as a lawyer out at the steel mill, they had something called an equalisation clause. It worked in a very similar way. It said, “If you come on site and you’re a contractor, you should be paid the same amount as the people who are there.” Guess what! Actually, the world didn’t cave in. We still made steel. People just got paid a decent amount. People retired better.

We need to start being smart in this House and stop this absolute garbage, that fills the head, of an ideology that just cannot see past the word “union”, because that’s what’s going on. Thank you for listening to me.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Collective Agreements in Triangular Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

In a week’s time, people will be going to bars and restaurants and the supermarket, and they will be able to purchase alcohol like any other day of the week. And then the following day, they won’t. And then the next day, they will. And the following day, they won’t. The question has to be asked: why? Why is it that on Easter Sunday and Good Friday there are different rules that regulate how alcohol can be served than any other day of the year? In fact, there are 3½ days: there’s Christmas Day as well and there’s Anzac Day morning, but given the proximity to Easter, I will focus on that.

It seems that this rule is in place because it always has been, and that’s not really a good reason to have a rule. On every other day of the year, the distribution of alcohol is essentially determined on health grounds. The rules by which a liquor licence is decided and the conditions under which an establishment can serve alcohol is heavily influenced by health considerations. But it’s not on these days.

If I wanted to go to the pub on Good Friday, I would have to buy a meal to have a drink. The same applies to Easter Sunday. Why is that? Why is it that hospitality workers have to concern themselves with monitoring what people eat in order to do their job that they are more than capable and highly skilled at doing every other day of the year? This bill will address that.

Cameron Luxton: It’s because Labour voted, as a bloc, down a bill that would have fixed it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Now, I expected this. I expected the ACT Party to heckle this, because I understand they’re disappointed that Cameron Luxton’s bill got voted down. I get it.

This is an example of all the other attempts to change these rules. Every other attempt has gone beyond what Parliament is willing to accept, because it’s not actually as simple as liquor licensing rules with all the other bills that have been put forward. They’ve looked at trading laws and they’ve looked at labour laws. This bill does neither of those things—it is about the sale and supply of alcohol, and that’s it.

In preparation for this debate, I looked through the speeches of Mr Luxton’s bill. There were broad ranges of concern and opposition to it. The Labour Party didn’t support it because we don’t support any changes to what is, essentially, for most workers, guaranteed days off. We also don’t support any changes around labour laws in that. There were also concerns by members of Parliament that liberalising alcohol laws is bad for the community. I don’t agree with that and will explain why this bill doesn’t do that in a moment. There were also concerns by members because of their personal religious beliefs, which I respect but I’m going to touch on that first.

Easter is a Christian holiday. I am Catholic—I’m not a very good Catholic, but I’m still Catholic. I attend Mass at Easter and at Christmas. At no point in my religion—and, in fact, most; the vast majority of Christian religions—does it prohibit you from drinking alcohol on Good Friday or Easter Sunday. I’m not going to eat meat on Good Friday. Would this Parliament support a ban on serving meat in this country on Good Friday? Of course it wouldn’t. But exactly the same logic applies here.

On Easter Sunday, when I leave Mass, I will have hot cross buns. Then I’ll have lunch and I’ll crack open a beer. I’ve done this every year since I was 18—and, if I’m honest, probably a couple of years before that. But what is wrong with that? If these rules are determined on religious grounds, yet the religion that has led to the holiday doesn’t prevent the consumption of alcohol, what is the logic behind this? There is none.

I respect those that hold views that would lead them to not want to consume alcohol on those days—absolutely respect that. But what about those people that don’t hold those views? Why should they be prevented?

The same goes for Anzac Day morning. There is a restriction on the serving of alcohol on the morning of Anzac Day. But what this has led to is that RSAs have had to apply for special licences to serve rum in the coffee to veterans. Surely that is considered counter-productive?

On Christmas Day, the same logic applies, although I’ll put this to the House: if members wish to send this to select committee and they have reservations about Christmas Day, I’m happy to negotiate. We’ve got to be pragmatic. I have no problem with it, but when you look at all the other examples of attempts to change these rules that have failed in this Parliament, we’ve got to try and meet in the middle.

Cameron Luxton: Oh, what!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: If members have an issue on Christmas Day—Cameron Luxton just needs to get over it. His bill was different, and it didn’t have the support. This bill is completely different to what he put forward. I put it to him that if he really wanted his bill to pass, support this one. But don’t begrudge me because yours didn’t pass.

This bill here is actually going to fix an anomaly in the law. This bill doesn’t affect businesses that cannot open. That’s a really important point. The intention of this bill is to assist those businesses that are already legally able to operate, to operate under normal conditions. It is not the intention of this bill to allow off-licences to operate; it is not the intention of this bill to allow retail businesses that can’t operate, to open. It is solely focused on those businesses—supermarkets, restaurants, and bars—that can already open but have to operate under perverse rules.

Why do I say it’s perverse? Well, think about this: how many times have you been at the supermarket the day before Good Friday and seen people stocking up on alcohol because you can’t buy it the next day? I’ve done it and then I’ve had it sitting there for ages because I’ve bought too much—I would wager many of us have done it. So these rules, they encourage stockpiling.

The bizarre thing about the rules that require people to buy a meal before they drink is you’ve got a window before the meal and a window after the meal. Now, I would hazard a guess that the people that take advantage of that drink more in that small window than they would have done if they were just allowed to go to the bar and buy a pint. It’s just logic. “Shivers, we’ve only got a couple of hours here. We may as well make the most of it.” That is actually a perverse outcome. When the hospitality workers who are working anyway and will be under no further compulsion than they already have in the law—they’ll be working anyway, but they have to do their jobs in a different way than they would on any other day of the year. That makes absolutely no sense.

Let’s consider this: we are a country that, in many ways, relies on tourism. They fly from all corners of the world to come and experience our beautiful country, and then they walk into a pub, and they get told they can’t buy a beer unless they buy a meal, but they don’t want a meal so they walk out. That is counter-productive.

This bill is very simple. It just addresses the anomaly in the liquor licensing laws. It doesn’t touch on labour laws, and it doesn’t change the trading laws—that has been tried and it hasn’t got there. It doesn’t make sense that we will continue to operate in these bizarre circumstances where you can go to the supermarket, you can buy absolutely everything except a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine. If they’re already operating, why on earth can’t they just operate like they normally would?

This is a pragmatic change. It’ll be welcomed by the hospitality industry, which have had a very difficult few years. It won’t be opposed by workers because it actually allows them to work under the same conditions that they are trained to do every other day of the year. But what it does allow is for New Zealanders to continue on and have the choice that they’ve always had. If they want to observe their personal religious beliefs, this country respects that and they can still do that. But if others wish to make a choice, they can do so that they would on any other day without undermining those beliefs or actually their own.

This is not the most important issue facing the country, but this is members’ day. There are many other things that I would like to achieve in Parliament: workers earning a living wage being one, a New Zealand head of State is another example. But here is an opportunity for the country to have a discussion at committee stage that we’ve never actually had, and see if New Zealanders think these rules make sense. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Members, because this is a conscience issue, you will need to seek a call.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): It is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak once again in this House on the matter of alcohol over Easter, just this time it includes a couple of extra days. The honourable member who spoke previously also talked about a bill that was previously voted down in this House and that the ACT Party and I, as the sponsoring member, thought would achieve great things in this country, allowing people to trade and consume alcohol over Easter in a way they see fit. And, to address some of the issues that the honourable member who just spoke mentioned, one of the issues, he said, was that visitors come to New Zealand and they are surprised they can’t get a drink. Well, they’re also extremely shocked when they find out that this particular town or that particular town has got closed shops and that workers have been forced not to work because of the changes—

Steve Abel: Have you been to France lately?

CAMERON LUXTON: I’m sorry, I missed that heckle. I’m very interested in the lobbying efforts from the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat. His lobbying efforts, I must say, I didn’t see come to my office. Did they come to anyone? No, the ACT Party didn’t get it. I guess they just thought that a party like ACT, which believes in freedom and choice, would just support such a bill. But, then again, I guess maybe he just thought, “Look, the lobbying has already been done. There’s been a hardworking and humble member of this House that’s been out meeting people in the community”—workers who want to be able to have the choice, people who are sick of the issues that come with, as the honourable member mentioned, a different type of rule regime for some specific days of the year.

A humble and hardworking MP of this House has been out in the regions, different parts of the country, gathering support for a change like this, engaging with the interested parties, representative bodies, peak bodies of industry which are affected, talking to workers, hearing the stories. So I suppose the lobbying efforts from the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat weren’t required in that regard. But I will be supporting this bill. It is a conscience vote—

Rachel Boyack: Oh, there we go!

CAMERON LUXTON: I’m sorry, was that not made clear enough for the members on the other side? I will be.

I’m just pulling out my phone for a moment because I just wanted to read something from the Hansard. It’s kind of interesting because what we had was some members make some contributions that—well, we’ll just put it out there and read what it is. This is from the Hansard. Referring to my speech around the Easter trading bill, she talked about the possibility that people who have a negative, I think she called it, relationship with alcohol would go and hoard alcohol: “The research suggests that that’s not actually the case, sir. What happens when there is an issue with alcohol is that an alcoholic will buy more alcohol if there is availability. So if you have shop hours extended for alcohol sales, they will actually go and buy more alcohol at that time. It’s a strangely opportunistic relationship that they have with alcohol.” That was Helen White.

I’d like to compare that to the lobbying efforts from the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat, which amounted, in my case, to a PR—a press release, for those not in the political world—“This will prevent the need to apply for a special licence to serve alcohol to veterans on Anzac Day services.” That is to be endorsed and laudable, but it also goes on to say, “It removes any incentive to stockpile alcohol before Easter.” So, from the Labour Party benches, we’ve had two contradictory arguments put forward and then advanced once again by the honourable member who’s resumed his seat. The member had said there is no good reason to restrict people’s choice over these days. Well, I agree entirely. It’s funny that some restrictions that the honourable member thinks are worthwhile on New Zealanders’ lives—

Hon James Meager: What’s changed?

CAMERON LUXTON: —what has changed?—are worthwhile, but other restrictions aren’t. And I agree with the honourable member that, in this particular case, it makes no sense; the evidence doesn’t work out. The theological argument the honourable member put forward doesn’t mean that we need to be banning alcohol on that day. But we knew this already, didn’t we, James Meager? We knew this already, didn’t we, Carl Bates? We knew this already, didn’t we, Dan Bidois? Members who went about this House lobbying on behalf of common-sense changes to the rules so that New Zealanders can enjoy their Easter weekend in the way they see fit—the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat, I believe, voted down such a change.

So you have to wonder when the honourable member says, “Why, why, have we still got this situation? How could this possibly be? How has it taken so long? I guess it’s just something we ended up with.” Well, what we know, Mr Speaker, and those of us who have been in this House for more than a couple of months, is that an opportunity like this already did happen. There was an opportunity to make that change. Members across the House were given a conscience vote on the issue, and the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat chose to vote against that change to Easter trading. In his speech—we have to give the honourable member his fair argument—he said it was to affect workers’ rights and trading hours, but then to go on and say it makes no sense that you can’t go to a shop and buy what you want at the same time as saying we’re not going to allow shops to open, and then say it affects workers’ rights because workers should have a day off but then vote against the bill that gives every single worker the choice to have a day off, which doesn’t currently exist—I mean, it’s—

Hon James Meager: They’re anti-worker.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, drinking is not working, I guess. This bill goes further than my bill, which would not have gone near Christmas or Anzac Day. I think there is a fair argument about Anzac Day. Christmas Day, the honourable member also touched on, and I think he raises a point there. There isn’t a big cry in the community for trading and alcohol sales on Christmas Day. Look, if it’s the will of the public and the House thinks that it’s a good idea to open up the trade, the ACT Party supports opening up choice. I think that that’s something we should do, but I give kudos to the member for acknowledging that not all New Zealanders think that is a good idea. And I certainly experienced that in the lobbying that I did out in the community, in the businesses, in this House, talking to other members across the House, to try and get some sanity to our laws. We did hear that Christmas is an issue.

I guess the word “bizarre”, which the previous member used in his speech, the honourable member used in his speech, does feel a bit like how I feel right now. The bizarreness of hearing the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat say, “How has it got to this point? How has this sensible change not already been made?”, and then looking in the voting records and seeing certain members who are sitting in the Opposition seats right now—a full list of names that voted No on a conscience issue to fix this very problem. It does feel bizarre. It does feel like the twilight zone. But, look, in my final remaining two minutes, I won’t delve into the historical sayings and happenings of the honourable member who’s just resumed his seat. I would like to actually say what a good situation this will lead to for New Zealanders who want to choose how to spend their days.

When they look at a rule put in by this House, it has to be backed up with evidence. If it relies on tradition, there has to be a solid grounding of tradition. If it relies on evidence to maintain a law, there should be solid evidence to maintain a law. And, as the honourable member had put out, there just isn’t that sort of evidence and tradition to maintain this. What we need to do is fix up the things that are getting in the way of New Zealanders’ lives, fix up the hurdles in every part, like this Government does. Whenever we can find a problem, we get on with fixing it. The honourable member has gone about finding a problem, sometimes supporting certain elements of it, sometimes not, but he’s taken this to the House. As the honourable member has said, it’s not been a major issue. It’s not one of the major things facing this country, but it is a small inconvenience in the lives of New Zealanders. It’s something that members’ day is designed to fix. So I look forward to using my conscience vote to vote in favour of this bill brought by the honourable member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I call Teanau Tuiono—but just before we start the clock, this is a conscience vote. I’d like to make it as fair as possible, not across party lines. If members would like to indicate to me which way they are going, for or against, it just gives me a chance to endeavour to make sure that the debate is balanced. It’s totally up to you, but feel free to approach and I’ll try to balance the debate between for and against. It’s up to the members. I’ll just make that suggestion.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty for bringing a bill to the House. Members’ days are always interesting days when members get to have their say and to propose different legislation.

Well, this is awkward because we won’t be supporting this bill, at least I won’t be. I do say that with the utmost respect because I do enjoy watching the Hon Kieran McAnulty on the Breakfast show and that, so on and so forth, having political fisticuffs with members opposite, and also appreciate his skill in the House around being very precise and surgical in terms of his arguments as well. But I also, funnily enough, agree with the comments of the last speaker, Cameron Luxton, in terms of the similarities of the issues that were canvassed when that member attempted to do something in this area as well.

I guess the issue for me in general is—and maybe it’s because I’m a bit old fashioned; that’s certainly what my kids say—that Anzac Days, Good Friday, Easter Sundays, and Christmas Days, these are times that we need to be able to put tools down. These are times that we need to be able to relax. We need to actually make sure that we get that balance right. If we’re going to have a big tutū around with the holidays then that, in my opinion, disrupts that balance.

I do hear the point that was made earlier that, well, actually, people are rostered on and so on and so forth. But if you make it a day where people can actually purchase alcohol, that will mean that more people will have to get rostered on to serve people. That’s what that means. That means that more people will have to come in to work as well. Everybody that has worked a low-paid job knows that it’s very, very hard to turn the boss down. It’s very, very hard to turn the boss down when they come and have a chat to you saying that they want you to come in on a shift. Maybe that’s on Anzac Day in the morning, maybe that’s on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, or, far be it, Christmas Day, because all of a sudden people are selling alcohol here, there, and everywhere.

Our position is that it’s important that we actually focus on making sure that we get that balance right. The Greens have seen these types of bills before and our position hasn’t changed. We didn’t support the member Cameron Luxton’s bill when he brought that to the House. I do—as I think I did when we were in this House earlier discussing his bill—acknowledge the work that he did going around the House and trying to canvass those ideas. That’s a commendable thing to do. But, having said that, after having those discussions, we still got to the same place, got to the same position, that we have with this bill as well. That is that we need to make sure that we get the balance right. We need to make sure that what we do doesn’t actually end up having our low-paid workers having to give up family time, give up community time, and being rostered on to work to serve alcohol, essentially.

So the Greens, we do support workplace democracy, collective organising, and fair pay, but we also support time for life outside of work. People I think said, from both sides of the aisle so far, that, actually, you don’t have to hoard a whole lot of alcohol. You can be a bit sensible. Just get a six-pack if that’s what you want to do as well. Get it on the Thursday. We still need to make sure that we can focus on those holidays in terms of their real importance and intentions, so many of us in the Greens will not be supporting this bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a contribution in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill.

New Zealand has changed from when I was a teenager. Back in the days, I think you couldn’t actually trade on a Sunday. I think TV2 was the only channel, and that ended at 9 o’clock when the little kiwi came on. A lot has changed since the 1980s, and New Zealand will continue to change. I believe that this is an evolution, this is a manifestation, of that change and that is one that I will be supporting today.

The New Zealand that I want to see in the future, as we change, is much like the past: a liberal society where, broadly speaking, we allow individuals, businesses, and workers the right to choose; where we allow people the freedom of religion and the right to observe their religious practices; and freedom of choice. I think those values are longstanding values in New Zealand society and those are the values that I want to be at the forefront in the future. This bill is consistent with those values.

I am also a Catholic, I should say, and, like the member that’s brought this bill to the House, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, I’m not a very good Catholic, but I’m one that understands the necessity of the days that are under question.

Ryan Hamilton: Good confession.

DAN BIDOIS: I’m not going to make a confession today—as my colleague Ryan Hamilton wishes that I do—but this bill is consistent with the values that I want New Zealand to be in the future. It is good policy.

As the member spoke, you know, we’ve got Anzac Day coming up, and, for some bizarre reason, we’re having local RSAs have to apply for special licences to serve alcohol in the morning. That just strikes me as bureaucratic, nonsensical, and not consistent with the spirit of the day and the spirit of our society. I’ve got businesses in my electorate that would love to trade on those days, and workers that would love to work on them. The previous speaker spoke about the rights of workers, and workers ultimately have the right to say no. I remember back when I was an apprentice butcher on $6 an hour and I could choose to work stat days, I could choose to work extra days if I wanted to, to get ahead. And if I didn’t want to, then I could say no and that business would go to another worker. So that is very much consistent with this good policy.

I think just, you know, around the world, looking at—I’ve had the fortunate privilege of living in different contexts. I’ve lived in France, where often there’s no businesses open on a Sunday. I’ve lived in America, where you can get a brand new suit at 10 p.m. at night. I just think that this is consistent with where we’re heading as liberal democracies, free-market societies—we give employers and employees the right to choose.

But I do want to touch on something, and that is the partisan politics of this House. Because this is the second time this year that this House is dealing with this question. And I walked through the Ayes, only to be met with a block vote from Labour on the Noes. And I wish to acknowledge my friend Cameron Luxton, who brought a bill very similar to this to the House and it was voted down. What annoys me is that we get caught up in partisan politics, and that gets in the way of good policy. It’s all very well to say, “Well, it’s good policy, but we can’t support it because it’s from the Opposition.” And it is on that basis that I stand here saying that I’m happy to support this because I think it’s good policy.

I don’t really agree with the member on a lot of other issues, but on this very issue I can agree with him. So I look forward to sending this bill—hopefully—to select committee. I do think it’s probably gone a little bit further than the bill that we considered just a few months ago, so I’d be curious on what New Zealanders have to say, and I’ll make my judgment on the future direction thereafter. But I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before the next call, those members challenging each other to confessions, the Standing Orders do not allow absolution.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words in this conscience vote. I will be a member that will be voting against this bill due to my community, but I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty, who has come here this evening with this bill. I’ve heard his arguments, but I maintain the view of my local community in Māngere, and so I just want to elaborate further as to my reasons for voting against.

In Māngere, we have a population of just under 70,000, and we have a proliferation of alcohol outlets, mainly off-licences. For the past decade, I have been one of the members of the community where, in a previous role, we had to get out to the community and talk to our community as to why these problems are occurring.

I’ve heard the arguments for the bill and I want to acknowledge my colleague because he does have a point, and I’ve heard from across the House that we’re evolutionary and we’re changing in New Zealand. However, in some communities, alcohol is a really major problem, and in my community, over 60 percent of our population are under—they are the youngest population in Aotearoa. We have a large youth population, where the number of off-licences is a problem. However, we do have some very responsible licensed places, and with regard to this bill, with the sales on Anzac Day morning, on Good Friday, on Easter Sunday, and on Christmas Day—Māngere has the largest amount of churches. We have a large religious community, who want protection around the religious festivals such as Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

We have a community where some of them are quite young because they have come from overseas—mainly Pacific Islands—and some of our ethnic communities have grown. So, on that note, it is important for me, as the member representing my local community, which has very strong views and very firm religious views—we have faiths of all different communities. It is not just Pacific and not just our Māori community but also our ethnic communities that are really growing in our local area. These religious days, and particularly Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day—and I’ve had a couple of groups who have said to me, “Why is New Zealand looking at this and keeping talking about this law?”, because, in their view, they have migrated to this country, and you have over 360 days of the year when you can access alcohol. They ask why we cannot have the protections on these specific religious days.

I think that Anzac Day is quite different because we need to celebrate our veterans and remember and commemorate the service that our veterans have done for this country. However, because that’s part of this bill, there is a firm view from my community that we need to stand up, and even if it gets voted against or the bill goes to the next process, that’s one thing.

However, from my local community in Māngere, I wanted to put forward their view due to our youth population, who very much support what their elders are saying. So, on that note, it is important to put those views across.

I’ve heard other views in terms of why they’re voting against, and obviously there are firm views around trade laws and also employment. However, in my local community, this is really important. We have a very diverse community, and they celebrate a lot, particularly on those religious days of Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day. For some families in my local community, those are very sacred times, given that AI and technology is a 24/7 thing. Families look to those specific days on which to come together to celebrate the religious holidays and to be together on those days.

I thank you for the opportunity. I do want to recognise my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty, because even though we don’t agree on some things, we are still colleagues, and I am really happy to be part of the Labour Party because we are a broad church. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I want to commend the previous speaker, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, for her contribution, because, actually, it’s really refreshing to hear alternative views being proposed by members of the Labour Party. The reason I say that is that I think back to the Easter trading bill from my friend and colleague Cameron Luxton in December 2024, and I remember the Labour Party voting 34 votes No as a block. That was really disappointing—

Hon Willie Jackson: Don’t carry grudges.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Mr Jackson says, “Don’t carry grudges.” Actually, I’m just laying out the history of what’s transpired prior to this bill being brought to the House. The reason I’m doing that is that the member, when introducing this bill in his first speech, played at the heartstrings of members and said, “Vote with your conscience. Vote with what is right.” And I ask: where was that four months ago in December when Cameron Luxton brought a very similar bill to the House to be considered, when members of the Labour Party, the Green Party, and New Zealand First all voted collectively as a block in one way and did not allow their members to use their right and use their conscience to vote either for or against? I do that to provide some lie of the land.

I think back also to a bill in 2023, when Nicola Willis brought her parental leave bill to the House. It allowed parents to take parental leave together to allow them to have some time together.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): You’re getting a wee way away from the bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m coming back to it, Mr Speaker. And what transpired at that time is again the Labour Party voted as a bloc and voted down that legislation.

The reason I set the scene—

Ingrid Leary: Get over it.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Just let members have an opportunity. I will be voting in favour of the legislation going to select committee.

Arena Williams: We don’t want your vote.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Arena Williams says, “We don’t want your vote.” That says a lot about the arrogance of that side of the House—to make statements and say, “We do not want your vote.” That is exactly what Arena Williams said. That is absolutely disgraceful for members on the other side to make those kinds of comments on a conscience issue.

One thing that makes me extremely proud to be a member of the National Party is that we are genuinely a broad church. When we had similar legislation in December 2024, some members in our party voted for it and some members in our party voted against it, and that’s what makes this a fantastic party to be a part of.

What happened at the time? Thirty-four votes opposed from the Labour Party, voting down Cameron Luxton’s—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Three minutes and I don’t think I’ve heard any mention of the bill yet.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I actually have mentioned the bill, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Not to my satisfaction.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK. Well, I will carry on, then. One of the reasons I have a hesitation to support this bill beyond the select committee and why I’m only supporting it to that stage at present is because alcohol is one of the biggest causes of harm in our communities across the country. I am in favour of the liberalisation around giving people the opportunity to have a choice. I do agree with the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty when he talks about what happens on Anzac Day and how many of our RSAs across the country, if not all of them, have to get special permits and licences to allow them to operate and sell alcohol when you could just simply make a small legislative change like this bill’s doing. But, at the same time, I also have the worry around the impact that alcohol and liberalising it even further will have on our communities across the country.

Hon Willie Jackson: Make your mind up.

TOM RUTHERFORD: So that is why, Mr Jackson, I’m supporting it to the select committee. I’m interested to hear from constituents and people across the country about their views and whether they are in favour of it, whether liberalising the legislation is something they think is really important or not. I respected the previous point made by Lemauga Lydia Sosene where she stood up and said on behalf of her Mangere community that she knew how they felt towards this issue. I respect her for taking that view as an electorate MP and standing in this House and saying, “I know my community won’t support this legislation.”

So I will be supporting the bill in its first reading and its referral to the select committee. I will be interested, if it gets to that stage, to hear the feedback from our community, but I want the record to show what has transpired prior to us getting to this point in time.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to personally give my position on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. Now, my personal position has not changed since the previous bill that we spoke on, by Mr Luxon, in that I will not be voting for this. Now, there’s a number of reasons, but one thing I do want to put on the record is that New Zealand First have exercised their conscience vote, as we did in the last bill, and it just so happened that eight members individually said no. So I just wanted to put that on the record for my colleague.

Look, when I look at this piece of legislation, I ask the question, “What is the problem that we’re trying to fix here?” I look at the problem and then I go, “OK, by solving this problem, is it going to create another problem? And what is the trade-off?” So I was thinking in those terms and I was thinking about a lot of the NGOs who I go and speak to, like the Salvation Army Bridge Programme. I asked all of them about not only the previous piece of legislation but also this one: “What are your views?” They have said, “The last thing we need is another outlet, another avenue for people who have drug or alcohol issues to be able to have easy access.” During these times—holidays, Easter, Christmas—are times when they notice the mental health issues really do accelerate and it’s the loneliness that kicks in. It’s a reminder that maybe they don’t have a family. It’s many things that trigger people. They have seen that to be able to have more access to alcohol does not serve them or the community. So I’m listening to that issue.

You know, we talk a lot in the House about health and how we can take pressure off our health system, our mental health system, our physical health system. I reflect on what could happen on Christmas Day if someone who has drunk too much gets in the car and drives to get more alcohol, and I think of the possibility of loss of life. And, yes, one weighs it up, but, you know, one loss of life is too much for a family. I think of these instances when thinking about how I am going to speak to this bill. It does happen. I know someone who lost a brother on Christmas Day, and the pain never goes and it’s a reminder every Christmas Day. So I just wanted to bring some of those scenarios to the House.

Do I have to confess that I’m also a Catholic? Probably not, being of good Croatian stock. My grandmother couldn’t read or write, but, man, she knew how to pray the rosary. So, of course, being brought up in a very religious life—one that I’m very grateful for, might I add—Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day are massive celebrations for our family, for our community. I’m very involved in the religious communities, Catholic and others, and I know that this is something that they do not want. They want to do everything to maintain family, to maintain the sacredness of those days. In the most recent census, 30 percent of people identified as Christians. So, in my communities, people who I speak to about this, they say, “No, it’s not something we want.” It’s not that we don’t want it, but we want to do everything we can to preserve our family unit, and this is one way that we see we can maintain that and not let anything else get in the way.

Good Friday is, for many of us, a time of fasting and abstinence, and it does have meaning. So, you know, these are just some of the things that I wanted to add as to why I personally will not vote for this. I honour the members who brought these bills to the House. Your contributions were very valid. However, thankfully this is a conscience vote and that is my say. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Boyack—although I will indicate before we start that there is one slot, that if anyone approached me to speak against the bill, they would get preference for that one last slot left, after two people have indicated already.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin: I am an Anglican, and so I might take a couple of moments to correct some of the Catholic thinking in the House—kindly, kindly. But, look, while I will be supporting this bill, I do have some reservations, and so I’ll talk about some of those as we go through.

I want to address some of the claims that have been made in the House, just briefly, about block voting. Hopefully, the House will be noting that Labour is treating this as a conscience issue. Labour did actually treat the previous vote as a conscience issue; it just so happened that we all shared the same conscience—a bit like New Zealand First! I see New Zealand First laughing. I’m struggling to find from memory any conscience vote where New Zealand First haven’t all shared the same conscience; the same for the ACT Party, and the same for the Green Party. But somehow it’s a problem for the Labour Party, but anyway. We did all walk through the same door; we didn’t block vote.

So I’ll get to the bill, because I don’t want to spend three minutes correcting all of those interesting contributions. I’m going to talk around some of the reservations that I do have. I have a reservation around supermarkets. Talking to the police, talking to hospitality organisations, one of the concerns around alcohol harm is the ability for supermarkets to sell alcohol. In one of the districts in my electorate, Nelson, there isn’t trading on Easter Sunday; in the Tasman District, there is. So we have a situation where each district has different rules. The concern I have is that those supermarkets that can open would then be able to sell alcohol. Actually, I’m not convinced about liberalising the ability for people to go to a supermarket to purchase alcohol. I do have a concern around that particular issue in relation to alcohol harm. Where I don’t have as much of a concern is if people have chosen to go to the pub for a meal and want to have a beer; they’ve gone to get a bowl of chips and want to have a glass of wine—being able to do that without that hospitality provider having to apply for a special licence. So that’s where I think that the member raises a really valid point.

I do have some disagreements with the member around how we treat Christmas Day versus Easter Sunday. Certainly in my world, Easter Sunday is actually the most important day of the religious calendar. So, for me, I’d be less likely to go out for a meal on Easter Sunday, compared to Christmas Day. It is ultimately around the resurrection day. I wouldn’t drink on Good Friday and I definitely wouldn’t eat hot cross buns on Easter Sunday, because—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What do you do?

RACHEL BOYACK: —I have rules around these things; I am an Anglican, Mr McAnulty.

Where I think the member makes some very valid points, and that I think most of the House would agree on, is around Anzac Day. I have a tradition every Anzac Day: after the Dawn Service, I go back to the Nelson rugby club, I have a good yarn, and I shake the hand of a very good man from Nelson rugby, by the name of Kerry Strange—his son was Labour MP Jamie Strange. I always have a good yarn with Kerry, who is standing behind the bar serving the veterans. I have a strong view that on Anzac Day we should be doing what we can to make sure our vets are having a good time—without harm, of course. So I do think that including Anzac Day is a really valid part of this bill.

This bill specifically addresses alcohol access and the sale and supply of alcohol; it doesn’t address the other matters, which is why I’m happy to support it. But I do have some reservations. I’m not convinced enough to continue supporting it through the process, unless it perhaps had some changes or some further discussion. I would want to see the rules around supermarkets looked at really closely, because I’m not as convinced around that; I’m more convinced around the ability for people to go and have some family time at the pub together on these days. Again, still with some reservations. So I commend the member and I do commend, at this stage, this bill to the House.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Kieran McAnulty for getting this bill drawn. This is a very important conscience vote issue tonight. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Cameron Luxton. He actually probably needs a drink at this point. It’s been a bit frustrating for him listening to some of the convoluted arguments tonight where people could have just supported his bill back in December and we could have dealt with that.

Rachel Boyack, actually, we’re concerned about supermarkets too, because some supermarkets don’t have the choice to open on some of these trading days and there are inconsistent rules, as you pointed out. But my concern is not whether they should be able to sell alcohol or not.

I will be supporting this bill, and I will be pleased to do so. I’ll be doing it for two reasons. One is because ACT is the party of freedom and choice. As we’ve already heard tonight, what this bill allows is people to make a choice about whether they consume alcohol on these days or not. They’re not being forced to. They don’t have to go out and do anything they don’t want to. It’s just going to provide them choice.

So anything that moves the choice vote forward a bit further I’m in support of, and I think I can say that a lot of my ACT colleagues will be in support of, because that’s what we want to do. We’re here to actually free up New Zealanders’ lives, allow them to make the choices that they want. We would like them to actually have more choices around when they could go to all the shops over these holidays, but we’ll work at this one point at a time. I mean, Mr McAnulty might want to consider a scope amendment, which, again, I would certainly support.

The second reason I’ll be supporting this is I actually come from Queenstown; obviously a premier tourist destination in the South. Again, we have lots of overseas visitors coming in, wanting to enjoy the abundance of activities that they can undertake. They also obviously want to consume some of our wonderful wine down there and again, we’re going to make sure that they have the opportunity to do that when they are here on these important holidays. So giving those international visitors a consistent experience again is another reason to support this bill. Again, I wish we could be doing that for some of the other trading areas because again, we do know we have an issue around what shops can open, particularly in tourist areas like Wānaka and Queenstown, and yeah, who can open and work.

But I do think this bill is worthy of going to a select committee and having a discussion. We certainly welcome the fact that we’re actually able to provide a bit more choice and freedom for Kiwis. Again, it’s been good to hear some of the arguments against this bill tonight. I do want to say I’ve sat here respectfully listening to some of the people who won’t be voting in favour of it. Again, I think there are some valid arguments from their perspective as to why they won’t be doing that. It was good to have that back and forward across the House. But, really, if you want a party that actually is looking at increasing the freedom that New Zealanders have to actually make choices about how they want to live their own lives, this bill does advance that. So that’s why I will be supporting that, and I commend it to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel like we’ve learnt many things tonight. One of them is how many bad Catholics there are in the House—self-described “bad Catholics” and we respect you for your honesty and your self-deprecation.

I feel remiss because the member who has put this bill up, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, is, among other things, an excellent cricket player and I’m sad to miss him on Friday when we will be taking on Seddon—and Cameron Luxton. Look at this, what is it with people who want alcohol liberalisation and cricket? There’s some connection going on there—

Tom Rutherford: I’ll be there.

STEVE ABEL: You’ll be there? Tom will be there—another one.

I’ve been talking to some of the good Catholics on this. I’m not a Catholic myself—or a Christian, even—but I have been talking to some of the Christians, and they have told me that that particular holiday is of quite significant importance to them: one of the holiest of the holidays.

There’s a few elements to this that I think are significant. One is the: is there nothing sacred? Have we reached a point where we want to not only have TV advertising on Christmas Day but we also want to sell alcohol on every day of the year? I sort of take the point that was made earlier that you can buy your beers on the day before if you want to have a drink—there’s no prohibition on drinking, and nor should there be.

I also hear the point of the author of the bill that they are simply seeking that those establishments that are already open on the day should be allowed to sell the alcohol. I take that point; I think that’s a sound point and worth consideration. I even will myself, of occasion, find myself in one of those establishments thinking, “Oh, it’d be good to have a drink, but there’s a curtain over the alcohol cabinet”—because it’s prohibited. And in an instant, I go, “How annoying that is.”, and the next instant I go, “But I also support the principle that we should keep some days where there is not”—

Mike Butterick: Oh, you’re conflicted, Steve?

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me?

Hon Member: You’re conflicted!

STEVE ABEL: Oh, I mean, I am conflicted, and I think it is good to be conflicted in this world. And this is why I hugely value the principle of the conscience vote. The conscience vote is a great thing; I wish we did it more often.

I also take the point of the member opposite—Tom Rutherford—that it is a pity when we end up with this bloc voting situation because it would be great if we did more genuine and authentic conscience votes. Your one, Mr McAnulty, on the question of our republicanism, perhaps, would be an interesting one to bring to the House, because I would hope the members opposite would consider that and perhaps be willing to vote for it. More so even than this bill.

That is one part of it—the consideration of the importance of those days to certain constituents, you know, who are religious, and we should celebrate people who want to express their religion. I don’t have a problem with talking to the Christians or people of any persuasion religiously.

The other consideration, which I think is a big one that determines the position of Green Party members on the whole, is the impact on workers. Now, anyone who has been in a situation of needing to do the day job for a crust, been a retail worker, been somebody who’s worked in an establishment that sells alcohol or food or—

Cameron Luxton: Hospitality.

STEVE ABEL: —hospitality—you name it. Hospitality, that’s right.

Hon Member: I’ve been there.

STEVE ABEL: Yeah, I’ve pulled beer in London and all over the place. Too many places to think of.

The point is that, as my colleague Teanau Tuiono pointed out, when you get called by the boss to come in, you come in because you need the hours. It is good that we have these odd days of the year when that is not going to happen. I actually think it’s a big part of the consideration in this matter: that we should preserve some days when those workers who are the least paid in our society don’t have to turn up to work because it happens to be—for those of us who are not religious—a remnant of that Christian tradition in our society where it just happens that this Friday is a traditional holiday; a holy day to people who are Christian. And no disrespect in that, but it means you won’t have to pull beer on that day. That is a good thing. That is the preservation of that principle that was established in the earliest tenets of religion: that you worked six days, and on the seventh day you rested. I think we retain that by saying there are certain days of the year you don’t work.

I’ve got a final joke for you, Mr Speaker. What do you get when you pour mulled wine down a rabbit hole? Hot, cross bunnies. And we don’t want that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won’t be voting for this. Thank you.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think members’ days are a special element of our parliamentary process, where, due to luck of the draw—literally—members have the opportunity to put forward ideas and have them discussed in the House. On the whole, they are generally done in good humour and good heart, and so, in that vein, I want to thank Steve Abel and Todd Stephenson, Rachel Boyack, Tanya Unkovich, Tom Rutherford, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, Teanau Tuiono, Dan Bidois, and Cameron Luxton.

I particularly want to acknowledge Cameron Luxton. He got under my skin a little bit during my speech. There was a fair bit of constant heckling which I think went a little bit far, but I actually get it. You’re frustrated because, in your view, you put up a similar bill and it didn’t get across the line, and it’s possible—who knows—this one might. So I actually acknowledge that frustration.

The fact is, though, that, as has been expressed by my friend and colleague Steve Abel and others, there are genuine concerns around adjusting and changing the labour laws and the trading laws on these specified days, and that is deliberately why this bill focuses solely on the sale and supply of alcohol. Its intention is to only apply to those businesses that are already operating, that are already allowed to operate, and those workers that are already working.

I actually introduced this bill to the ballot many years ago. It was only withdrawn when I became a Minister, and I reinserted it again when I was no longer a Minister. I’ve been waiting for the opportunity to have this specific debate, that has been deliberately drafted in this way so that we can try and find a compromise. It has been drafted in this way to take into account those of us that have no appetite at all to change labour laws on those days. It takes into account those that have expressed concerns around opening up trading on those days.

Actually, I believe I’ve put forward a case that warrants further explanation around the merits or otherwise of having restricted alcohol laws that still allow access to alcohol but under inconsistent conditions, and whether or not that actually has a counterintuitive outcome. We can actually only do that at select committee.

I want to acknowledge and thank everyone that has contributed to the debate. There are some that I don’t agree with, but I fully respect your position. That is the beauty of a conscience vote, be it a personally held view or a true demonstration of a commitment to their community. Like Tom Rutherford, who, incidentally, I want your vote. Don’t listen to Arena, who’s voting against it. I want your vote, and I’m grateful for your support to select committee.

There are things that I am fully open to explore here. If it turns out that if the bill progresses, as I mentioned in my speech, with Christmas Day and it won’t pass, I’ll take it out. The whole point of this is to find a pragmatic way to address these unusual and inconsistent liquor licensing rules. I’m open to ideas. I’m open to suggestions.

I would’ve actually been able to lobby members of the House, but it’s not supposed to have come up tonight. We had two bills withdraw, which meant it’s now here. So I got caught off guard a little bit, but I will acknowledge the work that you’ve done, Mr Luxton. Because of the conversations you’ve had, it has allowed people to get their head around this aspect of the bill, which is roughly a third. I remember when we discussed your bill; it was in the corridor out the back, and you asked, “Will Labour”—

Cameron Luxton: It was in Copperfield’s actually.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, well, there you go—I remember the main bit. I was talking to you about your position. I said if it was just on the alcohol, you’d get a good chunk of us, but it’s not, and therefore you’re not going to get our support. But good on you—good on you for putting it forward, and good on everybody for putting their bills forward.

This is the second bill that I’ve had the opportunity to debate—the first bill passed. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and explore it further at select committee. There are likely to be aspects in this that I’ve overlooked. It’s a member’s bill—like every other member, I haven’t had the benefit of officials to look over this. I’ve made it really clear in my speeches the intention of this so that when we get to select committee, if it doesn’t meet that intention, let’s change it in the hope that if the clerks were to consider amendments, which I will be certainly open to, they will see what has been put down as an argument and a proposition tonight is the intent of this bill: to allow those businesses that can already and do already open operate as they do in all other days of the year, and those businesses that can’t operate, they stay the same. Thank you for your considerations.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Members, I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote, and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process that we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

Noes 54

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I announce adjournment, for all those bad Catholics who announced tonight, there will be confession afterwards out the back.

The question is, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.