Tuesday, 6 May 2025

TUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025

TUESDAY, 6 MAY 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.]

Resignations

Hon David Parker, New Zealand Labour

the Hon David Parker

SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect from 4 p.m. on Monday, 12 May 2025.

Obituaries

His Holiness Pope Francis

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice to acknowledge the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you. I move, That this House express its deep sadness on the recent death of His Holiness Pope Francis and express its sincere condolences to the Holy See and to Roman Catholics in New Zealand and around the world, who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time.

It was with great sadness that we learnt of the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday. It was also my great honour to pay respect to His Late Holiness on behalf of all New Zealanders at his funeral.

The Pope was a man of enormous humility: a priest who had worked as a nightclub bouncer and a floor sweeper; a servant leader who saw his life’s work through a prism of service to others, not to his own self-aggrandisement; a Pope among the people, who embraced the poor and washed the feet of prisoners.

A man who described himself as being from the end of the world, Francis was the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere, with his second-to-last pastoral visit to our neighbourhood in Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, and Singapore. He was also a moderniser, a man who wanted the Church to bend down to every person regardless of their beliefs or condition.

With nearly 100 heads of State and of Government in attendance at his funeral, we heard the Pope’s exhortation to build bridges, not walls. World leaders were reminded that this was a man of peace. He believed in negotiated solutions. He intervened himself to mediate conflicts, engaged in interreligious dialogue, and he felt personally the pain of those most afflicted by war. I have no doubt that the world leaders present heard his message of peace.

On behalf of the Government, I join other members in sharing the sense of loss and sorrow at His Holiness’ passing and also a profound sense of gratitude that we were graced by his leadership in this world. May he rest in peace.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the Labour Party, can I also offer our heartfelt condolences to Catholics in New Zealand and around the world, as we join in mourning the loss of a spiritual leader whose impact extended across nations, bringing hope to the world and to the Church. Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis was a beacon of hope, compassion, and mercy. He embodied the values of humility, mercy, and devotion to justice.

He chose the name “Francis” after Saint Francis of Assisi, stating in one of his first speeches, “He is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and cares for Creation.” Pope Francis lived out those values in both word and action. He called on world leaders and everyday people to take urgent action on the climate crisis. He wrote, “Caring for ecosystems requires a perspective that extends beyond the immediate, because when the focus is solely on … economic gains, genuine concern for their preservation is often lacking.”

He spoke out against systems of inequality and called for global justice. A lasting legacy is his request that his popemobile be turned into a health clinic for the children of Gaza—a symbol reminding the world that they are not forgotten. He apologised to indigenous peoples across the world for the Church’s role in colonisation.

May he rest in peace, and may we carry forward his message of mercy and compassion, and work towards creating a world that is more just, more equitable, and fairer for all.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): It’s a privilege to stand and pay tribute to the Holy Father on behalf of the Green Party—the grief of so many people who share my Catholic faith but also the millions of others who are not Catholic who expressed grief at his passing. The Holy Father was a man who was a sinner, a prophet, and a peacemaker.

Let me begin with an acknowledgment of the Pope’s sins and failings. Perhaps it is fitting that some of his first words after elevation of the Chair of St Peter were “I am a sinner whom the Lord has looked upon with mercy.” I want to acknowledge the sexual abuse survivors, particularly those who suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church. While progress was made during Pope Francis’ reign, there was not enough and it was compromised by the blind spots that the Pope had. I also want to acknowledge the Rainbow community, particularly Rainbow people of my Catholic faith. The Church hasn’t always been the kindest place for you, and while the Pope went the furthest in affirming your human dignity, dining with trans, gay, and lesbian prisoners, calling the criminalisation of homosexuality an injustice and funding abuse shelters for trans people, the Church is still fundamentally a conservative institution with millennia of doctrine to evolve.

The Pope’s ministry has been likened to that of a prophet by others, like the Archbishop of Louisville, and, like the prophets of old, he was a man utterly unafraid to call out the injustices of a broken global system that throws away the most poor and marginalised. About one year ago, I was sworn in on Laudato Si’, the papal encyclical on care for our common home. In the papal encyclical, he calls for the end of the throwaway culture that throws away lives, that throws away the unwanted, and that throws away the waste, the refuse, of modern society. Pope Francis stressed that “The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation.”, and that “the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.”

He condemned the short-termism and influence of elites in modern politics, saying that “A politics concerned with immediate results supported by consumer sectors of the population is driven to produced short-term growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment.”

Pope Francis always had a special place in his heart for the marginalised, the poor, and the imprisoned. One of his last acts was to defy medical advice to visit prison on Holy Thursday, the week before he passed away.

Finally, Pope Francis was a peacemaker and a builder of bridges. Throughout his whole career, he held a consistent record for facilitating interfaith dialogue between all peoples of faith and fostering a spirit of broad ecumenicalism within the Christian faiths. The Pope understood that the first step towards building peace was talking to and loving your enemies. I have always tried to keep this in mind as I engage in my parliamentary business, and I hope that colleagues all across the House do so as well. In his final public address, the Pope called for peace in this world, for the release of the hostages, and for an enduring ceasefire that ends the genocide in Gaza. He called for peace in Ukraine, South Caucasus, Africa, and all around the world.

I want to conclude with his words: “I appeal to all those in positions of political responsibility in our world not to yield to the logic of fear, which only leads to isolation from others, but rather to use the resources available to help the needy, to fight hunger, and to encourage initiatives that promote development. These are the ‘weapons’ of peace: weapons that build the future, instead of sowing seeds of death!”

Rest in peace, Pope Francis. Thank you for being a channel of the Lord’s peace as you lived. Rest easy, for it is in dying that you rise to eternal life.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ve—

Hon Member: Nicole McKee.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry about that. I’m just slightly moved, given the nature of the debate. The Hon Nicole McKee.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to acknowledge the passing of Pope Francis from Casa Santa Marta, the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, our Holy Father Francis.

I went to Ss Peter and Paul School and also to Sacred Heart College before moving to Rotorua in my college years, and I recall seeing Pope John Paul II in photographs all over the schools and being in awe of this strange man who spread the word of God all over the world. Then, in 1986, he came to New Zealand—the only Pope to have ever visited—and the entire school of Sacred Heart College was a choir that sung at his Mass delivered at Athletic Park alongside 25,000 other Catholics excited at his arrival. The momentum and the movement were inspiring. Here was the picture on the wall in real life, giving us all his blessings. So I was saddened when he passed, and I’ve always watched with interest the popes that came after him and the messages that they gave us.

Pope Francis is not just a religious leader for the Catholics worldwide but also a symbol of continuity who walked a very delicate path between tradition and the modern world. He carried that responsibility with a unique grace, speaking often of mercy and championing the poor, while at the same time addressing issues such as the position of women within the Church. What seemed like small steps to the outside world were massive achievements as Pope Francis appointed the first woman leader of a department in the Church’s central administration, and the first female president of the office governing the Vatican City State.

In a time when so much feels fractured, the presence of a figure who spoke for the possibility of unity, forgiveness, and meaning is not something to take lightly. He reminded many, including some of us who no longer attend Mass, of the better traits of human nature and the importance of forgiveness, love, and faith—faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and in humanity.

To Pope Francis, thank you for your service, for your witness, your imperfections, and your efforts. May your soul rest in peace in the arms of our Heavenly Father.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I am grateful to this House to give time to recognise the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday, and honoured to be speaking on behalf of NZ First. This honour is an opportunity to pay respect not only to the Pope but to the Church, my faith, and the influence that this has on who we are as a nation and our place in the world.

With over 400,000 Catholics in New Zealand and nearly 1.5 billion Catholics throughout the world—representing 20 percent of the population—I am truly appreciative of the importance the Church and the papacy still has in this modern world. Our world leaders came together to pay their respects, and the international media honoured the Pope, and, in so doing, honoured the place that the Church and faith still has in our daily lives. Pope Francis, as with every pope before him, was called by his faith to serve. The Catholic faith has filled my life, and when I was last in Auckland on Anzac Day, I was able to visit my aunt, Sister Monica Costello, who is still the epitome of faith and service. She taught at Carmel College in Auckland from 1959 and became the second principal, in 1975. She was elected as a Superior-General of the Auckland Sisters of Mercy in 1982 and continued to serve well into her 80s. Finally, in her 90s, she has taken time to rest and be cared for, as she cared for so many in her life.

I talked with her about Pope Francis and the papacy. She reminded me of the impact that the leader of the Church has and why the ethos of service means so much. Her eyes lit up when she recalled meeting Pope John Paul II, who was the only pope to visit New Zealand. The strength of faith and the value of the Church is fundamental to who we are as a nation, and it is my hope that we will receive the next pope with the same reverence. It is this leadership that guides us, not just as Catholics, in a direction that honours God and provides a pathway to unity.

Pope Francis once said, “I think this is truly the most wonderful experience we can have: to belong to a people walking, journeying through history, together with our Lord, who walks among us! We are not alone; we do not walk alone. We are part of the one flock of Christ that walks together.” In our reflection around the world on the Pope’s passing, we, I believe, acknowledge that we are journeying together. The honour we afford to him today and at his death was greater than to the man but it is a tribute to the Catholic faith. It is this faith that is greater than any one person, and a foundation to the Church. The papacy provides this foundation as Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you, you are a rock, Peter, and on this rock foundation, I will build my Church, which not even death will ever be able to overcome.”

In closing, in honour of Pope Francis and the Catholic Church I wish to say: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Today, I’m honoured to rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to acknowledge the passing of a figure of immense global and spiritual influence—Pope Francis—a spiritual leader of over a billion Catholics around the world. His death marks the end of an era for many, the loss of a guide, the voice of a conscience, and a symbol of continuity in a rapidly changing world. We extend our huge aroha to our Catholic whānau in Aotearoa, across the Pacific, and across the globe. Your mourning is shared. Your grief is heard.

For billions, we have seen his navigation around complex global crises—from wars, to pandemics, to poverty, to migration, to climate devastation, and to takatāpui issues. While his role was rooted in the traditions of the Catholic Church, it’s an influence that has reached beyond the faithful, affecting geopolitics, indigenous rights, and the spiritual lives of people across many cultures and nations. But, as we reflect on his life, we also take time to reflect on his legacy—not only that of the man but of the institution he led. That is where our responsibilities as leaders of people come into sharp relief.

The Catholic Church, under his watch, faced enormous reckoning. Survivors of abuse—many of them are indigenous people—continue to carry intergenerational pain that was often met with silence, bureaucracy, or denial. The Church’s relationship with colonised peoples—particularly in Canada, Australia, and, yes, Aotearoa—remains unresolved. Our histories, our lands, and our languages were often suppressed in the name of salvation. But we also acknowledge the mana of this pope. Unlike many before him, he did begin to name the pain. He apologised to indigenous peoples in Canada. He denounced what he called the “colonising mentality of the Church”. While it was not enough, it was a beginning. It was a beginning towards a movement of truth. Pope Francis was a champion for many of those who are left behind by global leaders and global movements—those who are marginalised. It is the humility of a great leader to remember those and never leave anyone behind.

Pope Francis showed strong support for Gaza through both action and advocacy. He donated his popemobile to be converted into a mobile health clinic for tamariki—children—in Gaza, providing vital medical services where the health system was devasted. He repeatedly—repeatedly—called for peace, urging a ceasefire, urging for the release of hostages, and urging for humanitarian aid to be able to get through. He personally supported Gaza’s Christian community, phoning the Holy Family Church regularly during the conflict. He respected peace and dignity for all. His final public appeal was a plea for justice and of compassion for the people of Gaza.

Let us use this moment not just to mourn but to commit to his legacy, to commit within ourselves as leaders of Aotearoa to upholding justice over silence, to protecting children and survivors over protecting power, to honouring indigenous spiritual knowledge without the need for erasure or conversion, and to ensuring that we have dignity for our takatāpui community. True faith, whether in Church and whenua or in w’akapapa, does not fear accountability; it embraces it. So we say haere atu rā e te rangatira [farewell, noble leader]. May you rest in peace. Kia tau ngā manaakitanga ki runga i ngā whānau katoa e tangi ana i tēnei wā. Haere, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[May all the families that are grieving at this time be cared for. Farewell, rest in peace.]

Motion agreed to.

Motions

Kashmir, Terrorist Attack—Leave Declined

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House condemn the terrorist attack that occurred in the town of Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22 April 2025.

SPEAKER: Have you discussed this with other parties in the Parliament?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, it has been discussed, and there has been disagreement about some wording in the motion.

SPEAKER: Yes, there’s Speaker’s ruling 28/1, which makes it somewhat disruly to seek leave knowing that it won’t be granted, but I’ll put the leave. Leave is put. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Urgent Debates Declined

Amendment to Equal Pay Act 1972—Use of Urgency

Hon Erica Stanford—Use of Personal Email Addresses to Conduct Ministerial Business

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Jan Tinetti seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the announcement that the Government will seek to amend the Equal Pay Act 1972 under urgency. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. “The fact that another parliamentary means of debating the subject of the urgent debate [request] … is a relevant consideration for the Speaker to take into account in deciding whether to accept the application.”—I refer to Speakers’ ruling 224/1. The Government has indicated that it intends to progress the bill urgently, which will provide a parliamentary means to debate it at some length. On that basis, I do not think an urgent debate is warranted and the application is declined.

I have also received a letter from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime seeking to debate the Hon Erica Standford’s use of personal email addresses to conduct ministerial business. This is a particular case—[Interruption] These rulings, when I’m standing on my feet, are heard without any interruption at all, for fear that there may be a change of mind. Erica Standford’s use of personal email addresses to conduct ministerial business—this is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The House has a duty to scrutinise the executive to determine if it retains the confidence of the House. The conduct of Ministers in relation to the Cabinet Manual is a matter primarily for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. I do not think this matter has reached the level of urgency and importance to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is declined.

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

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

SPEAKER: Three petitions have been presented for the Clerk to put in front of Parliament.

CLERK:

Petition of Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere requesting that the House require imports of any animal products to be produced to standards that meet or exceed New Zealand’s animal welfare standards

petition of Qin Qin requesting that the House urge the Government to remove any “work for accredited employer” criterion from resident visa applications for post-study work visa holders

petition of Christian van der Pump requesting that the House urge the Minister to request that MBIE review Auckland Council’s performance as a territorial authority under section 276 of the Building Act 2004.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK:

Government response to the petition of Kenneth Mulholland

the Controller and Auditor-General’s draft annual plan for 2025-26.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Eleven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill

report of the Environment Committee on the petition of 350 Aotearoa

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition of Geoffrey Mortlock

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

Racing Industry Amendment Bill

Statutes Amendment Bill

report of the Health Committee on the Mental Health Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Catrina McGregor

petition of Lance Priestley

petition of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation

petition of Rhodes Farming Partnership

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is his Government willing to accept women in New Zealand being paid less than men for doing the same amount of work of the same value?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not. This is a Government that’s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should any New Zealanders believe that his Government is committed to ending gender-based pay discrimination when they’re unilaterally cancelling pay equity claims for 34 different workforces, covering tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people, mostly women?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re doing here is we’re making sure that we actually have a process that’s more robust, workable, and sustainable. The Act and the practice has moved away from what it was intended to deal with—sex-based discrimination—into a much broader set of issues around labour market conditions and other things. So we’re bringing it back to its core purpose: to deal with sex-based discrimination—that’s a good thing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does he think tens of thousands of teachers across New Zealand will feel to see their claim for equal pay unilaterally cancelled by his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re doing is, it’s important that we have one robust system. We want a level playing field for everyone. We want to make sure that—it’s not practical to have two systems operating at the same time. We don’t want the uncertainty and we don’t want the unfairness. But I’d just say to those teachers, to the unions, to the individuals involved: they can make a claim under the new laws and we fully expect to be making claims under the sex-based discrimination laws under the Pay Equity Act.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims considered when the Government made this decision?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. This is about making sure that this legislation is actually fit for purpose and it’s actually much more sustainable, workable, and less complex.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will this year’s Budget contain any changes to the level of financial risk that the Government is exposed to around the settling of pay equity claims?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, what I’d say is that we’ve put money aside to make sure that the Crown’s obligations are met for any pay equity claims that come together under the new law. I admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government. Obviously, those costs will be lower than what has been previously projected, but obviously that is Budget-sensitive information that will be revealed with the Budget.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should women across New Zealand—

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: During the Prime Minister’s answer, at least 10 members of the Labour Party have been screaming out their own questions, even though they’ve got supplementaries that they can have allocated to them. Would you please ask them to keep quiet?

SPEAKER: What I would just suggest to them is if they think the questions that are being asked are inadequate, they do take a supplementary at a different time. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins might like to repeat his question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should women across New Zealand be the sacrificial lambs in this year’s Budget, being told they have to accept lower pay for the same value work compared to their male counterparts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is just—I don’t agree with that question and the way that that was phrased. We are staying very committed to pay equity and we are staying committed to sex-based discrimination. We’re making sure we’re just tightening up this law. If individuals or unions have claims to make, they can make claims under this new law. The Government has set money aside to meet those obligations and we’ll do that, but we want a much more workable, sustainable, robust system. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There is always a degree of robustness between the exchanges of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that’s been happening for years, but that barracking has got to stop. It’s far too much. It is certainly not inconsiderable, nor is it rare, reasonable, or witty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his pledge to offer an average family with kids an extra $250 a fortnight; if so, why have only 304 families received that support?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we worked very quickly to get money out to working New Zealanders who are wrestling with the early childcare costs, which are incredibly expensive in this country. We made some assumptions—the Inland Revenue Department made some assumptions on some incomplete information. But, having said that, I’m really proud that we’ve actually got money out to 56,000 working families up and down New Zealand, costing us about $42 million. We’ll continue to do that. I’d just say to that member: if you really cared about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you would have supported the tax cuts.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are only half the number of families he promised extra support getting anything at all under his complicated FamilyBoost scheme?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m pleased to say that there are 56,000 families that have applied and received support for their early childhood education costs. Isn’t that a good thing? I would have thought the member would have been thankful that, actually, working families are getting money and support for their early childcare costs.

Question No. 2—Environment

2. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What has he seen and heard from recent engagement with farmers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Over the last month, I’ve had the opportunity to visit several farmer-led river catchment groups in a range of spots throughout the country. I got to hear about and see examples of some wonderful land management from groups of people who obviously care deeply about the environment. I saw a range of techniques, including specially engineered wetlands and containment bunds, which will do a great job of filtering contaminants. In my local area, I saw a bioreactor which essentially uses wood chips to react with contaminants, like nitrate, and filter them out. It rammed home to me that the people that live on the land have the most interest in protecting it.

Cameron Luxton: Did the Minister see any barriers to farmers making further environmental improvements?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Oh, yes. I was amazed to see the level of bureaucratic red tape that farmers have to battle to do something great for the environment. I saw one example of a farmer who wanted to fill in a few open drains and create a beautiful wetland rich in biodiversity, but would have been forced to go through a costly resource consenting process. I talked to a farmer who almost gave up on creating a wetland just because of the cost of the red tape. One landowner wanted to put a decarbonisation plant at the back of their property, but because there were a couple of rushes in the paddock, the council called it a wetland and they weren’t allowed to do anything. It just confirmed to me how broken our resource management system is.

SPEAKER: We’ll have answers that are sort of matched to the conciseness of questions.

Cameron Luxton: What is the Government doing to address these issues?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: It’s absolutely vital that we make it as easy as possible for farmers to do the right thing. I’m a big believer in the potential of farm planning. It’s a much better way to manage environmental effects than these resource consents or local planning rules that are often far too one size fits all. That’s why we are reforming farm plans to make sure the cost and the amount of work that goes into them is based on risk. We’re also changing the law to avoid duplication by recognising the heavy lifting that industry groups, primary sector processors, and catchment groups do in supporting farmers to develop these plans.

Cameron Luxton: What other changes is the Government working on to address this red tape?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, the Government is looking at replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on the enjoyment of property rights. This system will have a tighter scope based around managing genuine environmental effects and the effects on the neighbours’ property rights. We will make it narrower and faster, replacing the default requirement for getting permission via blunt consents. By using other tools like standards that will lay out accepted ways of doing things like building a wetland, Kiwi farmers will be able to get on with doing the good stuff, not filling in paperwork.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts for the wealthy will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?

SPEAKER: Now, look, sorry, you’re going to have to rephrase that question. You can’t have suppositions thrown into questions if you want factual answers. We went through this during the last session, and I’m going to be a bit strict on it from this point. Please have another crack.

Hon Marama Davidson: I will rephrase: does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for their question. What this Government’s doing is we are rebuilding the economy, and we are under strong economic management in very uncertain times. We are making sure that we have got inflation down to 2.2 percent. It was 7.2 percent under a Labour-Greens Government; now 2.22, 2.5. Interest rates are down 200 basis points. That means, for someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, that’s $300 extra a fortnight freed up to be spent in the economy and to support that family and those individuals. For the first time in a long time, our economy’s growing again.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response, then, to the Children’s Commissioner’s statement that the latest annual report on child and youth wellbeing “shows a deeply concerning reality for the children of New Zealand. It shows that on the most basic things, like having enough healthy food, safe and healthy housing, and physical health, we are majorly letting children down. We are going backwards.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I disagree that we’re going backwards, because our Budget 2024 is designed to lift 17,000 children out of poverty, unlike the last year of the Labour-Greens Government, that put 23,000 more children into poverty. So we know we have more work to do, but we’re working incredibly hard on all of these issues.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to Amber, a mother from Auckland who recently shared with Auckland City Mission that “Our cupboard can look so empty. Some nights I don’t eat. I’ll make sure the kids have eaten heaps and then I save some for tomorrow night.”, and what is he doing to address food insecurity faced by whānau like Amber’s?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we’re doing, as I said before, is we want to grow our economy. We’re fixated on growth, growth, growth. We don’t believe the degrowth approach of the Green Party, for example, is the way in which we can get more money to Amber so that she can be supported with her food needs.

SPEAKER: I just equally suggest that reference to another party’s policy when the Government is being questioned should only be in reference to historic facts and not supposition.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he acknowledge that if his Government does not increase funding for food security measures in the upcoming Budget, things will get worse for the 54.8 percent of Pacific children, the 34.3 percent of Māori children, and the 41 percent of disabled children who are already disproportionately impacted by food insecurity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that focuses and spends $120 million to directly support Kiwis in need of food through the hardship grants available through the Ministry of Social Development. But it’s also a Government that’s fixing the economic fundamentals to make sure that we can get cash into Kiwis’ back pockets. We’re doing everything we can to grow, grow, grow, to run a great economy so that we can get cash through to people so they can deal with the cost of living.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Prime Minister commit to lifting all families out of poverty through ensuring everyone in and out of work will have a decent weekly income so all tamariki have enough to eat?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re working incredibly hard to lift incomes, and the way we do that is through economic growth—it’s as simple as that. That’s why every decision that we take in this Government is through the prism of economic growth, because that matters above and beyond everything else. It’s the way that we get cash into families’ pockets.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the operating allowance for Budget 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The operating allowance is the amount of net operating funding, on average, per year that the Government intends to spend on new discretionary policy initiatives in the forthcoming Budget. In the Budget Policy Statement last December, I said that the operating allowance for Budget 2025 would be $2.4 billion. Last week, I announced that the Government has reduced the size of the allowance to $1.3 billion. This has been achieved by a combination of spending restraint and reprioritisation. To put it in perspective, the operating allowance in Budget 2022 was around $6 billion and, in Budget 2023, it was $4.8 billion—two far bigger-spending Budgets than this one—which left New Zealand with a structural deficit that our Government is working hard to remedy.

Cameron Brewer: What role do operating allowances play in New Zealand’s fiscal management approach?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: They play a key role and have been used by successive Governments for more than two decades. Importantly, allowances are a net concept. Within the operating allowance, spending increases and revenue reductions are offset by savings and revenue-raising initiatives. The operating allowance, therefore, captures discretionary choices under the Government’s direct control. I would note, however, that some of the biggest changes to expenditure and revenue in the Government’s forecasts, such as revisions to tax forecasts and the increasing costs for things like New Zealand superannuation, are managed outside the allowance framework. This means that overall spending in the Budget will increase by more than the operating allowance.

Cameron Brewer: What is the impact of a lower Budget 2025 allowance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it adds up to smaller deficits and less debt. As I said, we’re dropping the allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion. This means the Budget deficit will be $1.1 billion smaller each year, on average, than it otherwise would have been. Consequently, Government debt will be less than it would have otherwise been.

Cameron Brewer: What reaction has she seen to her announcement of a lower operating allowance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, one member referred to this as “slash and burn”. ANZ’s economists offered a more sober appraisal, saying, “The previous Government’s expansion was so unsustainably large that part of the cost to rectify that was always likely to include some tough choices.” They go on to say, “From a macroeconomic perspective, reducing the operating allowance in the face of a weaker economy is not going to exacerbate any economic underperformance caused by global factors. That’s because the Reserve Bank will respond to the growth and inflationary implications of fiscal developments with a lower-than-otherwise official cash rate, supporting households and businesses.” This is good economic management. It is not austerity. It is not “slash and burn”. It is responsible economic management that restores the principle that Governments should take fiscal care so as not to burden future generations with unmeetable debt.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement about FamilyBoost that “there are around 21,000 families who would get the full rebate of the $150 per fortnight”; if so, how many families have consistently received the full rebate of $150 a fortnight since the scheme started?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I was using an estimate provided by Inland Revenue (IRD). As the member will know from her time working there, Inland Revenue is a highly professional organisation that uses the best available information to cost policies. IRD advised me that the modelling for this policy was challenging as there was little reliable data about how much parents were paying for early childhood education. We now have much better data about that. IRD assumed more families were paying higher childcare costs than turned out to be the case. In answer to the second part of the question, I can advise that, in total, 57,736 families have so far received FamilyBoost. I continue to encourage more families to apply. In the third quarter of 2024, 1,646 families received the very maximum payment. In the fourth quarter of 2024, 1,189 received the maximum payment. In the first quarter of this year, 1,272 families received the payment. As you will appreciate, families’ circumstances vary throughout the year, so across those three quarters I’m advised that 349 families received the full payment in each quarter.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How is it IRD’s fault when they were forecasting the scheme that she designed and estimated to benefit 130,000 families?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, at the time that National was campaigning on this policy—and I’d note that that is not my ministerial responsibility—we estimated, and what was very clear was that up to 130,000 families would be eligible for the policy. We were clear that the amount of payment that families would get under the scheme would depend on two things: (1) their income, but (2) how much they were paying in early childhood education fees. To get the maximum payment, families would have to have more than $300 a week in early childhood costs. It remains my goal to ensure that more families are getting the benefit of this great policy to support families with the cost of living. So I have asked IRD for more advice on how we can make tweaks to the scheme to ensure it reaches even more families. I’d note that under the member opposite’s approach, zero families would have got this payment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why have only a fraction of those she promised received the full amount?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I’ve made clear in my earlier answers, when I was asked how many families we estimated would get the full payment, I relied on modelling and data provided to me by the IRD. I stand by that as a sensible approach. An alternative approach, I suppose, is for me to make up my own number rather than rely on the tax officials whose job is to inform me of their estimates and modelling. I think I did the appropriate thing by relying on IRD’s data, and I continue to stand by the fact that FamilyBoost has ensured that more than 56,000 families have received cold, hard cash in their bank accounts to support them with the cost of living.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it a failure that only 349 families, rather than the estimated 21,000 families that National made promises to, received the full amount?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I again reject the characterisation of the member’s question. National never promised a particular number of families would receive the maximum payment. We always anticipated that payments would vary depending on circumstances. I can advise the member that in the third quarter of last year, 13,713 families received more than $500 for the quarter; 9,556 received more than $600; and 6,344 received more than $700. The point here is that, while the amount of the payment varies, tens of thousands of New Zealand families have benefited to the tune of hundreds of dollars because of this policy. And I would remind everyone in this House that when it came to addressing the cost of living, our Government delivered and that party opposite opposed this policy to deliver cost of living relief to families with young children. Under their approach, zero families would have got those payments.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What broken promise is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families—

SPEAKER: No—sorry. As much as the previous Greens speaker had to reword a question, for the same reasons you need to restart that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families, the delivery of the Cook Strait ferries, or the over a billion dollars of savings for her Budget by making it harder for women to seek pay equity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am most proud that after 14 years of denying New Zealanders any tax relief, after a Government that delivered them sky-high inflation and rapidly rising interest rates, our Government delivered millions of New Zealand workers and families tax relief that supported them to meet their costs of living. Behind that commitment was a principle we hold dear, and that is: those who work hard should be rewarded for their effort, and the Government should respect the wages of working people.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: After all that, not one clap.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There’ll be a right clap over there. Can I ask the Minister whether she’s done the financial analytics behind the thinking that somehow a ferry tender for two ferries at $400 million that blows out to $4 billion can somehow make common sense economically?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, which is that there are a number of achievements that this Government should be proud of, and one of them is the fact that we actually faced up to the complete blowout that the last Government allowed to occur with their ferry project, which was beset by problems, and as a consequence we are delivering a much better deal for the New Zealand taxpayer, who deserves a lot more respect than they got under the last Government.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: What actions has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government has been busy in its efforts to restore real consequences for crime. We’ve delivered on our promise to strengthen sentencing by restricting sentence discounts and by adding added aggravating factors so that offenders are more appropriately held to account. We’ve restored three strikes, and we’re making changes to ensure convicted adult sex offenders are publicly named and held to account, if that’s the victim’s wish. There’s much more to come.

Tom Rutherford: What decisions has the Government made in relation to prison voting?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government has agreed to reinstate a total ban on voting by sentenced prisoners, reversing the changes made by the previous Government. Our country has rights and responsibilities. If individuals breach those responsibilities to the extent that they’re sentenced to prison for crimes that are serious enough to result in a prison sentence, it’s only fair that they temporarily lose the right to participate in the democratic process.

Tom Rutherford: How have voting rights changed over the past few years?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the previous National Government brought in a full prisoner voting ban in 2010. The Labour Government changed that in 2020 so that some prisoners—those serving less than three years—could vote. Those serving three years or more still can’t vote. The proposed change will establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of the sentence. The total prison voting ban for all sentenced prisoners underlines the importance that New Zealanders accord to the rule of law.

Tom Rutherford: What feedback has he had on the announcement?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’ve had a lot of feedback, including one from Jenny online, which said, “It’s the victims that deserve rights, lots who will never get over what has happened to them because of people who committed crimes. It’s time to thank you, National, for being there for the voice of the victims.”

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who stated that people serving two years or less in prison should still be able to vote and that a total ban on prisoner voting is “extreme”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I don’t agree with that sentiment, and, of course, with the passage of time, people and parties sometimes change their views on matters.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government’s decision to rapidly and radically cut the size of Government from 34 to 30 percent of GDP without any appreciation of the limits of private investment’s ability to fill the economic activity gap has kneecapped the growth that he so often likes to tell us he’s aiming for?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly do you grow an economy, as the Prime Minister keeps saying is his goal, by cutting investment in people, a stable climate, public services, and infrastructure?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. What I’d say is, first and foremost, you have to make sure you’ve got an economy that’s being well managed, and we have stopped the wasteful spending. That in turn has lowered inflation; that in turn has lowered interest rates; that has driven GDP growth; and, important, that will keep people in their jobs. We have been through a challenging time. But the good news is we have turned the corner and now we cannot just watch a recovery take place; we get to shape it. I just encourage the member to look at our Going For Growth plan; make sure we get a world-class education system; embrace science, technology, innovation; have world-class infrastructure; make sure we get rid of red tape and bureaucracy; and, importantly, have more trade and investment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister consider his Government’s self-imposed fiscal rules, resulting in a slashing in investment in public services, radical, given Treasury has said that this historically low expenditure would change “the fundamental role of Government in New Zealand”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m a little bit confused what the member’s talking about because this is a Government that has put almost $17 billion more into healthcare, on top of the normal almost $30 billion spent each and every year. This is a Government that has spent more on healthcare than any previous Government in the history of New Zealand. This is a Government that is actually fixing our education system to make sure that our kids have a shot at high-paying jobs down the road, by learning to read and to do maths well, and we’re getting them to school—thanks to two great Ministers doing an awesome job. This is a Government that’s wanting to grow our economy. Growth, growth, growth is great.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that far from the radical position which the member characterised spending at a rate of 30 percent of GDP as, it was in fact the case under successive National- and Labour-led Governments that spending as a proportion of GDP by the Government was less than 30 percent, including—as I recall—during the first years of the Labour Government, supported by the Green Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly did the Government find $12 billion for military spending while it’s also telling us that there’s simply not enough money to invest in ending child poverty or climate action?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. We can do both things at the same time. We can walk and chew gum. I’d just say to that member: who do you think are the people that go and help the Pacific in climate-related emergencies? Who are the people that actually support peacekeeping around the world? It’s our Defence Force. So we’re very proud of the investment that we’re making in our defence assets, and, at the same time, we’re increasing expenditure on health and education, law and order, and also business growth.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When his Minister today announced stopping pay equity claims, saying, “The changes I am proposing will significantly reduce costs to the Crown.”, are we to take it that his Government expects working women to pay the cost of his landlord tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. As I said in answer to earlier questions on this, we have money set aside to make sure we are meeting the obligations for pay equity claims under the new laws. The costs will likely be lower and, as a result, you’ll see what they will be in the Budget. But the thing is, money will be invested in health and education and core front-line public services, and that’s a good thing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, we’ll just wait for a bit of quiet.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What changed between when his Government said the pay equity process was working well, and therefore it could abolish the pay equity task force, and today, when they’re now legislating under urgency to do away with 33 active pay equity claims, or is it simply the case that what they’re trying to do is desperately find a way to balance the budget because the tax cuts they delivered were unaffordable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, I answered this before: we are making sure that we have a much more workable, sustainable, robust pay equity and sex-based discrimination system. We are very committed to it. We just need to make sure that, actually, there is evidence for the claims; we need to make sure that there are strong comparators that are relevant. We want specific claims, not broad claims, and we need to make sure that the reviews are appropriate. We’re just making sure that it’s a much more workable system, fair and level for everybody.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is his first priority as Health Minister still “focusing Health New Zealand on delivering the basics and achieving targets”; if so, why have wait times for first specialist assessment and elective treatments worsened?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yes, you cannot manage what you don’t measure, and that’s why this Government reinstated health targets: to drive accountability and ensure access to timely, quality healthcare. Too many New Zealanders are waiting too long for first specialist assessments and elective treatments, and addressing this is a priority. Wait-lists have been growing over several years. Despite an increase in elective procedures and first specialist assessments being completed last year, the rate at which people were being referred on to wait-lists continues to outpace the rate at which people were receiving treatment or being seen. However, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can he expect others to be accountable for targets, if he doesn’t own up that there has been a 6 percent deterioration in first specialist assessments, and a 3 percent deterioration in elective treatments since the change of Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If we’re going to talk about percentages, we could talk about the 6,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment when that party was in Government; or we could talk about the 2,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting for an elective treatment more than four months, while that party was in Government. The wait-list ballooned. We’ve put in place targets. Now we’re focusing the system on delivery so that people can get the healthcare they need in a timely and quality manner.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who does he expect to do the additional procedures, when Health New Zealand’s last quarterly workforce report shows 310 fewer nurses and 47 fewer doctors employed in our health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand than in 2023. We’re investing in front-line services and we’re focusing on ensuring that we treat the patients and get the timely and quality access to healthcare that is needed. As I said in my primary answer, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January. That is progress. Because of the huge wait-list that we inherited, it’s going to take time to deliver. I’m focused on delivery.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement “There is no such thing as a hiring freeze.”, or does he accept that official statistics now show hiring has been frozen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than there were in 2023. We’re investing in front-line health workforces and we’re focusing on delivery. We’re investing $16.68 billion over three Budgets, so we can invest in the front-line services that New Zealanders need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister confirm that with the last three answers on the statistical improvements that he gave in those answers, the primary question, or the questioner, was demonstrably, deliberately false?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re focused on delivery. We’re focused on outcomes. We have more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than in 2023. We’re focused on outcomes. As I said in my primary answer, 8,000 fewer people are waiting on the first specialist assessment wait-list for the week ending 13 April than in the first week of January. That’s progress. We inherited massive wait-lists which ballooned under the previous Government, and we are focused on getting patients the care they need.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he try to blame senior doctors for longer waits for treatment, when it is his Government’s hiring freeze that means New Zealanders are going without the care they need?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I was very clear when it came to the union deciding to go on strike, that they should have put the offer that was presented to them a week prior to the strike to their members to vote on, rather than going on a strike which has caused 4,300 elective treatments or first specialist assessments to be delayed. That’s unacceptable. We must put patients first.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Question No. 9—just waiting for a bit of quiet.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. How does the ministry’s decision to remove ethnicity as a factor in wait-times align with his targets to reduce wait-times when Māori are still waiting longer for treatment than non-Māori?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is very clear: we are focusing on need and we’re focusing on making sure that we are ensuring that patients get the treatment they need in a timely and quality manner, and that applies to all New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. That was a mischaracterisation of the actual question. The question, which is an equity-based, policy-based, needs-based—

Hon Judith Collins: Just ask the question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —addresses Māori and Pacific Islanders, and there wasn’t actually an answer in that—thanks, Judith.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister could say the same thing again if he likes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is focusing the health system to treat people based on the needs that they have and ensuring that all New Zealanders can get the access to timely and quality healthcare.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How did that go?

SPEAKER: Because she was faster off her feet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she wasn’t.

SPEAKER: Yes, she was. I’m pretty sure. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—it was like a blur; you could hardly see it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. How will proposed cuts to Māori and Pacific health and immunisation providers, many of whom serve high needs and hard to reach whānau, achieve his target to increase immunisation rates for children to 95 percent at 24 months?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is very much focused on delivering on the basis of need. We continue to invest in providers who serve a variety of communities to ensure that we are reaching out into Māori and Pacific communities so that we can meet those targets. But as I said in the previous answer, we are focusing healthcare delivery on the basis of need so that all New Zealanders can access timely and quality healthcare.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to why on earth he hasn’t consulted with Ayesha Verrall, who’s an absolute expert on medical waiting lists and endless delays?

SPEAKER: No. Is there another question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes. How does his decision to cancel bowel cancer screening for Māori and Pasifika from the age of 50 align with his target of faster cancer treatment for 90 percent of patients when these groups have the highest rates of bowel cancer in the country, with 18 percent of cases diagnosed under the age of 50?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we’re focusing on, as I said, healthcare delivered on the basis of need. We are lowering the age for all New Zealanders to be able to access bowel cancer screening to the age of 58. We are also making targeted investments to target those communities—Māori, Pasifika, Asian communities—where they have lower bowel cancer screening rates, to lift those rates so that we can save as many lives as possible.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori health outcomes have improved since his Government dismantled Te Aka Whai Ora?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say to the member is that we are making tremendous progress; we’re investing more, hiring more. We’ve set real clarity around the targets of what we expect to deliver for Māori and for non-Māori. Now we need a high-performing Health New Zealand to deliver it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What specific action has the Government taken under his leadership to address inequities in life expectancy for Māori and non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of the five targets that we’ve set in healthcare. We want people to have faster access to cancer treatment, Māori or non-Māori. We want to make sure that under-two-year-olds, Māori or non-Māori, are immunised. We want to make sure there are less wait-times for emergency departments, first specialist appointments, and elective surgeries.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he consider it unacceptable that Māori die seven years earlier than non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’ve got to continue to work hard to close that gap.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can the Prime Minister claim to govern for all New Zealanders when Māori health outcomes are deteriorating under this Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would dispute the characterisation of that question. I said this Government has set clear targets about what we expect the healthcare system to deliver for patients, Māori or non-Māori. This is a Government that’s invested record amounts of money in the healthcare system. It’s a Government that’s expanding the workforce in the healthcare system, and it’s given tremendous clarity to the system as to what it’s to deliver for patients. Now we need to crack on and build a high-performing Health New Zealand.

Question No. 10—Defence

10. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcement has she made about funding for Defence?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): On Sunday, at Whenuapai Air Base, with the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs Minister, I had the pleasure of announcing a substantial investment in the Defence Force. We’re committing around $2 billion to replace the ageing Seasprite maritime helicopters, and we’re investing an extra $957 million in defence force activities, personnel, and estate. These investments are the first step in implementing the Defence Capability Plan announced last week, which outlined $12 billion of planned commitments in the next four years. We’re building a modern, combat-capable New Zealand Defence Force to operate in a rapidly changing world which is inherently more dangerous, and we’re dealing with the world as it is, not the world we’d like it to be.

Tim van de Molen: What are the capabilities of these helicopters and how does this benefit New Zealanders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, these maritime helicopters will operate off Royal New Zealand Navy ships. They will increase the defensive and offensive capability and surveillance range of the frigates. The helicopters are a new generation that will be equipped with more advanced sensors, communications technology, and combat systems, all of which are critical for Defence to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders. In addition, they will extend the Navy’s ability to support non-combat tasks like search and rescue and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. We are a trading nation with a huge exclusive economic zone. We need naval and aviation capability that can support New Zealand’s defence, security, and trade objectives.

Tim van de Molen: What will the additional $957 million of operating funding cover?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This $957 million is for the New Zealand Defence Force activities, personnel, and estate. This investment in defence equates to $239 million a year over four years and puts us on the path for defence spending to reach 2 percent of GDP by 2032-33. Our people are being called upon to go more places more often and for longer, and we must continue to pull our weight and play our part in contributing to global security. This funding will enable the Defence Force to do that. It includes $150 million for the Defence Force to sail, fly, patrol, and train more often; $39 million for personnel allowances for such things as deployments; $20 million for international deployments; $3 million to increase essential engagement with international partners; and $26 million for critical estate maintenance to improve accommodation and working and training conditions for our people, as well as $33 million over four years to provide for civilian staff pay increases.

Tim van de Molen: What reports is she hearing from Defence Force personnel about these announcements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, they’re just delighted. They are absolutely fizzing. They joined up to do stuff; they joined up to serve their country and to get stuff done. This Defence Capability Plan and Budget funding will enable them to do even more. They’re feeling supported and appreciated and they’re no longer leaving in droves. In fact, statistics from April show that Navy attrition has fallen to 5.8 percent from a high of 17.3 percent about two years ago. For the Air Force, it’s down to 6.9 percent, down from 13.1 percent, and for the Army it’s 7.8 percent, down from 17.7 percent. They’re hearing the message that we value them and that we want to help them to keep us all safe. And there’s another message for them: it’s just the beginning.

Question No. 11—Education

11. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that she has complied with paragraph 2.86 of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I have used my personal email in the past. While the Cabinet Manual acknowledges that this may happen, I have now put in place practices so that, as far as possible, this is minimised in the future.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she ever invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account for ministerial business since becoming Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Many people have my Gmail address, both from before I was a Minister and when I was in Opposition. Some of them still continue to use it. As I’ve said in my primary, I take steps as far as I possibly can now to ensure that that stops happening.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. That wasn’t my question. My question was “Has she invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account since she has become”—

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on. Are you taking a point of order?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yes, that was not my question. I asked if she had invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account.

SPEAKER: Well, presumably, if she’s given them that address at some point, they’ve been invited. That would be the conclusion you’ve reached.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: But since becoming a Minister, I said.

SPEAKER: Minister. OK, well, the Minister may like to have another crack at that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll reinstate what I said. Many people have my Gmail address, and I receive unsolicited emails. As far as I can recall, I’ve never given out my personal email, but, as I say, it’s freely available. Unfortunately, many people can find it online and they have emailed me at my personal email.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she ever used her personal Gmail account to organise ministerial meetings?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No. All meetings that have been organised have been organised through ministerial office, and they are all available in the proactively released diary managed either through my political staff or through my private secretaries.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is everything she organised via her private email recorded in her ministerial diary?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I didn’t organise any meetings through my Gmail, and any meetings that have been organised have been organised by my senior private secretary, my office, and have been recorded in the proactive diary releases.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister find it unusual that there are some members of Parliament who are so lacking in doing their duty as responsible MPs or Ministers that nobody writes to them? [Interruption]

Hon Member: Every question time, we’ve got to put up with this nonsense.

SPEAKER: Well, I just hear from my left the suggestion that every question time there is a need to put up with so-called dis-nonsense. Unfortunately, it is a House where people do have the right to stand on their feet and say largely what they’re thinking, as long as it is not offensive to the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. So just to clarify, you are saying that members have the right to stand up and ask a question they know is not in order to make a political point, and that’s all good with you?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not what I said at all. If you will then refer to Hansard, you’ll find out what I did say.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has everything that has been through her personal email account that relates to her portfolios been recorded in accordance with the official record-keeping practices?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s exactly why we’re here. The Cabinet Manual says that any emails should be kept for the purposes of the Official Information Act. They have been; they’ve been disclosed, and that’s why we’re here. What I would say, though, is that I am absolutely, 100 percent focused on reforming the education system, which is why we’ve done so much work. All the while, the member across the House has spent her time trawling through my Gmails, and I’d rather she spent time perhaps reading the message that I sent her, inviting her to be part of the NCEA change package, which she has declined to respond to—but that sums up the Opposition’s priorities, which is not our kids.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received assurances from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, look, sorry—a question’s being asked, and questions are asked in silence. We’ve had too much of that today on both sides. Start again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received assurances from the GCSB, the NZSIS, DPMC, Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never been breached?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have not done that, but I have made sure that there is two-factor authentication on my Gmail, which is one of the things that we’re required to do.

Question No. 12—Trade and Investment

12. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding free-trade agreements?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement. As a result of its early entry into force many months sooner than had been forecast, goods exports to the EU from New Zealand have surged by 28 percent, delivering an additional $1 billion in export revenue in the first year. This is very good news for our hard-working exporters and, as the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, should be celebrated by every member in this House. This week also marks the first in-person negotiations for a comprehensive free-trade agreement (FTA) with India, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, with huge untapped potential for New Zealand exporters—an important milestone in our relationship with that country.

Rima Nakhle: What benefits has the European free-trade agreement delivered for New Zealand’s exporters over the past year?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In just 12 months, the agreement has unlocked major new opportunities for exporters and delivered improved market access to nearly 450 million consumers. That $1 billion increase in export revenue is already benefiting Kiwi exporters directly, particularly our farmers—for example, sheep meat exports grew by 29 percent, worth more than $200 million; kiwifruit exports grew by 69 percent, an additional $316 million; butter exports, 105 percent increase; squid exports, 66 percent, worth $25 million; and machinery exports grew 104 percent, worth an additional $173 million. Services trade also grew by 22 percent, meaning more jobs and better pay for Kiwis.

Rima Nakhle: What is the significance of a comprehensive free-trade agreement with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY: With a population of 1.4 billion people and GDP estimated to grow to US$5.2 trillion by 2030, India offers significant potential for New Zealand exporters. Negotiations were launched on 17 March, and there has been significant engagement with officials since then. This week, as I said, marks the first in-person round of negotiations towards a comprehensive FTA, and they’re taking in place in India. This follows the highly successful visit to India by our Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, including to Gujarat last year, and the formal launch of negotiations by my Indian counterpart and me during the Prime Minister’s large and successful trade mission to India in March.

Rima Nakhle: What else has the Government achieved in the past 17 months regarding trade agreements?

Hon TODD McCLAY: One in four Kiwi jobs relies on trade, and last year, our export revenue added a significant $100 billion to the economy, including a significant, huge contribution by New Zealand farmers. Strong agreements and relationships ensure better jobs, higher wages, and access to world-class public services for New Zealanders. It’s been a very busy and important year for trade and agriculture. Since the Government was formed, we have brought the EU FTA into force earlier than forecast; signed an agreement with the UAE, 99 percent of tariff elimination on day one; concluded negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council, also 99 percent tariff elimination over time; brought the upgraded ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand FTA into force recently; signed the ACCTS agreement on trade and sustainability; announced services on trade-upgrade negotiations with China; and now are launching negotiations for an FTA with India—all part of the Government’s agenda to grow the economy.

Question No. 1 to Minister—Amended Answer

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: For what reason?

SPEAKER: You don’t—well, a small outline of the reason.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question to No. 1 today.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked whether the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims was considered when the Government made this decision. What I should have said was that while Cabinet received advice on a range of considerations, our primary motivation was ensuring the regime would be more robust, workable, and sustainable.

SPEAKER: The normal practice would be for a much more substantial reason. But can we now take 30 seconds while the House allows those who need to go to other business to do so.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the following sessional order be adopted:

Oral questions after urgency accorded

(1) During a sitting that is extended by urgency, oral questions will be taken at 2 pm on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, unless the Business Committee determines otherwise.

(2) Standing Order 59 is read accordingly.

This is a very short motion just to make clear that when the House goes into urgency, there will be question time on each actual day, even though, in parliamentary terms, it’s not a real day, but there will be question time during urgency. It just, essentially, makes sure that the Government doesn’t have to go through the Business Committee and get the Business Committee to agree or, indeed, move a motion like we are. So, hopefully, it will be one and done, and I suspect this will be an issue that gets referred to the Standing Orders Committee for permanent adoption into the Standing Orders into the 49th Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, the passing through all stages of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, the remaining stages of the Social Security Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

The Government is moving into urgency for a range of reasons today. The first is that it is desirable to provide legal certainty in relation to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, to provide legal clarity as soon as practicably possible.

In relation to the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, I think it has been widely canvassed, certainly in parts of the media. The decision of the High Court, I think it was a few weeks ago, has provided real legal uncertainty in relation to a range of infrastructure projects. The recent court decision, I am advised, impacts over 300 applications to the Department of Conservation for permits under the Wildlife Act. At some point in the future, Parliament is going to have to turn its mind to the Wildlife Act itself, which is a law that dates from 1953. I think it is clunky, but, in the meantime, we need to provide clear legal certainty in relation to matters under the Wildlife Act, as a range of infrastructure projects are affected. That is why that is being taken through all stages under urgency.

The Social Security Amendment Bill needs to be enacted by 26 May, and the Government intends to make progress on some other bills that are important to it, including the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. Both of those are second readings, not passing through all stages. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is a good bill and we’re keen to get that off to committee. It’s at the tail end of the urgency motion; if we get there, we’ll be doing well. Let’s wait and see how we go. With that, I’ll commend the urgency motion to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.

CLERK: Equal Pay Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately.

First Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present a legislative statement on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

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

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim. It provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations.

In 2014, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Equal Pay Act did not only require the same pay for the same work, but also equal pay for work that is different but of equal value. A bill providing a framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims was introduced into Parliament in 2017, and a substantially reworked bill was passed into law by the previous Government in 2020.

The previous Government’s bill significantly lowered the entry threshold for pay equity claims, provided limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims, and enabled parties to choose from a wide variety of comparators to support their claim. The settings the previous Government introduced have led to claims being progressed through the entry threshold without strong evidence of undervaluation. There have been broadly scoped claims where it is difficult to determine whether the differences in remuneration are due to sex-based undervaluation. For example, the DHB, Allied, and Technical health pay equity settlement covers 90 occupations including hospital dental assistants, physiotherapists, wheelchair technicians, and cultural advisers.

The current Act provides the flexibility to choose from a wide range of comparators, which has led to comparators being chosen even where the comparator’s work and skills are very different to the claimant’s. Health New Zealand admin and clerical staff, as an example, have been compared to mechanical engineers, Health New Zealand librarians have been compared to transport engineers, and Oranga Tamariki’s social workers have been compared to air traffic controllers.

The same comparators have been used repeatedly across several claims, despite several differences with the work of the claimants. Corrections officers, for example, have been used as comparators for nurses, admin support staff, and teacher aides. And review clauses that are required to be included in settlement agreements have considered factors that may not have been connected to sex-based undervaluation. In some settlements, review clauses have included factors to consider—such as the Consumers Price Index—that may not have been connected to a return of sex-based undervaluation.

This Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, but we need the system to be robust, workable, and sustainable. Whether it is a public or a private sector employer, implementing a pay equity settlement means that employers will need to determine how to factor in additional costs. Parties, therefore, need to be able to have the confidence that the process to assess a pay equity claim is robust.

In order to provide a better framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims, this bill introduces a suite of changes, which includes a more robust process for raising a claim where claims need to have merit to progress; further tools for employers to ensure that claims are appropriately scoped; additional clarity and guidance on how to choose an appropriate comparator and on comparison methodology; changes to enable employers to meet their pay equity obligations in a manner that is sustainable; and changes to ensure that the parameters for the Employment Relations Authority relating to fixing remuneration provide the right incentives to resolve pay equity claims.

The bill will apply to existing unresolved claims and to review clauses in existing settlements. Existing pay equity claims will be discontinued, and they will need to be raised under the amended legislation, whether they have been raised with the employer or filed at the authority and are not yet determined. The Government is doing this because we consider it’s important that everyone is on the same playing field from the start, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time for a period of time. The review clauses in existing settlements will also become unenforceable. The short time frame of the review cycle in the Act has made it difficult to determine whether any differences in pay were due to pay equity issues having reemerged or to short-term labour market dynamics. These transitional provisions are necessary and justified to meet the policy objective of maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while providing a better framework that is workable and sustainable. They will provide certainty for people involved in pay equity claims.

We are progressing this bill under urgency because we have to move quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure that the system is workable and sustainable.

Overall, the bill will provide greater confidence that pay equity claim assessments will focus on any sex-based undervaluation and remuneration, and that any non-sex-based factors are appropriately accounted for. These changes will provide greater confidence that genuine pay equity issues will be correctly identified and addressed. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I found that incredibly insulting towards women, that speech. How dare anybody pour shade on the work that has happened since 2020 that had 13—13—pay equity claims be successful in this country, when prior to that we had very few successful pay equity claims. How dare anyone pour shade on a process—and here we are, in urgency, going through all stages of a bill and totally, totally taking away the democratic rights of women in this country to have their say on something that is incredibly important to them. How absolutely shameful. And why is not every woman on that side of the House hanging their head in shame and standing up and saying that this is not good enough?

This is absolutely disgraceful that we are here today, when nobody—nobody—other than the executive knew anything about this bill until a few hours beforehand. The fact that this would come through and cause many, many people to come at short notice to stand outside and protest against this bill says it all. What an absolute disgrace.

For the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to stand up and say that claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation, does she even know what the process looks like? Did she listen to Tessa today, who stood outside there as a librarian who has been through four years so far progressing their claim—four years of robust discussion, four years of working through those comparators, four years of making sure that their claim was going to stand up so that they were going to be valued how they have always desired to be valued? All she said is that “We want to be paid for our work—the value of our work.” Four years she has been working through that, and for the Minister to stand there and say that there is no strong evidence of undervaluation is absolutely shameful—absolutely shameful.

This is a disgraceful affront to women’s and workers’ rights, and I am absolutely disgusted that this House is even having this conversation. We should be moving forward, and this is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards to a time when women were undervalued for their work, and now we are starting—I thought this was something that we agreed upon across the House. I thought that this was something that we would not have arguments about, that we would stand here together and say, “Women need to be valued.” But what this smacks of is that we have a Government that cannot make their Budget balance, and so this is a way that they are actually having to go desperately, to grasp desperately, to make their Budget balance.

So what are they doing? They are throwing women under the bus. Women are the people who are absolutely paying for their inability to make their Budget work. Women once again in this country are being put in a position where they are having to pay for other people’s work, for other people’s inability to make their Budgets work. Women are paying for tax cuts. That is the bottom line here: women are paying for tax cuts. It is a shameful, shameful day. It is outrageous, dishonest, and an absolute backward step—absolute backward step.

This Government is simply extinguishing what are very legitimate pay equity claims for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. When you think that the teacher pay equity claim is covering 94,000 teachers alone, and there are 33 claims in progress at this current point in time, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of women who this is impacting upon. And it’s the claims to come. But not only that; it’s the claims that have been, because what the Minister is taking away in this shameful piece of legislation is that she is taking away the review rights. So she is condemning women to be at lower levels of pay for a long, long, long time. It is shameful.

The Government getting back into surplus should not be at the expense of women. Women are being asked to once again pay the price. This is an absolutely shameful day in the history of this Parliament. I have never felt so disgusted in what I am seeing right now.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am disappointed, I am absolutely disgusted, but I am not surprised that this is the action this Government takes. Now, the first person I want to mention in my speech is Kristine Bartlett, who won New Zealander of the Year, who has been recognised for outstanding contributions to our country, who took the first claim under the Equal Pay Act about the discriminatory pay that she and so many other people received as aged-care workers.

The reality is that the hardest and most important caring work that holds together our society is underpaid and undervalued, and it has been for decades, and that was recognised by the National Party in 2020 when we passed the amendment to the Equal Pay Act. On 22 July 2020, the National Party stood up, and Nicola Willis said she was proud to stand in the House that night and say that National would support the final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill—“I’m proud [of what the National Party] … contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House.” Erica Stanford said that she was pleased to take a very short call. She spoke of the dreams she had for her daughter and her grandchildren, that they would grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts, and that bill set up the framework that we need to achieve that outcome.

Now, I, as Minister for Women, oversaw this in conjunction with our Labour colleagues, but we had the support of the National Party. We had the support of Business New Zealand and the unions. There was a tripart working group that went through and developed the process, and the whole point of it was to make it easier for pay equity to be achieve. That means that people, whether they’re male or female or gender diverse, working in historically female-dominated industries, whether they’re teachers, midwives, nurses, admin and clerical workers, cleaners, aged-care workers, care and support workers—they don’t get paid enough, and that’s because of gender-based discrimination.

What the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said and made very, very clear in her public media today is that this is about saving money for Government. Who pays the price of that? Our essential workers, who are predominantly female and who are struggling to make ends meet, going out there and doing the hardest work that actually holds together society, all right?

Like, the highest-paid people in our society right now are not the ones doing the hardest work. Let’s just be honest about that. We have a broken economic system that rewards people who go out and make money by ripping people off or by playing the shocks and the training system, and not the people who actually look after our tamariki, who look after our aged people, who look after our disabled people—and that’s predominantly women, and they’re predominantly employed by Government because the work they do is for public good, and that needs to be recognised.

The whole point of this very long process that we went through to ensure that pay equity was acknowledged and had a process that everybody could agree to under the Equal Pay Act was so that we could rectify that historic discrimination, which means that single mothers who are doing some of the hardest work out there are able to be properly paid and recognised for their contribution and their mahi, as they deserve to be.

There are so many women that I’ve heard from, or people just working in these sectors, for whom the pay equity cases have made a life-changing difference. It is the difference between being able to put food on the table—healthy kai. It’s the difference that they might be able to save up a little extra and be able to have a proper holiday, for example, or be able to take some well-deserved time off; to be able to live in a warmer, drier house, which may have higher rent.

There is no question—the Government has made it very, very clear—that the overriding driving purpose for the changes that have been introduced and will be passed today is not justice, it is not fairness, it is not about ensuring that the Crown is a good employer; it is about saving money so we can give more money to the people who already have the most. That’s what this Government has prioritised: tax cuts for landlords, the people who already own the most wealth; tax cuts for tobacco companies. That’s what women in this House have made their work, is to look after the people who donated to the Government parties, rather than looking after the women who are underpaid and doing the most critical work. Those are the workforces in which we have shortages. We don’t have enough teachers, and we don’t have enough midwives, because we do not pay them enough.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. This will, of course, amend the Equal Pay Act 1972 and provide a better framework to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation of workers covered by a pay equity claim.

This piece of legislation is not about collective bargaining. It is not about where wages are low. This is a piece of legislation to provide a framework that allows us to determine where there is sex-based undervaluation. And this is where things went astray with the 2020 legislation, because, all of a sudden, the Government in power wanted to wrap a whole bunch of other issues into a piece of legislation that removed it from its core purpose, which was about pay equity. So our Government is returning it to be about pay equity.

I want to remind the House that in 2017 the then National Government settled with Kristine Bartlett. I applaud her determination and her courage in taking that case, and the $2 billion settlement that resulted. The legislation that we introduced in 2017—really, we’re going back to a more pragmatic approach, which means the process is more robust. It is more transparent. It is more workable and sustainable for all parties involved.

I do want to just correct a couple of the nonsenses that the Labour and Green members talked about in dramatising this and scaremongering. The first is the blatant—blatant—inaccuracy that this is removing review rights. It’s not. It’s just putting review rights in a 10-year interval. What we do want to do—and here’s the thing: if there is a sex-based discrimination case that works the way through its process and leads to change, why is it that we think in only three years there would still be sex-based discrimination? It wouldn’t work if that was the case. So 10 years is a realistic interval in terms of that change being made.

The other thing I do want to put on the record, because I think it is important in terms of National’s support of the 2020 legislation—I just do want to remind the House that the Labour Government rammed through a massive Supplementary Order Paper that had no scrutiny by anyone, and many of the issues that we are fixing today in this piece of legislation, brought by my colleague the Hon Brooke van Velden, fix those difficulties.

This piece of legislation is about sex-based discrimination. I’m proud of the National Party record and what we have done in terms of equal pay, in terms of introducing legislation and recognising pay equity in 2017. I accept what members of the House have said about a range of New Zealanders whose pay is too low. That is why we want a growing economy that lifts wages. But that is a very different issue to sex-based discrimination. So let’s keep the debate about the issue of the day, which is pay equity. It’s not about low wages. It’s not about issues that the other side want to scaremonger. It is about pay equity, so let’s focus on that, because it’s about historical undervaluation of areas that have been traditionally dominated by women.

One of the other really important components of this legislation is when we are using comparators, and the Minister outlined some of the comparators. If I think about the concerns that have been raised with me by workers and by employers across the board, people want to understand comparators that make sense and, unfortunately, what we’ve seen with the current system is just an absolute stretching beyond of what is logical and reasonable in terms of a comparator.

So we want to see pay equity claims that are successful, that are based on merit, and we must have a system that is more robust, workable, and sustainable so that we can achieve greater pay equity.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Standing up for women’s rights!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This is an important piece of legislation because we are standing up for women’s rights. When we take the emotion and the noise out of this conversation, the key point that we are talking about—and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, when introducing the bill, mentioned that this is having remain the ability to raise the sex-based undervaluations but, more importantly, resolve them through a framework that will be effective and efficient and that will have a really clear connection to the core purpose of this legislation, which is about sex-based undervaluation. We are seeking to support meritorious claims, and when members across the House can muddy the water with a whole lot of issues about pay gaps and underpaid workforces, this is blurring the line about the point of this piece of legislation, which is to raise and resolve the claims.

Members across the House talked about four years of fighting an equity claim—four years shows you that the system needs to be resolved and improved. The system needs to be made more effective, because otherwise we will spend years working through legislation because we’re too afraid to say that perhaps this isn’t achieving what we wanted it to achieve.

It is about having a workable and sustainable solution into the long term. It is about having logical and effective ways of ensuring that we can raise these sex-based undervaluations and resolve them, and that is the key point that we are doing in this piece of legislation. This is why it is important to have the confidence, the ability, the common sense, and the bravery to actually stand up and go, “Hang on, let’s take a look at this. Is it achieving what we want it to achieve?”

I have worked nearly my entire working life in male-dominated roles, and I think we can say proudly in New Zealand that we have progressed effectively to ensure that women’s work is valued. Are we at the end destination? No. There is work we can do, but the work has to be about the ability to resolve these claims, to recognise where they sit—differentiated from general concerns about pay rates—and actually deal with the specific conversation about sex-based undervaluations so that we can achieve the equity goals that we want to, and not blurring it with a whole lot of emotive language about all of these things and how we’re selling women down the road, and all of this emotional language which will make it easy to get some points.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is she trying to make this emotional—we’re talking about women, and it becomes an emotional issue?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: But here we have this point where we have emotions being shouted across the House. This is about the point of exactly what we’re trying to achieve. It is a common-sense piece of legislation that will address and adjust what we’re trying to achieve, which is sex-based undervaluation claims being able to be raised and then resolved. That is the direction we need to do and that is the direction this Government is taking.

We are not removing the ability to raise these claims. We are not removing the ability to deal with the issues. We are working through a process to ensure that this ability to raise exists and the ability to resolve is a priority, and that is why New Zealand First is commending this bill to the House.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She should be ashamed of herself. Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Takutai Tarsh Kemp. Sorry, we’ll just wait for the next—I don’t think we need personal attacks, right? I’m going to get it clear from the beginning of this that this is a Government bill, and we don’t want those sorts of comments passed to Ministers personally.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’ve been here a long time, and interjecting with the term “Shame!” to another member across the House has—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it wasn’t the word “Shame!”; it was the words you used—“You should be ashamed of yourself.”—to that member.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Actually, I said, “She should be ashamed.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think you used the word “you”, but I can check that out. But this is a Government bill, so let’s try and do it with the—we know that it’s going to be a bill that’s going to create a lot of angst and a lot of emotion, but let’s try and keep the personal attacks out of it.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill in the strongest terms. It is emotional, because we stand by wāhine, we stand by the rights of our wāhine, and we deserve better. This bill will make it impossible for people in female-dominated professions to be paid fairly. This is an attack on working women and will lock in gender discrimination for years to come. Why is this Government so determined to erase equity and entrench inequality? This bill will stop 33 current claims immediately, under urgency, because this Government can afford to give $3 billion to landlords and $13 billion to the military but we cannot afford to pay our wāhine fairly.

For every $1 a Pākehā man makes, a Māori wahine makes 81c—get that. A Pasifika woman makes 79c—even more shameful. An Asian wahine makes 88c, and Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African women make 88c as well. Where is the equity in that? That means that over a lifetime, taking inflation into consideration, the average Māori wahine will earn over $400,000 less than Pākehā men. Asian women, too, have earned over $400,000 less, and Pasifika women have earned nearly $500,000 less than Pākehā men. This illustrates the intergenerational impact of pay discrimination on whānau. These aren’t just numbers; these are tamariki, these are mokopuna.

I want to share an example. I worked in an organisation where this occurred. This happened to our team of workmates, to the wāhine in this team—high-performing wāhine, I’ve got to say. We did the same job as our male counterparts, but we were never paid the same equal, fair-pay rate as our male teammates. Every year, we would go to the performance review, fight and prove that we could reach our key performance indicators just as much as our male counterparts. Did we ever get that pay rise? No. Did we ever get the same pay rise, actually, as our male counterparts? No, we didn’t, and for years we felt undervalued. For years, it felt demoralising.

Yes, it is emotional, because you put your heart, sweat, blood, and tears into your mahi because you love your community, and all you ask for is fair and equal pay, the same as your male colleagues. Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill, and we won’t be supporting this bill in the House. Kia ora.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleague the Hon Louise Upston made it very clear in her speech earlier that this today is about sex-based pay having equality and that National is committed to this and has been committed to this throughout. In fact, National led the introduction of legislation to this House in 2017. We have Labour crying foul this afternoon, when it took them three years even to get their legislation into this House. During urgency, they introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that fundamentally changed that legislation for the worse. This afternoon, we have come to the House to fix that. That does not take away from the importance of ensuring equality in pay based on sex.

I want to correct the previous speaker who spoke a lot about equal pay. The bill that has been introduced to the House this afternoon does not make any changes to equal pay. Equal pay is receiving equal pay for equal work. Pay equality is about ensuring—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It’s called “equity”, mate.

CARL BATES: Pay equity—thank you. It’s about ensuring that people doing different work in different organisations of similar value are paid at a similar level.

Rachel Boyack: We do know that.

CARL BATES: Well, clearly, the Opposition doesn’t, because the previous speaker got that wrong. I think, in order to have an effective, appropriate, respectful conversation as we fix this, this afternoon, and ensure that those with claims are able to go through the process in a robust manner, that we have a sustainable and workable system—are able to do that with the sorts of changes we are making this afternoon to enable that to occur. Because of that, I commend this to the House.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I don’t think anyone should be mistaken: this is a war on women. They are fundamentally doing this because they cannot afford their Budget. They promised tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable. They told New Zealanders before the last election that they would be better off. Now they can’t afford them and who do they expect to pay the bill? It’s going to be future women, women who will no longer have their pay equity claims addressed. In fact, they won’t even be able to take those claims up.

This just goes to show where the priorities of that side of the House lay. They were more than happy to give $2.9 billion to landlords, more than happy to give the tobacco industry a tax break, more than happy to pay out tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable and that would disproportionately go to those who were on higher incomes. Now what we see is that women are going to have to continue slogging it away in the workplace, earning less than their male counterparts, and it is wrong. And I do not resile from the fact that I’ve said previously that it is shameful—shameful for that side.

You know what really gets me, to every woman MP in this House, is that whenever we’re standing up at those forums—the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD), the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union—any forum where women are expected to sit on the panels, women members of Parliament from across this House, including those in Government, are the ones that sit on those panels, stand up and do those wonderful speeches about things like pay equity in New Zealand, the claims that we have settled. They make wonderful speeches about representation of women in this House, but they are not the ones that have ever delivered for New Zealand women in any way whatsoever. They have always deprioritised the health of women, the working wages and conditions for women, the education for women, even representation in this House. Because of them, we’re no longer at 50 percent. So, please, I do not want to see the women in this House stand up at those forums—

Laura McClure: Point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it a point of order? Laura McClure—

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: What? Her feelings are hurt.

Laura McClure: Thank you, no, this is more of a personal reflection as opposed to the contents of the bill, to ask the Speaker to consider the relevance—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure that I heard any personal message from the speaker, so carry on.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: And we heard from the member earlier that this is, according to that member, an emotional issue. Well, clearly it is to some. But I don’t want to deem it an emotional issue, because we’re not, on this side of the House, crying over what has happened here. All too often, when it’s a policy that involves women and women are outraged by it, it is referred to as something that’s emotional. Well, me being angry is not me being emotional. Me being angry for the women who have fought for these pay equity agreements, who have fought for fair pay—me being angry for the Māori and Pacific women who continue to be the people that are paid least in this country is me being angry for the right reasons, actually, and it’s not me being emotional.

We, of course, are opposing this, and we are absolutely shocked with the process that we’ve seen here. They have announced it today and brought it here in urgency to go through all parts, with no ability for the legislation to be interrogated by the general public, let alone women, who this is going to affect. This is a shameful way to conduct business as a Government, and so they should be ashamed. This bill is going to take progress back for women by decades. This bill is not only going to be bad for women, but it is going to be bad for their families and for their children.

This is a reflection of a Government who do not support workers, who do not support women, who do not support children, who do not support New Zealand families, and we need to be clear and make sure that we got that on the record. We will not be supporting this bill, and I will not apologise for being angry about it.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I think we just need to go back to first principles of this legislation, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, for those who might have just tuned in. I reflect on the explanatory note, which is always a good start: “The purpose of this Bill is to achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation, by ensuring that there are: a robust process for raising claims; clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based undervaluation; sustainability for employers to meet their obligations; and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve pay equity claims.” Then we go to the legislative statement—and, again, it’s important to stick to the narrative around this legislation inside the bill and inside the legislative statement—“[This] Bill maintains a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, while ensuring that the process is workable and sustainable.”

As others have articulated, the National Party has a proud record on pay equity. It was the National Government, as others have mentioned, that made a $2 billion settlement back in 2017 with the care and support workers. It was National also who introduced the bill to formally legislate for pay equity in 2017. Labour decided not to progress that bill in 2017, when they came into office. The changes we are making through this bring us closer in line with that original 2017 bill. In fact, we look back even further to the landmark legislation of the day, which was the Equal Pay Act 1972, which aimed to eliminate sex-based discrimination. Now, it’s 1972. This side of the House here will jump to the incoming Norman Kirk Government, but can I just finish with this: it was the Jack Marshall National Party that saw this bill through the House in 1972. It achieved Royal assent and had a commencement date of 20 October 1972, with the Labour Government elected on 25 November 1972. National has a very proud record in this area, and we will continue to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill is good evidence that we have a two-faced Government. With one face, they tell Kiwis that they’re going to put more money in their pocket. They tell them that there is a cost of living crisis and they are going to do the right thing. The very words of Nicola Willis in this House were that she said she was proud to stand in this House and say that National support the final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and that she’s proud to be part of a party that’s contributed to crafting the legislation. Whereas today, in this House, we unpick the very fundamental fabric that gives women a fair go.

I don’t think that the National Party have fully thought through the consequences of what they’re doing today, because this will come with ramifications. This will come with the women of New Zealand standing up and saying, “We do not accept a Government that puts us second. We do not accept a Government that takes money out of our pockets, that makes it harder to feed our children, that makes it harder to buy shoes for them in winter, and that makes it harder for us to pay the rent. It wants us to work longer hours for less money because we are women.” And that is not fair.

This bill signifies the devaluation of women’s work in New Zealand. It sends a message politically and socially to our women and our communities that their work is not valued and that this Government does not value their work. It ends active claims to make pay more equal for women. In fact, it starts right from scratch with those 33 active claims being scrapped. Those women who have been waiting to receive the pay they deserve for the hard work they do, this Government has told them today that they have to go back to the start of the queue, and they’re going to shift the goalposts so it will be even harder for them to receive the pay they deserve. The truth is, while we’ve had the words from one face that, “Oh, we’re going to make this more robust. It’s got nothing to do with the Budget. We’re just going to make it a bit more robust.”, the reality is that the new law and this bill raises the bar for evidence required to prove historic undervaluation for women’s work. Many roles traditionally held by women, like caregiving, nursing, support, and education roles, have complex histories where direct evidence is difficult to find. This bill makes it even harder to find.

The next reason is the narrow definition of comparator jobs. New rules limit the ability to compare women’s work to better paid, male-dominated roles straight away making it harder for women to prove that they should be paid a fair wage, and it’s shameful. Without these comparisons in place, it is harder to show that women’s work has been undervalued just because it is a female-dominated profession. It places financial barriers for workers. Gathering the stronger evidence now required, like historic wage data and independent job evaluations, will be expensive and more difficult to prove. Individual workers and small unions may not have the money or even the expertise to compile the sophisticated cases that are now needed to do this. They have made it harder for female workers to get the pay they deserve, and that is unfair.

David Seymour today has applauded Brooke van Velden for finding billions of dollars just weeks out from the Budget, when it’s most needed. Those are the words used out there on the tiles today, while the Prime Minister has said it’s got nothing to do with the Budget. The reality is this Government borrowed for tax cuts. They borrowed for tax cuts they could not afford in order to get them votes. Now, who is paying for those tax cuts? Who is paying for the inability to make the Budget balance? It is women workers, who do not get pay for hard work. It’s absolutely disgraceful.

We have members opposite who don’t even know what pay equity is, let alone what it stands for. This is a dark day for women in New Zealand, who once again have been put to the back of the queue by a Government that doesn’t care about them and that is more interested in making sure that landlords and tobacco companies get a back pocket pay, but not those women who look after the very fabric of our society. Those ones that are working hard just to be able to see their family before the sun goes down, you just made their lives a whole lot harder and a whole lot more difficult to feed their families. You’ll reap the rewards come election day.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to take the last call in this first reading for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. Look, I think it’s fair to say that the National Party has a proud history of supporting pay equity. It was a National-led Government that first introduced the bill to legislate a pay equity system, and we still support pay equity.

The Government is now committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace, and we’re amending the Act to make the process more workable and sustainable. As our colleague the Minister Louise Upston said, this is not about a collective bargaining tool or where wages are low; it’s about a clear framework to assess where pay discrimination is as a result of gender. It is the Government’s view that the previous system became too wide and unsustainable, and we are now correcting that.

This is about pay equity. We support pay equity, and we applaud the work that Kristine Bartlett did in this, and we’ve always done that. The Opposition can dramatise this all they like today, and they will, but this is a pragmatic approach to a clear framework, and we support the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Equal Pay 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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation and remuneration in female-dominated occupations. Pay equity is about women and men receiving the same pay for doing work that is different but of equal value. Pay inequity is caused by systemic sex-based discrimination leading to the undervaluation in the remuneration of work that is predominantly performed by women.

The Equal Pay Act provides a process for raising and resolving pay equity claims. The fundamental principles of the Act will remain the same once this bill is in force. If an employee or a union considers that their work is subject to systemic sex-based undervaluation, they can raise a claim directly with their employer. Their employer has to consider whether the claim meets the requirements for raising a claim and, if the employer decides it does, the parties proceed to bargaining. The parties then work through the pay equity bargaining process, including undertaking an assessment of the work of the claimant and the work of the appropriate comparator. If a pay equity issue is identified, parties will then bargain to determine a settlement that does not differentiate on the basis of sex. The agreement is recorded in a pay equity settlement. This process is supported by a disputes resolution process, including mediation or facilitation, and the ability to take disputes to the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court.

While the fundamental principles remain the same, the bill amends legislative settings that are too permissive and have resulted in the pay equity framework not working as intended. The bill will: increase the threshold for raising a pay equity claim, including by requiring claims to have merit; provide employers with the tools they need to ensure an appropriate scope of claims; introduce a hierarchy of comparators and add more prescription to comparison methodology; remove the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and limit when claims can be re-raised; provide for phasing of pay equity settlements, changes to when and how the authority can fix remuneration; and remove the provision for the authority to award back-pay.

These amendments maintain the fundamental principles of the pay equity regime while ensuring there is a robust process for raising claims, clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based undervaluation, sustainability for employers to meet their obligations, and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve their pay equity claims. These amendments will achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation and ensure that the pay equity regime is workable and sustainable. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m having to have some calm-down time because I’m still incredibly angry about what we are doing in this House today. This is a bad lawmaking process. Nothing is worse than taking away people’s democratic rights to have their say on a bill that is going to take away their ability to be able to get their pay equity claims through, as they were able to do under the amendment Act that came through in 2020.

At that time, we had a number of groups around the country that had their say around what they thought that law should look like, and that was followed through. And now we’re taking that away and we’re creating a much more difficult process, and we’re going to see, we know, less pay equity claims coming through. And if people on the other side of the House don’t think that is reality, go back and have a look at just how many pay equity claims were successful before the amendment bill was passed in 2020. Go back and have a look, because the reality is that we had a process that wasn’t working. It absolutely wasn’t working. And what we’re doing is we’re going back to the future, today.

We are taking this country backwards. We are taking women’s rights backwards—no, not we; you are taking women’s rights backwards.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Not you, Madam Speaker. I should point to them over there. I would hate to put that on you, Madam Speaker.

As I’ve said, this is bad lawmaking. It is unfair to thousands of women nationwide. Normally what we would be doing at this point in a second reading speech is we would be going through and prosecuting what happened at the select committee process.

Tangi Utikere: But where’s that?

Hon JAN TINETTI: But where is that? There is no process to go through because we are here in urgency passing through something that as David Seymour has said today in the media, “Minister Van Velden has saved the Budget for the Government.” Taking credit, even though the Prime Minister today said, “Well, it’s not about the Budget.”, the soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the Minister has saved the Budget for the Government. So who is right?

Well, we on this side of the House know that this is all about making that Budget work and that Budget square up. And as I said in my first reading speech—and so did many others—once again, women are having to pay the price. Women are having to pay the price in this country for bad fiscal management, and enough is enough. We saw that today out the front of this Parliament. We saw people say, “Enough is enough.” We have been waiting far too long for women to get what they are due, for women to be valued in their roles, for work that has been traditionally seen as women’s work to be valued. And only when we do value that work, at that point, will we see that it won’t solely be women’s work, that we will see other people, other genders, men going into that work as well.

When we have people that are standing up outside and saying that they feel like their legs were cut off today, feeling like their breath was knocked out of them because they had no idea that all the work that they had put into working through their pay equity claims would be all for nothing—and not only that; standing outside today and saying we’re not even having the opportunity to speak about it, to come and put our case forward.

So that is what we are here, on this side of the House, to do: to put their cases for them today so that they know that we are hearing them and valuing their work and valuing the work that they have done to ensure that their work is valued overall by society. And one of the most important ways that we can do that is by paying them appropriately.

One of the aspects that was always very frustrating to me in the pay equity space when this Government came into power was that they got rid of the Pay Equity Taskforce. Now, the reason that they got rid of the Pay Equity Taskforce, in their own words, was that they said the pay equity claim process was working really well and so there was no reason to keep the Pay Equity Taskforce. At the time, I was very sceptical of that fact. I thought that perhaps it was more about saving the cost of what the Pay Equity Taskforce cost to run. But now we see what the real reality is. It is all about cost saving, because if their words were true back when they first came into power and got rid of that Pay Equity Taskforce, why now is the pay equity claim process apparently not working?

They can’t have it both ways. It either was working really, really well, which I know to be true because we had a large number of successful claims with the help of the Pay Equity Taskforce, or it’s not. But then I go back to say that the real reason is about saving money, and the real reason is about making a Budget work that, again, is seeing women paying the price for bad fiscal management. Women are paying the price in this country for tax cuts and tax breaks for landlords. That is the absolute bottom line of what is happening here. And I go back to saying that all those women who would have come and all those—it’s not just women; it would have been men too. All those people who would have come into a select committee process to submit on this particular bill would have said, “Leave that alone because we are getting claims through. We are getting the work done, and we are seeing the work being valued.”

It appals me, and I listened to the first reading speeches from the other side of the House. It absolutely appals me, the weak reasons that they have given for passing this through. It is smoke and mirrors when you say that it is about putting a better framework in place. Improve the framework if that’s the case; don’t get rid of it. Don’t get rid of it so that there’s nothing there at all. Start from that base and add to it.

Hon Casey Costello: We’re not getting rid of it.

Hon JAN TINETTI: If that member over there is saying, “We’re not getting rid of it.”, go and read the bill, because that’s exactly what the bill says. And it also says in that bill that that side of the House is stopping all current claims. That’s 33 claims that are being stopped with this introduction of this bill here today. Some of those claims have been in process for four to five years. How do those people and how do those sectors suddenly feel that their work is being valued? I can tell you right now that they are feeling really angry.

So if that side of the House thinks that this is going to quietly go away, I really feel that they need to think again and hang your heads in shame or stand up and do something about it. That side of the House still has time to put this right. Just because that side cannot make their Budget work, women should not have to pay the price for that. They have been paying the price in history for far too long, and this should end now.

Again, I go back to my first reading speech, and I shall end with this. This should not be something that becomes political. Women should not be used as a pawn to actually work their Budgets out for them. We should be working this through together. And you know what? In 2020, we did. We came together for women in this House.

Carl Bates: Until you put an AP through.

Hon JAN TINETTI: What a shame, Mr Bates, that you can’t, now, support women, and that you would rather put politics first than support women to get a fairer wage, a fairer pay for their work. I absolutely condemn this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This is really about what we value—what we value as a society. It’s very clear that the coalition Government does not value the people doing some of the most important and difficult work in our entire society. Look, to be fair, it’s been centuries of this, and so it’s really just perpetuating the status quo.

But there is a reason why we needed to put in place the process that we did in 2020, as part of the Equal Pay Act, in order to close the gender pay gap, which was not closing. The gender pay gap can be because of individual discrimination or unconscious bias in individual workplaces, but the wide sector-based discrimination, which has meant that the work that was predominantly done by women was undervalued, is based in evidence, and that’s why the process that was put in place in 2020 was evidence-based and supported by Nicola Willis of the National Party, and Erica Stanford. Nicola Willis said she’s “proud to stand in [the] House tonight and say that National will support [the] final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.”, proud of the contribution, and that they do think that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and that they have been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. That is the fundamental fairness-based principle under which we had cross-party agreement on the bill.

Now, if the Government really believed that there were just some technical improvement processes and a slightly better framework that would result in something that was more fair and reasonable, why are they doing this under urgency? Why not send it to select committee? Why is there a rushed process where the bill is literally introduced today and going through all stages of the House? It’s because this isn’t about fairness. It’s not about making the process better; it’s about saving money in the short term, which will cost us more in the long term. I guess that is a hallmark of this coalition Government: seeming to save money by doing things that will actually increase the costs to everyone in society over the long term. That’s the fundamental problem.

But what do we value? Do we value the work of early childhood education teachers? Do we value the work of midwives and nurses? Do we value the work of teachers? Do we value the work of aged-care and support workers, those looking after people with disabilities, those looking after our elderly in their final stages of life? Do we not value that? How can we as a society say that those people do not deserve to be paid properly for their work? Isn’t it shocking? Isn’t it a surprise that we have a hard time recruiting teachers, that we have a shortage of early childhood teachers, that we have a shortage of nurses and midwives, and they can go to Australia and get paid so much more? That’s because of decisions made by subsequent Governments but particularly this coalition Government, which is looking at those people doing this important, caring work that supports everyone in our society to thrive, viewing them as a fiscal liability rather than an investment in our society. An investment in early childhood education and midwives and nurses is an investment in a future, a more equitable society, one where people actually have what they need to survive and thrive, and then we’re all better off as a society. But instead they just look at it as a short-term cost.

The thing that really kills me about this is that there is no limit to the amount of money that these people will spend on a road. There is literally no limit to the amount of money they will spend on a road, as if some tarmac somehow magically creates economic growth—

Grant McCallum: Absolutely, yes, it does. It invests in people.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —but investing in people doesn’t. If the member opposite knew or understood anything at all about economics, he’d be able to look at the cost-benefit analysis and see, “Oh, actually, that road costs more than it benefits us.” It does. It costs more than it benefits. That’s what the official economic evidence says, and multiple economists have come out and, basically, slammed the case for the Northland road in particular, because we already have a road to Northland. The issue is we’re not maintaining it and improving it, and we’re not reducing the amount of fuel that we need to use.

It’s disgusting to me. There’s always jobs for the boys and jobs for the machines, and billions and billions of dollars for a bit of tarmac, but they do not fundamentally understand that the thing that actually supports our society to be able to do things is investing in our people, our children—our children—investing in early childhood education and teachers. But it is a product of an economic system and a way of valuing things that does not understand that people are an asset that we can invest in. We invest in concrete and tarmac as if we could sell it on the open market, which is not true, by the way. We cannot sell those things for money. But we don’t look at investing in people and their work and making sure that their livelihoods enable them to pay for rent, pay the bills, pay the electricity.

Actually go out and talk to some aged-care and support workers. I challenge every member of this Government to go out with the aged-care and support workers, like Kristine Bartlett. See what their day is like and tell me that they are not worth more than what they are paid. Go to the retirement villages—

Carl Bates: We did. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister was with me in Whanganui. We did. I’ll show you the photo.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and talk to the people who are working and tell me that they don’t deserve to earn more money.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bates, I see you’re on the speaking list later on, that might be a good time.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: This decision, which is being rushed through in urgency with no opportunity for a select committee to process and for people to show up and actually debate the issue and understand the proposed changes, is being pushed through because the Government is trying to find short-term cost savings because they have promised more than they can actually deliver. The fundamental trade-off they’re making is going to hurt the lowest-paid women and all those working in female-dominated industries. It’s going to make it harder for them to make ends meet. It’s going to make it harder for us—and I say “us”, like, through our public services, we need nurses, midwives, teachers, care and support workers, disabled-care workers, admin and clerical support. We need all of those people. We need them to function as a society, and it’s harder and harder to recruit them, because they don’t have a pathway to fair pay.

All of this is because of historic gender-based discrimination, which Ministers in this Government, like Erica Stanford and Nicola Willis, at the time when the bill was passed, professed a great passion for in support for the idea that we should actually rectify that historic gender-based discrimination. They did support it, but now in Government: “Too hard, too hard. Let’s just make it easier to underpay people and ignore the fact that that’s going to create more problems for us down the road.”

So the Green Party is not supporting this bill. We don’t support it going through under urgency. I would really like to say that people watching this outside, people looking at this, should see who these people really are, see who this coalition Government really is. They’re people who went out and made extravagant promises about being able to deliver better public services while delivering tax cuts to the wealthiest people. Yeah, they gave up to 20 bucks a week to some households, but, actually, the lowest-paid people don’t get the full benefit of the tax cut. The lowest-paid people get the least out of the tax cuts. So, once again, a series of decisions that make it easier for the wealthiest, who already own a lot of property, to get richer and richer and richer while those who are doing the most important work—looking after our tamariki, looking after our disabled people, doing the clerical and admin work, going out there and doing the cleaning, delivering the babies and looking after māmās in the middle of the night—those people are going to be forced to carry on not getting access to an evidence-based process that would result in them getting paid what they are due.

It’s shameful. It’s hypocritical. I am not at all surprised, because it was clear before the election that those were their priorities and that the promises they were making about better public services or better pay for nurses and midwives were absolute rubbish. They would never be able to afford to pay for them, but we see when the rubber hits the road, when the really hard decisions have to be made, we see who this coalition Government prioritises and supports, and it is not the hardest-working, most marginalised people who are out there—our essential workers, who deserve fair pay and they deserve not to be forced to have to be underpaid just because of gender-based discrimination.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Unfortunately, I am going to have to repeat some of the things I said in the first reading because clearly the Opposition weren’t listening. So the first thing that I want to confirm is the fact that this piece of legislation is not about saving money. This is about a piece of legislation to ensure that sex-based discrimination cases that have merit, that have claim, are able to progress through the system in a robust, transparent way. The reason it’s being passed under urgency is so that we don’t have claims in different processes under different regimes. So it’s pretty simple. It’s pretty clear. It’s something that Governments do to ensure that the courts aren’t frustrated, but more importantly so that those who want to have a claim are not trying to operate in two different systems.

The other thing that I want to say very clearly is there is no claim that will be blocked. That is another myth that the other side have repeated in their speeches. The other thing in terms of the Government—because the previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, talked specifically about nurses, about carers, about midwives. I would invite the other side just to reflect on our Government’s record level of investment in health. Who do you think operates the health system if it’s not nurses, midwives, carers? So I would just hold your horses on that side of the House.

When we think about the level of investment, when we think about things like FamilyBoost that ensure more parents get access to support so their children can get access to early childhood education, our focus in education is to ensure that actually teachers can focus on teaching the basics brilliantly. The amount of resources that have been rolled out to teachers to make it easier for them to do their work has been a significant part of the Government’s investment.

The other thing that this bill is not about—this bill is not about an alternative way for workers to negotiate pay rounds. It is a very different conversation from sex-based discrimination.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think it’s standard practice in this House to stand up and do a speech in the second reading on what this bill is not about. There have been a couple of points made on that line by that member, and I think she should stick to what the bill is about.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We’re in a second reading. Both sides have drifted from the main purpose of a second reading, which of course is to speak about what happened at select committee. There hasn’t been a select committee. That has opened it. It’s why I haven’t redirected any of the comments from the left, but it does give the opportunity to reply to some of them. However, the member has been here. She does know the general rules of second reading. Carry on.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is also the job in a second reading, in a debate in this House—this is a debating chamber—to put the myths and the incorrect statements that the Opposition are stating to bed. That’s my job as a Government speaker, and I will not refrain from that.

So I will reiterate, this bill is not about—because, unfortunately, what happened under the previous regime, and all of the speeches that I’ve heard so far confuse the two points about when there is union bargaining for pay rounds, that is a very different concept to sex-based discrimination. It would be really helpful if the Opposition could understand the difference between the two. That is actually part of why we are here debating this legislation today, because we want pay equity legislation to be about pay equity. As I said in my previous speech, there are of course many workers across New Zealand—male and female—that don’t earn the levels they would like to earn. That is a separate issue from sex-based discrimination.

The other thing I want to come back to is the comparators, because this is a really important part of the bill to make it really clear about a framework for comparisons for comparators and actually getting us more in line with our international countries that we would normally compare ourselves to. Some of the feedback, for example, that we had received with the previous legislation was fisheries officers being compared to librarians. Now, I think most people, if you ask them on the street, “Would you expect that those are jobs of equal value and equal conditions?”, would not accept that that was a suitable comparator. So we need to have a pay equity process that is clearly understood, that is robust, that is sustainable into the future. That is why I’m proud to support this piece of legislation in the second reading.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise again as part of the second reading debate to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this piece of legislation. Yet again, I think it is right, as my colleague Minister Upston referred to previously, to bring back the discussion to some form of reality. This is not removing the ability to proceed with a pay equity claim. Yes, we will be withdrawing all the current claims under this legislation to allow them to be reapplied—again, for clarity, so that all of these claims are processing under the same environment. It is the reason why this bill is under urgency, to ensure that we minimise the disruption that this change will bring about.

But, again, we have to emphasise that it is unfair to create this impression that somehow we are taking away the right to deal with sex-based discrimination in pay rounds. This is a change that will not remove anything. It will allow us to be able to process the claims and bring about resolutions where they are meritorious. This is an important part of the process.

When we talk about the idea of recognising valuable workforces, as has been spoken to previously, there are pay rounds, there are processes by which we can address pay conditions and the value of work through the pay round process. This is not impacting that process either. This is about bringing a sensible process to ensure that we have resolution to the equity claims. This is the ability to ensure we can move forward in this process, but it is to bring it back to the conditions that make sense. This is about comparators that make sense. This is about a system that makes sense and is workable.

It is really unfair to suggest that this is anti-women in any way. This is absolutely incorrect, and this idea of soapbox speeches that say that this is robbing something of women when the system will continue to exist—the system will still be available, and the equity claim process will still exist. It is irresponsible to suggest that that is being stolen away when the system will continue to exist.

This is about moving forward with a piece of legislation that will make the process clearer, fairer, more robust, and absolutely ensure that the system continues to exist. This is, again, about sex-based undervaluation of jobs, and this is a system that will continue to exist. Therefore, I have no hesitation of commending this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an absolute day of shame—an absolute day of shame. What an absolute debacle this bill is. This is another example of the wrecking ball that this Government is wreaking on workers’ rights, and in this particular case, low-paid wāhine workers. It is absolutely shameful and disgraceful. Everybody deserves dignity and decent jobs, and that includes low-paid work, which is predominantly held by women workers. I want to draw the point that actually amongst women workers as well, Pasifika and Māori women are paid even less compared to Pākehā men.

There was a rally outside, which was called in two hours, where people showed up to show their anger to this Government, with them undermining workers’ rights once again. I also want to acknowledge the work of Kristine Bartlett, the aged-care worker who successfully brought a pay equity claim through the process as well. As I read through the media, it said that she was crying; she was gutted. She was gutted for those low-paid workers as well.

But there’s another issue here that we need to discuss as a Parliament and that is the confusion—the confusion of the Government speakers who say that this will not hold back pay equity, that this will not hold back gender-based discrimination in the workplace. That is absolutely false, absolutely wrong. Thirty-three of these claims are going to be scrapped. Some of these claims have been on the workbooks for four years.

Outside we had Tessa, who was a librarian, and as she spoke, she talked about how she had spent four years working on their claim—four years’ worth of work in the garbage because these guys don’t want to acknowledge the work that needs to be done. It is absolutely a disgrace and shameful.

Even more shameful is the Prime Minister going to the media, saying that they’ve found the money. They’ve found their money for their Budget—billions of dollars they’ve found. Guess where they’ve found it: by taking away that money from low-paid workers, taking that money from women workers, taking that pay from those that deserve it the most. The people that deserve the most support from this House are being denied, are being put down by this Government, and it is an absolute disgrace and absolutely shameful.

The confusion is palpable on the other side of the House because they don’t know what this is about. Here’s the thing about the process: we could all actually deal with it if we weren’t doing this under urgency. So to people that are listening to these speeches today, we’re in urgency. The details of this bill landed on that Table just after question time, so we’ve only had an hour, I think, or two hours to get to grips with the details of this bill. So the ability to actually scrutinise this bill has been absolutely curtailed by this Government. We should have been able to get this piece of legislation early. It should have had a full process where we could take it to the select committee, where those people that are directly impacted could come and talk to this Parliament, could talk to this House and in many ways confront the Government—confront the Government in terms of the trampling on their rights, the trampling on workers’ rights, and the undoing of years and years and years and years of work.

It is an absolute disgrace, and you can count on the Greens to stand up for the workers. You can count on the Greens to back the unions, who’ve been working incredibly hard on these issues. The Greens absolutely disagree with this piece of legislation, disagree with this process, and we’ll work together with our friends in the unions, with our friends across the Opposition benches, to make that known very, very publicly.

But it is very important for those people out there across our communities, across our society, to question your local MPs, to question your Government MPs, because this is an absolute shame. It is an absolute disgrace. It is another example of a Government that cares more about profit than for people. You hear them talk about “There aren’t enough lollies. We’re not going to have a lolly scramble.” It’s because certain Ministers have gotten all the lollies, and none of them are for the workers. None of them are for the low-paid workers. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Greens oppose this bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to have that stand on the record without correcting factual inaccuracies within that last speech. National supported the pay equity Act in 2020. We supported it. But we supported it, and may I quote the Hon Maggie Barry: “So I commend the bill to the House but we oppose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 548 for very good reason.” The Hon Nicola Willis spoke in that debate, and she said, “We support this bill, but we have grave concerns about that SOP because it didn’t go to select committee.” Yet the Opposition stand up today, in this House—in this House—and argue that the problem is it’s not going to select committee.

This afternoon, we have had the Opposition say, “Let’s not make this political—let’s not make this political.” Yet that is exactly what they are doing. It is about time that the Opposition recognised, like so much of what they drove through the House in the last Government and the one before, that their approach, their policies, their legislation didn’t work. It was this side of the House, it was the National team, that pointed that out to them and said, “This isn’t going to work. It’s not going to be effective. It’s not going to be robust. It’s not going to be sustainable.” I back our Minister of Finance with what she said in that debate, and now we are fixing it. We are making it sustainable, we are making it robust, and we’re making it practical.

So let me end by just giving one of the examples of how that’s going to be the case. You settle a pay equity claim. You settle it. National had said in 2017, we need to settle these things. We need legislation to do that. We led the charge. You settle these things, and then we’re saying you give the industry 10 years before—if the same conditions, the threshold of conditions are met—you can raise another claim. But not after three years. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Camilla Belich—a five-minute split call.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an absolutely shameful day for this Parliament. Kristine Bartlett took a claim to the courts of New Zealand and the interpretation was that the Equal Pay Act that has been in place since the 1970s applied to claims for work of equal value. At that time, the National Government that was once proud to stand on behalf of low-paid women at that time settled her claim for the first care and support workers’ settlement. I was there across the road when the event for that happened, and I saw National MPs come in and I saw them be congratulated for standing up for working women. What I want to ask is: where is that National Party today?

On this day, where—and no matter what anyone on the other side of the House has said, this bill makes pay equity claims for low-paid workers much harder. It takes the threshold to 70 percent. It means that you can’t bring a claim for 10 years. It gives employers the entire right to decide a comparator and whether a claim is meritorious. It’s retrospective. It gets rid of existing pay equity settlements. It is a blow to every working, low-paid woman in New Zealand that works in a female-dominated role. These people are midwives, allied health professionals, librarians, social workers, nurses, teacher aides. These are the people that this National Party is attacking by bringing through this regressive, retrospective bill, brought in under urgency at the very time that they knew that we were all having our caucus meetings. Snuck in. Only provided on the Table one hour ago, and we are meant to support this type of bill.

This bill will make every aspect of claiming an equal pay claim harder. The hierarchy of comparators which is put into this bill, which I bet no one else has had the opportunity to look at yet because it’s complex, was initially suggested by the National Party when the National Party wanted to settle pay equity claims after the Kristine Bartlett case. That was roundly rejected. The reason for that is because when you look at a hierarchy of comparators, you’re essentially saying that you need to find a comparator in your workplace. And if you can’t find a comparator in your workplace, you need to look at similar jobs. And if you can’t find similar jobs, you need to look at similar industries. It’s like an onion; it goes out and out and out. The bureaucracy of trying to find a comparator, which is already very difficult, when you implement this hierarchy of comparators, will make—mark my words—this legislation completely unworkable for low-paid women.

This legislation introduced today is the ACT Party getting away with taking away women’s rights. And the New Zealand First Party and the National Party are sitting here, letting it happen. This will mean that there is no closing of the gender pay gap. It will mean that people like care and support workers continue to be on the minimum wage—absolutely shocking. I don’t know how you can sleep at night, bringing this legislation through. It is absolutely shameful.

What about the process? I looked at the Cabinet paper. Under the heading of human rights, every single part of that was redacted. I ask: why was it redacted? I think we know the answer to that: because this bill goes against human rights. Women’s rights to be fairly paid and for equal pay are human rights. I bet—even though I can’t see it and this House has not been given the opportunity to see it—that that Cabinet advice is exactly what that says and that’s why it’s been redacted. Absolutely despicable process to sneak this through the House.

Additionally, I have had a look at the departmental disclosure statement, which states that there was not sufficient time for a regulatory impact statement. What is going on with this Government that you will bring in legislation under urgency, repeal it in one single day, not even have a regulatory impact statement, not allow us to see the advice on human rights? It is absolutely a shameful way of running a democracy.

I just want to emphasise, because I don’t have a lot of time left, that existing pay equity settlements that are already settled—already settled now—will be disestablished. And those people will not be able to make another pay equity claim for 10 years, no matter what happens. So the existing settlements: the nurses’ settlement, the social workers’ settlement—all of these jobs that we value so much that are female-dominated—no matter what happens in the next 10 years, under this legislation, they will not be able to bring another equal pay claim. This is an absolutely despicable way of bringing human rights legislation to the House. It is taking away the rights of low-paid, working women throughout New Zealand and the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the ACT Party should be ashamed.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want the members on the other side to go away and re-read the comments just made by my colleague Camilla Belich, who has worked on pay equity here in New Zealand and the UK for most of her working career. I bet the National Party members, who have given some of the most deluded, terrible speeches today, have no understanding of what they are voting for. This woman over here does, and I urge you to listen to her.

I have been so angry at so many things this Government has done, particularly Nelson Hospital, but nothing compares to this—nothing compares to this. Bringing this under the cover of urgency to undermine the women of New Zealand is a disgrace, and shame on the National Party. Today, the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, said the quiet part out loud. He admitted it. He then came back and corrected it. But he admitted—he admitted. Here is what he said when he was asked: “I admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government.” There will be less money for teachers. There will be less money for nurses, less money for midwives, less money for our aged-care and support workers, less money for our social workers, less money for all of the female-dominated industries in New Zealand that rely on pay equity legislation to ensure that they are paid equal pay for work of equal value—and I’m going to get to that now, because National Party members have gone on and on about the legislation they introduced when they were in Government. It did not work.

They talked about comparators. The comparators were too narrow. In fact, lawyers, like the wonderful Peter Cranney, who took the Kristine Bartlett case, said that under National’s legislation, Kristine Bartlett would not have secured the settlement, because Kristine Bartlett’s pay equity claim compared aged-care workers—and I hope you listen over there, the women members on the other side; I hope they listen. Peter Cranney has said that Kristine Bartlett would not have won her case under National’s legislation—that is a fact—because, under Kristine Bartlett’s case, they compared aged-care workers to corrections officers. Now, the Minister got up and pooh-poohed that, and she talked about some of the comparators in place and scoffed at them. How dare she do that. Aged-care workers do heavy lifting; they deal with really challenging, difficult work, and absolutely they should be compared to corrections workers. But the National Party is reverting to the type of legislation that would have stopped that comparator being made, and there would not have been a settlement for Kristine Bartlett.

The other thing—the other nasty little thing that was put in that settlement—was that workers weren’t able to take a claim for years and years and years. Again, listen to Camilla Belich, who has said that this is going to stop people from being able to take claims for 10 years. That is an absolute disgrace. I say on record today: this is a war on women; this is a war on women workers. I have already had emails from people saying, “We are going to march in the street over this.” Women are outraged, and I say to every National MP sitting there, hanging their heads in a shame right now because they didn’t know about this either, in marginal seats: you should be very afraid of what will happen to you at the next election, because this issue galvanises women. They will be knocking on your door. They will be demanding to know why they cannot come to select committee and tell their story. They will be demanding to know why you are going to make it harder for them to get pay equity. They are going to demand to know why National has, today, cancelled all of the existing claims and said, “They are over; they are gone.” Those women workers, who have been fighting and putting up robust arguments over the last few years for pay equity—their claims are gone, stopped. They have to come into this new mechanism that has tougher thresholds that make it harder for them to do it.

National members have talked about pay equity legislation gone by. It used to be about man lawyer versus woman lawyer, because, once upon a time, male lawyers were paid less than women lawyers, and we outlawed that. This is about equal work of equal value, looking at a women-dominated job versus a male-dominated job. That is the point. That is actually the point of this, saying, “This group of women workers are, collectively, undervalued because the work they’re doing is done by women, and this is a male-dominated industry that is comparable.” That is the point—that is the point—and National are undermining this today, and shame on them. Bring on 2026, or earlier.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Just referring back to the bill and its legislative statement, which is on the Table for us all to peruse and absorb, I think it’s important to go back to the fundamentals of what this piece of legislation is seeking to achieve. Officials say here that “The proposed changes to the Act will improve the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provide a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation.” The bill maintains a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while ensuring “that the process is workable and sustainable.”

As my colleague Carl Bates has alluded to in a previous speech, National did support the 2020 Equal Pay Amendment Bill, but our colleagues of the day did not support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was rushed through—the SOP that was put there with amendments without notice. In 2020, the Hon Nicola Willis and the Hon Maggie Barry raised grave concerns as to the impacts that those amendments on that SOP at the last minute would have. So, in our view, they have been borne out, and we are now here, as a party and as a Government committed to pay equity, but it must be based on solid evidence, reflect international norms, and be sustainable in the long term.

The Hon Louise Upston—to finish with—also looked overseas, didn’t she? She looked at the comparable countries that we often line ourselves up against as a comparison, and, unlike most comparable countries, New Zealand allows unions to pursue claims across multiple employers. These reforms that we are putting down today will bring us closer in line with international best practice, where claims are typically made against a single employer.

As I’ve said, National supported the 2020 legislation without the last-minute amendments. It was National who settled the $2 billion case in 2017, when Bill English was Prime Minister, and we legislated then. It was National in 1972, under the Jack Marshall administration, that tabled and passed through three stages the Equal Pay Act 1972. National has a very proud history in equal pay and pay equity, and we will continue to have that. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to quote a speaker from the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill back in 2020: “I’m proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will support this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. And I’m proud that our party has contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House. We support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. So we support this bill”—Nicola Willis, speaking in the House a few years ago.

Camilla Belich: Where is she today?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yeah, where is she?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Where is she? Hiding. So why the change? Why the change at this point? Coming into the House today, the Prime Minister said—and it’s quoted on Radio New Zealand—that this change that the National Party and their minions are putting through will save billions of dollars; billions of dollars. But, if we go to the Cabinet paper which has been released, and we can have a look at it now, something that has been redacted is all the financial recommendations, all the information about the finances. They’re not telling us how much this is going to save.

I tell you who it’s not going to save money for: it’s not going to save money for the aged-care workers, who desperately need every penny they can get at the moment; it’s not going to save money for teachers, who have a pay equity claim in there at the moment and have been historically underpaid—those teachers are losing money because of that; it is not going to save money for teacher aides—people we need in our classrooms to help with looking after especially children with extra learning needs; it’s not going to save money for cleaners, also underpaid in the long term. And all these jobs are jobs historically done by women. That Government really does not care about women workers, and it does not care about low-paid workers. All it cares about is balancing the Budget, and it is doing it in a way that kicks the lowest-paid women in this country. That is appalling; it is an absolutely appalling thing to do to our workers.

In terms of thinking about this speech today, I recalled Professor Judy McGregor. Judy McGregor was our first Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and one of the things that she did was go undercover as an aged-care worker to find out what the work was really like. Let me quote what she said—she produced an amazing report Caring Counts, which really led the charge for pay equity—in terms of aged care, “When I did the job myself, I realised the immense emotional labour that goes into it, the skill, the technique, the fatigue.” She recognised just how hard that job was. And, at about the same time, Kristine Bartlett, with the aid of her union E tū, took a pay equity case. Today, Kristine Bartlett is nearly crying, and she said, “What’s going to happen to these low-paid workers? It’s hurting—it’s really hurting.”

These are people who are ignoring the evidence, and ignoring the evidence just in order to balance the books. The previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, said that the National Party had, in the previous debate on this, supported the pay equity legislation. It had some rules and one of the things was that it had to be “sustainable in the long term”. That’s the exact words used by the previous speaker. Sustainable for who? That’s the question. Sustainable for who? We already know that working families in this country are having to go to the food bank to get assistance, because wages are simply not high enough. We already know that 30 percent of New Zealanders had to get food assistance last year, and yet this Government is turning around and taking away one of the key protections for low-paid workers. What an absolute shame.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, the comments about members not being here—I’ll take that as a metaphorical question about absence. However, some of the comments from the sidelines were not so metaphorical—just a reminder for subsequent speakers about that rule.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in this second reading speech for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, a bill shepherded by the Hon Brooke van Velden. What I think is very important to do is to just get us back to basics to a great extent, because what I’m hearing from across the House, I feel is actually unfair in the characterisation. There are some things that we’re missing and some people are refusing to acknowledge this is the case.

Equal pay is essentially when women and men are paid the same for the same work. So this is when workers in the same roles are paid the same, paraphrasing. Pay equity is when women and men are paid equal amounts for equal work where they’re in different roles, even if the roles are not identical. We speak about the framework of comparisons—the comparator factor—and I just want to ask the House a question: we’ve reached a point where a fisheries officer is compared to a nurse. Now, someone on the other side of the House said some of these examples that we’re mentioning are embarrassing. Is it embarrassing to say, essentially, what is a fisheries officer? A fisheries officer gathers information on aspects of the fishing industry and enforces fisheries laws. So they gather information. These officers, with all due respect to them, are being placed in the same category as a nurse, a healthcare professional. Is this logical? Is this reasonable?

All we’re trying to say is there’s a lot of unreasonableness in where we’ve reached because, as usual, everything that the Labour Party puts their hands on becomes murky, becomes nebulous. All we’re doing is we’re making it more reasonable; more clarity. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the debate so far has highlighted the fact that the main speakers on the Government side are Carl Bates and Cameron Brewer—those long-time proponents of women’s rights and equal pay! And now we have Rima Nakhle, who doesn’t even understand what the basis of what pay equity is. I think that reflects the bill that we are debating right now, the bill that has no regulatory impact statement.

For a party—ACT—who is all over regulations and trying to have some “What is the change that we are trying to do to make sure that we have a clear understanding of why we are changing the law, and the impact that this will have, to know that it’s valued?”, there is no regulatory impact statement to understand what this bill will do in New Zealand. In the actual official documents, the entire section on human rights has been withheld. We’ll be challenging that, because I reckon the New Zealand public would really like to know what the human rights implications are for this bill.

We know, on this side of the House, that it detrimentally impacts women in the lowest-paid jobs. We have a Government that has the gall to say that they’re going for growth, that they’re actually putting more money in New Zealanders’ pockets. The truth is that they are taking it out of the most vulnerable, lowest-paid workers in New Zealand—those people who work long hours in carer roles, in administrative roles, and cleaning roles; those areas that get paid the least—because this Government is quite happy for them to clean their toilets and clean their floors and do all their dirty work, but they’re not prepared to pay them what they’re worth.

That is going to come back and bite this Government at the next election, because there is one thing that women are good at, and that’s being unified. All women in New Zealand are going to sit up and pay attention to what underhand business this Government is doing today under urgency, with no regulatory impact statement, withholding information on what it’s doing to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and no select committee process—no ability for New Zealanders to comment on taking away pay equity claims in New Zealand. Tonight in the House, 33 active pay equity claims are being written off with this bill, with no course for any woman, any person in New Zealand being able to have a say on that.

Those members opposite, particularly those women who have let other men step forward and try and argue that this is more robust, that this is going to provide more clarity, that we’re all suddenly going to be a hell of a lot better off with this great new invention that you’ve tabled at the last minute with no select committee process, that somehow this will give us the certainty that will drive us forward as a nation and make us more productive—by paying women less and holding them back, the very women that we rely upon to make our country work, to make sure our children are looked after, to make sure there’s food on the table, to make sure they have shoes when they go school—those are the women who put every last penny into making sure we have a country who cares. This sad, miserly, selfish Government will take the money out of the pockets of the women that keep our country working, that keep our country ticking over.

If I was sitting on that side of the House, I would put up Carl Bates and Cameron Brewer because I would be too ashamed to stand up and speak to such a disgraceful bill. There is no way this Government has the ability to stand up and say they are going for growth, that they are interested in productivity, and that they are putting more money in the pockets of New Zealanders, when the blatant truth today is that they are doing the exact opposite. They are looking to those who earn the very least and they are making their lives harder. In the same brief, they are lining the pockets of their rich mates. It is a sad day in New Zealand when we see you taking from those who work hard, who do not have enough to pay for bills, and you turn around and have a Budget that will reward those and find money where they could not account for it themselves. I do not commend this bill to the House. It is a sad day in New Zealand for women’s rights.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I vividly recall visiting rest homes in my electorate of Wigram and talking to rest home workers and carers who had received pay increases under pay equity. They told me stories of being able to afford the bus to travel to work for the first time. They told me stories of not having to walk home for 40 minutes at the end of a shift because they simply could not afford other forms of transport. They told me about the dignity of being able to supply their families and their kids with some treats from time to time. This is the difference that paying women workers their fair share makes to lives.

We have a disgraceful move from a Government, today, that is stripping away the rights of 33 groups of largely women workers to progress their pathway to dignity. That is what this Government is stripping away. We see a sea of suits sitting opposite us. I challenge every woman in the Government parties to come down, take a call, and explain to other women why they think it is their right to legislate away their pathway to dignity and to being valued what they are worth, because that is what the members opposite are doing today.

Make no bones about it; the Prime Minister said it on the tiles on the way into question time today. He talked about the money savings that are going to come from this legislative change. David Seymour was just about leaping with delight about the billions of dollars that his Minister had saved with this legislative change. Those dollars are being stolen out of the pockets of women across this country. They are not theoretical dollars. They are dollars that would allow women to be able to afford to take public transport to work or to get to work some other way than adding a 40 or 45 minute walk at the end of a hard shift.

We are talking about some of the women workers in this country that do the hardest graft day in and day out. They are the dollars that this Government and every member opposite is going to have to front up to those women across the country about and tell them why they thought it was OK to take those dollars out of their pockets and instead use it because they spent too large on tax breaks for landlords and in terms of putting subsidies in place for the tobacco industry.

So we cannot underestimate the injustice that is being done to women today. We’ve been told “It’s OK. We’re just putting in place a less complex system. It’s too difficult.” We might compare industries with industries that don’t make sense, but make no mistake, this is about saving money.

We heard the Prime Minister had to correct his statement at the end of question time because when asked whether they’d received advice on it, he said, “Oh no, it’s not about that.” But within less than an hour, the Prime Minister was having to backtrack on it because when Cabinet came to make this decision, we know that they received money about the savings. Every time we talk about those savings, I want every member in this House to reflect on where that money could have been, and that is in the pay packet and pockets of some of our lowest-paid women in this country that have been historically undervalued for their work.

Sometimes Opposition Governments do things we don’t like a little bit, but I remember being in this House and looking up at Kristine Bartlett’s face when we passed the pay equity legislation—the difference that we as a House and the National Party at the time who supported it could make to the lives of everyday women. Instead, we have a caucus full of National Party members and ACT and New Zealand First who have sold every low-paid woman worker in this country down the river today. This day will go down in history. This will be the day that women know that this is a Government that has turned their back on them, and most of their women MPs aren’t even in the House to acknowledge that.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One more speech before you, Mr Xu-Nan.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what on earth? I just have to say, what we’ve heard today is a little bit of Labour—I don’t know what actually, but I’m going to say: take a little bit of a story, twist it round, make it into a drama, and talk a load of nonsense. This bill is not about taking away the fight for pay gender equity. It’s not about that. This bill is about clearing up what is happening in this system. It is about making the system clearer and better—end of story. It is not about all the women of the world getting paid less—it’s not. That’s not what this is about. But if you listen to the rhetoric from the other side, that is what you will hear.

Dr Tracey McLellan: You’ve been sold a lemon as well, then, if you believe that.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Well, it might take a lemon to know a lemon. There you go.

What I would say is can I remind everyone that there are an enormous number of very good employers in this country out there paying women well. A lot of them are women; they do a great job. So let’s not just tarnish every employer in the country with this. We have a lot of women doing a great job, getting paid well. We are not giving up the fight for gender equity in pay.

What we are doing is returning the pay equity system to its intended purpose in 2017. Since then, it became too broad and needed to be brought back to a place where it was clearer, and it’s become difficult to tell recently if pay differences were due to sex-based discrimination or other labour market forces. So what we want to do is clear that up.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Read it like you mean it.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: The rhetoric has already started. You’ve heard it—that women will be paid less as a result of this. What a load of nonsense that we’re throwing out pay equity. We are not doing that. I repeat, this is simply not true. The Government supports women, it supports gender equity, and it supports equal pay.

The National Party began this journey in 2017 to introduce the legislation, and we are not turning our back on our commitment to pay equity. We support this bill and commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—and I’ll just say that this is a split call, too.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is incredibly concerning that we are seeing a bill of this nature being introduced under urgency with no preparation, no awareness, no select committee, and no way for the New Zealand public and the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to contribute on something that affects them in a significant way. It is shocking and appalling that this Government would like to take the form of an authoritarian Government and a dictatorship to allow something like this to go through without the proper democratic process—shameful! The Green Party will not support this bill, because it will make it more difficult for groups of women workers to raise pay equity claims, and the fact that you’re also halting all current claims—it is absolutely shocking.

This legislation was introduced by—our own—the Hon Julie Anne Genter, as the Minister for Women. It was widely supported, and it was also supported by the National Party when it was introduced. We saw people who stood up and said how much they wanted it and who also actually criticised people for not raising this early enough, and now you are turning your backs on the very thing that you agreed to because the National Party, at the end of the day, is pandering to their coalition partners. This is not something that is needed.

We hear members from the other side of the House talking about the fact that “Oh, women are not being paid less in the workplace.” We are seeing women being paid less in the workplace. In every scrutiny that we do—everything we do—when it comes to public services, we ask what their progress is towards pay equity, and you see all of them, consistently and shockingly, say that there is still a lack of pay equity. I can’t think of anyone before the select committee, and also in the portfolio that I’m involved with, who can actually confidently say that there is no gender pay gap in public services, and this is going to make it harder and harder for us to move towards that.

We did see, like I said, the support that we had when the legislation was first introduced. We have heard today from the people of Aotearoa outside Parliament expressing themselves because, again, that was the only opportunity that the New Zealand public had to be able to express themselves when it comes to this legislation, and I think that we are going to be taking their voice into the committee stage coming up later today because, again, with this bill, there’s no regulatory impact statement. There is nothing—there is no work, there’s no evidence.

Everything in this entire bill is vibes—they are hot takes. I don’t even know where the source of this information is coming from.

There is no evidence that supports that this legislation is needed in the first place, and we would love—love—to scrutinise and also ask questions of the Minister during the committee stage on every part of this bill because, again, we have not given the people of Aotearoa New Zealand the opportunity to express themselves through the select committee stage. That is disgraceful.

Finally, I want to say that in this week, this Sunday is Mother’s Day. Well, happy Mother’s Day to all of the mothers with this particular bill, which looks to further discriminate against women in the workplace. Despite the fact that they do similar work, comparable work, they are being paid at a lower rate. We know that it is happening, and we have seen other bills being introduced in the House that call for pay transparency, but those were also not supported by the governing parties.

So the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this bill, because it is badly put together. It will put women workers at more risk of lower pay, and we would love to ask the Minister some more questions during the committee stage.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be read a second 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 second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1, which is clauses 4 to 49, “Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish it was a pleasure to take a call in this debate, but it is absolutely shocking to be in the position of being in a committee stage where the Government is looking at making significant changes repealing rights for women and the bill has only been available to us for less than a few hours. So absolutely shocking to be here.

I wanted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety why she decided to take away, through this legislation, the rights of women to be able to take equal pay claims. This is in relation to Part 1 because in Part 1 we have one of the most significant changes to the Equal Pay Act, as we know it, and that particular change is to change the workforce requirement to 70 percent. Now, we’ve heard many comments in this House around the fact that allegedly this bill, according to the Government members, is not taking away the rights of women and is not making it harder for them to take pay equity claims. I ask the Minister: how does she reconcile that with this specific clause which requires 70 percent of the workforce, which is a higher number than previously required, in order to take a pay equity claim? Does she not think—and if so, what evidence was provided to her—that a workforce of 60 percent or a workforce, indeed, of 50 percent or 50 to 60 percent would not be predominantly female?

The other thing that I want to know is that there is a requirement here that this has been—in clause 4(2)(b)(ii), that that “has been performed by a workforce described in [the immediately preceding paragraph] for at least 10 consecutive years immediately before the date on which the claim was raised”. Now, I cannot see a reason for the inclusion of these restrictions, apart from to solicit fewer pay equity claims in New Zealand, and thus fewer low-paid women are able to take pay equity claims, and thus fewer low-paid women receive recognition from being in female-dominated work that has been historically undervalued. I can see no other reason for that. I would like the Minister to elucidate, if—allegedly it is the case, which I do not believe for one second—this bill is allowing pay equity claims to go ahead, why has she put in those two criteria that objectively make this much harder? I, in fact, intend to table an amendment on this which would remove the requirement for 10 consecutive years.

So I want to know from the Minister: what advice did she receive on that and what is the purpose of these two clauses which, on any objective basis, from any ideological perspective, make it harder for low-paid women in female-dominated work to take pay equity claims? I think I know the answer to that, but I’m interested in the Minister’s response to that. I think the answer is the reason they want to make it harder is because they don’t want to pay out pay equity claims, and they want to have that money—that was set aside for low-paid women who deserve to be paid what they’re worth—available to use for other matters which are not low-paid work of female employees.

I want to ask the Minister, because we haven’t had a select committee stage to be able to hear from members of the public on this bill, what does she say to a young mother that I met last week at the Maranga Ake protests who is a care and support worker who was seven months pregnant and is on the minimum wage? I would want to ask the Minister: what does she say to that woman who is on the minimum wage, who was speaking at that protest about how important it is for her to have her pay recognised as part of the equal pay claim that she’s a part of? What does she say to her when, today, she is extinguishing that settlement and she is not allowing that to go ahead on the same basis? Only making that much harder and much less likely that that young mother, about to have a baby, on the minimum wage, is going to receive any pay equity settlement anywhere in the near future for her work. So what does the Minister say to that woman and many other people who have not had the opportunity to provide submissions to a select committee in this process?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Camilla Belich for her contribution. One thing I do want to make clear right from the start is that we are not taking away a pay equity regime. We still maintain as a Government that we wish to not see discrimination based on sex. That is why the pay equity system will still remain in place.

However, there are some changes to be made, and the member touches on two: we are putting in place a threshold of 70 percent female-dominated occupation, and also that in order to take a claim you’d need to have 10 years of being at 70 percent female domination in the workplace. This change provides greater confidence that the pay equity process is identifying situations where there may be sex-based differences in the pay of work predominantly performed by women. What we’ve seen under the previous regime’s pay equity system is that there has been a muddying of the waters between labour market forces, other things like inflation and Consumers Price Index, and some sort of conflation of collective agreements and pay equity and systematic discrimination based on sex.

What we are aiming to do here is make a robust, workable bill that goes back to the original intention of pay equity: that it is genuinely about sex-based discrimination. Tightening that threshold will make sure that it is better to prove genuine sex-based discrimination.

What I would say to the young mother—and I thank you for bringing this example—is I very much thank her for the work that she is doing. Caring and supporting people who need it is a wonderful thing to do with your life. What we want to ensure is that for everybody who wishes not to see discrimination for the work that they do based on their sex, they can genuinely say that the claim that they have received is to extinguish sex-based discrimination, and that is what this does. This Government is committed to extinguishing that sex-based discrimination in pay equity.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have spent my afternoon—since I have found out about this particular bill going through—going through the different clauses of this bill. So before I ask my first question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I just want to outline how I intend my prosecution at this stage—the committee of the whole House—to proceed and then I will ask the Minister my first question.

So what I’ve done is I’ve gone through the bill itself and gone through the different clauses and highlighted what I see are the most important parts to the different clauses, and then I have some questions for the Minister in the different clauses. Now, along the way, I know that I have some Amendment Papers that I want to talk to, but I know a lot of my colleagues here have Amendment Papers that they will want to talk to as well. So that’s what we have done. The reason that I’ve done it that particular way is because we haven’t had the select committee process.

I have to say that since this was announced, I haven’t seen my email blow up like I’ve seen it in the last few hours. That’s from people who are incredibly disgruntled around the process that has happened here. So some of the questions that I am going to ask are on behalf of people who would have normally come in to submit to that select committee process.

First off, I want to look at clause 4, and my colleague Camilla Belich did talk a bit about clause 4, because that is the clause that does talk about the relevant work that is performed by the workforce that is at least 70 percent female, so it’s increased that threshold. But it also talks about the work that has been performed by a workforce of that kind for at least 10 consecutive years before a claim is raised. I have some real concerns around this. I feel like this is fundamental to the attack that was talked about in the first and second readings of this bill, around that of women’s rights and workers’ rights. As my colleague said, “Women that are in workforces that have 60 percent, does that not count as a female-dominated workforce anymore? Obviously it is.”

So my first question puts both of those areas together, the percentage of women in the workforce and also the consecutive years. That question is around: what happens to a workforce that is performed by 65 percent of women for nine years that has pay equity concerns in it?

Now, this is the ridiculous situation we have here. Obviously, all of us in this Chamber would say there are concerns around that that need to be addressed—65 percent female-dominated workforces have been an issue for nine years with pay equity concerns. Do they not deserve a path to pay equity? Surely the answer isn’t to say, “Well, no, because they’re 5 percent short of that 70 percent threshold.”, or, “No, they have to wait a year.” To me that seems ridiculous, Minister, and is that what you were aiming for, to make it so hard and so difficult to raise a claim that those workforces—and they will exist—would not have a pathway to a pay equity process?

It’s a very serious question that came through from a number of people today to me very, very concerned about the changes that have been made. They see themselves in a female-dominated workforce but suddenly they’re looking at this legislation and not seeing a place for themselves and seeing themselves marginalised even further. If that’s what you meant, Minister, then that is a massive concern for this country and an absolute change to labour law of the likes we haven’t seen for many, many years.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member the Hon Jan Tinetti for her contribution. There’s been a number of points made within her contribution about time periods and the threshold moving from 60 percent to 70 percent for female-dominated occupation. One thing I want to make clear is that part of the reason why we have made these changes is that we are moving away from having arguable claims, to claims that have merit, which means that there must be an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination. I think that’s really important, because to make a claim—which is a very serious claim—that you’ve been discriminated against on the grounds of your sex is quite serious. So there needs to be a justification for this claim. What we’re saying is that there needs to be evidence that you work in a predominantly female workforce for 70 percent, that there needs to be a time period in which to justify or find a basis of evidence that you have been discriminated based on your sex.

Part of what we’ve done here is we’ve also moved from having it as just a historic sex-based undervaluation, to suggesting that in order to bring a claim, you need to have historic sex-based undervaluation and current sex-based undervaluation. That’s where this threshold for having 10 years makes sense, because if there is a justification and an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination, that needs to be able to be proved over a period of time, which means there is a time frame.

In terms of the 60 percent moving to 70 percent, there is always going to be arguments of where that threshold should be met. The National Party’s original intention when they introduced the law had a threshold of, I believe, 66 percent, which was lowered by the Labour Government down to 60 percent. It is also the case that having a 70 percent threshold is not out of alignment with what we’ve seen internationally. If you look at Manitoba, Canada, they also have a 70 percent threshold for sex-based discrimination.

So this will make it a more clear, a more robust, and a more workable regime. But, more importantly, it will actually become easier to justify, to find evidence, and to make a basis for sex-based discrimination.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’d like to ask a very quick follow-up question to that. I didn’t really get an understanding there from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s answer about the time frame—the 10-year time frame. There was a lot of talk about the percentage. So I’d like that to be addressed. But I want to know: as a Minister, you get lots of advice. What other options were presented to you, Minister, and what were your reasonings for going with the 70 percent that you did? I’m not convinced from what you’ve said, because I don’t know what else—we haven’t seen what else was presented to you. So I think it’s only fair that we have an understanding of, and the people out there have an understanding of, the options that you were presented with and why you chose not to go with those options.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first pick up some of the questions that have already been asked, and this is with regards to clause 4, subclause (2), in terms of the definition. But I just want to check: in terms of the “predominantly performed by female employees”, what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has done is added a second part of the requirement where both must be met, which means 70 percent and 10 years.

I would also like to, I guess, push back on the Minister’s response that there are no clear guidelines, where the current section in the legislation which is section 13F of the equal payment Act actually does have a definitions framework of how they work because, again, what we are seeing is that we shouldn’t be using a blunt tool of 10 years. That’s very restrictive whereas there are various mechanisms in the existing legislation that already allow for that.

But I want to ask the Minister: what other evidence has she been presented with when determining the increase to 70 percent? The Minister made reference to Manitoba, Canada. That’s one example, one area. The world is kind of big; what other regions has she explore in terms of that, rather than just one particular area? I also wanted to check: what is the evidence for having 10 years? Because, again, we have no regulatory impact statement—there is no RIS. We have no idea what has been presented.

So, I wanted to check in also then with the Minister on this point. Two things: number one is considering other bills—again, no legislation operates in a silo—some of the bills that are also introduced make it easier for employers to fire employees. What are the chances of making changes in year 10 to reset the timer, so in that way it takes another nine years, 10 years, before this claim can be made again, is my first question. What are the risks around if employers are able to fire employees easily and you have an incredibly high threshold at 70 percent for you to fire or to make voluntary redundancy or whatever mechanism that is used to bring it down below 70 percent to say, “Oh look, it is no longer 70 percent anymore, it is 68 and 69.” Therefore, you no longer meet the requirement for this claim. “But then after two years we’ll bring it back up.” So what are some of the risks for this and have those scenarios been considered?

So those are the first questions I would like to ask the Minister for clause 4. Actually, I’m going to stop there because there are quite a few questions there, but there are going to be further questions I would like to address under the Purpose section. But I think if the Minister could respond: What other evidence has she been presented with other than Manitoba, Canada? Why has she decided to use “and” in (b)(i) and (ii)—that both criteria must be met and not just one of them? What are the risks of employers using various manipulation tactics to reset the timer on that? Because, again, this is a blunt tool that the Minister has just introduced. Finally, when determining that new definition of “predominantly performed by female employees”, what employee organisations, workers’ organisations, and unions has the Minister consulted with when determining that?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): There’s a lot in those contributions, so I’ll just stick to one that I have heard from both sides of those parties, which is about the 10-year time frame and looking for more information. Look, the 10year time frame provides greater confidence that any differences in remuneration are due to sex-based discrimination rather than any differences that may present due to labour market conditions or the workforces.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 7.30.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee is resumed. When we rose for the dinner break, we were debating Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got some questions about some of the parts of the proposal which seem to go utterly against the intentions of something like the ACT Party. My understanding is that in that party, there is a value given to a freedom to contract, and yet here we seem to have a whole lot of agreements that have been settled by people and they have gone through a process that would’ve been really expensive and would’ve taken a lot of effort and it would’ve been something that workers would’ve relied upon. We’re talking about people who can’t necessarily afford a great deal, because the nature of the problem is that they’ve been underpaid. They’ve done all that work, they’ve come to an agreement, and my understanding is that the proposal put forward by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is to jettison all that work, to basically break those contracts and agreements by overriding them in this piece of legislation.

My understanding is also that the Minister proposes to go on and say, “In these agreements that you make in the future, you will not be able to put a clause in the agreement which says, ‘We’ll settle this now, but we’ll review it as time goes on so you never fall behind again.’ ” Now, that, to me, seems like the most sensible thing you could possibly do as an employer. A good-faith employer says, “We’re not going to let this happen to half or more of our workforce again—never again, because, actually, people not being paid a decent amount is hurting them and it’s unjust, and we are not that kind of employer.” By making those agreements for regular review, that’s what they’re doing, and yet here I understand the proposal is that we’re not going to do that anymore. We’re not going to allow people even the freedom to make those kinds of decisions themselves about how they will manage a problem that’s ingrained in our society, that we’ve recognised as ingrained.

I also wanted to ask the Minister about the history of this, because, again, the same issue is in play, I think, of understanding in the context why this is so devastating for people. I had a mother who worked as a teacher in the 1960s. She was paid a quarter what the male standing next to her was being paid for the same job because she was paid as a single person and the male was assumed to have a family of four, and the rate was set to actually be for the family of four. So along come the 1970s, where my mother has worked her socks off and not been paid; there is a piece of legislation put in place which says you must be paid equally. Nobody really does anything—don’t notice, don’t actually act on that for quite some time. Then someone comes along with the bright idea of actually enforcing something in the law. They hard-won it—they absolutely hard-won it.

We come along as a legislature and we say, “Right, we are going to look at this again. We’re going to make sure this works in a different way—trust us. Trust us—this is what we’re doing today. We’re going to compromise your rights. We’re not going to let you all just go through the courts and make your decisions and get the court to look at this objectively and decide if you’ve been paid the right amount. But trust us: we’re going to put in place a formula that works for you and works for us because it was already a compromise.” My understanding today, Minister, is what you are doing is compromising on a compromise on a compromise, and you are again eroding the justice—sorry, Madam Chair; the Minister and the Government are again looking at eroding a fraction of the rights of the people involved here.

So I would like to know: was there any kind of historical analysis of the loss that actually accrued to the people whose claims are now being compromised again? Was there any advice given to the Minister of the actual amount of money that those people are out of pocket because they’ve been treated badly over years and years? And was there any analysis of what that did to the rest of us, who have to pick up the pieces, when women cannot save enough money for their retirement, because we know the stats—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before the dinner break—and I am sure you know this, but I just want to remind people—I’d asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a question around clause 4 and around the advice that was given that led to the 70 percent. What I really wanted to know was what other advice—because, as a Minister, you do get alternative advice. What was the alternative advice that was given, and why didn’t the Minister go with that? The reason I bring this back up is that we didn’t get an answer to that. Because we have no idea what advice was given to the Minister, I have actually written a tabled amendment in my name, to clause 4, that goes back to the 60 percent.

When we had that 60 percent threshold, we were successful in getting pay equity claims through, which tells me, in the absence of knowing the advice that the Minister saw, that things were working in this space, and are working. It reeks of ill winds, really, that the Minister has changed this purely—and I want to be convinced here otherwise—as a cost-saving measure, particularly when I see the comments that have been made today in the media, and I would think quite unfortunate comments for the Minister, on behalf of the Minister, saying this was all about saving billions of dollars. So I would really like to know what alternative advice was given to the Minister, other than that 70 percent threshold, and why did she not choose to go with that?

As I said, in the absence of that, I think we should be staying with the 60 percent, because we know that it has been successful to date. We know that we have seen successful claims go through. And I think, when you look at the successful claims of support staff in schools, of science technicians in schools, all of those claims that came through, we saw a change in those workforces. We saw that predominantly female workforce change for the better because of those successful pay equity claims. My concern is that raising it to 70 percent makes it much, much more difficult. I can’t remember the place—where was the place that the Minister had said—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Manitoba.

Hon JAN TINETTI: In Canada—Manitoba. That’s right. All we’ve been told is that they have it in Manitoba, in Canada, and I just don’t think that’s a strong enough case for the 70 percent. So, please, I really do want an answer as to why we haven’t stuck with the 60 percent or other alternative percentages that the Minister would have got from her officials.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to echo the sentiment of the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti. We did ask a number of questions to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety before the dinner break and did not receive an answer other than it would “give confidence”. I guess, from that, I want to ask the Minister: confidence for whom? It’s certainly not for the workers, who were caught by surprise by this particular piece of legislation. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating to the committee, what does she mean by confidence?

But just to remind the Minister again of the questions that we’re asking and the fact that we are having to ask these questions because there’s no information and no context for this bill and no analysis that we know of that’s been done. So we really need to know from the Minister what analysis has been done for this.

So again, going back to my questions for clause 4(2), I asked the Minister questions around risk and around cost-benefit analysis, both in terms of the 70 percent threshold but also in terms of the 10 consecutive years. What confidence does she have that employers and corporates aren’t going to manipulate the legislation in a way that will always not quite meet the threshold on year nine, for example? In year 10, they change the system a bit. Is the system going to be reset? It says 10 consecutive years, which means that a company could reasonably change the system in year 10 to reset the 10 consecutive years for them to start again from year one the next year, and there’s nothing that employees can do about it. I can see the Minister smiling, but at the same time, I don’t know. I genuinely don’t know if that is something that has been considered because that could, in all likelihood, like anything else, be a scenario that could eventuate. So could the Minister respond if that has been considered or if any other analysis has been done from a risk perspective?

I also asked the Minister who she consulted in terms of this particular legislation. Has she consulted with any workers’ organisations or unions on this legislation before introducing it to the House? And like the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti, has also mentioned, what other areas has she modelled this legislation on other than Manitoba, Canada? But that’s one part of my question.

I would like to ask a few questions, and this is more broadly around clause 6, under “Purpose”. Now, the purpose section has also fundamentally changed from the current purpose of the existing legislation, but I want to pick up on a few keywords in this new purpose section, and particularly I want to pick up on what the Minister means by “process”. The current definition is actually very clear in terms of the fact that there needs to be a simple process, whereas there’s nothing in here, there’s no adjective that gives me confidence that this process isn’t going to be increasing the blue tape and yellow tape of this Government and is going to make it a really complex and arduous process for people to claim pay equity or gender-based pay equity. I also wanted to check with the Minister—in light of the definition in replacement section 2B, inserted by clause 5—has she received any legal advice on whether the purpose section can potentially override the definition of clause 4(2) when it comes to the definition of “systemic” and “predominantly”? Again, one of the things that we have been talking about is the fact that the “systemic” has been presumed to mean 10 consecutive years and “predominantly” has been presumed to mean 70 percent, but has that been checked by legal to also suggest that people cannot challenge it? As the Minister would understand from statutory interpretation, the purpose may override other definitions.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a few things that I was going to say I find confusing about this piece of legislation, but I’m not personally confused. I worked for an organisation that championed pay equity and spent an awful lot of time working with comparators, working our way through a process that was very clearly laid out and was achievable at the end. But there’s something about what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has responded to in questions so far that doesn’t quite sit well with me. For those paying attention at home, or for those who have been listening to the two or three contributions that the Minister has made to date, she’s talked about sex-based discrimination. She said things like “if you feel you’ve been discriminated in your workplace”. It kind of reeks of this classic libertarian kind of concept of the unit of analysis being the individual, and that is completely at odds with what the pay equity legislation was designed to do, because it was about rectifying historical undervaluation of what tends to be woman’s work but is certainly not exclusively woman’s work.

If we look back at the history of that—suffice to say, a history lesson—there were two types of work in our economy, historically: the productive work that tended to be done by men and was therefore valued as such and paid accordingly, and reproductive work that tended almost exclusively to be done by women. Over the years, that work moved into types of occupations like nursing and caring and all of those things where women may have worked outside the home but were still involved in what was considered reproductive work, caring work. Throughout history, throughout the world, those forms of activity, those forms of genuine work, have always been undervalued. Hence the fact that in the same organisation in the 1960s or the 1970s, as Helen White has previously pointed out, two people could do the same work and if one was a man they would receive what was called a family wage, whilst the woman would receive tokenism, essentially, because she didn’t “need” to be paid. It’s the same sort of argument we hear when we talk about youth rates from this Government.

But as a modern society, as a contemporary society, we’re supposed to redress that. Those are antiquated, old-fashioned ideas. It’s taken years to try and address that. That’s why some perfectly, incredibly valuable work that’s skilled and has autonomy, that may have budget responsibilities, that may have life-and-death responsibilities, is still underpaid compared to what has been traditionally male-dominated work that doesn’t have near as much responsibility, or, arguably, doesn’t necessarily add as much value—you know, even if we want to be cut and dry about it in a productive economic sense.

So when the Minister talks about this as if it’s some sort of contemporary problem—going forward, she wants to see this rectified to make it easier—she’s completely denying and completely overshadowing the fact that we’ve still got a lot of work to do to even the playing field and to fix up that which has not been appropriately sorted. So to change the rules and to make the criteria so much more strict—so much more not even very well-thought-out or practical solutions to a problem—just defies belief, really.

Thinking about that and taking that into a contextual sort of background, I have several questions for the Minister. The first one, though, is that we have 33 current pay equity claims, so by virtue of the fact that we haven’t been through a select committee process and we don’t have a regulatory impact statement, can the Minister take us through all of those 33 existing cases? Can she talk us through the analysis and the advice that she’s been given on each of those, individually—about what the costs to the Government are, what savings the Government will make what workers and people—not just women but men who are now currently working in traditionally women-dominated fields, who are also getting paid an undervalued wage? I want to know more details about that, because without a proper process we’re flying blind, and it’s up to the Minister to provide that information, tonight.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go through a few of the questions that we’ve had so far. Firstly, in response to the member Helen White, about why the Government is overriding settlements that have been made, I want to make it very clear to anybody listening that that is not what the Government is doing. Settlements that have been made are still valid. It is only the review clause that is no longer enforceable, and then the follow-on question is: why are we not allowing those review clauses? In many of these settlements, the short review period made it difficult to determine whether any remuneration differences were actually due to pay equity issues having re-emerged in such short time frames or, simply, too short-term labour market dynamics. There’s also the case that aligning the timing of reviews with collective-bargaining rounds risked conflating pay equity and collective-bargaining issues. They are distinct issues, and they address different issues, which is why we believe in having a 10-year review date.

We have been asked, also by Helen White, about the historical analysis of what women will be losing and why we’re compromising the system. It’s not the case. There is always going to be those settled claims—they’ll continue to be settled. There’s still a process for raising and resolving pay equity issues. The current settlements stand; they don’t lose any gains. But we are making changes to ensure that the pay equity process is workable and sustainable going forward, and that will be a better process, for all parties, to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation when they’re working through that claim.

To the member Jan Tinetti, speaking to her tabled amendment, the changes that we proposed in the bill provide greater confidence that the process is identifying situations where sex-based differences in remuneration exist and remain. Of course, there is always going to be people who would want to change the threshold of 70 percent or 60 percent or 50 percent, 40 percent—you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and I believe that having the higher threshold of 70 percent makes us have greater confidence that the analysis that we’re seeing is based on genuine sex-based undervaluation. It makes sense that the higher the threshold is, the more likely it is based on genuine sex-based discrimination.

We’ve been asked, by the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, what evidence we have for changing the 70 percent threshold and requiring the 10 years. Look, I have wanted to make it clear—with the claims—that they can only be raised when there is sex-based discrimination, rather than differences in labour market conditions. I think those two changes to the thresholds go hand in hand to achieve better outcomes and more confidence in the pay equity system overall, that they are focusing on genuine sex-based discrimination rather than labour market conditions. And that’s going to be my same answer to that same question if we get it throughout the night.

There is also a question on risks of employers attempting to game the system for the new requirements. There is still an obligation under the law for good faith to apply, and dispute-resolution processes are available to all parties. If a union or an employee disagrees with a decision on whether or not the requirements are met, that’s not changing. There is also a question on who was, ultimately, consulted. I think that’s also quite clear today: that we have needed to move quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure that it is workable and sustainable.

There is another question as to who this is giving confidence to, and I think that the answer to that is very clear: it gives confidence to people bringing a claim. It’s for employers, unions, and employees. We’ve also got a question about which other countries I have looked into, in comparison to other jurisdictions, rather than just focusing on Manitoba. New Zealand’s pay equity system is actually quite unique in terms of international comparisons. The UK and Ireland don’t allow multi-employer claims. They also don’t allow any claims to be made outside of a person’s or the claimant’s workforce—so we are very unique in that regard. Australia does allow multi-employer claims, but they are usually progressed through a different system—again, that we don’t have in New Zealand—which is the awards system. So it is actually quite difficult to compare ourselves internationally to what other jurisdictions do.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, I’m gratified for that. And just aware that this bill has just been foisted on us recently, so I’m wanting to make some relatively general comments, but largely around process. And the first thing I want to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is: where is the Attorney-General’s report? Because the departmental disclosure statement, under the heading “Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”, indicates that there has been an assessment of the bill and whether it’s consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that advice has been provided to the Attorney-General.

Now, if you’re going to introduce a bill with an hour’s notice, then we should be seeing on the Table the advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And it is shameful that the advice exists and yet it has not been tabled. I want to know what the expert advice of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice is on this, particularly because there are changes to offences in this piece of legislation and there are retrospective provisions.

Now, you are a member of a party which prides itself, or purports to pride itself on, its adherence to the rule of law. And, frankly, to come to this House in this kind of haphazard way is absolutely contrary to the rule of law, particularly when you’re introducing retrospective provisions. I am appalled to see, when your leader is pushing a regulatory standards framework which talks about consultation, that there has been no Treaty analysis done whatsoever. It says here in the disclosure statement, “Due to ministerial time constraints”—the Hon Brooke van Velden was busy—“no analysis on whether the bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been done.” Why not? Because we know many of our lowest-paid workers are Māori, and in terms of doing right by Māori and ensuring that they are paid appropriately—our wahine Māori are directly affected by this bill and the Treaty analysis was absolutely necessary.

I also note towards the end of the disclosure statement that this bill is retrospective, that is to say that under urgency—and to be perfectly honest, on this side of the Chamber, we don’t understand why it’s so desperately urgent—you are introducing a retrospective aspect, in particular—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Chair is not introducing it.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Chair is not introducing that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sorry, Madam Chair. The Minister is introducing a bill with a retrospective aspect. In particular, there are clauses in contractual agreements which are being struck down, namely review clauses. These are clauses which parties in many cases have reached by agreement. They have negotiated these review agreements—sanctity of contract is something that the ACT Party talks about all of the time, and yet here they are legislating away contracts that have been struck between the parties. The process here is appalling and I want to know why the Minister thinks it’s appropriate to retrospectively change contractual agreements.

And I guess the other thing in terms of that disclosure statement is: why was the Ministry of Justice not consulted around the criminal provisions? This is not a difficult thing to do. It is not difficult when developing policy—I see other ministries: the Public Service Commission was consulted, Health New Zealand was consulted, the Ministry of Education was consulted, Treasury was consulted. But when you are changing criminal offences, it is absolutely appropriate and necessary to take the advice of the specialist ministry, which is the Ministry of Justice. Clause 3.4.1 of the disclosure statement says, “No”, we didn’t consult the Ministry of Justice about those offences.

And then there’s this: in terms of regulatory quality, the standard of our legislation, rule number one, which David Seymour and his Ministry for Regulation trumpets, is consult with the people affected. Who was consulted? Why are you so rushed that you didn’t consult the people affected by this? We know that that Minister is allergic to unions, but why did you not talk to the Council of Trade Unions? Why did you not talk to the groups of workers who are currently negotiating these agreements? How is this good process? How can we pretend that legislation under urgency, with that shabby process, has any quality whatsoever?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. I do also have some questions to ask around the process. It’s a little hard to pin it to a particular clause in the bill, but it is important that we discuss this, given that we didn’t have a select committee process.

Now, in terms of the papers that were available to us when the bill was tabled, as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety was beginning her speech introducing the bill this afternoon—so, literally, we couldn’t get our hands on the bill until after the Minister had started talking. But amongst them, we were able to come across this, or maybe I got it from a colleague. It’s the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) paper Reviewing policy settings, from March 2025—which is a pretty vague title, isn’t it? But it is all about this bill, and, in particular, it’s the Cabinet paper, or the MBIE paper, on the bill, and, in particular, I think we need to talk about the financial recommendations. We need to understand the costs and benefits of this bill that the Minister is bringing to us today, and it turns out that this particular report is just full of great big grey redacted paragraphs.

So I want to know what advice—now, obviously, the Minister is not going to tell us exactly what the advice was, because it’s all redacted. But I want to know what sources of advice the Minister asked for and consulted in terms of looking at the financial implications of this bill. We already know that the Prime Minister has said that it’s going to save billions of dollars for the Government, so that’s an interesting little bit of analysis we got from the Prime Minister and it’s a shame that we haven’t had any more elaboration on that yet. But in terms of the financial recommendations in the financial analysis, I want to know what financial analysis was done for the impact on workers. How much do we think that workers’ wages are going to be affected by this bill?

We need to know whether perhaps some anticipated pay rises will now be foregone because of this bill. In particular, I’m thinking of teachers, teacher-aides, and anyone who works in that space where there is a claim that is now being set aside and just abandoned. What’s the impact on their future income?

So that’s the first part of that question, and it’s the direct financial implications for the workers who are affected by this bill. How much are they going to lose out of their back pockets? Of course, we’re talking about future pay rises that will no longer occur now, but they had a reasonable prospect of getting pay rises because of the pay equity legislation and their claims. How much are they losing now because those claims have just been set aside? So that’s the first question.

But there is some other really interesting information around in terms of wages for women, and I want to know whether the Minister has taken this into account, as well. I have here a briefing paper from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. It’s an economic analysis of what happens when women’s wages are increased, and the particular paper is entitled The Impact of Equal Pay on Poverty and the Economy. Very roughly—very roughly—what it shows is that increasing women’s wages for every—I think it was an 8 percent increase. No, it was a 4 percent increase in women’s wages—let me see if I can get the numbers exactly right. Providing equal pay to women cuts family poverty “in half,”—now, this is US numbers, and it might be different in New Zealand—“falling from 8.0 percent to 3.8 percent.” So that’s over half in terms of family poverty—there was a cut of over half in family poverty when women get equal pay.

So I want to know in terms of the financial analysis that has been so blocked out in this report not just the impact on the workers but the impact on poverty in New Zealand. We know that pay equity tends to go to reward the lowest-paid workers. We know that that is money that would have flowed through to families. What is the impact in there? Did the Minister get advice on that as to how workers and their dependants, and broader issues like family policy are affected by the changes that she is bringing into effect?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to take the time to answer a few of the questions received so far.

In response to Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked about the legal advice I’d received through this process, any legal advice I receive is legally privileged, as is normal.

To Dr Tracey McLellan, asking about what analysis has been done on the costs or savings associated with the current claims and the changes to this law, this is Budget-sensitive information, which I cannot disclose. What I can say, though, is that pay equity claims have been concentrated in the public sector, and costs to the Crown have become significant. My policy changes will have a significant reduction in costs to the Crown.

There has been a question from, I believe, Dr Duncan Webb about the Attorney-General’s advice. I understand that the advice has actually been published on the Ministry of Justice website, as is normal. I understand it has been up for a little while this evening.

“Why has there been no Treaty analysis?” also asked Dr Duncan Webb. My understanding is that an improved pay equity system will still be available under this law, and I consider that it is consistent. Also from Dr Duncan Webb, there have been concerns about the retrospective impact of the bill. I consider that it’s important that all of the claimants are on the same playing field, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time.

There is only, really, one element of the amendment Act that is retrospective. It is that the review clauses in existing settlements and employment agreements will become unenforceable. This is because the short three-year time frame in the review cycle does make it quite difficult to determine whether any differences in pay are due to pay equity issues having re-emerged over a short time frame or whether they are to short-term changes in the labour market.

I’ve also got another question here from Dr Duncan Webb, on why we didn’t consult Justice on changes in the penalties. The penalties in the Act are civil penalties, not criminal, and the new penalties are consistent with the existing penalties.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution in the committee of the whole House stage. I have a series of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that I’m hoping she’ll be able to answer, so rather than giving it as a speech, I’d like to just be able to put the question: I’ve seen a lot of reporting on the 33 claims that will be discontinued by this legislation but I haven’t seen a list of the 33 claims and which workers are involved in those. Does the Minister have such a list of the 33 parties who are the claims and who it affects? If so, can she share it with the committee?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not wanting to step on what the previous member, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, was just asking; if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety wants to answer, I think the previous member was wanting an exchange. I don’t have my glasses on, so I can’t quite see what the Minister’s face is doing—which is a terrible ageing thing! Would the Minister like to have the exchange with the previous member? Yep, I’ll come back later. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the Hon Julie Anne Genter for the question. Look, I don’t have the specific 33 claims in front of me at this stage, but I’m sure you can google a few and find them.

I will take the time also to answer Dr Deborah Russell. What financial impact will there be on workers? Look, I think it’s really important for us here not to conflate the two issues of collective bargaining and pay equity. When we’re talking about wages that people earn for the work that they are doing and whether or not that’s keeping up with the cost of living, day to day, year to year, with inflation, those issues should be addressed through collective bargaining and through settlements with employees through that avenue. The pay equity system is not about that. It is about sex-based discrimination of a historic and current nature. That is a very different question than to whether or not people’s wages year to year keep up with inflation.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair, for that. Always good to have those interactions between questioners and Ministers in a committee stage. I’ve got a couple of fairly short questions that I would like to put to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first one is in clause 6. There’s a replacement section 13A, which is the new purpose. This is really just a drafting question that I have for the Minister. So it’s a replacement purpose for this part of the primary legislation—of the Act. It’s gone from being a purpose that is to facilitate claims to one that is “The purpose of this Part is to provide a process that facilitates the resolution of pay equity claims”.

So the question is: is that language purposeful? Is it on purpose that it’s important now that there’s some sort of policy change that what this part of the Act is doing is all about process, rather than the final result, if that’s why the drafting has changed? Because it did used to say that it was to facilitate—“(a) setting a low threshold to raise a claim”, and some more words, and “providing a simple and accessible process to progress a pay equity claim.”

I note why this caught my attention in particular is because in the recently passed Fast-track Approvals Act, the purpose of that Act, at section 3 of that Act, “is to facilitate the delivery of … projects”. And when the Fast-track Approvals Bill was going through the House, there was this word “process” in that purpose clause. Now, this piece of legislation is doing the exact opposite of that fast-track in terms of the purpose clause didn’t used to be all about process, it used to be about an outcome, and now it’s becoming about the process. So that’s my question—really a legislative drafting question—for the Minister.

Next question, moving on to clause 11, which replaces section 13F. It’s the “Meaning of has merit”. So “(1) A pay equity claim has merit if”—all these different factors. And you cross the page, and at subclause (2) there is “The reasons for historical undervaluation of work … are as follows:”, and there’s a list at subclause (2). What I’m interested in is at paragraph (d)(ii). That is that “(d) the nature of the work requires an employee to use skills or qualities that have been—(ii) regarded as not requiring monetary compensation.” It’s this phrase “regarded as not requiring monetary compensation” that I am interested in. I’m interested in this because that seems like quite a binary statement that something has never required monetary compensation.

I understand that in the context of the historical factors and how women’s work has been seen, it might be that it hasn’t been valued as much as other work, but there’s still been some sort of monetary compensation. So it might be that cleaners have been undervalued and many people might say, “Well, people do cleaning in their own households so it hasn’t, perhaps, required much monetary compensation.”—but rather than no monetary compensation. This seems like a higher threshold than is necessary, given the policy explanations that we’ve had during this debate so far. So could that subclause (2)(d)(ii) be regarded as not requiring very much monetary compensation or regarded as low value in terms of monetary compensation, or something to that effect, is my second question, and I’ll leave those two questions there.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take this call. What I want to cover now is just, perhaps, to carry on from my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s questions around process. So, Madam Chair, you will note that the bill in front of us has two parts, and the Schedule is part of Part 1, and then Part 2 which is much smaller, and then, obviously, we have the title and commencement section. So there are relatively few parts for a bill of this magnitude. We have, as far as I can ascertain, only covered a few of the first initial clauses in the first part of this. I do have a lot of comments, and I know that other colleagues do as well, to make on Part 1, which is the substantive part. I also have nine tabled amendments in Part 1 and the Schedule, which I am hoping to be able to speak to as well.

But I also wanted to refer you to the Speakers’ ruling 125/8, which, essentially, allows—and this is what I’m intending to do in this call—to have wider questions in the instance that—and this previous example that’s in the Speakers’ ruling was urgency when there hasn’t been a select committee. So we’ve got questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that are relevant to the bill, of course—because otherwise it would be out of order—but may take into a few different sections, which I understand is permissible under this Speakers’ ruling. So that’s just flagging to you that it’s my intention to make some wider comments; it doesn’t mean I don’t have specific comments, but I do have some bigger questions initially.

Also, we have been somewhat inundated with emails, following the surprise tabling of this bill, from people who would have commented and submitted to select committees but have been unable to do so. So, obviously, we would be quite keen to highlight some of those. I will do, if I have time, one of those emails today on this.

But the question that I first wanted to ask the Minister, overall, is that I have seen, reported in the media, comments that have been made by the Hon David Seymour congratulating the Minister on this bill, and saying that she has saved the Budget and would save the Government billions. I wanted to ask the Minister to reflect on that statement and ask if she had any response to that, because, from reading that, I would say that it would be most New Zealanders’ perception that the reason that the Minister is implementing this bill is to do exactly what David Seymour has suggested, which is to save the Budget and also to save billions. So we have had some questions around the advice that the Minister has received around the savings of the 33 claims. I also understand that we are also waiting for the Minister to go through those 33 claims as well. I’d note from my own research that there are around three claims which are already settled. A question for the Minister is: how many of those claims have review clauses that will now not be able to be utilised because of the retrospective aspect of this particular bill? So I wonder if the Minister could follow up on those particular wider questions in relation to advice.

I also wanted to ask—there are people in this country, many of them are low-paid workers, who have spent years and years and a lot of time working on pay equity claims which will be extinguished as a result of this legislation that the Minister has put forward. I wanted to know if there was any transitional support in place for those people with existing claims in the system—those unions, those low-paid women workers. Has the Minister considered that? Has she been provided with advice on that?

Additionally, she referred to legal advice and said that that was privileged. Legal professional privilege exists to the person who the advice is provided. So it is within the Minister’s power to make that legal advice public. That is her prerogative as the Minister and as the person receiving the legal advice. I want to ask her: can she, please, make that legal advice public? We are doing the best we can to scrutinise a bill which is very detailed, which we have only had for a few hours, and we would very much appreciate to be able to do the best advocacy we can with the benefit of the advice that’s been received. Currently, a lot of the advice has been redacted within the departmental disclosure statement and we’re unable to comment on that. So, please, if she would make that advice available.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to seek a quick call to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a couple of questions around the topic that my colleague Camilla Belich has already explored. I’m really interested in the question around those low-paid workers with current claims in the system—or, basically, anyone with a current claim in the system who the Government’s currently in negotiations with. My question is: at what stage were they told that the legislation was going to change? I mean, I guess, from a natural justice perspective, I would have thought that they would have gotten a heads-up ahead of the Minister announcing it via press release. So my question is: when were the claimants to existing claims told, and when were the unions that were party to those claimants told? Was it just this morning? Did they find out via the media release? When did the Minister and the department inform them?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety previously said that I could google the 33 claims, but I just want to reflect on the fact that there’s no select committee process for this bill. Every single worker involved or who could’ve been party to one of those claims would have an interest, probably, in the legislation that we’re debating right now in the committee stage, which was only brought to this House a matter of hours ago. The Minister has a number of officials behind her. Could the Minister ask the officials to provide a list of the 33 claims, if she cannot get them now, and table it so those of us in the Chamber can look at it?

Could the Minister also give us any advice she’s received about the number of workers in each of those sectors? It’s really vitally important for the debate today, because, presumably, if we’d gone through a normal process and there hadn’t been a rushed, urgent process, probably a lot of the unions and the workers involved in these fields who are going to be directly impacted by these legislative changes would’ve liked to come to the select committee and tell their stories and explain how this would affect them. They are being denied that opportunity because of the process the Government has chosen to take, so at the very least the Minister could turn to the officials behind her and get the information and provide it to us so we can talk about the real people who are affected by these legislative changes.

I also want to reflect on the fact that—and other colleagues have raised this—many of these claims had already been in process for years. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 33 claims that are being extinguished by this piece of legislation were close to being settled? Were they going to be settled in the coming financial year, in two years, in three years? How many of them, because we’ve had 10 claims already settled; 33 now having to completely start over, if they’re even able to. It makes it very clear in the legislative statement that they’ll be extinguished and that they may have the opportunity to recommence, but only if they meet the new threshold. I just think it’s worthwhile for the committee to be able to have this information in front of us.

I did do a quick cursory google; it is not immediately available on the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) website or in any one place, a list of the 33 claims. We know that 75,000 primary teachers are affected. We know there’s a large clerical and admin claim, and I believe the midwives have a claim. Thirty-three is a lot—that’s a lot of different workers. When we saw in the news today the Hon David Seymour and Prime Minister Chris Luxon saying this was going to save the Government billions of dollars, and David Seymour actually said this decision saved the Government’s Budget, I just—like, the reality is that the Government has chosen to deny probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of workers in female-dominated professions a pay settlement that they were due in order to save money, which means they will continue to be underpaid based on gender-based discrimination, or sex-based discrimination, as the Minister keeps saying. And for how long, because if it took four years to get to the point they’re at now and now the claim’s being reset—how many years is it going to be till they can maybe access some of this historical underpay?

In the legislative statement, it also says that back-pay will no longer be able to be awarded by the ERA. So what is the rationale for that, Minister? Could you tell us what the rationale is for denying an ability for the Employment Relations Authority to award back-pay? We understand that the parties could decide to negotiate back-pay, but if the ERA is no longer able to award it, like, where is the justice in that? Let’s say with your new process that people have gone through, it’s been determined there was historical underpayment because of gender-based discrimination, because of sexism, and you’re taking away a tool for people to receive compensation for the work that they’ve done and been underpaid for—just, please, I really, Minister, would love answers to all these questions.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Madam Chair, thank you. I just want to follow up on that first, and I’ll come back to some of my other questions. The issue of back-pay is really interesting because there have been people waiting in the queue. There are a whole lot of people this has happened to, and I’d like to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety whether she accepts that they have been injured and they have lost out and why it would be appropriate for them now no longer to get back-pay if they’re found to have a legitimate claim in that situation, and what information she has been given about the actual money that we’re talking about. This is a loss to ordinary New Zealanders. Has she been given financial information about the liability that it looks like, going forward in the kind of pipeline of back-pay? How much money are ordinary New Zealanders losing out on—that the Minister is aware of—and has she asked for that information?

Related to that question is an issue, really, about—we talked about the issue of the review clauses going. I understood from the Minister’s answer that she was saying it was OK, because they could still bargain, and she didn’t want those things to blend. Well, with respect, they already did, because people would have made a bargain based on that fact. Even in the pay equity space, they would have been negotiating—and I did this for a job for a long time and negotiated things, and you’ve got eggs in different baskets; you’re making a deal which is a holistic deal. If you’ve got a review clause in it that means that things are going to be different in a few years, you’re not asking for the same basket of eggs. What has the Minister done or been advised with regard to the justice of the claims that have been made on the basis of a review that suddenly won’t have a review in them? They are a very different settlement by nature, and that has been done ignorant of the fact. Is there an estoppel?

I wanted also to ask about the opt-out clauses, because one of the things that’s happening here is that usually, for the sake of the fact these are expensive claims and they’re systemic in nature, they’ve been wrapped up in an industry. You’ve had a whole industry bargaining together, but now one of the proposals is that anyone can just opt out of them. Well, why wouldn’t they? If there’s been an expensive process go through and they’re about to be liable for money to pay forward, etc., why wouldn’t an individual employer just simply opt out? And will that render the entire process a complete waste of time for all those involved?

I still haven’t had an answer back about all of the cost to ordinary New Zealanders who have gone through this process so far. Is there an answer to that question? There would have been an enormous amount of money and resource spent in this situation. And then I’d also like to know about—and I did ask some questions about this, but I want to take you in a slightly different direction. I talked about the cost to women in terms of savings, and I asked for your figures—and I haven’t had an answer to that—but has she spoken to the Retirement Commissioner about this move? My understanding in our last meeting in a select committee with the Retirement Commissioner was that she was very concerned about the level of savings. If women continue to not earn at this level, because they are hampered by this—maybe they’re in the 60 to 70 percent group; they’re not even going to be seen as having merit anymore in their case, even though their wages are lower because they’re in a systemic situation. So, in that situation, is there an extrapolation? Is there a cost-benefit analysis here in terms of what it’s going to cost those women and the top taxpayer in terms of settlement?

I’d ask you also to consider this issue about the 10-year period. My understanding is that if you’ve got a settlement, tough; you’re out for 10 years. You can go back and review in 10 years’ time. What is the provision—and what is the way that the Minister has dealt with the fact—that, during that time, there’ll be no KiwiSaver contributions at the appropriate level? Say you’ve got a scenario—this is my scenario for the Minister. Madam Chair, I’m about to come to the end of my 20 seconds and I’d love to have another call to finish this. My scenario in this situation is that you have systemic discrimination going on and it’s happening now, and somebody has settled and they have to wait 10 years to have another look at this situation, because you have got rid of the review period that they put in. And they did that, so that’s probably impacted on the amount that they settled for, by the way. Then we come into the 10-year period and you find evidence that there has been systemic discrimination—I call it “abuse”—in that period, and all that time they should have had a KiwiSaver at a much higher rate if they’d been paid the right amount, if they hadn’t been discriminated against. What happens with regard to all the savings that have been lost in that time, and is the Minister proposing that that is just tough? Or is the Minister saying, well, the taxpayer should be picking up the bill—because they really do; if people have no savings at that point, or very little, it’s actually the taxpayer who ends up paying it. Is that the way this is supposed to go here? That’s what it seems, to me, to be doing.

The biggest issue here is: what evidence is there that the Minister has sought with regard to this? It seems to me, when I go through this very new piece of legislation, that I keep on coming across “a narrowing”, “a narrowing”, “a narrowing”, “a narrowing”, making it more expensive, making it more expensive, making it more difficult. Now, we know civil litigation is one of the most expensive processes, and what you’re dealing with is people who, by their very nature, are low-paid workers. If you do that process, if you have narrowed the gap so far, what do you intend to do about the low-paid women who, in fact, get lower paid as a result at the end of the period where they are working at all? Ten years is actually—we only, really, have about four or five of those, maybe, in our lifetime. That’s a long time to not have an accrual of the right kind of pay. And then you’ve got the issue that you’re not allowed to actually award back-pay anyway. So you’ve got a gap where you’re expecting people to be underpaid and then no back-pay. That just seems, to me, like having your cake and eating it too if you’re the employer in the room, because you don’t get the back-pay but you can’t take a claim, in any kind of ongoing way, to stem the damage done. That seems very unfair.

Now, I’d just like to ask you, also, about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report that has come in. We’ve only just seen this, and we’ve only just started to go through it. I’m sure my colleagues will have questions, but I can see that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report talks about the remedy for people being—that is supposed to save this piece of legislation—that they can go to the High Court for a breach of section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It seems to me, and you can tell me if I’m wrong—I appreciate I’m just whipping through this thing now, because that’s what we’ve got to do—what it’s saying is there might be a breach, but you can go to the High Court to sort that out. Is that the Minister’s understanding of that? That’s at paragraph 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. Is that the way that things are supposed to be sorted out? And, if that’s the case, is that an acceptance that there is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act here? And, if that’s the case, how extensive is that? How possible is that for the ordinary human being?

There’s been a lot of writing recently on how where we’ve gone wrong in modern society is that we have loaded up processes. And I think I’ve heard echoes of this from the Minister’s parliamentary leader; that there’s supposed to be an issue with red tape. This looks like red tape to me. If you have to go off to the High Court, who’s going to do it? Only the rich. Your clinical psychologist might be able to do it, but your cleaners won’t be able to. I would like to know from the Minister: is this really something that she has considered? How practical is this pathway for a low-paid worker? And is this really a breach that she’s accepting happens but that that is the pathway for sorting out any breach? The same thing is true later. There’s a suggestion that this is saved by the High Court’s power of review. Does she accept that the High Court’s power of review is much narrower? It’s not a substantive right; it’s a different kind of right. And what kind of advice has she had on that? Madam Chair, just to finish—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll take the opportunity to answer quite a few substantive items. Rachel Brooking had a question on why the wording changed from “facilitate” to “a process to facilitate” in the purpose clause. The word “process” was not the substantive change in this clause; the substantive change to the purpose was to require evidence of systemic undervaluation, and I consider that the amended purpose statement more accurately reflects the purpose of the pay equity regime in this part of the Act.

The second question from Rachel Brooking I believe relates to clause 11 amending section 13F(2)(d)(ii). The text has not changed; it has been copied over from the current Act.

We had a question from Camilla Belich about whether or not the Government is passing this law to save money. That is not why I have brought this bill. It has always been clear that there have been errors within the current system, which I am here to clear up, and the changes are being made to ensure that the pay equity process is workable and sustainable and that there is a better process going forward for parties to use to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation when working through a pay equity claim. When it comes to comments that David Seymour has made, I think they’re very generous comments, but, ultimately, I guarantee that my reason, which is what I set out for the Prime Minister when I first came into this Government—that I wanted to do work in this area—still remains. I did want to do the work and I have done this work.

When it comes to the member Julie Anne Genter’s question about the list of the claims, I have asked our officials and I would also refer you back to Google and then back to the parliamentary website—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Excuse me, I haven’t finished my contribution—back to Google to then find the parliamentary website, because I have answered the question in a written parliamentary question. So you need to find written parliamentary question No. 17121 (2025), and that, hopefully, should answer your question about having a list. I believe it is around 30 claims on there.

To the member Camilla Belich—I believe she also asked about whether I’d release the legal advice I had received—no, I will not be waiving my legal privilege.

Camilla Belich also asked how many of the settled claims have review clauses. All of the claims would, as the Act currently requires them to include review clauses. However, the short review periods made it difficult to determine if remuneration differences were due to pay equity or other short-term labour market dynamics.

Julie Anne Genter also asked how many claims were close to being settled. I actually don’t have that information. The changes are being made to improve the system rather than in response to any one individual claim. That’s why I’m progressing quickly: so that the new system can be applied to all of those claims once re-raised.

I believe Francisco Hernandez also asked a question about when existing claimants and the unions were told. I believe this happened today, by the agencies working on the claims.

Helen White also asked a question about why we are not having back-pay. We do need to make it clear that employers and employees may still agree on whether to include back-pay in a settlement. What this bill removes is the ability of the authority to award back-pay to incentivise employers and employees to resolve claims between themselves, rather than seeking an authority determination.

Helen White has also asked which parties agreed to settlement with review clauses, and whether or not it’s fair that those ones have been removed. I think part of that previous answer reflects the same answer here, but it’s also the case that the review clauses are not meant to be a way to bargain further increases. The settlements should only be reviewed and changed if pay equity and sex-based discrimination issues reemerge.

I think Helen White may have also had—Oh, I’ve run out of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call the Hon Brooke van Velden.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair—I’ve just got one further. Helen White also asked: why wouldn’t an employer opt out of a pay equity claim? Employers may decide to bargain together if a multi-employer pay equity claim that was raised aligns with existing bargaining structures. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of things that I wish to pursue in this more general note. Firstly, we have asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for the list of the 33 claimants. The Minister has said quite confidently that there are 33 claimants. One would expect that the Minister’s officials would have that list of 33 claimants. And I’m afraid it’s not satisfactory to tell us to go google it on such a critical matter. So I’m just deeply disappointed that that was the Minister’s answer. I’ll leave it at that, but, heavens, if that’s the standard we’ve come to with Ministers in this Government, they don’t deserve to be there for all that much longer.

I want to go back to the matter of the savings, and the money. We’ve had this very interesting phrase from the Minister for Regulation, the Hon David Seymour, and the line that he actually said was “I actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions”. That’s interesting, but then it’s the next one that’s really interesting: “She saved the Budget for the Government.” Now, the only way this could be saving the Budget for the Government is if this legislative change goes through in time for the savings to be booked, if the decisions are made before the Budget moratorium. That’s the only way it could happen.

And so that is why we are sitting here in urgency. It has nothing to do with outstanding claims that might need to have an overlapping period. That wouldn’t have prevented, say, a three-week select committee process. That is the flimsiest excuse I have heard. We could have even had a three-day select committee process, at least something to go through this. We could have had time to have gotten that list of 33 claimants. But, instead, it’s all being done, as far as we can tell, to Budget. That’s what’s been said by the Prime Minister, it’s been said by the Minister for Regulation, and yet the Minister in the chair has said, “Oh no—oh no, I didn’t bring it for those Budget reasons.” Well, the evidence looks very suspicious on that one.

So I would like to invite the Minister to come clean on that and admit that the reason that they are selling low-paid women out is to save the Government’s Budget. They are saving the Government’s Budget on the back of low-paid women.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I hadn’t thought I would stand so quickly after giving my last contribution, but I did want to respond to Dr Deborah Russell, because it’s very clear that she did not actually listen to my last response. I made it very clear in my last response that if she wanted to turn to Google, which she got very [Pauses] about, she could have found my written parliamentary question answer No. 17121 (2025) on Google. I ask the member to not continue to repeat that question.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution, at this stage, on this disgraceful piece of legislation. I have a few comments, and I have a few broader questions and some specific questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety as well. I think it’s pretty clear why the rush. My colleague Dr Deborah Russell has outlined why the rush. Basically, the Minister herself said that this will lead to significant benefits for the Government, when it comes to balancing their books. Although Minister Upston, of course, was at pains to say that this wasn’t about saving the Government money, I think it’s pretty clear, from various comments that Ministers and the Prime Minster have made in this House, that that is not the case—it is about the savings; hence the rush.

The Minister has said in the House, in the media, and in her speeches that this process was brought about, really, to bring about a better systemic framework, a better process, a more robust process—but for whom, Minister, I ask. I want to also include a quote, given that we are bypassing the select committee process. A number of people will be impacted—150,000 people will be impacted by this change; a number of unions who’ve been taking claims will be impacted by this change—and I want to bring in some of their voices and ask their questions of the Minister. I quote a retired residential aged-care worker, who says, “We’ve been fighting for 13 years. To have the rug pulled out from underneath us now is unbelievable. We thought we were going to get there—this just removes our road to fairness.” Then she talks about the impact on jobs in sectors like the aged-care sector. She says, “This will make it even harder to get people working in aged care. People won’t go the extra mile anymore—why would they, if they’re not going to get paid fairly? This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future.”

Minister, I want to ask you: what advice have you received? What work, what modelling has been done in terms of the impact of this change which makes it harder for women, for low-paid workers, to access fair pay for their work? What impacts will this have on the sectors that were part of those 33 claims—or those that were about to settle—in terms of the job losses that we’re going to see there? That’s my first question to the Minister.

Now, when the Minister says, “This was better,” again, I say, better for whom? Who was consulted? Who has the Minister spoken to? While I absolutely agree that this disproportionately impacts women, and I agree with my colleagues who have said that this is a Government that is waging war on women—and low-paid women at that—it also impacts, I know, many men as well, particularly from our Māori, Pacific, and ethnic communities. I know many from my own communities who are low paid and working in the sectors that we’ve talked about, who will be done out of the claims that they have been working towards for many years. What analysis has the Minister done on the demographics? Who is going to be impacted disproportionately by this particular change?

I also want to point to members opposite, many of whom got up when they had to speak, read off their lines, and basically said that this was going to make things better and not worse. I point them to section 27, paragraph 21(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, which clearly says—many of them said, “This doesn’t stop anything; it doesn’t stop pay equity claims.” Section 27, paragraph 21(b): “discontinues existing pay equity claims as well as any proceedings relating to those claims that have been started but not been determined.” So let’s put that to bed. Let’s not pretend that this is actually going to make things better when it’s going to make things so much worse for those who do incredibly difficult but important work.

My final question for now, Minister, is about the 65,000 care and support workers. Now, we don’t have the list of 33 claims. We know that, since 2022, claims have been progressing, or work has been progressing, on this claim. Thousands of hours have gone into doing this work and putting the claim together, processes that were already established previously. Those who’ve been part of this claim have messaged—emailed—us to say that they felt it was robust enough. So I’d like to know, firstly: where’s that claim at? Is that down the drain as well? Secondly, what was not robust about the previous process? Robust for whom, Minister? What changes in this—given that we’ve had the process laid out clearly, we’ve had significant milestones that many have had to reach, the Government could ditch those claims because they weren’t clear enough. What are you doing to make this more robust? Those are some of the questions.

I also do want to point out that those 65,000 care and support workers are across various sectors, like the mental health and addiction sectors, disability support services, the aged-care sectors I mentioned before—incredibly difficult work. They are now, essentially, working on the minimum wage, because the minimum wage has caught up. Now, given the years that they’ve been working—more than three years that they’ve been working towards this—where are they at? Now, Minister, I googled where they had ended in terms of their claim proceedings, and what I have found out is that, basically, in June last year there was a claim that was filed with the Employment Relations Authority for a determination to be made. Is that also down the drain now? Do they have to start from scratch in terms of the work that they need to do?

Another question that I had for you, Minister, is one that has been asked before but that has not been addressed or answered at all, and that is: in consideration of the changes that have been made through this bill, what are the other options that were put to the Minister? What are some of the options that you were working with before you landed on this, on making it harder for low-paid workers to actually get a pay equity claim by changing the threshold and bringing in the 10 years as well? I’d really like to know what some of those options were, and I will leave it at that for now.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Tāku patai—my question—to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is specifically around Treaty obligations and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to this legislation, and particularly looking at some of the Wai claims that have come out of it.

In the departmental disclosure statement, it says that it had a question around: “What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?”, and it basically says that there’s no analysis of whether this bill is consistent with that. That’s a huge issue, because we have the Mana Wāhine claim, Wai 2864 and Wai 2700, which has been ongoing since 1993.

Just going back to the amendment bill, in new section 13E(6) in clause 10(4), it specifically says as to whether a pay equity claim can be “raised within 10 years after the date of a pay equity settlement”, when we’ve already been waiting 32 years for this Mana Wāhine claim that 16 wāhine have taken to account. So I’m just wanting to know whether the Minister has had any engagement with this Wai claim specifically and with these wāhine, and how the bill will affect this specific claim and wāhine Māori, knowing that the data from 2018 in the Ministry for Women shows that the pay gap for Māori wāhine is 18 percent higher, compared to the national pay gap of 9.4 percent, and the same figures show that Māori wāhine face an unemployment rate of 11 percent compared to the national rate of 4.5 percent—given that data. So has there been any engagement with this claim that’s been ongoing for 32 years, and will this have any effect on the Mana Wāhine claim of Wai 2864 and Wai 2700?

They’ve also recently done a contemporary economic report that shows the evidence of what wāhine Māori have faced economically since 1990 and 2020, and Dr Duncan Webb has also brought this up. The Minister also hasn’t answered anything around other obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I’m specifically asking with regard to these Wai claims: has she taken any consideration of how this will affect these Wai claims and the data that’s been presented?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for giving us the correct answer to a written question so we can look at the list of the sectors that are affected by this decision today. What I feel compelled to stand up and note about this is we’re talking about teachers, support workers, youth workers in residential schools, education service education advisers, psychologists and service managers employed by the Ministry of Education, early learning teachers, tertiary education library assistants, public service administration and clerical workers, Corrections psychologists, social service workers, care and support workers—there’s two different claims—front-line managers and coordinators in the health system, Plunket admin and clerical workers, Plunket nurses and clinical workers, community midwives in primary birthing units, hospice nurses and healthcare assistants, primary care administration, primary care nurses, Access community nurses, lab tests—so the people who draw our blood—nurses in residential care.

And pretty much of all of these—and I haven’t even listed them all, right—the vast majority, according to the written answer that was provided, are overwhelmingly female. And all of their claims have just been cancelled or are about to be cancelled by this legislation. They’ve gone through years of work to try to establish a case that was arguable. And it’s very, very clear that they’re definitely female dominated.

So when the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety comes and brings this legislation which in clause 4 says it’s really important to change it to say that the work is performed by a workforce that is at least 70 percent female, that would apply to the vast majority. In these cases it’s like 86 percent female, 97 percent female, 99 percent female—early intervention teachers. It’s 73 to 96 percent female across the universities, 83 percent female across all affected employees in clerical and admin, 71 percent female in social service workers, 96 percent female in Plunket nurses and clinical, community midwives 99 percent female. So all of these claims which are going to affect hundreds of thousands of people in New Zealand, the vast majority of them are women. The Minister could say, according to this legislation, “Well, we had to change it to make it more workable, so we’re going to change it to 70 percent.” But the Minister is stopping—the Government is stopping the claims. They’re going to have to start over.

So, effectively, the point of this is to delay access to pay equity for hundreds of thousands of people in this country in order to save this coalition Government billions of dollars in their Budget in two weeks. There is no other plausible reason for this legislation to be going through under urgency tonight, other than putting off the costs to the future. But the cost is real for those hundreds of thousands of women who are our teachers, our nurses, our midwives, our care and support workers—the people looking after the elderly and dying. This Government is giving them the finger and saying, “We’re going to make them wait and put years—years—more into waiting for a process to deliver pay equity.” It is shameful. It is disgraceful. And then try to claim that this is just about making the process more sensible. If this Government had the courage, they would take it to a select committee, but they aren’t, because the whole point of this is actually deferring the cost to save money in the Budget.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sure the very experienced member well knows that to accuse a member or a Government of lacking courage, and also to imply that they are misleading the House because their true motives are different from those stated, is out of order and disorderly.

Hon Member: Sit down

Hon David Seymour: And rather than telling me to sit down, that member might like to hear points of order in silence.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to that point of order. I think that particular member has misheard the contribution that my colleague has made. There was no accusation of misleading and also no accusation of an individual member’s integrity. Yes, you can actually criticise a Government.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, just taking that point on note. I also didn’t hear an individual reference in the one that was declared, but we can go through Hansard afterwards. I will call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter to finish her contribution.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: And thank you very much for the contribution from Minister David Seymour, who was very honest on the news and said that Brooke van Velden, the Minister, was saving the Government’s Budget. The cost is borne by these women who’ve spent years—and it does affect men in these sectors, but predominantly women, overwhelmingly women, as is made clear by the information that we had to go dig around for to find out exactly who’s affected. They are the people who are doing some of the hardest and most important work, looking after health, looking after education, looking after people at the end of their lives, looking after people with disabilities. And this Government is saying, “We’re going to put more hurdles in place and just completely cancel the years of work that have been put in already to rectify gender-based discrimination that affects these workforces.”

The real irony of all of this is that if the Government actually wanted to support the economy doing well, one of the easiest ways to do that is pay our lowest-paid workers more money, because they can spend more money. They immediately spend that money. If you give tax cuts to landlords, do they invest the money? No, they just use it on their yacht or their next overseas trip. But when you give care and support workers or nurses more money, it means that they can buy more food and they can actually spend money and maybe even go out to dinner once in a while. Maybe have the kind of nice meal that Mr Seymour has in his electorate while he slashes cuts by giving people disgusting, wasteful lunches—corporate welfare but more waste. That Minister is the “Minister responsible for more waste” from school lunches. I think it is fantastic that he’s been so honest in the media and made it so clear and transparent why we’re debating this bill under urgency.

But let’s bring it back to the hundreds of thousands of workers doing important, valuable work, who’ve put years into a process which now they’re going to have to start over for. I think the Minister needs to stop pretending that this is about fixing a process up, because if it were about fixing a process up, it wouldn’t be going through urgency two weeks before the Budget.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, I do want to refer members to Speakers’ rulings on unparliamentary language, 55/1 down to 55/4, where it is possible to criticise the Government; that is the role of the Opposition. However, 55/4 states that “A member may not (1) impute improper motives to the Government; (2) suggest that the Government has received orders to put a bill through; (3) impute dishonesty to the Government; (4) suggest domination by outside bodies.” So it’s about that outside influence, I think.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you. I’ll make sure my contribution is brief. I wanted to take the chance to respond to some of the questions. To the member Helen White: we had a question about how practical it is that there is another pathway for resolving a breach—e.g., going to the High Court. Employees still do have the ability to resolve issues under the Human Rights Act or through the Employment Relations Act. I would also note that the acting Attorney-General has considered the bill and has decided it appears consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Helen White also asked, “What if women become underpaid during the 10 years before they can re-raise a claim?” There does have to be a period of time that has elapsed before determining whether a pay equity issue has re-emerged. I consider that applying a 10-year limit before a claim can be re-raised will better enable parties to determine whether any of their concerns about pay reflect the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation or whether it’s due to other market factors.

We had a question from Priyanca Radhakrishnan asking what wasn’t robust about the previous process. The settings of the current Act have caused problems, particularly the low entry threshold, limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims, and insufficient requirements for comparison choice and comparison methodology.

I’ll just give you a couple of examples. With the DHB allied technical claim, it had over 90 different occupations which represented a very broad and diverse workforce. Another example is that quite often the same comparators have been used repeatedly, such as corrections officers and fisheries officers being used across many claims, even though those claims have substantial differences in their working environments.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan also asked who had been consulted. It’s quite clear that we moved quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure the system is workable and sustainable. Priyanca Radhakrishnan also asked if current proceedings are discontinued. Yes, I did answer this one before. Proceedings before the authority or the court will be discontinued if they commenced before the commencement date.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke asked if I have had any interaction with wāhine involved in the Mana Wāhine Treaty of Waitangi claims. No, that is a very separate process to this bill and so that process continues unaffected by this bill.

Julie Anne Genter has also asked if all of the work and the effort on the claims to date will be lost and why. Not necessarily. If a claim is re-raised in the new system, the claimants can re-use some of the existing information where it is relevant.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that some colleagues on the other side are wanting to make contributions. I look forward to some substantive contributions because there is a lot more to go on in Part 1, boy oh boy! So much more stuff to go on in Part 1.

I wanted to—just because there is a different Chairperson in the Chair at the moment—just remind the Chair that previously when there was a previous Chair, I did refer to Speakers’ ruling 125/8. I also refer the Chair to—[Interruption] Take a call, Mr Court, if you’re interested. We’ve got lots of energy to discuss this. It’s a very important matter. So 127/1 is also a relevant Speaker’s ruling because it looks at when the House is in urgency, when we haven’t had the chance to view the bill, and there’s no public submissions, there’s a more fulsome debate. So I want to continue to make some overall comments on this bill.

I do have a very important question to start off with for the member. The care and support settlement was originally settled in 2017, and a lot of work was done by the previous National Government on this, and also the mental health support workers claim was settled in 2018. What happens to those claims? I’ve heard her answer around the authority, but what I want to know is a very specific answer as to when those claims that may have an argument to say that they were settled in those years will be able to be introduced. Is it after Royal assent of this bill, or is it at 10 years past the date at which they’re originally concluded? So that is a very genuine questions that I look forward to hearing the answer to, and I know there are a lot of care and support workers watching this debate who are interested as to what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s answer might be on that.

Speaking of care and support workers, and in line with the Standing Orders that I have just mentioned, I have had people, as I mentioned before, email in comments. They’ve been unable to attend a select committee. So I think I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety what she has to say to respond to these people who are directly affected by these claims.

So the first person who I want to talk about is a woman called Marianne Bishop. She has been very active in the care and support world and has met a number of people in this House, I’m sure, on this side and that side of the Chamber, to talk about that. This is what she has to say about what has happened today: “I just can’t believe it. I can’t believe it could be done like this, I really can’t. I’m absolutely disgusted to hear about this announcement. It makes me angry as a woman and makes me feel like we’re going backwards. I thought about how long we’ve been fighting, 13 years; to have the rug pulled out from under us at this stage is unbelievable. It’s always been a struggle, but we thought we were going to get there. This removes our road to fairness. I’m frustrated. I’m annoyed and angry. The delays in our claim are one thing; stopping claims is another thing all together. It’s just demeaning to women. This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future. It devalues women workers. Apparently it’s now OK to pay women less for doing work of equal value. Women won’t have a leg to stand on. They’re just saying, ‘Shut up and do what you’re told.’ This is going to be terrible for the care sector. It’s going to be harder to get people working in that sector. People aren’t going to go the extra mile if they know they won’t be paid for it. I don’t think this Government values workers, full stop, but they definitely don’t value women workers or our struggles. We are already devalued, this is going to make it even harder.” I would like to know how the Minister would respond to Marianne.

I’ve also received another comment from another care and support worker. Her name is Tamara, and she’s also been active in this claim. She has said, “The announcement today makes the Government”—actually I won’t say that bit! “It’s 1,040 days since the care and support pay equity claim was filed. Why are we still waiting? We’re already disillusioned as it is. This makes it 10 times worse. This is absolutely BS. It’s going to completely screw the care sector. Why would you stay in a job when you get the minimum wage, if you’re lucky. Why would you? Why do our employers get to keep the profits that are made off the back of people who work? I challenge every single one of them to come and work for us, on our pay, with our issues, and then say why it’s a good idea that they can explain to us why we can’t have these pay equity claims. I’d like to see them live on our wages with the pittance we get for travel. I’d like to see them cope with getting assaulted at work every day. I, for one, have never voted for the coalition and I never will.”

I would like to ask the Minister, especially on that challenge from a care and support worker that we’ve just heard in the Chamber today, we actually did have the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor when she was doing the study into the care and support sector, and she’s done a lot of work and I want to acknowledge the work that she has done in this area—she actually did go and work as a care and support worker and she did actually go and do those jobs, and she’s written about that and it’s been quoted in the Chamber earlier tonight. I want to ask the Minister: would she consider going and doing the work of a care and support worker for a day and then seeing how it would feel to be working on a claim to try and get pay equity when you’re working on the minimum wage for 13 years, and then have your claim completely extinguished by this Government? So I have that question to ask the Minister, as well.

I have another overall question to ask the Minister, which I do believe is very important. One of the first things she mentioned when she was talking about the changes in this bill is the change she is making to this legislation, to change it from “arguable” to “merit”. So instead of having the threshold of “arguable”, you have to have reached the threshold that there is “merit” within your claim.

I want to ask the Minister—because this is something that, when I have worked as a lawyer in pay equity claims, I thought was very important—what advice has she been given? It is very difficult to prove that a case has merit at first glance of the facts. Actually going through the pay equity process of looking at the claimant, looking at the comparators, actually seeing if there is a systemic undervaluation of predominantly women’s work is one of the major ways that you can establish merit. So what I want to know from her is: with this fundamental change—and it does come up in a number of sections of the bill, but it definitely does come up in Part 1 as well—what advice has she received on how it is going to be possible to determine if a claim has merit without going through the pay equity process? Because this merit is a hurdle which must be initially passed in order for people to take pay equity claims. So I want to know about that.

The other question I have is around the international comparisons that she’s made in relation to this particular piece of legislation. She’s talked about the UK. In the UK, they have extremely big employers and that is why their pay equity system—although there are a lot of people who will say that it’s imperfect—is able to have a system that only has one employer. For example, two types of employers that often have equal pay claims taken against them in the UK are National Health Service (NHS) trusts, which, if you’re familiar with the UK, employ a large number of different people in lots of different jobs, and also things like councils, which also—because they haven’t had privatisation in many places to the same extent as New Zealand—have a large number of directly employed people that can make those claims directly to their employer.

So what I want to know is: with those international comparisons, did she take those types of factors into account? And because those overseas jurisdictions just have a single employer that you’re able to make the claims against, does she think this is appropriate for the New Zealand context where we have a very different way of organising our public system? Many fewer people, of course, which means many fewer positions and fewer comparators, and what in fact the justification is for making people look, under the hierarchy of comparators, at their initial employer first and then afterwards the different layers of those, looking to similar employers and then further out from that. Because, in my view, that particular process is a quite limiting on the particular types of comparators it can use, and actually means that fewer claims will be able to be made because there is a much bigger limit on the types of claims that can be put forward, because it is just focused on one particular employer.

So quite a few questions there for the Minister. I do have some other emails—I won’t read them all out now—but keen to hear from the Minister and how she responds to those particular individuals who are very adversely affected by the legislation that she’s bringing to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I have a few questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to trade. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleague Todd McClay got up in front—post-Cabinet—of the country and said, and I quote from Todd McClay: “Strengthening ties with trading partners is crucial to growing this New Zealand economy and driving up incomes for Kiwis.”

So my questions to the Minister in the chair are: what advice has she received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) when it comes to lifting—to use her colleague’s words—incomes for Kiwis? And, indeed, was it just for men, or was it for men and women? Because the other thing that both the Prime Minister and Todd McClay mentioned yesterday was the value and the benefits to the New Zealand economy from the EU - New Zealand free-trade agreement. Now, while it has been a year since ratification—actually the Labour Government, thankfully, negotiated this agreement, because probably if it wasn’t us negotiating it, there may not have been provisions in that trade agreement for gender equality.

Can I refer the Minister to, and the question for her is: what advice has she received regarding article 19.3 of that trade agreement, which states, “Multilateral labour standards and agreements”? There are many provisions in that, but I’ll go to subclause 3(d), which, without going through the whole lot, really back up the determination of both parties, that’s the EU and New Zealand. And we’ve heard over a billion dollars of additional trade in the last 12 months—great. But of course, the commitment to “the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.”

So my question is: has the Minister received any advice from MFAT saying that this move by her and this Government to eliminate the ability of women to apply for pay equity has contravened a core objective of the EU - New Zealand free-trade agreement? Because if it has, then the opportunity that that agreement provides New Zealand exporters could indeed be withdrawn.

I know the EU—we’re very proud of the trade agreement on the basis of shared values, the shared values between the 27 member states of the EU and New Zealand, and equity and equality of opportunity for Māori, for women, for small-medium enterprises was a cornerstone of the value objectives of that free-trade agreement. So I’ll ask the Minister on that issue alone: has she received any advice relating to article 19.3 of that trade agreement as to whether she thinks that this may contravene “the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation”?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just address a couple of things the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety mentioned before. I had a look at the written question that the Minister referred to as well, written question No. 17121. It is a very comprehensive list. My first question to the Minister is: does the Minister know, based on that written question, exactly how many workers would be affected by this legislation? We know that some of those are in massive industries and sectors in education and health. So can the Minister give us the number of workers who would be affected by this piece of legislation?

On that, I also wanted to check—we haven’t really yet received any clarifications from the Minister regarding what alternative options were considered as a part of this. Now, the Minister said that this is something that she cares deeply about and also that this is something she would really like to address. But the timing of it—again, we have talked about the timing of it—and what we have seen now in the public and in the media suggests that this is done as a Budget consideration. If that is the case—and that is something that is in mind, for example, when we’re looking at the aged-care sector; when we’re looking at Bupa, to give a brief example. In 2023, Bupa made $12 million in profit, but only paid $11k, in corporate tax, whereas the corporate tax rate is 28 percent. So immediately, if they had actually paid the proper level of corporate tax, there would be a different shift here. Is this something where, potentially, other options would be that there is more scrutiny and requirement for companies to actually pay—international corporations to pay—the proper level of corporate tax, instead of punishing your everyday, average Kiwis? That’s one of the questions, the second question.

My third question is to do with clause 6 amending section 13A, the purpose clause. Now, one of the things that the Minister mentioned previously is that the key difference in terms of the wording is “evidence”. That was interesting for me, because evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work seems to suggest that the onus of the burden of proof is now being placed on the claimant and not being placed on the employer to prove that there is going to be discrimination. So I want to check with the Minister on whether the Minister has received any advice on a potential shift in the burden of proof as a result of including the word “evidence”. If so, who does the burden of proof now fall on: the claimant or the employer?

I think this ties in really nicely to the question that Camilla Belich asked as well, in terms of arguable merit, because, again, a lot of these—where they go through negotiation, where they go through court or they go through claims—those definitions seem benign but actually are incredibly important and, again, may provide additional burden and require a higher threshold for the employee to make.

Now, my next question is around clause 10(4) replacing section 13E(6). Over here, it says that “a pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years … unless the Authority or the court determines, under section 13ZY(1)(b), that the claim may be raised.” I had a look—and we can discuss the nuance of section 13ZY(1)(b) later on. But in the context of this, particularly when you’re looking at “unless the Authority or the court determines”—now, this is a variation of the currently existing section 13E(6). When we are looking at this particular part, what evidence or what advice has the Minister received on the potential increase in terms of the workload that will be placed on the authority as a result of an increasing number of cases that may be claimed within that 10 years? Because of the fact that—again, I mentioned that the 10 years is a really blunt instrument. That’s my fourth question.

My final question, my fifth question, comes back to the question that a previous member, from Te Pāti Māori, asked, but it wasn’t answered by the Minister. I acknowledge that the Minister has responded to the question around claims going through the Waitangi Tribunal, but the Minister hasn’t responded to what Te Tiriti analysis has been done for this legislation. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you. I just want to respond firstly to Camilla Belich’s question about how it is possible to provide evidence that a claim has merit. Under the current law, the threshold is low. Claims only need to be arguable and there only needs to be historical or current sex-based undervaluation, not both. The low entry threshold enables claims to go through the assessment process even when there is not strong evidence of undervaluation. This can result in significant administrative costs, which will be avoided with a more robust entry threshold. This bill does set out a number of factors that can be used to provide evidence that the claim has merit, and those can be found in new section 13F, inserted by clause 11.

Camilla Belich also asked how I would respond to people who are concerned about changes that would make it harder to make a claim. Quite simply, this is about finding genuine sex-based undervaluation. I think everybody should be supporting the fact that we do want to have a pay equity system that actually resolves genuine sex-based discrimination. If a new claim can be raised under the amended Act, if they meet the threshold, that is a good thing and that should help stamp out sex-based undervaluation. However, the current threshold is too low, it’s not robust, and it’s less workable.

Camilla Belich also asked: would the Minister be a care and support worker for the day? I love that suggestion; it’s a fantastic suggestion. However, I don’t think it’s practical. My job in here, in Government, is to look after legislation, to be an advocate for the people. If we look at all the different types of claims that we have, I’d be spending possibly well over a month out in the community doing other people’s jobs, which I don’t think would overall benefit the legislative process. So I’d like to focus on that.

Although I would say to people like Marianne, who Camilla Belich has named, and other care and support workers, that I very much thank them for the role that they do actually play in our society. I think it’s a wonderful thing that people want to become care and support workers and support people in our community, so thank you, but we are ultimately here to discuss this bill rather than individual claims.

I’ve also been asked, in the case of that very individual claim of the care and support workers, in so far as whether or not they can re-raise a claim. Yes, this is the case: that can be re-raised in 2027, but, like all other claims, if it meets the thresholds of the new law.

Damien O’Connor has asked: what advice have I received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the EU free-trade agreement? Well, look, in the process of developing this legislation, the Government has a range of international obligations that we have considered, and we have taken those obligations into account in our decision making.

We’ve also had a question from Damien O’Connor about whether or not I’ve received advice about lifting wages in trade. This bill is focused on a policy for pay equity issues. Lifting wages in general would be a different matter, but the bill does not stop women or unions from raising pay equity claims, which was suggested in that contribution, which is incorrect.

Lawrence Xu-Nan asked: do I know the number of workers affected by all those claims? No, I don’t have that information in front of me, but, once again, I’m not here to address individual claims; I’m here to discuss the legislation.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. What a surreal day this has been, watching the clock that was ticking back slowly under this National Government suddenly go into freefall as this shocking, despicable, backward announcement was made that puts the rights of women in this country back into the dark ages.

I have questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about what questions and conversations she had with Ministers from other sectors, including the Ministers for mental health and for seniors. Those sectors are very much affected by this legislation, and also immigration.

Now, we’ve heard other people ask questions about modelling, but these are very serious questions that should have been considered from a policy perspective, given the massive impact that the changes will make on the sectors that I have mentioned.

We heard, revealed yesterday for the first time, although the Minister tried to conceal it for a long time, that 1,485 front-line workers are currently needed in the mental health sector—1,485. Now, that had been removed out of the final draft of the Mental Health and Addiction Workforce Plan, but yesterday it was revealed that was there. Let’s look at what that is made up of: 470 special nurses, 455 support workers, 70 addiction workers, 10 nurse practitioners, 20 associate psychologists, 145 clinical psychologists.

Now, what do they all have in common? They all are feminised sectors. They are all sectors that are predominantly served by the women’s workforce. Isn’t it a strange coincidence that under this Government we have a mental health front-line crisis with psychologists in burnout and leaving in droves, leaving the sector. The Minister has said he will create a new associate psychologist role—presumably for more women—because instead of thinking about paying properly, the magic bullet is just to try and create lower-paid, lower-skilled roles to try and fill the gap.

So the question I have is, when we look across over at the senior sector, the aged-care sector—very, very reliant as well on the 65,000 care and support workers that we’ve been talking about tonight. In Australia, where I’ve just come back from, one of the amazing things that happened on a cross-party group trip that we had to look at the aged-care sector—which is facing very similar issues in terms of the tsunami of need that is coming into the sector through the aging of the baby boomers and subsequent generations—is that every employer we spoke to spoke about how valuable the uplift was to the allied workforce of something close to 30 percent, because it meant that they didn’t have to rely on foreign workers and they had been desperate to get foreign workers into the sector.

So what they had been doing as a stopgap measure—and actually will still go on to be a permanent measure because there is no silver bullet and because the need is so big—is they’ve been recruiting from foreign jurisdictions such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Fiji. That brings with it opportunity, but it also brings a whole lot of issues around immigration policy settings, about gouging workforces from other sectors and countries, about how long those workers can come into New Zealand, what the pay rates should be, how they can assimilate into the work, what kind of training is offered to them, what kind of career pathways. Those are all in the immigration settings—and, actually, right through these sectors that currently haven’t really been addressed by this Government, that would make a difference to their workforce plans.

So my question to the Minister is: has she done some modelling around the immigration settings, given that we will have in the retirement villages alone, for example, currently 42,000 people—that by the year 2040 will be around 85,000 new residents who will all need care and support workers, and nursing and other allied staff. Has she considered that modelling? Has she spoken to Minister Doocey about how he is now going to fill an even bigger workforce vacuum that he hasn’t been able to crack yet and that has got him into a little bit of trouble because of some of the crazy suggestions like creating associate roles where clinical psychologists have said they won’t even oversee them?

So the final question that I had for the Minister is also from somebody who I’d really like the Minister to respond to. She is well known in the sector advocating for workers and that is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president Melissa Ansell-Bridges, who did a magnificent job today, leading workers, gathering, convening at great haste onto the forecourt with an absolute vibrancy and determination to bring workers together to challenge this Government on what they are doing.

Melissa Ansell-Bridges has written to the Labour Party saying, “Every single one of the changes being made will make it harder to initiate and progress claims. Our early analysis suggests the new requirements may be nigh on impossible to meet. Far fewer, if any, women will be able to successfully progress claims under the new scheme. If they are successful, they will be paid equitably for a moment in time and then not again for 10 years because the drivers of inequality still exist. The Government is happy to accept this for the sake of tax cuts. We do not.” She goes on to say, “We pay tribute to every single one of those workers who have fought tirelessly for years to be paid what they are owed. Teachers, nurses, librarians, care and support workers, teacher aides”—the list does go on and on.

Over on this side, we are receiving their text messages and their emails as I speak, who have proven time and time again they are not paid what they are worth. It is because they work in industries historically undervalued, because they are women. Thank you to every single one of those workers. The fight for equity, for fairness doesn’t stop here. We have fought for over 100 years. We will keep on fighting. Minister, do you really mean that care and support workers will not be able to contest their claim at the earliest until 2027?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to answer firstly Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question: which other options did I consider in the process of creating this bill? Look, the Government wanted to design a system that maintained a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while providing a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. I consider that the design of this pay equity system in the bill does achieve this stated purpose.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked what advice I’ve received that potentially we could see an increase in the workload of the authority due to a union seeking a determination to re-raise their claim before the 10 years. Look, the bill does allow a claim to be re-raised within 10 years if there are exceptional circumstances, but I don’t consider that this will occur often and therefore would not affect that workload.

Ingrid Leary asked what consultation have I done with the Minister for Mental Health and the Minister of Immigration. Look, it’s fairly clear that those Ministers are part of Cabinet, which did approve this policy that I put forward in the bill, and so therefore we did have consultation with those Ministers.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m going to ask a couple of quick questions, because, like my colleagues have said tonight, I too have been inundated with emails and texts and various other messages. Quite frankly, there’s a whole lot of other people I’d rather be speaking to tonight about their genuine concerns and about what we should do next. If I was to channel my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, I might sort of pose it in so far as I can just imagine the conversation that’s going to be happening in the National caucus room tomorrow when they reflect on the fact that whilst it’s an ACT Minister bringing this bill to the House, it’s actually their MPs, and their backbench MPs in particular, who will probably face the brunt of this. I know in my electorate alone, there’s at least three or four protests being organised between now and Sunday. I can assure you that that will be replicated throughout the country, because if there’s one thing that galvanises people in this country—in particular, women, and, in particular, people who are used to battling and used to working hard and used to fighting hard—it is basic, basic unfairness, and particularly at the hands of someone who doesn’t seem to care.

So my very quick question is that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said on more than one occasion tonight that the impetus for this bill is that she wants to ensure that only genuine cases of sex-based discrimination get through across the threshold. So that, by definition, means that she is worried about cases that are not genuine. Can the Minister, please, explicitly specify to us tonight, given we’ve got no other avenue to discuss this, which particular cases on that list of existing cases she regards as being not genuine and give us some reasons as to why?

Also, the Minister has mentioned several times tonight about how she needs to make sure that this process is being used to remedy issues of pay equity, rather than other labour market dynamics. Can the Minister, please, give us an exhaustive example, every example, of what other labour dynamics are at play here and attribute those to any of the cases that she has before her, which is her remit to try and resolve?

The final comment I want to make is that the Minister, and the Government in general—the Government, in particular, has made quite a big deal over the last few weeks about a focus on primary health; a laser focus, I think we’ve heard from the Minister of Health. I want to ask the Minister: what advice or what conversations she’s had with the Minister of Health, given that scrapping their pay equity claim—as I just check my messages from people working in that sector—will really help us with our recruitment and our retention? There’s some little emoticons there that I won’t describe, because they’re all a little bit uncouth!

If the Minister could answer those three specific questions, given that during the course of tonight we have been continuously asking for what advice she has received—I don’t think she’s given very robust answers to that, but these are three specific questions that she should be able to answer off the top of her head, given that she’s stated these as being her primary concerns.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I tried to keep my interventions short and to the point and I’ll do it again. As I said, there are a number of questions that are serious questions relating to trade issues. We have a number of international conventions, one of them being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). These are developed and negotiated through the United Nations and they probably go along with little, I guess, up-to-date knowledge on what that means. But when they are brought into a trade agreement—a trade agreement that the Minister of Trade and the Prime Minister yesterday highlighted once again, the EU - New Zealand trade agreement—it is really important that the Minister has had advice on this.

She says, “Well, we’ve considered it.”, but the absence of a proper select committee process means that this side of the committee and, indeed, the wider New Zealand public—particularly, you know, the just over 50 percent of the population who will be adversely affected by this—want to know that it has been considered and it does meet our international obligations.

Aside from being what we would say is morally wrong, if we are then undermined in our trade position, that undermines the economy, and the growth strategy that we hear from the Government all the time will in fact be less credible than it already is. Can I refer to article 19.4? It is specifically ‘Trade and gender equality’; that is the title of it. Clause 1; I won’t go through the whole thing but I will say, at the end of it, it says, “Accordingly, the Parties emphasise their intention to implement this Agreement in a manner that promotes and enhances gender equality.” The elimination or the scrapping of pay equity claims—an attempt to bring that equality and equity together—may indeed be seen in the eyes of our trade partners as a backward step, and I said that first off.

Can I then go to another part of it? This is subclause 6, which, as I say, refers to CEDAW, and I’ll once again go down to the end of this saying, “In this respect, the Parties reiterate their respective commitments under Article 19.3 (Multilateral labour standards and agreements), including those regarding effective implementation of the ILO conventions related to gender equality and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.” It’s there in black and white. We negotiated in a trade agreement with the EU. The Prime Minister and the Minister of trade have just been shouting about the values of this—and we agree, the potential—and the next day in the House, this Minister brings in a bill that will undermine the objectives of a written agreement through a trade agreement.

So the question is: if the Government or she has considered it, what advice did she get? And, indeed, does it leave us exposed? I’ve seen much advice over the years from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). It’s very good advice, it usually does highlight the potential risks of passing legislation like this. There is flexibility in trade agreements, I accept, but it seems to me in reading through this, what the Minister and the Government are doing in passing this piece of legislation under urgency is flying in the face of the objectives of the EU and New Zealand and trying to bring in—where it isn’t in place—gender equality through pay and conditions. The Minister should explain in detail to the committee, or reassure us, that this is not going to put us at risk of trade challenge.

Aside from the points raised by all my colleagues—I’m not going to raise those again—this is a real issue of economic opportunity, not just economic equality, and the Minister, I’m sure, can take an opportunity to answer.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the call. This is the first call I’ve taken on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and I just want to quote something, because members on this side of the Chamber have been quoting a number of emails, pieces of correspondence, and texts that they have received in the last six hours from members of the public who have been affected by this, but, actually, I want to backtrack a bit and I want to quote for the committee a particular quote from the third reading of this particular Act when it was first enacted in 2020. “The dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren—one day, when I have them, hopefully—is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome. I want to acknowledge tonight the Minister, Julie Anne Genter, who has done an exceptional job. She did an exceptional job earlier answering our questions and has done a great job shepherding this bill through the House, and I commend her for that. She’s been outstanding.”

I’m not going to name who that member was, because it’s quite clear the member, who’s here in the House, understands who she was in her comments at the time. The reason why I raise that particular quote—and it’s the reason why I want to ask a question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about the Pacific pay gap, knowing that the Pacific pay gap in the Public Service, for example, was 17.2 percent in 2024 whereas the overall Public Service pay gap is 6.1 percent. The reason why I use that particular quote is because I am a daughter of an agedcare sector worker. So, therefore, if my mother’s dream was for me to be equally treated, fortunately for myself, I was able to be supported by a Government who supported my family when she died, when my family had to go on the benefit.

But what I wanted to ask the Minister is, because I’m here standing on behalf of my daughters, who are Pacific women, who are Pacific and Māori women, and knowing that there is a pay gap between Pacific and Māori women as to what they’re paid compared to their counterparts—what advice has the Minister received around these groups who have disproportionately been, basically, discriminated against already within the current environment? What has she done in this legislation? What advice has she received in order to address that? I would assume, given the large number of aged-care sector workers who are Pacific, who are within that workforce, that the Minister at least would’ve got some advice, some human rights implications, some population group implication analysis from her officials for those particular groups where there is very, very clear evidence that they are disproportionately impacted. I want to hear that advice from the Minister, on behalf of every other Pacific and Māori woman and their children and their grandchildren, as to what implications and what advice she has received about them, because we’re standing in here tonight in the Chamber to address the implications for them.

In the same way that another member in the House in 2020 talked about the hopes and dreams for her children, her grandchildren, I’m standing here for the same hopes and dreams for the Māori and Pacific children and grandchildren and for all those children and grandchildren of low-income workers who will be affected by this. So what advice has she received on the implications on population groups as a result of this particular bill?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Chair, thank you. I’ll just answer two of the contributions so far. Firstly, from Tracey McLellan, asking which examples of claims that should not have gone through I would give to the member, I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to single out any particular claims. I will look at the legislation in general. The current thresholds are low. The claims only need to be arguable, and there only needs to be historical and current sex-based undervaluation—not both. We are here to make the legislation more robust for all of the claims, for the businesses, the unions, the workers—everybody involved in those negotiations.

I also wish to answer a question that has been given by Ingrid Leary, asking if I can confirm that the care and support worker claim won’t be able to be re-raised until 2027. In similar respect to the previous question—I’d already answered that in a previous answer—I’ve already answered this one in a previous answer, too: that is true. That won’t be able to come back until 2027. However, the care and support workers claim was settled in 2017, and the Government funded $2 billion to assist the employers to settle. I want to reassure people that the Government is committed to a process to raise and resolve those claims.

On top of that, I’ll also answer Damien O’Connor’s question, which I would say I have already answered as well, which is about advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on article 19.3, regarding the EU free-trade agreement (FTA). Once again, the Government has a range of international obligations concerning labour issues, including conventions and other agreements in our FTAs. We have taken those obligations into account in our decision making. I had already answered all three of those questions prior.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and also I thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her responses to my previous questions. One of the things the Minister responded to was the advice and the question around the options that she was given. The Minister gave me a response, which was: “I have been presented with the options and I think this is the best way.”, which is a fair response, but my question is: what are the other options? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating for the committee on the other options that were presented and say why this is the one that she landed on, that would be great.

I just want to go to a few specific clauses, and I want to start with clause 12, which is the amendments to section 13H, with clause 12(4) and (5) being the first one. I just want some clarification from the Minister around the definition for certain clauses, because it’s not linked to any other clauses and, unfortunately, I can’t find this bill on the New Zealand Legislation website at present, as well—unless it is there, and I just haven’t been able to find it.

In subclause (4), it provides that new paragraph (aa) is to be inserted after section 13H(a), and the new section mentions “any information about the work prescribed by regulations;”—and I’m only going to touch on things that are different from the existing legislation. I want to check with the Minister: if this is the case, what about the work that people do that, potentially, is outside the requirement of the regulations but that they are somehow required to do?

The reason I want to ask that question is that we have also heard in some of the sectors, with aged care being one of them. We have heard from managers and directors who have said, “Oh well, do you know what? These people”—with it predominantly being a female workforce, but—“these workers, they care a lot about these people, and they’re going to do the work regardless.” So I am concerned that if you’re only looking at things that are within regulations, what we are forgetting is all of the work that workers are doing outside of what they’re required to do, out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly—as other people have mentioned—in the particular sectors that are dominated by women.

On to subclause (5): “Replace section 13H(b)”. Now, the Minister mentioned in terms of what that evidence could be, but I want to focus on the words “elements required”, and I have not seen a definition of “element”. So will the Minister point to a particular section of this bill that will elucidate what those elements could be, and that would be really helpful for us, should we have any further questions.

Moving on to my final question, which is around clause 15, “Section 13L amended (Opting out of multi-employer pay equity claim)”, this is, again, a new section, and I find this particular section quite peculiar. In subclause (2), it says, “Replace section 13L(9) with:” and there is a new subsection (10): “A party may not apply to the Authority … for a determination concerning an employer’s decision under this section to opt out of a multi-employer claim.”

Now, this is a new thing, and I want to really check with the Minister on what is the rationale for a party not being able to apply for clarification as to why an employer decided to opt out, and whether that would still be upheld under the Official Information Act (OIA), as in: does that mean that although a party may not apply to the authority for that determination, they can still apply under the OIA for that? But in that case, what happens then if that information doesn’t exist and the OIA request is rejected because that information doesn’t exist because an employer doesn’t actually have any valid reasons for the decision made to opt out?

So those are my three questions. They are on clause 12, subclause (4) on regulations, and the work outside of regulations that a worker has to do; clause 12, subclause (5), on the definition of “element”, linked to one other section of this bill; and clause 15, subclause (2) on the application to the authority for a determination concerning opting out of multi-employer claims.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll just briefly make one contribution, in response to Barbara Edmonds, who raised concerns about impacts on particular groups, in particular Pasifika women. Look, the bill is intended to ensure that a pay equity system does provide for a better framework for assessing whether or not there is sex-based undervaluation. This system will enable women, including Pasifika women, to raise a pay equity issue.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, before we suspend, I just want to assure members that the bill is on the legislation website. We’ve just checked it out up here as well, so it is there. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Sitting will resume at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.55p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025

(continued on 7 May 2025)

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, when we suspended last evening, we were considering the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and we were debating Part 1—Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 49, “Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972”—and the Schedule.

Before I call the question again, I just want to ask this morning: we’ve had a lot of debate on this, and it’s a very important bill and it is under urgency, but what I would request this morning is that as people are asking questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, please refer to the clauses or the Amendment Paper or the particular area that you’ll be speaking to.

The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to pick up a couple of questions that were made right at the end of last night and then I believe I’ve sufficiently answered nearly all questions from the previous segment.

We had questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan about the rationale for not being able to challenge an opt out, and that’s about the employers being able to opt out of multi-employer claims. Employers will still need to progress with a single-employer pay equity claim if they’ve opted out of that multi-employer claim. So it’s not the case that no claim is brought; it’s just that the employer has the ability to opt out.

The second question was also about how the Official Information Act (OIA) applies. The OIA does still apply, and this bill doesn’t change the OIA.

Another question from Lawrence was about the elements referred to in section 13H(b), in clause 12. These are the elements required for the pay equity claim to have merit, which are specified in section 13F, inserted by clause 11, which I also referred to last night.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair—and I’m pleased with that direction you’ve given us this morning, as I don’t feel that we have had enough time looking at the clauses specifically. We’ve asked, according to Speakers’ rulings, more general questions, but I do think there is time now to actually prosecute into the different clauses, and I do think—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as it’s not repetitive.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, I totally agree with you, Madam Chair, and I think that is really important because, as we keep saying, this bill has not gone to a select committee, and, as you have rightly said this morning, it is a really important piece of legislation. It has created a lot of anger and a lot of feeling out in the community. As I said yesterday, my email has blown up like it’s never blown up in the eight years that I’ve been in Parliament because of people wanting to know more about this bill.

I want to take members to clause 9, so I direct the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to clause 9. I want to ask a couple of questions about that, but I just want to go through and see if the interpretation is correct in terms of how I’ve been seeing it and interpreting it and if what I’ve discussed with colleagues is correct.

Clause 9 is about threshold evidence—the way that I’m reading it—and it inserts new section 13DA before section 13E. The new section prefaces section 13E by providing that “A pay equity claim may be raised if—(a) it meets all requirements set out in section 13E; and (b) there is evidence that the claim has merit.” The effective changes are that the change of threshold is arguable to have merit, the bill contains consequential changes to several other provisions if the principal Act, and the change from the subjective test based on what the claimant considers to be an objective requirement that there be evidence that the new threshold is met. I’m just hoping that that is a correct and accurate reading of what that clause is actually saying.

When I was reading through this—and, again, we only got this very late in the piece yesterday, so that’s why it’s really important that we do have an understanding of exactly what is meant by these different clauses—it seemed to me that it is designed to make it as hard as possible to file a pay equity claim. That is quite the change that has been made to the primary legislation. That threshold of evidence has changed quite significantly with this one small insertion.

Is that what the Minister is aiming for here—to make it hard to file a pay equity claim? I suspect that, Minister, you’re going to say no, but this is what’s coming through from people in the community at the moment. They can’t see that this has been on an equal footing to what was before and they see that, actually, their pathways have been closed off to them, and I think that they, in terms of this particular clause, need some understanding of how they can actually find a pathway going forward to make these pay equity claims.

So I ask that question again: has it been designed to make this as hard as possible to file a pay equity claim, and, if not, what is the pathway for them at the moment? As I’ve said, what is in this piece of legislation seems to have changed the whole landscape incredibly and dramatically. So I’d really like some clarity around that, please.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening really carefully last night. The frustrations of these debates is that, often, we don’t take the discussion forward, so I want to do a little bit of that today, but I want to make sure that I’m mindful of what you’ve talked about in terms of bringing up new issues.

One thing that came up last night is the issue of exceptional circumstances on the length of time that people are unable to take a claim. What we haven’t really heard is what is envisaged as exceptional circumstances and where it will apply. So I’ve been thinking about some of the cases I had where I was concerned about inequity and how it would apply in those circumstances. So I’ve got a couple of questions—I might take you through a few scenarios and ask you to explain how the new legislation will work.

For example, I had one woman—the case has always haunted me. She was on very low pay and she had been a caregiver her entire career. She had actually worn herself out in the job by lifting, and her employer frustrated her employment because she could no longer lift patients. She would have been in her early 60s. So she was basically just given a termination notice over a time. A person like that—are they a person where they might be able to reopen for that group of people who are of that age? So they’re not going to be able to take a case in their late 60s, because they’re going to be terminated from their employment for a long time—are they a person who might have exceptional circumstances applied to them, because their career is ending, and it might end at a time which isn’t necessarily retirement time, even?

So how flexible is the rule going to be in terms of who can reopen the issue? Because, in fact, their personal circumstances are going to be affected. I heard a lot from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about how we always had to think about the big systems and we weren’t concerned about the individuals. But obviously there’s a real balancing act, and when it comes to something like exceptional circumstances, that is where I’d expect the balancing act to take place.

Now, a similar issue is one about opt-out provisions, because what I heard the Minister talk about was a system—I think this is clause 15—and this is an issue about who can opt out from a multi-employer claim. So take my woman that I’ve just given you—a real human, a multi-employer claim—with her particular provider of care services. Is that employer able to, halfway through a claim, think, “OK, I want to opt out of this claim.”? So she’s relying upon a claim that’s being made by many employers at once, or going through a process with that.

The employer that was employing her—are they allowed, under this, to actually leave, and, if so, my understanding is they don’t have to provide reasons as to why they leave, but they leave her high and dry because she’s no longer covered by the claim. It says that they’re allowed to leave without providing reasons, but it’s got to be based on reasonable grounds. Well, sorry, how do we know what grounds it’s based on if they never have to provide any reason? What’s the balance, what’s the check in place that means that her employer can’t just walk away in the middle of something where that is the only process that she’s got, and not have reasonable grounds? How do we know that there are reasonable grounds?

Then, it says—my understanding is that the employer’s decision to opt out cannot be challenged by another party. So is that right? Are we saying that nobody can challenge—[Time expired] Sorry, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Helen White. I’ll let Helen White finish her question, but please can you—

HELEN WHITE: I’ll move on to one other point—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, short call.

HELEN WHITE: I hope that you’ve understood that point.

I’d also just like to talk about—and I really, really, would genuinely like an answer over the issue of back-pay. What I got didn’t go far enough into the logic of the situation here. If you’ve got an embargo on the authority awarding back-pay, when that happens and somebody can’t award at the end—and my understanding from the Minister’s answer last night is you can still negotiate back-pay—isn’t the reality that we’re going to see more back-pay claims because there’s no stick, there’s nothing where somebody can award it?

So we’re going to have these people who have 10 years to go for their claim and they’re being discriminated against every one of those years, and it’s an accumulation of harm to them—they’re missing out on all the interest, they’re missing out on all the wages over that time, their KiwiSaver’s being affected, etc. And their employer’s going to go, “Well, what is in it for me? Because I do not have to give you any form of back-pay and you’ve missed out for a 10-year period, and all I have to do is commit on the last possible time I can in that process to something that doesn’t discriminate going forward, and then we’re locking in for another 10-year period before you can go for it again, so I can discriminate for the next 10 years.”

Isn’t that the impact of what is happening, and what I’d like to know from the Minister is: if I’m right—because I’m pretty sure I am—then how is the Minister going to monitor the failure? I suspect what we’ll see is our equity claim change entirely. We’re going to see a wider gap. We’re going to see a wider Pasifika gap, we’re going to see a wider gap in pay. What is going to happen to make sure that if she’s so confident that this isn’t going to cause a problem—what is going to happen in two years? Are we going to see a monitoring of this situation by the Minister to see whether that gap’s growing again, because I’m pretty sure we are going to see a gap growing.

I appreciate the Minister saying it’s very confusing at the moment because we do deal with this in bargaining, as if it’s illegitimate to deal with in bargaining, but we’re not going to necessarily know. Well, what’s the other side of that coin? What processes are being put in place to look at this gap and measure the gap in other ways so that there can be an intervention, and I’m going to go right back and say, “Is this an exceptional circumstance, where we see the gap?”—where somebody like the woman from AUT, who’s the academic in this area and is measuring the gap, sees the gap grow and says to the Minister, “Actually, it’s happening in this sector.” Is that an exceptional circumstance where we might open again, because it seems to me that New Zealand women are going to pay the price for 10 years and then they’re never going to be able to claim back? And this is going to happen. So there’s going to be an adjustment every 10 years, with weak bargaining power, not strong bargaining power—actually, artificially weakened bargaining power, because under the old law, under the 1970s law, they could’ve claimed the lot. They could have actually gone out and claimed the lot, and what we’ve done is we’ve robbed them today.

So can I please have an answer to those various questions? I appreciate the time that I’ve been given. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to remind the Chair, but also the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, that one of the questions I asked yesterday or last night around this bill was clause 15(2), inserting new section 13L(10), around “may not apply to the Authority … for a determination” and whether that is still Official Information Act - able (OIA). So if that could be clarified, that would be great.

I’m going to move on to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I believe the OIA-able has been clarified.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, it has been. Thank you so much.

I’m actually going to move on just a little bit further and I know that there are many other sections that my colleagues would like to discuss, but I think one of the things—and I know that there are many other sections that my colleagues would like to discuss—I would like to address is Schedule 1. I would like to mention a number of amendments under my colleague the Hon Marama Davidson’s name, around the amendments that she has submitted. This is particularly with regard to the Schedule, “New Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1” and this is inserting new Part 2, section 8, of Schedule 1, around existing pay equity claims. As we have heard yesterday from the public, there has been a number of concerns being raised by people who have to spend decades going through the process of getting pay equity. But, again, I think the concern that a lot of people had was in new section 8(1) of new Part 2 that is saying that the “existing pay equity claim is discontinued on the commencement date.”

So the amendments that we have here—and I particularly want to speak to those within my portfolio, which are the tabled amendments which are around care and support workers as well as education, is that they be exempted from this particular Schedule. So when we’re looking at the tabled amendments, what we’re proposing is, in new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1, a new section 8(1) to insert a number of new subclauses which then would exempt care and support workers from this particular decision and also include residential school workers and various other workers from this particular one.

Now, the reason for that—again, like I mentioned—is there’s been a number of concerns around the way that their efforts would be diminished but also removed or wiped clean as a result of this bill. Also, as a result of this, we are also trying to address a concern from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) perspective because, again, one of the few things that we do have evidence of and that we do have access to, despite the fact there’s no regulatory impact statement etc., is the NZBORA consistency report. But one of the things that we didn’t see in the report, that it did touch on, is around section 26 in terms of retrospectivity. I think the amendment here would also be a move towards some of the concerns and some of the potential challenges when it comes to NZBORA around retrospectivity and around punishment as a result of retrospectivity, whether it is criminal or not. I think, in this case, one could argue that removing existing pay equity claims would be considered a punishment under retrospectivity of NZBORA.

So I wanted to check with the Minister if she would consider the amendments that we have put forward as an addition to new section 8 of new Part 2 in Schedule 1, inserted by the Schedule. That is just simply bringing in consistence within the NZBORA, but also alleviate some of the concerns that the communities and existing pay claimants have.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will answer some of the questions that we’ve had this morning, starting firstly with Jan Tinetti’s questions talking about “what was the issue with the claims system which has led us to making the change?” Well, the current thresholds are very low. Claims only need to be arguable and there only needs to be historic or current sex-based undervaluation, not both of them. The low entry threshold enables claims to go through the assessment process even where there is not strong evidence of undervaluation and this can result in significant administrative costs, which will be avoided with a more robust entry threshold.

There is also a second as to whether or not my goal here is to make it as hard as possible. You’re right, my answer is: no, that is not the case. My goal here is so that we can have more confidence in the pay equity system, that the settlements are about genuine sex-based discrimination—no conflation with the Consumers Price Index or collective bargaining or other labour market conditions—and this bill goes to provide more confidence to all parties that what we are rectifying is genuine sex-based discrimination.

Helen White talked about “what are the exceptional circumstances?” The bill itself doesn’t define what the exceptional circumstances are, but that is for the authority and the courts to assess whether the claimants are able to raise a claim within that 10-year time frame. I can’t comment on any specific cases that may or may not go through that sort of process.

Helen White also asked are they able to lead multi-employer claims for an employer. Yes, that is the process. However, employers still do need to progress with a single employer pay equity claim.

Helen White also asked, “Is it right that no one can challenge an employee’s decision to opt out?”. Yes, that cannot be challenged, but the employer still does need to progress with a single-employer claim. So we are not suggesting that pay equity does not exist. The Government wants to make it very clear that a pay equity system does remain; we are simply changing those thresholds.

Helen White also asked, “Won’t we see no back-pay in claims if the authority cannot award it?” No, that is not true—employers and employees may still agree on whether to include back-pay in a settlement. This bill simply removes the ability of the authority to award back-pay to incentivise the employers and employees to resolve claims between themselves rather than seeking an authority determination.

Helen White also asked whether there’ll be reporting on the gender pay gap. I can confirm that the Government already publishes information about the gender pay gap, but that is separate to this bill. That’s through the Stats NZ and the Public Service Commission.

Lawrence Xu-Nan asked questions on behalf of Marama Davidson in her paper about having some exemptions for specific claims. No, that is not something the Government will be progressing with. We did consider that having one system for all claims to go through is clearer about what requirements will apply once the bill passes. This will avoid having two systems operating at the same time, which would be messier for all people involved.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a lot to go through, obviously, in this Part 1, so I’m pleased to be able to make a contribution here today. I acknowledge your points around speaking to specific clauses. I’d also acknowledge that there are a number of themes within this bill that are repeated in quite a few of the clauses in the substantive part, which is Part 1, which is—essentially, Part 2 is actually looking at other Acts, so really Part 1 is where—and it has the Schedule so—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s correct.

CAMILLA BELICH: —Part 1 is very substantive. I do have a number of amendments in Part 1, and I think I’ve only spoken to one of those so far.

I did want to take the opportunity to speak to another one, which is, I think it’s clause 6 which amends section 13A, which is the purpose clause. The reason I have put forward this amendment is because I don’t think that this purpose clause represents the true purpose of this Act. The reason that I think that is because of what has been said publicly about this particular bill, and also what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and her colleagues have said about this particular bill.

The current purpose clause states that it’s to provide and facilitate “the resolution of pay equity claims where there is evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work that is predominantly performed by females”. Now, I don’t think that is actually the purpose of this bill; I think the purpose of this bill is to make making those claims harder. I think the purpose of this bill is to make the system more complex. I think the purpose of this bill is to make sure that fewer low-paid women receive their pay equity claim. I think the purpose of this bill is to delay the justice that they so need after decades and decades and years and years of systemic undervaluation.

That’s why I have proposed this amendment to clause 6, which actually outlines the purpose of this bill, which I think is much more accurate. I would love the Minister and her colleagues to consider this because I think, actually, to say that this bill is brought to make the process easier is just disingenuous. How is putting in a hierarchy of comparators, which makes selecting a comparator more difficult, consistent with facilitating the resolution? How is limiting the time period that a claim can be made to 10 years consistent with the facilitation of resolution of pay equity claims? How is the absolute unilateral taking away of back-pay, which was a common law right established under the Equal Pay Act 1972, established by Kristine Bartlett—taking that totally away—facilitating the resolution of pay equity claims where there’s evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation?

It is simply not true. The purpose clause as proposed in this bill is simply not accurate. It does not reflect the fact that the main reason that this bill has been brought to the House, under urgency, just before the Budget is to save the Government money. Those savings are coming from working women. They’re coming not only just from working women but from low-paid working women who have had their hearts and minds set on equal pay for such a long time.

I do think it is relevant because we haven’t had a select committee process to be able to make sure the opportunities that we didn’t have last night to read out some of the messages that we’ve been getting, because this is specifically relevant to the purpose cause. I did have one of those messages last night from someone who’s been involved in the teachers’ claim, who did message me. She said that she is deeply disappointed by this Government’s decision, that was announced just yesterday, to put through these changes. She said that her claim, which is a claim for teachers—something that all New Zealanders value highly—has followed a robust process between all parties. More than 300 interviews with teacher and comparator roles across the sector have been conducted using a consistent, agreed-upon tool to gather data. That evidence has been through thorough consultation with both teachers and principals, and to have the Government walk away from that now is nothing short of disgraceful. That is from Christie. She has been involved in the teachers’ claim. She sees that this purpose clause does not reflect the actual reality of the situation. She has been involved in a robust pay equity process. They’ve done 300 interviews, and this Government, through this particular bill, is binning all of that work, all of that effort.

Just think of all of those women who have thought about their days and gone through every single aspect that they do—and that’s what a pay equity assessment is. It’s when you talk about the social skills that you have to use in your job; it’s when you talk about the dangers that you might have—and teachers do sometimes face aggressive students—some of those things have never been valued. We’ve seen traditional women’s work as caring only; we haven’t valued the true nature of it. To go into that is truly a very, very difficult experience, but one that makes many women feel their own value. I’ve heard from so many people that have said they never really realised how important their job was until they went through a pay equity process, and they understood that, actually, they did do skilled work, that the messages that they’ve been told by society that the work that they did was not valued or not highly skilled was not true. They felt mana, they felt self-esteem. This bill takes that away.

I don’t think this purpose clause reflects what this Government is trying to do. I would like the Minister to respond to why she isn’t honest with New Zealanders and actually putting the real purpose of this bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just be careful how you phrase that question, please. I’ll just give you a chance to rephrase that question about honesty.

CAMILLA BELICH: I would like the Minister to reflect on why there isn’t a more accurate description of what this bill is actually doing, so New Zealanders have a clear reason as to why the Government is implementing this particular bill, because I don’t believe this purpose reflects the true intentions of why this bill should be put into place.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I’d like to ask specifically about clause 17, which amends section 13O of the original Equal Pay Act; section 130(4)(a) and (b) specifically. I’ll just read that clause, just for context, so that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety understands what I’m talking about. The original section 13O says: “A request to consolidate must be made in writing and must include—(a) a brief description of the work performed by the employees who are covered by each of the claims; and (b) a brief explanation of how the work performed by the employees who are covered by each of the claims is considered to be the same or substantially similar.”

My question is: why has the word “brief” been deleted and the words “a brief explanation” have been replaced with “an explanation”? Is that in response to ministerial advice that perhaps the brevity of the request to consolidate wasn’t working? Was the Minister requesting it herself? What was the genesis of that piece of amendment?

My second question is in response to the Minister’s answer to my question last night—and thank you for the answer. I asked the Minister when the existing claimants and existing unions to the existing pay claims were informed, and she said “Today.” That was yesterday. I’d like to know a specific time, if possible, because the media release went out at 11.19 a.m., according to the Scoop Parliament website. So I guess my question is: did this Government give enough time for the people who are currently undergoing the pay equity process to actually find out about this news, not via the media? Exactly what time were the existing claimants and existing unions told that this legislation would be going through and that their existing claims would have to be scrapped and go back to square one again?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yesterday, I spoke about an amendment that I’d put up for clause 4, and now I’d like to speak to one that I have put around clause 10. Now, as my colleague Camilla Belich said—because this is a substantive part in Part 1 that you’re going to see—in this bill, there are a number of metrics that are being used across the bill that are similar. So in clause 10, which we haven’t discussed before but it does talk about that 10year metric—but it is talked about in a different way in this particular clause. One of the areas that I asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety yesterday and I didn’t get an answer to, in relation to clause 4, was: what alternate advice did she get, which I know that—being a former Minister—officials do give you a range of advice around different metrics and what that would mean. So, in this particular case, in clause 10, just for clarity, amends section 13E by replacing subsection (6), with the effect that there is now an amended test to meet before a person who is covered by a previous pay equity claim settlement may raise a new claim in relation to the same work. It must be at least 10 years since the past settlement.

So one of the things that has come through loud and clear in the past not even 24 hours, yet, is that people are feeling really disheartened by the fact that that 10-year metric has been used. We’ve heard it through different forms of media; I’ve seen it coming through via social media—that the 10-year seems to be very dispiriting to people, and not understanding where that has come from. So a couple of my other colleagues and I have put amendments forward that give alternate timelines for this particular clause because we don’t know what other advice the Minister got here, and I’m asking the Minister to be transparent around that: what was the other advice around metrics that was given to her in this particular case? What were those reasons that the Minister didn’t go with the alternative advice that would have been provided to her?

That’s the whole reason as to why we’ve come up with these amendments for clause 10 because we just don’t know why the 10-year (a)—and the Minister did say that it was about, “Oh, it gives it time.” But we don’t know why that was superior to alternate advice because we haven’t had an answer to what that alternate advice was, and why it was rejected. So, in our minds, the 10 years does not stand up because we can make equally valid and stronger arguments for different metrics. So, therefore, I want the Minister to be transparent around the advice that she has been given, but I also want to know and be convinced that 10 years that she settled upon is valid by evidence, researched, thorough; what is happening elsewhere in the world, that they have got 10 years as their metrics anywhere else in the world.

I just don’t know; we do not know because we haven’t had the opportunity to take this to select committee. We haven’t had the opportunity, which we would have had at a select committee, to ask officials these questions. And even when I ask questions on other clauses like clause 4 last night, this was not answered, and yet this is central to the whole argument of why people are being so impacted emotionally and feeling so dispirited around what is being presented to them because they have no understanding of where the Minister’s advice has landed because she has not been transparent around what alternates were given to her and why she rejected them. So I would very much like to know that and know exactly why we have landed on this part, and the evidence that supports it.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take some more calls, but I am starting to hear arguments against the bill that we heard yesterday. I understand that to the people that are making those arguments, they’re relevant arguments for them, but I really want specific questions rather than five-minute speeches.

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, because I have been listening very closely last night and this morning and I know Camilla Belich has made clear in terms of Speakers’ rulings—I just want your guidance, because I hear what you say. Just to understand that, in fact, there’s very little we’ve actually traversed in terms of this section.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): My point is that we’ve heard the arguments against, loud and clear. I’m looking for specific questions that clarify what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s doing, so that’s what I’m looking for.

Glen Bennett: Speaking to the point of order. So the fact that we can just continue to prosecute clause by clause by clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, we’ve kind of gone out of that range. You haven’t built a system in this case where—you know, normally in other cases you’ve run through, so I’m taking questions on clauses. I’m not running a clause by clause system, because that’s what I haven’t seen, but I want questions on clauses.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Madam Chair. Just in terms of this system, I appreciate there being a number of Chairs because of the duration of the debate, but my understanding from our side was that due to the fact that there was no select committee process and relying on two Speakers’ rulings that I mentioned last night, speaking in general terms, initially—and I think you’ve had an indication this morning that we’re now going in a clause by clause manner. My understanding—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I haven’t said clause by clause; I said I want questions related to specific clauses. We’re not ranking the clauses. [Interruption] This is a point of order, so I’d ask for points of order to be heard in silence. I just want to clarify that I’m not going numerically clause by clause, but I am asking for the questions to be related to a clause number.

Camilla Belich: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just clarifying that it is now our intention to go more clause by clause—maybe not cover every clause, but my understanding is we’re on page 5 of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And it has to be new as well.

Camilla Belich: Yes, I understand that. But one final point that I would make in my point of order would be to draw your attention to the fact that when you look at the clauses, a number of the clauses have slightly different ways of implementing the policy intent of this. For example, “merit” and “arguable” are mentioned slightly differently.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep. I understand that. So, yeah, I’ll take a call from Camilla Belich now to ask those questions.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you—thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to go through this in detail; obviously there is a lot of concern around this bill because of the way it’s been brought to the House, and so it is important that we do, and, in the opportunities that we do have to scrutinise this, to make sure that we do it thoroughly. That’s our intention here: to work with the Chair to make sure that we’re able to do that. So I do appreciate the ability to clarify that and also to take this call.

So the question that I—I do have a number of amendments, and if I have time I’ll speak to my amendment to clause 10. But before I get to clause 10, I wanted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—in relation to clause 9, which implements new section 13DA—in relation to this particular requirement, how is this consistent with the purpose of the bill? My understanding of the new section that has been implemented in this particular clause is that it means that people have to go through quite long, different areas that are outlined in section 13E to ensure that the claim has merit or is considered to be consistent with what she believes a pay equity claim could be.

So what I want to ask the Minister is: how did she arrive at this particular list, as outlined in 13E, which is implemented in 13DA, and why and how is that consistent with the purpose of facilitating the resolution of pay equity claims? Because I don’t—and I hadn’t heard yet from the Minister and I would be interested to hear that. So that is my first question to the Minister in relation to that particular clause.

Moving on now to clause 10—and I’ll just double check here—I think that I have one amendment on this particular clause, and that amendment is in clause 10, to delete clause 10 and 6. The reason that I’ve suggested that is because I had particular issue, and this did come up last night, but I think it’s hasn’t been followed through in terms of the implications of it to the Minister, and that’s why I’ve suggested deleting it in my amendment that I’m speaking to—the “claim may not be raised within 10 years [after the date] of a pay equity [claim] settlement” being reached. So last night, the Minister clarified that for two of the most significant claims that had been brought into effect in New Zealand—with the support of many, or if not everyone, in the House—those, because they were settled in 2017 and 2018, will have to wait for 10 years.

Now, this is retrospective, so this is, essentially, taking away the right of those people. So we currently have claim in the Employment Relations Authority for care and support workers, and they will not be able to pursue that claim until at least 2027; 2028 for mental health workers. Did the Minister consider having the bill the way that she wants it to be, which of course we disagree with strongly, but not having a retrospective element to existing claims?

I know she says that she wants to have a new system, and she doesn’t want to have two different types of claims. I don’t actually see how a claim—if care and support workers and mental health workers were able to bring a claim after Royal assent in this bill, I don’t see how that would be something that creates two different systems. The Minister may, and I’m interested to hear a response to that.

She may say, “Well, the Government invested millions of dollars in the pay equity settlement when it was first implemented in 2017/2018.” Well, time has moved on. The effect of that pay equity settlement is now that most care and support workers are on the minimum wage. So there clearly isn’t an argument to say that they’ve received a benefit and therefore they should wait for another 10 years, because they’re on the minimum wage. I mean, anyone working has to be paid that amount. There is clearly no benefit from having that pay equity settlement, at all. So I suggest that that is deleted. I mean, there may have to be subsequent amendments too, if the Minister agrees with what I’m putting forward. But this seems to be a terrible injustice, and I don’t think the Minister’s answers to date justify making those care and support workers and those mental health workers wait another few years before they’re even able to file their claim. And, of course, settlement for some of these claims—but Kristine Bartlett’s claim took her five years. Are we really asking care and support workers to wait that long before they can raise their claim?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to respond to a few of the questions raised this morning, firstly, to Lawrence Xu-Nan, asking whether or not I would consider changing Schedule 1 with the element of retrospectivity. I just wanted to clarify that the only part of the bill that is retrospective is the clauses that make the existing review clauses unenforceable. The reason behind this is because the short three-year time frame in the review does make it difficult to determine whether or not genuine sex-based discrimination has reemerged after such a short period of time in comparison to other short-term labour market conditions. I do actually think having an extended time frame makes the bill more robust. So, no, I won’t be considering changes to that.

Camilla Belich did ask whether or not we would agree with her tabled amendment to change the purpose of the Act. No, that is not something that I will consider. The member’s proposed amendment does not reflect the purpose of Part 4 of the Equal Pay Act and the amendments proposed.

Jan Tinetti has also asked what alternative advice I was given about the time frame before a claim can be raised. I’d just like the member to note that I also considered whether to not allow claims to be re-raised at all, so claims would be full and final, but I decided against that in recognition that sex-based discrimination could re-arise. So this is why we have ended up with a claim being able to be re-raised after a 10-year time frame.

Francisco Hernandez asked why the word “brief” had been deleted in relation to a request to consolidate in section 13O. We believe that this change to the section will assist other parties to assess whether or not it’s appropriate to agree to consolidate a claim. This will help to ensure that claims are appropriately scoped, and that will support a more workable pay equity process. The change requires a more detailed description of what the work is and how it is the same or substantially similar, and that is a benefit for all parties involved.

Camilla Belich then went on to ask whether or not we would remove the 10-year time frame limit. I believe I’ve discussed this one at length. The answer to that is: no, we won’t be agreeing to her tabled amendment. The 10-year time frame, I believe, builds confidence and more robustness into the system, that we can see genuine sex-based discrimination re-emerge. A very short time frame means that that could be conflated with short-term labour market conditions.

Then Jan Tinetti asked whether or not we would agree to her tabled amendment to reduce the time frames for the re-raising of a claim. Once again, that’s a no. This does not provide sufficient time to correctly identify whether or not sex-based undervaluation has reemerged.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just note that this is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, and I do have a number of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and a number of tabled amendments that I’d like to be able to speak to. So I just want to note that’s my intention; this is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call.

I want to speak to my tabled amendment on clause 11, and ask some questions of the Minister regarding this. Just to note from the explanatory note in the bill that clause 11 changes one of the sections—changes, first of all, the threshold to be met. But the piece I want to talk to specifically is the part which says “Besides this change of threshold, new section 13F requires that the claimed undervaluation of work must be based on reasonable grounds and must be both historical and continuing (rather than either historical or current).” I just want to make some commentary around that. My comment around that is we see examples of historic pay inequity that can go back decades, and, in many cases, goes back years and decades, but we also will see examples where it goes forwards, so we can see that that particular issue hasn’t been resolved, or it has potential to be unresolved.

What concerns us in the Labour Party is that the Minister is basically making this harder to reach the threshold, and I’d like to know from the Minister why it is—so that’s my question to the Minister—that’s she’s made this harder, why she wouldn’t look at a particular occupation that may, looking right now, have some of that inequality addressed, but still have those historic elements. Because one of the issues around pay equity—and this does come up in other clauses—is around that retrospective approach. So one of the reasons why we believe, on this side, that it’s important to look at historic or current is that there are times when a claim can and should be made, in our view, to address some of those historic injustices.

So I do just want to talk to my amendment, just noting that this is one of a number of amendments that I have. I also have one on clause 10 and a few on Part 2, as well, so I’m going to talk to those as the morning continues. But my amendment—in clause 11, new section 13F(1)(b)(ii) replace “taking into account all relevant matters (… set out in subsection (3))”, with “for one or more of the reasons set out in subsection (3).” Also—and I’ll wait for a separate call to ask questions on other clauses because I’d like to hear from the minister on that specific question that I have—I’ll take a shorter call now just by noting that I would like to come back to some further clauses later.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask some questions around the definition of “appropriate comparator” in clause 7. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety made a number of comments and there have been a number of comments made around the appropriateness of comparators and how that works in a pay equity process, using some examples like why would you—I can’t remember the exact example—compare an air traffic controller to a nurse, or something of that ilk.

I think it would be worthwhile to hear from the Minister the reasoning behind her decision making on comparators, because with the selection of the appropriate comparator in clause 7, she is, essentially—with the new system of comparators she’s introducing—assuming and giving extra weight to people who work for the same employer in terms of the similarity of their roles, and I wanted to ask why that was. There is actually no particular magic, for a pay equity claim, in having the same employer to compare two different job roles. The best thing is obviously to try and get the most similar comparator that you would ever possibly get, and my view is that you should be able to look widely for that in order to be the most accurate. The Minister is making a policy decision here to make people look to the employers in similar industries first.

So I wanted to ask why she decided to do that, and I wanted to ask a few technical questions around the use of comparators, because, essentially, when you’re looking for a comparator, you will never find someone who has the exact same skills or job description, and I think there is a little bit of a misconception—and certainly from some of the comments the Minister has made it appears that there is a misconception—around how these types of job evaluations go. So it’s not looking necessarily at the job description; it’s looking at what you actually do in your role.

Most jobs, for example, even if we look at jobs that appear to be very different, will have an element of human interaction in them. They’ll have an element of having to deal with people’s complex emotions, having to deal with stress. These can be common to different jobs even though they appear on the outside to be very different. That is how we understand the historic undervaluation—we look towards skills that have often been undervalued by society, like taking care of children, and we realise that, actually, when you take care of children you have to be a well-organised manager, you have to manage emotions, you have to do lots of complex things that may not have been appreciated by society.

So I wanted to ask a technical question. I think I might know what the answer to this might be, but I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. When she is looking at comparators, she seems to be moving towards appearing to say that the current system does not allow the choice of appropriate comparators. Is that correct? I’d like to know the answer to that. Secondly, there is a concept in pay equity negotiations which is to look at composite comparators. For example, instead of looking at one job role, as we do now, we can look at a few different job roles that might be male-dominated and there might be an aspect in security that is more similar to a care and support worker’s role because of the nature of some of the people they’re dealing with. There may be an element in relation to stress which is more likely related to an air traffic controller. Those are just examples—not necessarily the best ones. But, essentially, a composite comparator would be taking a job role and looking to see if maybe three or four different male-dominated roles were more accurately compared to a female-dominated role.

I don’t see that idea reflected in this legislation, but I want to genuinely ask if this is something that is possible—probably not, is my guess, but I’d like to hear that from the Minister as well as whether she’d consider something like that. The reason I think that’s important in relation to this appropriate comparator definition that has been brought in is that it seems to me that if you’re looking at—and the Minister says this is very important—the most appropriate comparators, it would be more flexible and more likely to produce an accurate comparator if you’re able to look at several different job roles and not say it’s one individual. In the UK, for example, it is one individual. You have to find a particular human being, person, to do that. We don’t necessarily do that in New Zealand today. We look at job roles. But this kind of composite aspect of it would possibly lead to more accuracy, which is what the Minister seems to be desiring from this process.

So I genuinely want to know whether she has received advice on this, whether she’s turned her mind to it, and whether it’s something that’s possible under this particular piece of legislation.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask you specifically, Minister, about clause 7. That means that I need to flick to section 13, because I actually want to ask you about—it’s page 16—section 13ZE(8). It talks about, when selecting comparators, the parties having to take into account additional matters prescribed in the regulations. What I want to know is: this is in the exclusions—so there’s an exclusion to your rule—but then it seems to be very open season here as to what could be an exclusion beyond it. I wondered—because we’re going through urgency in the way we are—whether this has been before the regulatory standards people. What it seems to be doing is suggesting that anything can be added, even though the prerogative of the legislature is to create those rules. So I wanted to know what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had in mind would be included by way of regulation and whether that had been appropriately scrutinised in this process, and, if not, whether the Minister would undertake that it would be.

I would also like to know about clause 8, which is section 13D amended. It says, “Union right to represent members”. I’m always looking for what’s different about it. There is a difference in clause 10 here, which is that we replace “Unions” with “Circumstances in which unions”. I would really, genuinely like to know what the intention is there. Why would we do that, and what has she got in mind there? What’s the point of the change? I’d really like an explanation.

Finally, I want to ask about the issue over “exceptional circumstances”. Now, I understood the Minister, when I asked about what an exceptional circumstance was, was answering by question by saying, “I don’t know what an exceptional circumstance is. We’re just writing that down, and the courts will sort that out later.” That worries me, because an exceptional circumstance has got to be something out of the normal, and my concern is: what about all the cases where the normal is manifestly unjust?

I gave the Minister an example of a woman who is worn out. She’s not going to be there in 10 years’ time. She needs an answer now, and she needs her claim to be heard, because she has been discriminated against. Is that going to be “exceptional circumstances”? The Minister said that she couldn’t tell me whether it was or not. What I wondered was whether she had considered that the trouble with that is that an exceptional circumstance has to be something that isn’t normal, and that might be quite normal for that to happen—that people do age out or wear out and that’s normal. I wondered whether she would consider replacing the phrase with one which was more directive as to what the courts should look at, because that doesn’t direct in the right way.

I have just used the example of “manifestly unjust”. Now, I’m not thrilled with “manifestly unjust”, because I think “unjust” is bad enough, really, in these circumstances. We’re trying to deal with a systemic justice issue and discrimination, and so any discrimination should be looked at, but “manifestly unjust” is one that we’ve adopted quite recently in other legislation to make sure that people weren’t harmed in a way that was outrageous. So I wondered whether she’d considered using a term which actually did the job of looking at the injustice. Thank you, Mr Chair, I look forward to your answers.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Sorry, I will actually cede to my colleague. I know that she’s got another question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, I’ve given you the call. The call is yours.

HELEN WHITE: Yes, thank you. But, as long as I get an answer to those questions, I’d rather follow up once I have.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you for this call, Mr Chair. We’ve got a long way to go in this debate. It’s a substantial change for our employment legislation, and it’s a change that really creates tremendous difficulty for women.

I want to talk about a tabled amendment in my name, and it amends clause 15. Now, clause 15 allows employers to opt out of multi-employer pay equity claims, and a new section 13L(9) has come into this. It enables an employer to opt out of a claim, and then new section 13L(10) says that “A party may not apply to the Authority”—the Employment Relations Authority—“under section 13ZY for a determination concerning an employer’s decision under this section to opt out of a multi-employer claim.” What that means in plain language is that a pay equity claim across multi-employers can go in, but a single employer can opt out of that claim, and, more to the point, they can do it without there being any appeal—without there being any way for the employees affected by that to actually appeal the employer’s decision to find a way to get a separate judgment on it.

So this is a very, very simple amendment, and what I have suggested is that we go to amend clause 15(2), which is the one that specifically has in it the new section 13L(10), just to take the word “not” out so that a party may apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination concerning an employer’s decision. Now, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that if an employer can unilaterally opt out of a pay equity process, then, at the very least, the reasonableness of that decision should be considered by the Employment Relations Authority.

The reason that this one particularly caught my eye was that after the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety told us last night to google the people whose pay equity claims had just been unilaterally struck out by this legislation; we managed to get the information—because she didn’t have it at hand herself. So we found the information, and sitting in here are the tertiary education library assistants. Now, this is really interesting, because in the Minister’s new legislation, the threshold for taking a pay equity claim is 70 percent—70 percent of the workforce must be female over a period of 10 years. That’s an “and, and”, isn’t it—70 percent, and 10 years—as far as I understand it.

But the information we have about tertiary education library assistants is that across the universities—and I don’t know about the polytechnics; I’d like the Minister to clarify that, because, surely, she would have done the work on this—68 to 85 percent of tertiary education library assistants are female, across the universities. Some universities are down at 68 percent females in terms of tertiary education library assistants, and some are up at 85 percent female, so what this gives is a very clear case of a pay equity claim that was under way where, overall, across a multi-employer workforce, the workforce is going to be at well above 70 percent, given that 68 to 85 percent range, but particular universities might be down at 68 percent. So what’s happened here is that because an employer can opt out at their own will with no appeal in place—with no appeal in place—those universities sitting at 68 percent have got every incentive just to drop out.

This amendment is a very straightforward one, and I think it’s an entirely reasonable one. I think it’s one on which the Minister could give way quite easily because it’s a very simple amendment, and there should be no reason why that decision of one employer to opt out of a multi-employer pay equity claim should not be subject to at least some kind of review. So let’s take that word “not” out.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take the time to consider some of these questions. Firstly, in the name of Camilla Belich, we had a question regarding clause 9: how is this consistent with the purposes of the bill, especially in relation to section 13E of the principal Act? The requirements in section 13E are already in the Act. The changes are intended to ensure that employers consider them appropriately when making a decision on a claim.

We had an amendment by Rachel Boyack which is seeking to lower the threshold on merit. I don’t believe that this is something the Government will be supporting. It’s not considering all relevant matters that may contribute to sex-based discrimination. It would not ensure that genuine claims are progressed, so the Government will not be supporting that amendment.

We had a question from Francisco Hernandez about whether or not the Government gave enough time for claimants and exactly what time they were told. I’ve been informed that the New Zealand Public Service Association and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions were informed about an announcement coming before it was made yesterday morning. There were further calls throughout the day to the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa and the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, and the Primary Principals’ Collective Bargaining Union were notified by phone at some point after 11—between that and 11.30; then, the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand was notified shortly after that.

Camilla Belich had a query about whether or not the system is allowing for a correct appropriate selection of comparators. The current system does allow for multi-comparators to be used, but it also allows comparators to be selected that are from quite different industries and very different sectors, and so why are we requiring comparators to be in close proximity to be selected? Well, at large, I believe this builds in confidence and robustness to the system. The change will ensure that comparators perform comparable work and that the comparators selected are more closely related to the employer, which I believe will reduce secondary noise—things like the Consumers Price Index and other labour market conditions which are quite varied. The closer you get to the workforce that you are in, the closer we can make any resolutions of sex-based discrimination.

Camilla Belich also then asked if the bill allows parties to use composite comparators. The bill still does allow parties to select more than one comparator where they’re available at the relevant level of the hierarchy.

Helen White then asked what regulations I intend to make regarding the selection of comparators. The ability to make regulations regarding the selection of comparators is already within the Act. This bill is simply reapplying it and at this stage I don’t have intentions to make regulations in this area.

Helen White then also asks why we are not defining the exceptional circumstances. That’s the whole point of exceptional circumstances; the nature of them is that they are quite difficult to predict because they are exceptional. This is a common kind of provision to give a judiciary the role of a determination.

Deborah Russell then also asked if we can delete the word “not” in section 13L. No, that is not what the Government will be doing. We don’t support this. Requiring reasons to allow legal challenge would limit the ability of employers to ensure that pay equity bargaining is aligned with existing bargaining structures in employment bargaining.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Right, just before I take the next call, I’ve been watching this all morning. I note the observations and the comments by the previous Chair around the need for specific references to Amendment Papers and to sections. We’ve pretty much covered the general tenor of the bill, so that’s where the debate will need to continue.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take this call. I do have quite a few amendments that I haven’t spoken to, and I will jump forward a little bit in the bill, which I’m sure the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be pleased to hear. I’ll also note that the Schedule is in Part 1, and the reason I mention that is that we’ve recently just tabled a number of amendments relating to that Schedule that haven’t been touched on at all, and they’re relating to the specific claims. So I’m sure the members who have those amendments in their name will wish to speak to that, so just flagging that once we go through the clauses, there are a number of amendments to that Schedule.

So the first one that I wanted to raise with the Minister in the chair, Brooke van Velden—and I might go through some of these amendments at pace, which I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear, Mr Chair. So the first one I wanted to raise is an amendment that I had put forward around 13PA, that’s in clause 20. This particular amendment looks at the requirement for the employer to give notice of their decisions to the union or the workers that are taking the claim. So, at the moment, the particular clause 13PA(2)(a) has 60 working days after the employer receives the pay equity claim. Now, I have suggested an amendment to reduce that to 20 days. The reason that I have done that is because I think 60 working days is a very long time for the employer to, effectively, give a decision.

Of course, with these things, we know one of the legitimate criticisms of the system is the fact that it does take a long time. I think where there are efficiencies to be made, it should be in order to allow the claims to proceed as quickly as possible. That’s why I have suggested that particular amendment, and I’m interested to know from the Minister why 60 days was selected. I haven’t actually had the time to check if that’s the current number of days in the existing Act. Obviously, she’s changing this and saying she wants to make it more effective. So why has she arrived at that particular day?

But I do think one of the things we can all agree on is that women should be a—well, maybe we don’t all agree on it. I think, in general, it is a difficult principle to disagree with, that women who are entitled to equal pay should have that as soon as possible. So I want to know from the Minister: does she accept my amendment? What was the reasoning for choosing that particular number of days?

I also have an amendment, and I appreciate other members may have some other things that they wish to discuss in the intervening clauses, but the next one that I wanted to specifically raise was in relation to 13ZE, which is “Selecting appropriate comparators”. Now, we haven’t specifically talked about this particular clause, although we have talked about the fact that one of the major policy changes in this bill is the way that the Minister has decided to change the way that comparators are selected. I believe that the substantive nature of that is in 13ZE, which has not been discussed in detail.

This is an incredibly detailed section—or clause, as it is now—and it, essentially, puts into practice what we have talked about: the policy intent of the hierarchy of comparators. I would like the Minister to reflect on—she has said to us in her answer that the reason that she has decided that there is a good policy reason to make sure the comparator is closely connected to the claimant’s employer is because that is more likely to determine sex-based discrimination. Now, I don’t understand why that is. I don’t understand why, when you’re looking at undervaluation by society, the proximity to an employer is more likely to show sex-based discrimination. Because, of course, when we’re talking about pay equity claims, which we are here, we are talking about the undervaluation of skills by society. This is not something like an equal pay claim where you may be looking at the exact actions of a particular employer. Often, there are reasons within the society that have led to the undervaluation.

So my suggestion is that you get rid of that particular clause. That was actually the main reason that there was a different bill that was brought in by Labour than the one suggested by National. So this is the significant clause. This is the reason that the legislation was substantively changed from what was suggested by the previous National Government. So I want to know why.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): I want to take the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, please, to the Schedule and to clause 8 of the Schedule. I’ve got a practical question that is concerning me at the moment, from the list that the Minister said to google yesterday—and we got that list overnight and we’ve got that in front of us now. My question is around the fact that on this list, it seems to clump some of the claims together. It clumps the teachers’ claim together. I am presuming, when I add all of this up, that we get to the 33 by separating the teachers’ claims.

Now, my question, and wondering here, goes back to clause 4 and the interaction between clause 4 of Part 1 of the Schedule. In clause 4, it talks about raising that threshold to 70 percent. In the claims on the answer to the written questions that the Minister gave that she highlighted last night, in those teachers’ claims it talks about the percentage of female teachers across all sectors as 82.4 percent. But when you break that down, the percentage of secondary teachers in State integrated schools sits at 63.6 percent. Considering that as a different teacher union, is the Minister then saying that secondary teachers, through their PPTA union, would not be able to put a pay equity claim in here because they are sitting under that 70 percent? If that is the case, does that not, then, create an unintended consequence of a differentiation that is going to be huge if the primary teachers and the early childhood teachers were successful in a pay equity claim—that they would go well above the secondary teachers?

Now, I say that because the two collective agreements are inherently linked or legislatively linked through the pay parity agreement. While pay equity claims are not about the collective agreements, this is going to have a huge impact on the collective agreement and on the teaching profession as a whole.

So my question is: are there two separate claims there, or is the Minister ensuring in that Schedule that those current claims that were in place that are getting dropped—but knowing that they’re going to come forward again—that secondary teachers would be seen as part of teachers as a whole and would have that pathway to a pay equity process? If they don’t, there is a huge, huge issue that is coming that Government’s way.

So that is my question—I want to leave it at that. I don’t want to take up any further time, but I’m really concerned about the unintended consequences going forward in that space.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly to Deborah Russell, who asked about the tertiary education library assistants having a range across universities and does that mean if an employer opts out, some won’t meet the 70 percent requirement? No, the 70 percent requirement does apply to the workforce; it doesn’t apply to the workforce of a particular employer.

I’ve got a question from Helen White: what change is intended in clause 8? Under clause 8, the bill simply separates out the requirement to raise a claim, in order to be clear what claimants need to provide and what employers need to decide.

We’ve got a tabled amendment which Camilla Belich discussed in new section 13PA inserted by clause 20 replacing “60 working days” with “20 working days”. That would not provide sufficient time to assess if claims are eligible to be raised and whether or not they have merit.

Another question from Camilla Belich about why the bill introduces a hierarchy. Well, that’s because, under the current Act, it doesn’t provide enough rules on how to choose an appropriate comparator. The current process requires the parties to exercise a significant amount of judgment, which can lead to comparators being chosen even when the comparator’s work is very different to the claimant. An example is that under our current system, we have fishery officers and corrections officers being used repeatedly in claims as varied as administrative and clerical staff, nurses, and school library staff.

Another question, then, in relation to Camilla’s next tabled amendment to delete new section 13ZE, essentially around the hierarchy of comparators—I won’t be doing that. I believe the hierarchy of comparators means that parties can choose comparators in closer proximity to the employee and that, in effect, reduces the level of judgment that’s required to compare the complaint and the comparator’s work and remuneration, which is better and makes our system more robust.

I then had a question from Jan Tinetti about whether or not this change means that some teachers can’t raise a claim as they may not reach a 70 percent requirement. Ultimately, it is up to unions to raise claims that meet the new thresholds and requirements.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question—I’ve been trying a while, Mr Chair, but thank you for choosing me—is in relation to 13DA, under that. It goes into the point around, and it’s under clause 10(4) of that section, the point that the pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years after the date. My question on this is—I have received advice that this may cause problems with our international obligations under CEDAW. So CEDAW is the Convention of Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which New Zealand signed up to in 1985. So we have obligations to regularly report on how we are complying with those conventions that we have signed up to. It is important to note that the purpose of the three principles in that convention, that UN convention that we have actually signed up to, is non-discrimination against women. But the second point is the State’s obligation under that. So we have an international convention that we are party to and that we regularly report on that requires us to show the State’s obligation to how we are complying with that agreement, and also to demonstrate how we are striving to promote equality for women and girls.

The issue I have is that because there is no regulatory impact statement for this particular piece of legislation, and also for the fact that the Cabinet paper that we’re able to see has had the human rights section completely withheld, that now we are receiving information that there is potentially a problem with what we’ve signed up to under CEDAW with that particular provision. There are other provisions, too, that we are also concerned about, how that would cause problems for New Zealand internationally for the Convention of Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

But my question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is, specifically: did she receive advice that we would be contravening our international obligations with that provision that “a pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years after the date of a pay equity claim settlement if the claim would relate to any or all of the employees covered by the settlement and the work to which the settlement relates”? So that is the particular point. There are others as well.

The reason I raised this point is because it puts the ability to scrutinise these types of things, international obligations to prevent the discrimination of women and girls, that we potentially are contravening our UN obligations. We are unable to have a verified answer on this because there is no regulatory impact statement, and that part of the Cabinet paper has been withheld. I think it is important to highlight that if we look at that, it was April 2024 that this went to Cabinet—April 2024. That is a year ago that this paper went to Cabinet. Subsequently, Cabinet committee signed off that Cabinet agreement on 24 December in December 2024.

So why do we not—not only the Opposition but members of the public—have the ability to understand why that information is not being made available for us to fully comprehend whether we’re complying with our international obligations for discrimination against women and girls? If this has been to Cabinet a year ago, and subsequently to Cabinet committee, there needs to be additional information provided to us in order to fully understand whether we are in fact complying with CEDAW. We need to be reporting on this annually, and there is some pretty strong advice coming into us that when we need to report back in 2025, we will not be complying with our obligations under a strong international convention that has been ratified since 1985. This is a long period of time. We need to have some clear answers from the Minister whether she’s received advice on whether we have breached the ratification of that international agreement.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’d just note at the moment that a lot of the questions are going on for the full five minutes. Under requirement—or it’s necessity now, to be a little bit more specific. I just will invite members to wonder whether they need to have quite as much context into those questions as they currently do.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair—I appreciate the opportunity to take a second call, and, as I did indicate in my earlier call, I do have a number of amendments and a number of questions. I will seek to keep my call concise and just stick to that.

I do note, just one important point is that we haven’t had a select committee process, and so as we are going through this process and as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety answers questions and as we obtain more documents, we do have more questions that come along. So that is one of the reasons why we are taking the time to ask this level of questions. We also didn’t have a regulatory impact statement (RIS), and so there are a whole lot of questions that would normally be answered through a regulatory impact statement that we aren’t able to find. So that means that, as we are going through this process, the Opposition is taking the level of time that we need. So I just want to make that point, because these are the kinds of questions we would normally have answered through a RIS, but also be able to engage with officials for, often, three or four hours every couple of weeks during a select committee process. This is what we have instead of that, so I just want to note that that’s why we’re going to prosecute this for a very long period of time.

My specific question is in relation to my tabled amendment to the Schedule. I’ll just note that in the Schedule, paragraphs 8(1) and (2) around existing pay equity claims—this is the piece in the Schedule that says that all existing pay equity claims are discontinued on the commencement date.

Hon Damien O’Connor: It’s just outrageous.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah—just reflecting on the comments from my colleague Damien O’Connor, it is outrageous. The question I have for the Minister, just before I speak to my amendment, is: did she consider transition and savings clauses around this? Because to ultimately just cut off all of those claims that are in existence—and for some of them they’ll have to wait, and all them will have to start again and redo the whole process. First of all, did the Minister consider putting in place a transition plan for those 33 causes? Again, I come back to the fact there isn’t a RIS. This is the type of information that would have been included in a RIS, but we don’t have access to the Minister’s advice that she received and the decision making around that, and I’d like to know in detail whether she did consider a transition plan.

The second piece I just want to raise is to speak to my tabled amendment, which is actually to delete that part, which means that those claims would continue to be live. The view of the Labour Party is very clear: that all of those existing claims that are in the process now—it is bad faith, it is not good faith, to just dismiss them immediately, and so we have an amendment in my name that would mean that that cancellation of those claims doesn’t happen. Given how serious it is for hundreds of thousands of workers, will the Minister consider supporting that amendment?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will respond to the question by Ginny Andersen, asking about whether or not this bill will comply with international obligations, and questions around the date this went through Cabinet. The Government has a range of international obligations, and the Government took these obligations into account in its decision making. I can assure the member that Cabinet made these policy decisions in March of this year.

In relation to Rachel Boyack’s questions about her tabled amendment, the Government will not be supporting this paper. I deem it necessary for the claims to be going through the same system, as it will be messier having two different systems set up at the same time for claims to be reviewed underneath that. That’s why the Government has moved to draw a distinct line in the sand and have all claims go through one process.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on and ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety some specific questions around clause 29, replacing sections 13ZD and 13ZE. I think the first question I have is around section 13ZD(3), around making these sorts of assessments. Specifically I want to check with the Minister in terms of understanding new subsection (3)(b) and the term “recognise”.

Now, in new subsection (3)(a), it used the term “consider”, but (3)(b) just says “recognise”. One of the issues that we have when we’re looking at the way that the assessments are made—because, again, it says in (3)(a) “[considered] matters objectively and without assumptions based on sex, taking the following into account:”, but often we do find that in the type of work that we’re talking about, it is as expressed in (3)(b); they’re commonly overlooked or undervalued in work that is performed by our workforce, such as social and communication skills.

My concern is that “recognise” just means “Oh, we know it’s there.”, but it may not necessarily mean considering them in making an assessment. Can I just check that, even though the term is “recognise”, when making the assessment the parties to a pay equity claim still need to take seriously the importance of skills, responsibility, efforts, and conditions that have been commonly overlooked and undervalued. That’s my first question.

Now, in terms of section 13ZE, I thank the Minister for her response on the matter of selection and hierarchy. But one of the questions I have is around the fact that in section 13ZE(8), what we are seeing is the tie-in to section 19 of the existing legislation, which is what the current legislation states, which talks about the way the regulations are made. I just want to check: just because it doesn’t refer to section 19 when it says “prescribed by regulations”, as prescribed by section 19, that it’s still the intention that we’re talking about the definition of regulations under section 19. So that’s my second question.

My third question is around section 13ZEA(1), “Employer decides no appropriate comparators available”. Now, we have heard, before, the explanation from the Minister on comparators, but I wanted to check—because it says “If the employer decides that no appropriate comparators are available”, they can just, essentially, stop the claim from there. It seems like it’s not a consideration that is being made by both parties. In that case, when it’s just the employer who determines that there’s no appropriate comparator available, how would the employer make those kinds of decisions, and does it need to be based on evidence? Because it’s not specified in this section. Can I just check that the only recourse for the claimant in that case is laid out in section 13ZEA, where the only way for the claimant to move this forward is by applying to the authority for the determination of that decision.

So those are, I guess, four questions that I have. The first one is around the definition of the term “recognise” in section 13ZD(3)(b), and whether “recognise” has the same meaning as “consider”, and, if not, what are the mechanisms needed for it to be considered seriously. My second question is around consistency of section 13ZE(8)—whether the regulations there will still be consistent with the existing section 19 of the Act. My third and fourth questions are around section 13ZEA on whether the employer has the sole mandate or determination to decide if there is an appropriate comparator and, if it is, is the only recourse for the claimant in that case to apply to the authority.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the call this morning. This is my first opportunity to speak on this legislation. Can I just open by saying shame on those men in the National Party that are standing to put a closure motion forward to an equity claim that affects women the most. But, Mr Chair, I’ll get on with it. I appreciate that opportunity just to acknowledge that and to speak to my amendment to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill—the amendment here to the Schedule: new clause 8(5). That amendment is that none of the provisions in the Schedule affect the existing claim by tertiary education, administration, and clerical workers.

Of course, I started my career in this particular area, at the University of Auckland, and have actively supported kaimahi and workers in this particular place. The Tertiary Education Union has been working through what has been a very slow process of a pay equity claim for administrators and clerical workers, and we have had the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety respond to the library staff. Can I just note in the Hansard record that most library staff actually have Master’s degrees as a requirement of their job. This is why we use different comparators, because there are few sectors that have the same requirement.

This particular amendment is because the group of workers for whom, in this instance, this is considered feminised work—for the administrators and clerical workers—also has the highest percentage of women workers here. We know that the role that they play is important. I think of student support workers, who have an administrative function in their role; they are affected in these particular areas, across the eight universities in this country. It has been a large topic of discussion at Waipapa Taumata Rau - University of Auckland. This would, effectively, halt that. Given the reaction in the last 24 hours on this, I really would appreciate the Minister considering my amendment that would, effectively, remove this from the legislation that she has put forward, giving administration and clerical workers a chance to negotiate.

Second to that, on a new subject area, I do acknowledge that, in this legislation, the ministry does refer particularly to the term “sex” rather than “gender”, and I’d appreciate if the Minister could speak to that and the reason why she has used that language rather than “gender”, because, obviously, this does affect a number of our rainbow communities as well, working in and being represented in these claims.

My last point there, going back to my amendment, is that a lot of the workers in this area not only are women but also play a functional role in supporting Māori and Pasifika. While this isn’t a priority for the ACT Party, I do expect the Minister to be able to play a role in ensuring that this work is continued and that we have a workforce that is able to play the role that we need them to.

Minister, those three things—I would appreciate it if you would consider my amendment. I would appreciate it if you could put an explanation forward for the language used, around “sex” versus “gender”. We do appreciate more inclusive language in this House and in legislation and, largely, the impact on rainbow, Māori, and Pasifika communities.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wish to respond to a couple of the questions, especially in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan. We’ve had a question in relation to clause 13ZE(8) which is still tied to section 19 and regulations. Yes, this is the case. “Prescribed” under section 13ZE(8) means prescribed by regulations as in section 19. This is also a provision that hasn’t changed from the original Act.

The next question is about clause 13ZD, which is a change in language from “recognise” to “consider” and does that mean that these factors won’t get the same consideration. These matters will still need to be taken into consideration in the assessment process. This is not a substantive change to the Act.

There was a question in relation to 13ZEA: does the employer have a sole mandate to decide on the appropriate comparator? As is the case currently, parties can identify and select appropriate comparators for the assessment process. If they disagree, then they can work together to resolve the dispute, if needed, by mediation.

I then move to Shanan Halbert, asking for a claim carve-out in his tabled amendment. No, the Government will not be considering that. We’ve made it very clear that this is about getting the legislative framework correct. It is not about any one particular single claim.

There is also a question there in relation to why we have used the words “sex-based” discrimination, not “gender-based” discrimination. I just want to make it clear that this is not something that this Government has chosen. That was the language that was used by the Labour Government when it passed the legislation. So that question is possibly better asked of the Labour Government that put it in place.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are just two things I wanted to talk about. One related to comments made by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around comparators. We know that new section 13ZE in clause 29 is adjusting the framing of the comparators, and there’s a concern that there’s a narrowing of the ability to compare across industries. The Minister has made some comments sort of suggesting—or I think they were—that air traffic controllers were more deserving of their higher pay than, say, social workers, and that no comparison could be made across them.

I did just want to point out that this is a really good example of exactly where the problem lies, because, in fact, if you look at the careers.govt.nz website, there’s actually a useful framing of the qualifications needed for various roles and what the pay expectations might be. Whereas social workers are required to be a registered social worker under the current regime, which requires a professional Bachelor’s degree, which I understand is actually four years in social work, for an air traffic controller it may require—so it’s not even compulsory, but it “may” require—a level 6 qualification. The pay indications are $52,000 to $92,000 for a social worker, and if you go over to an air traffic controller, it is, in fact, $140,000 to $228,000 for an occupation which doesn’t actually require—although some of them will have it—a degree-level qualification.

That’s the example the Minister used to suggest that those disparities are in some way justifiable, and, to be perfectly honest, it beggars belief that she could think that, where there are clear comparators where you can say, “There’s a mismatch here and something needs to be addressed.” So that’s my first point. I’d appreciate it if the Minister could address that point, because it is her own point.

The second point relates to clause 30 of the bill and the amendments to section 13ZH, which is around how pay equity claims are settled. Now, the whole concept of a pay equity claim is that there has been an unjustifiable underpayment in the subject profession across many years. Some members of the Government say that this isn’t about the money, and other members of the Government say that it is and they frame it as sustainability. But I’m interested in this idea that you can phase in fair pay or equitable pay, and I want to know: if we have reached a conclusion that in these women-dominated sectors, these women are being underpaid as a matter of fact and law, then how is it justifiable to defer fixing the problem? How is it possible? How can it be justified to say in the clauses that the parties can agree or the authority can determine that there is a pay equity settlement in agreed phases over a maximum of three years, or that there are three annual phases in equal amounts, if it’s a determination—as I understand it.

So what we’ve got is that we are, essentially, saying to these underpaid women, “Yes, you’re underpaid. We’ve gone through a long and arduous process to reach that conclusion, but we’ll let you get your appropriate pay—your pay which is equivalent to your male counterparts in the male-dominated industries—not today, not tomorrow, not this year, not next year, but the year after that.” Can you, Minister, tell the underpaid women of New Zealand how it is appropriate or fair or good government or inconsistent with your party’s claimed equal rights framework to underpay women knowingly for three years after they have reached their equity claim?

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): I have a really short question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on clause 20, “New sections 13PA and 13PB inserted”. Before section 13Q, there is now section 13PA , “Time limit for employer’s decision about pay equity claim”. Now, my question is just around language. Can I just ask the Minister this question. It says here in section 13PA that “(1) An employer who receives a pay equity claim must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving it,—”. Now, is this traditional language in the crafting of legislation, because my question really is: what is reasonably practicable?

The second thing is that in subsection (1)(b) it talks about equity claims that have merit. Now, in terms of the definition of “merit”—again, just on language for the committee—is that traditionally how it’s done? So subsection (1)(b) talks about the pay equity claim having merit. What actually defines “merit” in legislation? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I must say to members that a new member bringing a point up doesn’t mean that it’s a new point. There has been quite a number of Amendment Papers that have landed here, which I’m working through, and I would expect that most of the contributions from here on in would be at least referencing those Amendment Papers. At this stage, it’s hard to see many points that haven’t been raised already. With that, I call Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have here two points that haven’t been raised, relating to my amendments, and close but not exactly beside the preceding section to the one that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan was talking about, and it’s 13ZE(6), (7). Now, this particular section, essentially, says that the parties may not select a comparator if a workforce is too small to allow a meaningful comparison between its work and the work to which the claim relates, which I don’t believe we’ve touched on at all.

So this amendment which I have put forward would change that section, delete the current section, and insert that “Parties may select an appropriate comparator if that workforce is large or small providing there is an evidential basis to do so.” Now, the reason that I suggested that amendment is I think that if there is an evidential basis which is arguable—even with a small number of employees—then you should be able to make that argument.

Essentially, it’s giving people who would utilise this Act more tools to be able to make solid arguments. Of course, if it’s so small that you wouldn’t be able to have any evidential basis to utilise then, of course, it’s not appropriate that it should be used. But this particular amendment would give those utilising the Act a much greater ability to be able to argue if there was a case for that. Also, I see that there are inherent problems and I know that a lot of this has been taken from the existing Act but we’re looking at a new Act. Of course, I would expect the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to consider the Act and how it could be improved upon, and when you’re looking at large or small workforces, there is not a lot of detail on that. We know that every aspect of these can be litigated so some clarity around that.

I think my amendment is preferable to what is put in the bill, in terms of making the decision based on evidence rather than on what’s small, what’s large. So that’s my first amendment, which is a point which I don’t think has been made at all—I’d like to hear the Minister’s response to that.

The second thing that I want to raise is in relation to clause 31 and that replaces section 13ZH(1)(b)(ii) with what is written in that particular clause, and, essentially, that states that the maximum period that an equal pay claim can provide incremental instalments is to a maximum of three years. I have a question in relation to this. The Minister has, on many occasions in this bill, put in 10 years as a time limitation for when claims cannot be brought. So, for example, because of this legislation—we’ve talked about this particular point—you are unable to, if you’ve got a settled claim, bring another claim for 10 years. Now, it appears to me from this section that you are only able to utilise the agreed phases over a maximum of three years. I don’t understand why that is and I would like the Minister to explain why three years is a maximum period where you’re allowed a phased settlement, but 10 years is the time before you can bring a claim.

Surely there should be consistency with these and you should be able to bring phased payments up to the 10-year limit if that’s what you agree, and this is all available to the parties to agree if they want to, that means you go into an equal pay claim, you settle the claim, you have agreed instalments up to 10 years—if you want to, if that’s appropriate for your workforce—and then at the 10-year point, you are then able to raise a new claim, if that’s not appropriate. Why is the maximum period so low? I don’t believe that’s been addressed at all. I’d be really interested to hear the Minister’s response to that in relation to consistency, and it just seems fair and logical to be able to do that. So an answer to that would be—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to firstly start by responding to Dr Duncan Webb when he was talking about comparisons between different people, the claimants and the people they’re being compared to. The example I think he used was the air traffic controllers versus the social workers. He attempted to suggest that I was suggesting they were more deserving than others, and it is not what I’m suggesting at all. I don’t believe anybody is more deserving of their pay under this system. This is about sex-based discrimination. It is not about my individual judgment—that is for the legislation and for people to have these.

When it comes to people’s specific educational levels, it’s far from me to suggest that because people have specific educational levels, that means that they’re more deserving of pay. In fact, some of the smartest people I know have never been to university and they are phenomenal New Zealanders. So in no way am I saying that they are more deserving. What we’re simply doing by making the hierarchy of comparators in different sectors is to suggest that there are many and varied different working conditions and terms and conditions, and it makes determining how much of the difference in remuneration is down to sex-based undervaluation easier under our rules than the previous regime.

He’s also asked how it is justifiable to defer fixing the problem by phasing. This is to do with the three-year instalments. We’ve decided on this as a Government because this change to the legislation allows employers to better mitigate any potential negative impacts such as on employment, which should benefit all parties. In essence, money doesn’t grow on trees. If there is a settlement—and we know in the past that the settlements have been extremely large in financial terms—that money actually needs to come from somewhere, and so having phased instalments over three years allows for those mitigations to be reduced. In some ways that goes to answer the question from Camilla Belich.

In terms of Glen Bennett’s question on what defines merit, that’s something that I’ve outlined numerous times. Glen Bennett also asked what “as soon as reasonably practicable” is under new sections 13PA and 13PB inserted by clause 20. That is language that is the same as in the original Act. That hasn’t changed. It depends on the circumstances, and it’s also a term commonly used in legislation.

Camilla Belich also asked about her tabled amendment to, essentially, remove the exclusion on very, very small workforces. The reason that we have decided on this as a Government is that workforces need to be large enough to ensure that any differences in remuneration are not based on differences of individual workers, but it is actually due to workforce.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been standing to get a call as a follow-up to an answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave quite some time ago to my question around the teachers—and thank you, Minister, for answering the question at that time. This is a very quick follow-up question. It is around the fact that when that question was answered, the answer was given that teachers can bring their claim. I still didn’t get clarity around whether teachers could be seen as a whole, as a profession, or whether they would be coming as primary teachers, early childhood teachers, secondary teachers, because, as I’ve said, you’re talking about two very distinct groups.

Now, the Minister talked about, in one of the answers, this being around getting the framework right. But I don’t believe that the framework can be correct in any which way if these answers aren’t given. Therefore, I point to my colleague Camilla Belich’s schedule of tabled amendments—and I thank her for putting that forward—to the Schedule in clause 8, to have a carve-out for teachers, because I cannot see that we can get this right unless we have absolute definitive knowledge that one lot of teachers is not going to assert itself over another group. So I’d really appreciate an answer to that, and, as I said, it was a very quick contribution.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is, again, a very short contribution, and it’s around the freedom of contracts. In section 30 of the Act, which amends section 13ZH, it inserts clause (2A), which states: “The parties may not agree to review, or agree on a process for the review of, a pay equity claims settlement.” It’s just perplexing to me, if two parties who are well advised want to put in a settlement agreement, a process to check up on that later on, why the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is actually intervening in that freely negotiated arrangement and telling them that they can’t.

It would strike me that that’s a real fetter on the free rights and exchange of private property rights, which is often dear to the Minister’s heart. So what is the reason for a fetter on freedom of contract to stop the parties reviewing, should they so choose?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask a specific question about clause 47 which amends section 19, related to regulations, and it’s very, very broad. It says, “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for either or both of the following purposes: (a) providing for anything this Act says may or must be provided for by regulations: (b) providing for anything incidental that is necessary for carrying out, or giving full effect to, this Act.”

Really, what I wanted to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is whether, after this legislation passes, there will be substantial, new, prescriptive regulations put in place to specify what evidence can be used to determine whether a claim has merit or not, or whether the legislation, as drafted, does that? Because I noticed in the Cabinet paper it does say that there is going to be a regulations-making power that will enable the Government to specify what can be used as evidence. Given that there is no select committee process for us to discuss the merits of different evidence, is it the Government’s intention to introduce regulations specifying what can be considered evidence, and, if so, what process will the Government use? Who will the Government consult with on that? What can the Minister tell us about that?

I also have a question that is more broad but it hasn’t been raised yet, and that is: to what extent was the Minister for Women involved in this legislation? Because when I was Minister for Women when the legislation passed in 2020, I worked hand-in-hand with the workplace relations and safety Minister—and, in fact, I was the Minister who oversaw the committee stages and the third reading of the bill, which is now an Act. So I was extremely involved and I just wanted to know because there’s no indication in any of the Cabinet papers of the Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg, being involved in the development of this legislation.

In the Cabinet paper, the human rights implications of the legislation are completely redacted, so we cannot see that. So I just want to know from a Government process point of view—because this legislation is not being subjected to the same process and scrutiny that was applied to the legislation that was passed in 2020. It’s being passed in two days. Parliament can’t see what the human rights implications advice was that was provided to Cabinet, and there’s no indication that the Minister for Women was involved in this.

I’m interested in getting answers to those questions, but particularly about clause 47, the new regulations-making power. What are the Government’s intentions around regulations specific to evidence and what is the process they will use to consult? Who will they consult with? What is our expectation about what requirements are going to be put in place for regulations that will have a substantive impact on whether a workforce or a union representing a workforce that is predominantly female—what barriers and hoops they’re going to have to jump through to be able to seek just pay?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this call, my first call on this. I was hoping to have the other Minister there, but I see Minister Seymour in there, so it’s probably appropriate to ask him if he’d like to elaborate on what he said yesterday in terms of saving the Government. I’m sure we’re all very interested to hear that.

I will come to this amendment very shortly, but it was an interesting kōrero from that Minister yesterday. Just as an aside—and, as I said, I’ll come to this amendment shortly—I ran into Ali Mau this morning, who’s a very famous broadcaster, who talked about this kaupapa. When she took over Mike Hosking’s position, she said she was happy to take Mike Hosking’s position as long as she got Mike Hosking’s pay, and, of course that wasn’t forthcoming, so I thought I’d just put that as an aside and come to the amendment that we’re talking about today.

We’re talking about clause 8 and we want a new subclause (5) put in. We want to insert that none of the provisions in the schedule affect the existing claim by the Public Service administration and clerical workers’ claim. I think it’s a very fair claim to put forward. I was part of the equal pay for work of equal value campaign back in 1986, believe it or not, so we’re talking nearly 40 years ago. That was driven by my uncle Syd Jackson and it was a claim that has resonated through the years. Camilla Belich will know; her auntie was involved with that claim.

I would like to ask the Minister in the chair: what are the chances of this being retained, given this is an intergenerational claim in terms of equal work for equal value? What does that mean to the Minister going forward? Is there still a possibility of this claim being retained, given the history, given the tradition, given what it meant in terms of particularly the New Zealand Clerical Workers’ Union at the time, as I said, driven by Syd Jackson? Tau Henare and myself were part of the claim. So it wasn’t just about a Māori claim; it was a claim in terms of equity for all workers across the spectrum—incredibly important. That was driven by the New Zealand Clerical Workers’ Union but taken up by other unions through the years and treated as incredibly serious by us as a Labour Government.

I also asked the Minister in the chair today: was there any consultation across the different ministries, particularly if we look in terms of Māori workers and Māori female workers, the way that they have been discriminated against over the years? Was there any kōrero in that area with the Minister for Māori Development, Tama Potaka? Was he brought into the equation? Where did this come from? Was it just driven in terms of the Budget, as Minister Seymour has said yesterday? He saved this Government—ACT to the rescue again for this Government. Was that what it’s really about, or is this really about equity and fairness?

This claim in terms of none of the provisions in the schedule affecting the existing claim by the Public Service administration and clerical workers is, as I said, an incredibly important claim given the tradition, given the prejudice against workers. Here we had women doing incredibly important work at an administrative level but not receiving the status or the mana or the type of wage that they should be getting. That’s a claim that was put on the table in 1986; it has gone through the years, and now it’s being wiped off. Now, I ask the Minister in the chair today: is that something that could be re-examined and what sort of process did the Government go down in examining what was happening across society? Was there consultation with other Ministers? Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just say, I’m not ready to take a closure motion, but the Opposition has been advised by former presiding officers in the chair that the conversation now needs to be quite targeted. Please refer to the Amendment Papers and specific topics that haven’t yet been covered.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to an amendment that is there, in relation to the Schedule and the particular claims that will be impacted by this—the 33 claims. My amendment seeks to take a look particularly at corrections probation officer and senior practitioners. That is a claim that is on the 33 claims that will be wiped out by this legislation and that comes under the Public Service sector.

My point is that, in the corrections probation officer and senior practitioner claim, that particular proportion of the workforce is 68 percent female, as of 30 June 2020, which is the last information we have. Under the previous legislation, which this is taking away, the threshold was that the sector needed to be 60 percent represented by female, and the amendments in this legislation before us today increase that threshold to 70 percent. So, effectively, what that does is remove the ability for corrections probation officers and senior practitioners to be able to bring a claim, because they are only at 68 percent female.

My amendment would seek to make an exception for that in particular. There is a fair argument—they are only 2 percent short of the requirement—and it seems to be an arbitrary and unfair ability for a part of our workforce that is 68 percent female and, under this legislation, is now unable to bring a claim under pay equity ever, ever. Not only they’re not even in the sector, because they don’t reach that threshold, they’re not actually able to proceed.

I would be very interested to hear from the Minister in the chair whether it’s some of those calculations that will be saving this Government billions of dollars and whether it’s some of those calculations that will be, in fact, saving this Government’s Budget billions. Is it, in fact, corrections and probation officers and senior practitioners—who form 68 percent of the workforce—who will not ever be eligible to get fair pay as a result of this legislation?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I heed your earlier message. I want to make this contribution relevant to the Schedule, clause 10, review clauses, and I intend to discuss them with respect to groups that I know have not formed part of this debate already.

The review clauses, it appears, extinguish the ability of workers with current already accepted pay equity claims to have their situation reviewed under this Act and a reassessment of, essentially, whether or not their pay has kept up its relativity. So what I want to understand from the Minister in the chair is: when Cabinet deliberated on this bill, how did they weigh the matter of, as the Minister has mentioned, saving the Government’s Budget against the rights of the women who were part of this agreement, and those rights that are now being extinguished?

I want to speak particularly about the nurses and midwives who have reached pay equity agreements with the Government—tens of thousands of them made a decision to make a deal with the Government about fair pay. They are women who made a decision to agree to a settlement with the Government where they weighed the impact on their future earnings, their ability to provide for their families, their ability to continue in their job as adults. That was their decision they took. They made a decision with the Government that, “Yes, we accept your offer, but if something changes in the future, if you pay this other group more who do similar work to us, we have an avenue to come back to you and renegotiate.” The decision the Government made with them is being broken. That agreement is broken by this bill. So how did Cabinet weigh the impact on their rights, on the rights of women, to make economic decisions concerning themselves and their income for their families, against their efforts to balance the budget?

I know that certain members of the Government think that they take individual liberty seriously. Well, I can’t think of something more serious for working women than the ability to make these decisions about your pay, rights that are being extinguished in this bill. I’ve been seeking this call for some time, and while I’ve been seated here, I’ve been thinking about women’s rights in New Zealand over the time that I can remember, in my living memory. I cannot think of a backwards step as big as this when it comes to the legal rights of women to pursue getting an income that they deserve in the workplace. That’s why this bill, being pursued under urgency, without information on its human rights impact, without a regulatory impact statement, matters so much. That is why it is such bad progress, because women’s rights are going backwards under this.

We have no information from the Attorney-General to know how those women’s rights were held in the balance by this Government, because it seems to me that without that information, it would be very reasonable to conclude that Cabinet paid no attention to women’s rights, that they just thought, “Well, the Budget and the ability to balance a Budget, and the ability to pay for our unaffordable tax cuts, and the ability to pay a tax cut to tobacco companies.”—all of those considerations seem to be prioritised over the rights of women.

So my question is: how did Cabinet consider the rights of women and the agreements we made with adult women, as Government, to enter into pay equity settlements, and why are their rights now being extinguished?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I just want to take this opportunity to remind, again, that the views of the Opposition towards this bill have been well canvassed over the past few hours. Can we please contain the conversation to the amendments and the detail in the bill. Thank you.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. The actual clause that I want the Minister in the chair to be able to—and it may be something he might need to talk to his officials about, is the same clause that the Hon Julie Anne Genter looked at, which is clause 47 around the section 19 amendments. The reason why I think the Minister should talk to his officials about it is because it’s potentially a drafting error. I will step through why clarity from the Minister is incredibly important, because this is a regulation-making power. It’s a regulation-making power and primary legislation which a future Government—a future Government such as a Labour Government—may, within their powers as the executive, recommend to the Governor-General some changes. So I just need to understand from the Minister the parameters of those changes.

So, if I step through this, clause 47 replaces section 19(1) and 19(1A) with the now amended clause 47. Now, amended clause 47—so section 19, the new section 19(1)(b)—has a very broad regulation-making power that is very different to the section 19 currently, which is what this section is replacing. So new section 19(1)(b) says: “providing for anything incidental that is necessary for carrying out, or giving full effect”—that is the key part—“full effect to, this Act.” Now, if you go back through the legislation and the history of that regulation-making power, you look currently—section 19 of the Equal Pay Act 1972; now, that section was amended by the Secondary Legislation Act 2021, which was also amended by section 34 of the Statutes Amendment Act 2022. It was also amended by section 19 through the 2020 bill. At three different stages of that bill, that particular section was changed, but at every single one of those five changes it did not open up that section 19(1)(b) to anything giving full effect to this Act. The changes in that subsection were very narrow to prescribing matters that must be taken into account when identifying comparable work under section 13ZE.

Now, there are amendments to section 13ZE underneath this particular bill, but the question that we need clarity from the Minister on, and I think it’s important that he clarifies it, given the legislative history of this particular clause in the section within the Act, again, having been changed five times through different bills. This particular bill, if it is passed, will create the new regulation-making power to provide for anything—anything—incidental that is necessary for carrying out and giving full effect to the Act.

That is very different from the legislative history of that section, which is just narrowed to identifying comparable work on a particular section. So I think it is important to the Minister to clarify either with his officials or to the House, given we are coming under urgency, we have not had time to scrutinise the bill through a select committee process. We could have had other public lawyers, constitutional lawyers who may have picked that up, but I think it’s just important that we have some clarity and some comments in the Chamber so that in future years, if this goes through as I currently interpret it, it means that any future executive can make a regulation, make a secondary piece of legislation only going through the executive through a recommendation to the Governor-General.

That is a very different position than what has historically been through that particular section for the Equal Pay Act 72, again, changed five times—three times in 2020, twice by the Statute Amendments Bill. But here we have this bill, which has now widened up that regulation power. So if I’m interpreting it wrong, that’s fine. But I think the Minister should provide a response to that, and to the questions of Julie Anne Genter, because that will provide context for future lawmakers or future lawyers who have to look at this and may be able to take a judicial review of any of the points brought up here, because it’s “anything” in the Act, not just “comparable work”. So I think that’s an important point which I would like to see some clarity from the Minister, please.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Oh! Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a very excited “Oh”, wasn’t it? It was good to hear from my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds asking the Minister for some responses, because, of course, this goes on the Hansard, and we are in urgency and the bill has not been to select committee. So it would be very useful to hear David Seymour, the Minister who is currently in the chair, answer some of the questions that are being put to him. It was a very sensible, technical question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds, and it will be useful for future people who have to look at this horrible piece of legislation to know exactly what it was that the Minister was thinking about in terms of those technical aspects.

The Hon Barbara Edmonds referred to the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s questions as well, and she asked about the role of the Minister for Women. We heard, yesterday, my colleague Ingrid Leary ask about the role of the mental health Minister and the immigration Minister. The Minister in the chair at that time responded to Ingrid Leary’s question that those Ministers—being the mental health Minister and the immigration Minister—were in Cabinet and that this was a Cabinet decision. The Minister for Women is not in Cabinet, so it would be useful to have an answer to that question. It is a different question from the question that Ingrid Leary asked, and I have not heard a response to the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s question.

I do want to move, though, to the Schedule. I note that there is an abundance of Amendment Papers on clause 8 of the Schedule. How clause 8 works—and “Existing pay equity claims” is the title. Clause 8(1) states that “An existing pay equity claim is discontinued on the commencement date.” There are Amendment Papers to exclude some of the different claims from being discontinued at clause 8. I’m not going to touch on those amendments one by one—other people may do that. What I’m interested in is turning the Schedule on its head, because we’ve heard the Minister—the Minister in whose name the bill is in—answer some questions and say, “Look, I don’t want to talk about it claim by claim. This bill is about a framework, so I don’t want to talk about it claim by claim.” But I’m interested in whether she got advice on that point. This is quite different from what the Government did recently with the Fast-track Approvals Act. What happened with that Act was that there was a schedule that specifically named 149 projects and went through them—added at the committee stage, with no public submissions enabled at select committee. So was that approach considered for this bill? We know that there are these 33 claims that the Minister—the Minister in the chair previously—said people could google. Was there consideration and advice about actually laying out those 33 claims in the Schedule—33 being a much smaller number than 149—and about considering whether it could even have gone through the process of weighing up whether the thresholds that apply in this bill, as compared to the current legislation, would be next?

There’s been a lot of discussion about the 70 percent reducing to 60 percent in terms of females in the workforce. Could that not have been done in the Schedule—well, we know claim X of the 33 isn’t going to meet the 70 percent but does meet the 60 percent, so are we going to deal with that specifically in the Schedule one by one? Was there advice on that, and, if not, why not—given that inconsistent approach from this Government with how it deals with schedules when we’re talking about discrete issues?

These issues are much more discrete than resource management and fast track. I can think, off the top of my head, of hundreds of different activities that people might want a resource consent for. But there is no way that you can do that about professions that are predominantly women-based and paid an unfair amount compared with professions that are not.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just quickly respond to a number of issues that have been raised.

If I understood Jan Tinetti correctly, she asked if the Government was in favour of creating carve-outs for some in the teaching workforce in line with an amendment put forward by Camilla Belich. The Government’s not willing to create carve-outs. We believe that laws should be simple and comprehensive wherever possible.

Julie Anne Genter raised an issue also raised by Barbara Edmonds in relation to the breadth of clause 47 and the potential uses for that. She also asked if perhaps it could be a drafting error. I’m advised that there is no drafting error and that in fact this change reflects modern drafting practices and is a standard approach to drafting empowering provisions.

There was a question from Ginny Andersen in relation to the threshold being 70 percent instead of 60 percent, and could an exception be made for a workforce that was 68 percent female rather than 70 percent. Of course, it’s always tempting to argue around what I think people call “edge cases”, but the problem with any threshold is that there will always be some people that are either just above or just below. Unfortunately, that’s how thresholds just have to work.

Then there were some political questions from Ayesha Verrall. No, Cabinet did not make the equivalencies that she accused the Cabinet of. I think that was very unfair.

Finally, Rachel Brooking asked: “Did the bill’s drafters consider explicitly listing the 33 existing claims in the Schedule, as was done for the fast-track legislation?” I’m not in a position to answer in detail about the advice received, but I note that the member was quite opposed to the inclusion of those scheduled cases in the fast-track bill.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Because they benefited private companies. These are not private companies.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: OK, well, look, tempting as it is to have a debate of political philosophy, all I would say is that I think the member will be pleased to know that there’s no explicitly listed schedule in this legislation, seeing as she was so critical of it previously.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Was there advice?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: She’s now shouting, “Was there advice?” I’ve indicated that having not been involved in the detailed development of the bill, I’m not in a position to answer that question.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m going to call the Hon [Pauses] Deborah Russell. Thank you. Sorry.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. We all look the same. I want to pick up on a couple of comments that have been made by the Minister in the chair and then relate them very specifically to an Amendment Paper. The first one was made by the Minister who is currently in the chair, Hon David Seymour, and he said that with thresholds, of course there are always cases where people are just above or just below. That is obviously the case, but the problem here is that this legislation that is being proposed will have the effect of knocking out a pay equity claim that was under way and it will now—not only is it going to be knocked out but it will, in the future, fall under the threshold for a pay equity claim. So an existing claim has been disallowed by this legislation and it will have no way of getting back in. That, surely, is a case for a carve-out. So I’d like the Minister just to reconsider that particular claim that has come through in respect of the corrections probation officer and senior practitioners. So if there was one amendment to that Schedule that was to be considered, that would be the one.

But I’m going to pick up another comment that was also made by the Minister in charge of this legislation, who said that “money doesn’t grow on trees”. Well, teachers don’t grow on trees either, and neither do support workers grow on trees. Education advisers don’t grow on trees. Psychologists don’t grow on trees, either. Early learning teachers don’t grow on trees. Nurses don’t grow on trees. These people don’t just come from nowhere.

I’m going to point to a very specific amendment: library assistants don’t grow on trees, either, and I really want to speak to the library assistants claim, because when you’ve got the librarians coming for you, you’re in trouble, I’m telling you. But this legislation is going to knock out the claim from library assistants, so I’ve got an Amendment Paper in there asking for the tertiary education library assistants claim to be reinstated.

Here’s the thing: to get a job as a library assistant, you need a degree. That’s the beginning qualification for a job as a library assistant—it’s a degree—so these people have already done three years of study. Now, we can compare that to any number of other professions dominated by men where a degree is not required, but that is the beginning position to get a job as a library assistant: have your degree in hand.

Here’s the other interesting fact about it. It comes out of the recent pay round at Victoria University where library assistants finally—finally—got up to the living wage. Before that, they were down at about 50 percent above the minimum wage, and this is an area of work, a workforce, which requires a degree to get into. Now, if ever there is a case for a pay equity claim, that is it, because it is a profession that’s dominated by women. When we go to the list—which the Minister told us to google because she didn’t have it in hand and couldn’t be bothered putting it in her legislation—we find out that the varying rates of pay for library assistants across universities are between 68 to 85 percent, in terms of having a workforce that’s female. So it’s not even clear—we don’t even know what the percentage is, but it’s not even clear that they are going to be able to take a pay equity claim under the new legislation.

So I’m just going to put it out there that the gentlest souls amongst us, the librarians, who instead of telling you to go google something will actually go and help you find it, who are there to assist, who are highly educated—these people deserve consideration. I am urging the Minister: let’s at least get some of these groups back under consideration. I urge the Minister and this House to vote for my Amendment Paper which ensures that the existing claim by tertiary education library assistants does not get wiped out by this shameful legislation.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I do appreciate this call, and the reason I do is because I do have a number of Amendment Papers to—and I believe we are on to the Schedule now—the Schedule which I haven’t had the opportunity to speak to yet.

The first one, to a certain extent, although the amendment wasn’t referred to, relates to review clauses. My colleague Ayesha Verrall covered that; I won’t go into that in more detail, but just to note, if the Minister was convinced by Dr Verrall’s arguments, as I was, I do have an amendment here—that would allow review clauses to continue—in my name. So I’m just wanting to know from the Minister: would she entertain that?

The other amendments that I have in the Schedule are—the one that I want to refer to first, and it’s kind of, it’s an important point, I think. It’s to delete clause 8(1) in Schedule 1. The reason that I have put this forward as an Amendment Paper is because I believe if that particular clause was deleted, that would allow existing claims to continue and not be discontinued, which I think is one of the major elements of unfairness under the Act. So we do have specific amendments, a long list of amendments in relation to specific claims, which I do believe deserve the attention of this House and the Minister. This one is an overall amendment which would allow those claims to continue, which I think is important.

One of the areas which we hadn’t touched on at all is a claim that is an existing claim, which is the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service. Now, this workforce is 65 percent female. This is one of the lower percentages. Generally, most of the equal pay claims are much higher, but this particular claim, which we haven’t touched on at all, which would be saved by my amendment, which I’m now speaking to, would be protected by that. So for that group of female-dominated—and it is female—I mean if you look in the dictionary, “dominated” would probably give you something over 50 percent. So 65 percent certainly is a large percentage of women to work in a particular area—doing very important work. We know that our Artificial Limb Service provides life-altering services to those who require it.

They have an equal pay claim in place due to what they allege is the systemic undervaluation of their work; that claim, as I understand, could not continue—by 5 percent. So it’s unlikely that they would be able to continue with that. The Minister is discontinuing that. So I want to know, for those women in the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service, will she consider my amendment to delete clause 8(1)? She could still have her new regime, which I also disagree with, but it would allow those existing claims to continue, which I think would be fair.

One other amendment I want to mention briefly in relation to the Schedule: as I have an amendment to delete clause 9, that would mean that the 10-year limit wouldn’t apply. I’d like to know the Minister’s answer to whether she would consider that, because, alongside the discontinuation of current claims, I think that is an element of unfairness. Will she agree to my amendment on that particular point?

So I have asked probably four questions of the Minister in relation to Amendment Papers that I have that have not been addressed today, and I’d appreciate an answer. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I firstly want to start in response to questions raised by Julie Anne Genter about the involvement of the Minister for Women in the process, and I understand Willie Jackson also asked a similar question about the Minister for Māori Development. The Minister for Women was involved in the policy meetings that I held between Ministers leading to this bill. The Minister for Māori Development is in Cabinet and, therefore, was involved in the decisions leading up to this bill.

Ayesha Verrall asked a question about the extinguishing of current claims to have reviews, and how we have weighed up those proposals. Well, it was really important for Cabinet that there is one system that all of the claims operate under, but it is possible for claims to be reraised if they meet the new requirements.

Willie Jackson also asked which ministries were consulted on the proposal. I refer the member to, I believe, paragraph 94 of the Cabinet paper, which outlines the agencies consulted. Julie Anne Genter also asked if I was intending to introduce regulation on the need for merit, and I’ve answered that already this morning.

Dr Duncan Webb asked why parties can’t choose to agree to a review clause. We have stipulated in the bill that review will be done after a 10-year period, and while the review clauses in settlements will no longer be permissible, they can be reraised after that 10-year period after settlement, which does provide a way to address any new sex-based undervaluation if it develops over time.

Jan Tinetti asked: can teachers be considered as a whole? To raise a claim, the work covered needs to be the same or substantially similar, so it will depend on the evidence provided to support that particular type of claim, but I don’t intend to try and prejudge any outcomes or claims into the future.

Dr Ayesha Verrall asked about her tabled amendment. My response to this is that the transitional provisions allow all claims to have the same pay equity process, so it is which process applies.

Camilla Belich—getting quite busy with the tabled amendments—has proposed to make phasing up to 10 years for employers. I have to admit that I am actually very surprised by this tabled amendment, because the member has been making a lot of statements about the need for pay equity and it surprised me that she wished to extend the need for an employer to pay for up to a three-year phase—to extend that for 10 years so that pay equity would not be reached until a 10-year time frame. It is just a very interesting contribution, but that’s not what the Government will be accepting.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not going to put the question, but I think we are getting quite close.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. You know I always want to add constructively to this debate, and, in particular, it was around clause 47. The Minister in the chair at the time stood up and did confirm that it wasn’t a drafting error. He said that it was a “drafting style”. So, then, my question is: given that this has now broadened up the regulation-making power for any future executive—hypothetically, for example; even though it wouldn’t happen because this side of the House, the Labour Party, has said we’re going to repeal this amendment bill in a future Government—it could mean, though, if the Labour Government wasn’t so committed to that, that we could actually provide any regulation, again not coming to this House, not through primary legislation. We could make any changes to the rest of this Act, because it’s no longer about comparable work; it’s about every single provision in the new Act once it becomes enacted, as long as it gives full effect to the Act.

For example, with the amendment that was just raised by Camilla Belich, which the Minister responded to, a future Labour or a future executive might think, “Well, actually, we think it’s necessary to ensure it is carrying out and giving full effect to this Act. We’re going to put through regulation so that, actually, all those”—was it 13 or 33 claims?—“13 claims that are currently being cancelled by this—

Dr Tracey McLellan: 33.

Hon Jan Tinetti: 33.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —33 claims that are being cancelled by this; we’re going to say that that’s incidental, and we’re going to put it in through regulation, because it gives full effect to the Act. We’re, basically, going to allow those claims to be reopened.” That is, effectively, the response from the Minister, who said, because of the drafting style, because we can make a regulation, this now applies to the whole Act, not just comparable work; therefore, we can make that executive decision at a later date. Not that it would matter, because, actually, we’re just going to repeal this Act once it comes in force and when we get into Government.

I just want to—and I know I labour the point—make sure, because this is a different drafting style. The last amendment to that provision was in 2022—very narrow style. Are we saying that there has been such a change in the drafting style in three years since 2022, which now has a much wider regulation-making power, that the Government is very clear they are comfortable with that? What it means is that a future executive can make any regulation as long as it’s necessary for carrying out or giving full effect to this Act and it’s no longer narrowed to comparable work.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do want to raise some questions that have not been raised in this debate, and I think it’s really important because this is going through under urgency, and, in public, the Ministers, different Ministers in the Government have made reference to savings of billions of dollars because of these changes. Now, presumably, that’s due to the extinguishing of the 33 claims which would have otherwise had some fiscal liabilities represented in this Budget. So in the Schedule, that’s where the claims are extinguished, the existing pay equity claims in clause 8 in Part 2 in the Schedule that’s been inserted.

So my questions are, and it would be great if the Minister could answer this and if she could refer to the officials if she needs help answering this: is the savings of billions of dollars a gross or net expression of savings? Does it include the PAYE from wages and the GST from wages where if the claims had been settled, the low-paid workers would tend to spend everything they earn and would have an impact on GST? What analysis has been done about the impact on superannuation contributions, recognising that women will have less savings for their retirement because of extinguishing these claims? Has the Minister received advice from Treasury and/or Audit with reference to the wellbeing outcomes and the effectiveness of this legislation? I note that there was no regulatory impact statement completed on this. So there hasn’t been a thorough regulatory impact statement.

Finally, and this is really important because the Minister has said the Government supports pay equity, they just want to change the parameters, right? So of the 33 claims that have been extinguished, the vast majority of them have well over a 70 percent female ratio. So the change to 70 percent will not mean that the majority of those claims that were under way can’t reapply and try to have merit. So, given that, does the savings in billions—like, effectively, if they go back through the new process and it’s delayed by several years, there will still be a fiscal liability on the Crown of bigger wage bills if we expect to someday achieve pay equity for those workforces; will that be reflected? Is that fiscal liability still reflected in the Budget or is it just gone now? We say we’re saving billions of dollars this year, but in a few years’ time this will come back, and a future Government will have the fiscal liability.

So I guess I’m just wondering: has the extinguishing of the claims resulted in a short-term perception of reduced fiscal liability? Has the Government taken into account the fact that the majority of the claims currently under way have well over 70 percent women working in them and therefore will still be able to apply for pay equity? Maybe it’ll be delayed by a few years, but eventually, if the Government does support pay equity, a future Government is going to face this fiscal liability. To what extent is that reflected in the savings of billions?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Well, I thank the member for her question and I think it is an interesting one, but the member will be well aware that anything that is Budget sensitive is Budget sensitive. While there have been comments made about potential savings, what I can say is that there are significant reductions in cost to Government, but I can’t go into Budget. I’m not the Budget Minister responsible and so you’ll just have to wait until the Budget in a couple of weeks.

When it comes to the question from Camilla Belich, it appears the member has proposed a number of amendments which are all on a theme of not discontinuing the current claims, either by deleting the whole clause or exempting certain occupations. As I’ve repeatedly said in the House today and yesterday, the transitional provisions in the bill are important to ensure there is one process for all claims, rather than allowing for two systems to operate for a period.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 60 percent threshold be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Hon Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 50 percent threshold be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the

the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 55 percent threshold be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 65 percent threshold be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) to set a 60 percent threshold is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4(2)(b)(ii) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 13A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 13A, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a two-month bar be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a one-month bar be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Deborah Russell’s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a 12-month bar be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendments to clauses 10 and 38 to set a six-month bar be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 13F, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to delete clause 13 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to delete the word “not” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 20, new section 13PA, to replace “60 working days” with “20 working days” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 29 to delete new section 13ZE(1) to (4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 29 to delete new section 13ZE(6) and replace new section 13ZE(7) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 30(1) to replace “3 years” with “10 years” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 35(3) to replace “3 years” with “10 years”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete clause 46(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 50 to 55, “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you for the opportunity to talk on Part 2. My questions are ones of language, really, and relate both to clause 52 and to clause 54 as well. That’s on pages 28 and 29 of the bill in front of us.

What this part of the bill is doing is bringing across those new terms into related legislation, being the Employment Relations Act 2000 and also the Public Service Act 2020. As we’ve discussed already in the Part 1 debate, there is this big change from whether a claim is “arguable” to whether it “has merit”. I asked some questions in that Part 1 debate about what will be new section 13F and the meaning of “merit”, and there is some similarity to the existing law but some important differences. One of those differences that was traversed in questions was that all of these requirements have to be met by the use of “and” in what will be new section 13F. Where the current legislation, back at 13F, has things that are included for consideration, and that happens at subsection (3)—it uses “including”—at subsections (1) and (2), it has to be everything; there are “ands” included.

Why I’m focusing on that is that new section 13F is a fundamental mechanism in what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s policy plan is to change. At clause 54, there is an amendment to the Public Service Act, and that is: when forming a view on whether the claim is arguable—“arguable” being the word that was used in the existing legislation—it has changed to “forming views on whether the claim meets all requirements set out in section 13E of the Equal Pay Act”. What I’m interested in is why there is that change of language from forming “a view” to forming “views”, in relation to section 13E—and I realise I was just talking about 13F—this important difference between when something is “arguable” versus now “has merit”. Why does “arguable” have a singular—“forming a view”—to something having merit needing “forming views”? I’m happy for the Minister to correct me if I’m wrong on this. I thought that you either meet the requirements of section 13E or you don’t. If she could comment on whether or not it should be “views are being formed” or whether it’s just “a view”, and it would be helpful for the Hansard, then, if she could go through what those different views might be that section 82 of the Public Service Act is referring to. There could be quite a few in there.

Then I note, going back to clause 52, which is about the Employment Relations Act, this is about the jurisdiction of the authority, and there’s quite a lot in this section. It’s very important. But, on my use of language and the difference between having to consider everything in a subsection—“and, and, and”—and whether it’s optional, “including”, we have here at new section 161(1)(qd)(ia), “determining whether a pay equity claim meets all requirements set out in section 13E of that Act”. So that’s section 13E, as referred to again in clause 54, which I was just talking about. At clause 54, you form “views”, but under the jurisdiction of the employment authority, they have to look and see if it meets “all” the requirements. Is that a purposeful difference in language—that, in one piece of legislation, they’re thinking about all the requirements being set out in section 13E being met, whereas under another piece of legislation, being the Public Service Act, it is “views” on the claim? Does it meet all the requirements or not? Why is there that “-s” in clause 54?

Then, if we look at other parts of clause 52, we see some important changes to this jurisdiction of the employment authority, and a lot of this relates to policy decisions that, of course, have been discussed in the Part 1 debate. We see there that the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) means that past grievances can’t be considered. That’s taken out. And then also there’s the repeal of (viii), which is the start date. I’m not sure why that one needs to be repealed—what the policy logic there for repealing (viii) is—but we have this new insertion that we can all see in the bill, at subsection (6), which is a new (va), “determining whether remuneration agreed by the parties to a pay equity claim is to be increased to the agreed level in phases and, if so, the particulars of those phases”. My overall question with this one, of course, goes back to questions I was asking on the Schedule as well, and it’s whether the Minister has received any advice that this could possibly happen now with the changes that she is making. Will there be any remuneration agreed by parties to a pay equity claim, or is this new clause in fact redundant?

So that is what I would like to know at a policy level and an advice level, and then my other question was about this use of forming “views”—with an “-s”—and why that is different from forming “a view”; that difference between “arguable” and whether the claim meets all requirements for that merit test that is so important to the changes that she’s making now. Is that purposeful? Can she explore the requirements of section 13E for us and why it needs this change in language for the Public Service Act but not for the jurisdiction of the authority, which has to check against all requirements?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Mr Chair, thank you for this opportunity. It is my first opportunity to speak on behalf and to ask questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on behalf of my constituents, especially women from South Auckland and thousands of women from Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, who will, unfortunately, be affected by the passage of this bill. It is still shocking to me and I still cannot believe that we are here under urgency debating the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

I’d like to ask the Minister questions about clause 52(2) of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. This clause may sound technical, but, in reality, this clause is a direct attack on the rights of women and our most vulnerable workers. This will replace the existing threshold for initiating a pay equity claim from “arguable” to “has merit”. This may seem like a small language change, but make no mistake, this is a calculated move to raise the bar and lock the courtroom doors to thousands and thousands of women across Aotearoa New Zealand, and in particular to Māori, Pacific, migrant, and ethnic community woman.

Under the current law built on the hard-fought gains of the Terranova v Bartlett case, a claim only needs to be arguable. This means that they must bring a credible case of undervaluation worth investigating, not a fully proven thesis before the process even begins. But when this bill gets passed—which will be later on today because we are under urgency—this National-led Government wants to change that. The coalition Government wants women to come armed with legally analysed cases, market data, and evidence before they could even begin the process. That is not access to justice; in my opinion, that is obstruction to justice for our women. It has a systematic silencing of women in low-paid, female-dominated industries, like our care workers, our cleaners, our teacher aides, and our education support workers.

To be crystal clear, when it is “arguable”, the door to justice is more open; when it is changed to “has merit” under this new clause, it bolts that door shut. The Minister knows, her Cabinet colleagues know, that this will mean fewer claims. It will mean more rejections at the starting line and it will mean that more employers who benefit from systematic undervaluation will be handed more power to deny justice right at the beginning of the process. This is not progress. This bill will take our country backwards.

So my question to the Minister is: how will the Minister ensure that the term “merit” is not used to justify historical gender pay gaps disguised as performance-based differences? Also, can the Minister let us know, in the absence of a regulatory impact statement, which we do not have, what safeguards are there under this bill to prevent employers from relying on subjective or biased assessments of merit that may disproportionately disadvantage women. Does the Minister—another question—accept that historical undervaluation of women’s work stems from societal biases, and how does this clause on merit address this rather than reinforce it?

This bill, in my opinion, is economic violence against women, especially our Māori, our Pacific, our migrant, and our ethnic women who do essential work for little pay and even less recognition. This clause is betrayal of the bipartisan consensus that delivered pay equity progress in this country. It ignores the recommendations of experts, unions, and the Human Rights Commission, and it violates the spirit of our obligations under the Convention on the Elimination on all forms of Discrimination Against Women and the International Labour Organization convention No. 100.

Another question for the Minister to consider: who asked for this change? Who benefits from this change? It most certainly isn’t the women of Aotearoa and it is most certainly not fair nor justice for women of Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you very much.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much. I want to take the time to respond, firstly, to Rachel Brooking, who has asked why it is “views”, not “a view”, in clause 54. The word “views” is used because the employer has to make multiple decisions, or two decisions. This is a consequential amendment to reflect the changes made in Part 1 of the bill. It reflects the change made in the bill requiring the employer to consider both whether the claim meets the requirements in section 13E and whether it has merit.

The second question was, in regard to the language used in clauses 54 and 52, why is it different—is that for a reason? Yes, the language is different, and in the new section 161(1)(qd)(i)(ia), the authority is only looking at the requirements in 13E. In clause 54, the employer is considering both whether the 13E requirements are met and if the claim has merit.

The third question was in relation to clause 52 and the changes to the authority’s jurisdiction—why is this the case? Once again, this is just a consequential amendment reflecting the changes in Part 1 of the bill, so that’s why it is—in particular, section 13ZY, which sets out why the authority can make the determination.

Jenny Salesa has asked and made comment on the change of wording from “arguable” to “merit”. Once again, this change from “arguable” to “merit” is a consequential amendment reflecting the changes made in Part 1, which has already been debated and voted on.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call in this debate. I do have some questions on clause 51, the repeal of section 33(2)(d) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Before I go into that, I want to echo the sentiment that many others have made in this House around how appalling this piece of legislation is, how little analysis has been done, and how women and migrant workers particularly will be disproportionately affected by this.

I wanted to ask about clause 51, which is “Section 33 amended (Duty of good faith requires parties to conclude collective agreement unless genuine reason not to)”. If we go to the Employment Relations Act 2000, there’s a list of reasons here laid out in section 33(2), which include things like “(a) opposition or objection in principle to (i) bargaining for, or being party to, a collective agreement; or (ii) including rates of wages or salary in a collective agreement; or (b) disagreement about including a bargaining fee clause under Part 6B in a collective agreement; or (c) the existence of an unsettled pay equity claim between an employer and a claimant under the Equal Pay Act 1972, or”—which is the part that this bill is repealing, “(d) the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim under the Equal Pay Act 1972.”

Now, in this bill, what we are seeing is simply a repeal of that requirement and, to me, it does leave a void then, because by the looks of that—and I’d be keen to seek some clarification—it is not being replaced by any other language that seeks to at least create an equivalent, and for the future as well. That, to me, seems to be concerning because then it’s just kind of treated as a consequential amendment to this Act, but to me it just feels like it leads to a void.

I wonder whether this is just in line with the Government’s policy intent of simply lifting the threshold and making it harder for people to achieve pay equity, or whether the Minister explored a replacement of that specific section 33(2)(d) with something else. So I’m keen to understand the policy intent and the thinking behind just simply repealing that section. That’s something that I think we could have actually explored at the select committee stage. We haven’t been able to, so I think, in this process, I’d be keen to seek clarification very specifically on this specific repeal.

I have some other questions that seek to unpack the broader implications of this bill. But, for now, I’m keen to talk about clause 51. I think, to me, why I say this is that often—and why this is particularly problematic—already workers are having to take up cases even to other authorities when they feel like their employer is not engaging in good faith. This actually does happen often. Unfortunately, we’re in an environment where employers have, in many cases, been quite hostile when it comes to negotiations and being able to get to a collective agreement. This is why I think this specific clause just feels egregious and problematic, because it’s kind of painted as consequential, but I feel, to me, it’s also politically motivated. So any clarification as to the intent would be particularly useful.

I’ll take another call later to make sure I can unpack particularly—just to give the Chair some warning—the implications around immigration settings as well as child poverty reduction targets. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call in Part 2, which deals with the consequential amendments, and I did note the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s response to the excellent contribution by my colleague Hon Jenny Salesa, talking about how we had covered the issue around merit previously. But I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that these consequential amendments primarily focus on changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and then—which we haven’t got to yet—amendments to the Public Service Act 2020.

So it is actually a different proposition to look at how the changes that she’s wanting to put through will fit into these different pieces of legislation. It is not the same as talking about it within the primary, in my view, Equal Pay Act. So I do think it is worth making sure, being as that we haven’t had a select committee process, that these changes do actually fit within these very important, significant pieces of legislation, and I don’t think the arguments are exactly the same as they were with the primary Act. So I would ask that the Minister please engage with the questions that we have in Part 2 because, although it is a smaller section, these do deal with significant pieces of legislation and it is important that we’re not making changes in this Chamber today without the benefit of going through select committee, without the benefit of a regulatory impact statement, that do not work with the existing legislation. I think the contribution that Ricardo Menéndez March made in that regard highlights how important it is to make sure that these pieces of legislation are consistent.

So I do have an amendment that I’ve tabled in Part 2, which I will speak to in this contribution if I have time, but I would like to make sure that I have the opportunity to go over that amendment. But I just thought the first thing that I would start with is also to look at 52, but look at 52(ib), because this is when the employment relations—well, we looked at jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Act, and this looks at whether the employees work is the same or substantially similar to the work that is the subject of a pay parity claim in relation to comparators.

So I think this is a really important point for the House to note: when selecting a comparator, the only way that a comparator will be successful is if that comparator is the same as or substantially similar to the claimant. So this idea that these kind of outlandish, totally inappropriate comparisons are being made is just not true because, if it was true, the claims would not be successful and there would be no benefit to it. So I think it’s really important to note that and note the wording in the Employment Relations Act because I think that does help the committee to see that.

The other question I have in relation to the Employment Relations Act is: the Minister will be aware that the fundamental, overriding duty in the Employment Relations Act is the duty to act in good faith, and I have some questions around the duty of good faith and how that does apply to the changes that she is making today to the legislation. Is it good faith to extinguish claims—and I appreciate some of them may be able to be moved under the new legislation, but not all of them. Is that good faith when there is a bargaining agreement in place? Obviously, it’s permissible for the Government to override good faith, but my question to her is whether she’s considered that overriding duty because she is making changes to the Employment Relations Act.

The next question I have for the Minister is 52(2). It changes—and my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa was speaking about this, but the point I want to make around this is very different. She is changing the Employment Relations Act and she is adding “has merit” into that, and I want to know: has she received advice around the use of the word “merit” in the Employment Relations Act and whether this use of the word “merit” is consistent with that? It’s something I don’t know; I’m interested to know the answer to that.

Another thing that I would like to know, and it does come to the process, is we have talked about—and this particular section talks about consequential amendments, and obviously there is a regulatory component to that. So I want to know from the Minister: will she or does she envisage that that aspect of this bill will be scrutinised by the Regulation Review Committee at a subsequent date? Because sometimes the Regulations Review Committee does scrutinise decisions that have already been made, or, in fact, if it’s just the regulatory component of that which would go to the Regulations Review Committee. I do think that if the Minister wanted to do away with some of the damage that this bill has brought forward, then it would be good to have the answer to that in relation to whether she sees that being part of the process of this in the scrutiny; that would obviously come after the passing of this bill.

The other thing that I wanted to know is: does she envisage a role for the usual select committee that this bill would usually go to—and they do have a role in overseeing the Employment Relations Act, which is the bill that we are amending in Part 2. Would she see that there is a role for the Education and Workforce Committee to, after the fact of the passing of this bill, have the opportunity to invite submitters to a select committee hearing or briefing or inquiry into this Act to allow people the opportunity to actually express their view on this piece of legislation? I don’t accept the reasons that this has been brought under urgency. I think it’s absolutely terrible and I think it’s a shame on this Government led by the National Party, but I do think that it would be better than nothing to have a select committee be able to look at this, and so I want to know: will she do that?

If we were to have that select committee hearing, post-dating the passing of this bill, it would be the appropriate time where we could look at the Employment Relations Act and the changes that she’s making and really get detailed advice from officials as to whether these changes she is making in terms of language in the Employment Relations Act is consistent with the rest of the Act, does work with the rest of the Act, is workable. It’s just not time for us to be able to make those detailed assessments in this particular bill, heard under urgency. So I would like an answer to that from the Minister.

The other thing I just wanted to add—and it does relate to a point which I did want to come back to in Part 1, but I was unable to get a call on it—was looking at phasing, and that’s in Part 2, 52(6). So that talks about the agreed phases, and I had an amendment—which, unfortunately, was not successful in the first part—looking at phasing. The Minister criticised me for putting that amendment down, and I wanted to just have the opportunity to explain that the reason I was concerned about phasing is because I genuinely think that when people are in negotiations and when they can agree to something which is appropriate for their workforce, they often make good decisions which people are happy with. The more restrictions we put on the types of negotiations that people can have, in a complex mettle like equal pay, often we are stuck with results that might be quite difficult. So the Minister, in what has passed in the first part of this, has suggested that we should only be able to agree things up to three years, and I think a longer period of time in some instances, if agreed between the parties, might result in a longer period of time where they were able to have their pay equity topped up through that period of time.

So I don’t accept the criticisms from the Minister, and I wanted to ask her, in relation to Part 2, clause 52(6): the jurisdiction that the authority would have in relation to agreed phasing, because in the other part of the legislation we had that three-year limit, does this apply to 52(6)? That’s a question that I have for the Minister. So a few questions there. I haven’t had the opportunity yet to talk to my Amendment Paper. I’ll let the Minister answer those questions.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I very much have actually been waiting to take a contribution in relation to that member Camilla Belich’s desire to see phasing in of pay equity settlements take longer.

I think every member outside this House, every member of society should listen to Camilla Belich when she says that she’s standing up for workers and wishes to see people who have agreed to a pay equity settlement have a longer time frame to see that money in their pockets. That member has made multiple contributions. This is a member who believes in pay equity and she’s suggesting to people who are successful with pay equity that instead of a three-year phased settlement that this Government is suggesting ends up in people’s pockets, that it’s up to 10 years until they would see the money that they may get for their settlement.

I think everybody should take note of that and I thank the member Camilla Belich for the insight into the Labour Party and the potential desire for that member in the party to see members who are successful in a settlement have a longer time frame to receive that money in their pockets. Thank you very much for that contribution.

Back to Ricardo Menéndez March and the question about removing section 33(2)(d). Does it create a void? No. Good faith, of course, continues to apply in all employment matters. I will take my leave now and answer further later.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to follow up on some comments that the Minister made just now in her call around money in people’s pockets. It flows on quite well because—and I thought this would be better suited to ask in Part 2 again—of the kind of stuff we would have actually very easily tried to unpack in select committee. One of them is I wanted to understand why there was no child impact assessment being done. I say this because one of the Acts that actually, while not here in writing, is very related to this whole issue is the Child Poverty Reduction Act that we have.

One of the reasons why I want to tie it in with this bill is because we have heard from another Minister that work and people entering work is going to be seen as one of the primary ways we’re going to be reducing child poverty. Yet the way that this bill is laid out risks undermining the growth of wages for women in particular, which then in some ways has a flow-on effect on the Child Poverty Reduction Act and the Government’s actual obligations to meet our child poverty reduction targets.

So I’m curious to know: if she doesn’t think that, actually, there is any consequential impact in the Child Poverty Reduction Act, despite the Government saying that work is going to be one of the primary means of achieving those goals, and there was no child impact assessment done as part of preparing this bill—something we could have very easily actually asked for at the select committee stage—I’m curious to know whether she had any engagement at all with Minister Louise Upston, in her role as child poverty reduction Minister, to evaluate whether the delay in wage increases as a result of the existing pay equity claims would have had a negative effect on meeting our obligations under the Child Poverty Reduction Act. I think that’s important because, to me, there seems to be a direct contradiction between the stated goals of this Government and what we’re seeing in this bill.

The other question I had in relationship to interactions between the changes here and other parts of legislation and policy—and, again, this would have very easily been asked and answered by officials or the Minister herself during a select committee—is whether there had been any engagement in what’s being laid out here, particularly because there’s a lot of migrant workers in the areas where there’s pay equity claims, and many of them often require specific wages to be able to qualify for some residency pathways. The conversations that I have had in the past with some of the migrant workers in some of those areas is that the pay equity claims could have actually boosted people’s wages to a level that would have allowed them to access residency or other visa pathways.

But without these—I am curious to know again, whether the Minister engaged with anyone, whether it’s the immigration Minister, or anyone in the immigration sector, to actually understand the flow-on impacts of this bill on migrant workers who are in the workplaces affected by this bill, and, if there wasn’t any engagement, what certainty can the Minister give us on the impacts of this bill on our obligations to meet the Child Poverty Reduction Act, as well as any immigration policy? Those things are completely related to what’s happening in this bill, because of the direct impact on people’s wages.

Other people have already talked about the groups that are disproportionately affected. So I’m curious to know as to whether she thought that the Child Poverty Reduction Act should have been amended at all as part of this bill. I just can’t see how the Government will meet its obligations under that Act as a result of these changes, if they’re relying on paid employment to reduce child poverty.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll take the time to respond to a few more of the member Camilla Belich’s questions. Firstly, in relation to whether or not the duty of good faith applies to the changes made in the bill, I have already answered that by another member. Good-faith obligations will continue to apply in the pay equity process.

Secondly, will the bill be scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee at another date? If any regulations were made, then they would be subject to the Regulations Review Committee, as is always the case. The bill will not be scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee as it’s going through the robust parliamentary process, which is how we deal with legislation.

Camilla Belich had another question in relation to the consequential amendment to the Employment Relations Act to section 161(1)(qd)(iv), if this relates to the selection of comparators. Section 161(1)(qd)(iv) sets out the Employment Relations Authority’s ability to make a determination about whether an individual employee’s work is the same or substantially similar to work that is the subject of a union-raised claim and therefore should be covered.

She also referred to her Amendment Paper to delete clause 54. The change made to the reference from “arguable” to “merit” in this section is a consequential amendment that has already been voted on in Part 1.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take up the issue of the use of the word “merit”. I think it is relevant that we’re talking about the Employment Relations Act here, which has been highly successful because it’s taken a term which is actually a virtue. We all strive for good faith. We strive for being a good employer and being a good employee, and it does the world of good to us. What we’ve done in that Act is we’ve signalled to people something that’s really important for them to strive for that virtue.

What I’m concerned about here is about the use of the word “merit”. I appreciate the point that it’s been used in the previous part, but actually to say something “has merit” is a very powerful statement. So if you’ve got somebody who is in the 68 percent industry but has been discriminated against, their claim “has merit” in the common parlance of that word. They have been discriminated against and they’re missing out here. So to talk about “having merit”—and we’re supposed to use plain language—is fairly insensitive and it sends the wrong signal to people.

What I’d ask the Minister to do is: would she entertain using a more neutral phrase there? She could say something like that it has passed the threshold of merit in Part 1, because that shows that she’s making a judgment call and it doesn’t devalue the person who was before a process like this, who actually has been treated unjustly by the system but has not actually been recognised as such by a system. It’s clearer in Part 1 that that’s what’s going on, that there’s an arbitrary nature to the threshold, although I’m not comfortable with it. It’s not clear at all in Part 2, when the use of the words “has merit” actually sends a signal to people that every other claim doesn’t have merit. So would she consider using a term which unpacks this, that is more neutral, that is more professional about that and does not send that signal to people? I’d also note that this is also happening in clause 54, which is the Public Service Act amendments—so, again, that the claim “has merit”. It would be easy enough to amend it so that the language was much more neutral in that case too.

I also wanted to ask the Minister about—it’s actually on the same page, page 29 in clause 52(6)—the insertion that is going in here that talks about phasing. I wondered whether there had been discussion or advice on what the parameters of that phasing were, and whether it was reflected in this language—is it possible for the authority member to create phases which might be uneven in the amount that is being paid out and that calculate in the loss of the use of money? So all the interest that’s being lost, are we visiting that on the individuals, so that the working women who are not being paid out—it’s been recognised, the claim, “Yep, you’re being treated unjustly and you haven’t been paid right. We’re going to take three years to pay you.” Are we now, as the authority, able legally to go “Part of our job is we’ve got three phases, and each one of those—the first one, you’re going to get this amount. The second one, you’re going to get this plus this because it’s the use of money—we’ve had the benefit of your money in the meantime. The third one, you’re going to get an extra amount.” Is that possible under these words or do we need to include words so that that happens? Because anything else, I put to the Minister, seems unjust.

So my third question is, and I’d like an answer to this: does she accept that it’s very unjust if all of the damage done by that payment scheme—which is, in this situation, not agreed; it’s determined—if all that is visited on the poorest person in this situation, which is the worker who has been discriminated against and hasn’t been paid. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to reflect on a couple of the questions. Firstly, a question in the name of Camilla Belich about what jurisdiction the authority has in relation to phasing. Does the three-year limit apply? The changes to the Employment Relations Act reflect the changes made in Part 1, in relation to determinations of the authority—the requirements as specified in Part 1, which included that three-year phasing. So that’s that.

“Why is there no regulatory impact statement?”—from Ricardo Menéndez March. Look, the Government has been working to ensure there is a robust pay equity scheme, and it’s clear that the legislative settings are not working as intended. However, the substantive policy in the bill is included, in fact, in Part 1.

Ricardo Menéndez March asked about the engagement with, I believe, the Minister of Immigration. I already answered that question during the debate in Part 1, and the Minister of Immigration is in Cabinet and was involved in those decisions.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Visitors

Japan—House of Representatives, Delegation

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Kiyoto Tsuji and his delegation, who are in the gallery, from the House of Representatives of Japan.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: On behalf of the Minister, the Government’s fiscal intentions are to restore fiscal discipline to this country and to meet all our objectives.

SPEAKER: I think we’ve got a slight problem here. I’ll just take advice from the Clerk about what happens here. It’s clear that the Minister is in the House and can answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely true that the Minister of Finance is now in the House. However, another Minister has already started answering the question. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen before, but it does create a somewhat complicated issue for the House in that a Minister who has answered the primary question should be subject to follow-up questions, not somebody else taking over midstream.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting view, but as the member will know from his long experience in this House, it is up to the Government to decide who answers any given question on the day.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is absolutely true. It is up to the Government as to who answers a primary question and any supplementary questions that flow from that. The Government have decided that Paul Goldsmith should answer these questions.

SPEAKER: No, the Government clearly decided that it was necessary for Paul Goldsmith to answer a question, but he can’t. He can’t answer for the nominated Minister who is now in the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: We could go on for a long time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We can indeed. If that is the case, then surely if a Minister is identified by the Government that they think should answer the primary question and the supplementary line of questioning goes in a direction that they weren’t anticipating, it’s not unreasonable now for the Government to ask that the Minister who is most appropriate to answer that question starts answering the questions midstream.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting view and I’m sure it would be the view that I’d take if I was in your position, but the Standing Orders are quite clear that the Minister is in the House. The Government has the right to nominate who answers questions. The primary, of course, is on notice, so the expectation would be that the content of that answer is well shared across the ministry.

Nancy Lu: What is required to achieve the Government’s fiscal strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Restraint is required. The Government is currently spending more than it is collecting in revenue. That is not sustainable as ongoing deficits must be funded by more and more borrowing. Fiscal consolidation is required to unwind structural deficits and, in the first instance, stop the rise in public debt as a proportion of the economy. It’s worth noting that the interest costs on New Zealand’s debt are already more than the combined amount of funding we are able to provide to the Police, the Defence Force, Customs, the Ministry of Justice, and Corrections combined. The Government is taking a deliberate medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation. This is not austerity. This is what you do to avoid austerity. The interest bill we are having to pay on the debt accumulated by the last Government means that our choices are more limited than they would otherwise be.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: $12 billion in tax cuts.

SPEAKER: The question’s about to be asked.

Nancy Lu: What levers does the Government have to drive fiscal consolidation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has two fiscal levers. One has the label “control spending”; the other has the label “increase taxes”. The Government’s focus is squarely on controlling spending, which, as a proportion of the economy, is still well above pre-2020 levels. I know others in this House, if they even care about the fiscal position, would go straight to the increased taxes lever. That would be a huge blow to households’ cost of living and to economic growth, just as the economy is coming out of a protracted downturn.

SPEAKER: I just make the point that yesterday I was quite firm with the Opposition members that they could not speculate inside a question, and speculating inside an answer is equally unacceptable.

Nancy Lu: How is the Government’s fiscal position affected by economic forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Government can control what it can control. However, some of the biggest changes to revenue and expenditure are outside the Government’s direct influence. The economy affects the amount of revenue the Government expects to receive. It also affects expenditure—for example, growth and benefits, superannuation, and finance costs are driven by economic variables. As I outlined in answer to the previous question, the interest bill which the Government faces on its debt is something which requires us to pay off over time. Of recent updates, a series of downside revisions to economic forecasts made the Government’s fiscal goals much more challenging to achieve. Despite this, we are still on track to deliver a surplus by the end of the forecast period.

SPEAKER: Just to reaffirm things for the Leader of the Opposition, who raised quite a legitimate question, Speakers’ ruling 199/1, brought down by Speaker Hunt in the year 2000, makes it very clear that if someone else answers a primary and then a Minister turns up, the Minister answers the supplementary questions.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister—maybe the Prime Minister will show up during this one—does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

SPEAKER: No, we’re going to stop, and we’ll start that again without the little quip.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: With the usual caveats, most certainly, yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, when he said the decision to take billions of dollars from working Kiwi women has nothing to do with the Budget, or David Seymour, when he said that decision has “saved the Budget”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the law change that is being restored—and it was changed in 2020 by all parties in this Parliament, who mistakenly made those changes because no settlement happened since then—we’re going back to the law of 2017 [Interruption]. Listen, you might learn something—listen, you might learn something. We’re going back to the 2017 law that saw nurses gain $2 billion. We believe that a lot of settlements being made now are settlements that should not be made, are wait and see, because all those past claims—35 cases—can be heard in the same way into the future but the law will be different.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Nicola Willis call the pay equity process a “sign of success” last year if it now needs dismantling, and is the Government’s real motive to balance the books at the expense of working Kiwi women?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, the motive of the Government is to ensure we’ve got a workable law that compares like with like. You cannot have all these professions that are just miles and miles away. Dare I say it, when you start talking about pay equity, the first thing you must understand where women are concerned is what a woman is.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his definition of a woman—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, I’ll just—sorry. There was a lot of noise during that question. We do want to have questions asked in silence. We can’t start to break that down. I’d ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is his definition of a woman someone who’s paid less than a man?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, my definition of a woman is not what that member said, “I’ll get back to you later.”, and still can’t describe it and said the other day that it was someone who said that they were a woman. No, if we’re going to deal with this issue properly, then let’s respect women, ensure that they get a fair go, and the—[Interruption].

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Pay them what they’re worth.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, in your case, it’ll be a quarter of what you’re getting now. There are women and women, you know. But, no, no—this shouting. If that member had any experience, she would know that she’s got all these supplementary questions to ask, but no, no, she shouts across Parliament every darn day from the front bench. Now, back to my point—back to my point—the experience of 2017 was that there were fair settlements. The experience since 2020 is that the law didn’t work. That’s why practical steps are being made. As for the comments on what it means, let’s see when the claims are over.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you. For absolute clarity, can you please confirm to the House that that answer was on behalf of the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: It’s not for me to clarify that; it’s for the person who’s answering the question to clarify it. Until that clarification comes from that person, it can’t be demanded by anybody else.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. With respect, sir, it is a requirement for Ministers to indicate when they are answering on behalf of other Ministers that they are doing so, and that is your responsibility to ensure that happens. Also, with respect, this is a point that I have made quite regularly with the Deputy Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and you have already ruled previously that he is.

SPEAKER: Well, I have in certain circumstances where he has made it clear. It’s for the House to determine. If someone stands up and speaks as a Minister, then that is where it sits. I can’t start telling them or demanding that they are speaking for someone else.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. It’s on notice—

SPEAKER: Yes, that is the point. That is the point, and think about what I’ve just said.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Deputy Prime Minister is not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, who’s he answering on behalf of?

SPEAKER: Well, you can make that conclusion yourself. He’s not answering it as the Minister of Foreign Affairs or as the Deputy Prime Minister; he’s answering as the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good, thank you, Mr Speaker. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women that the Government—supplementary? Sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s all right. I knew what you were doing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good, thank you. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women, as he claims, for the Government, under urgency, to unilaterally cancel pay equity claims covering hundreds of thousands of New Zealand women who are being paid less than men simply because they are women?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the last statement is categorically incorrect. The reality is we had all these—[Interruption] Do you want to hear the answer?

SPEAKER: I think—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Or do you want to hear your stupid voice?

SPEAKER: No, no.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You can’t have both.

SPEAKER: Mr Peters—[Interruption]. OK, look. It’s always an excitable time when the House is in urgency, but that’s no excuse for things to break down quite the way they are. So we’ll hear the balance of this question and answer exchange in silence. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, do you want to add to that answer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why do he and his Ministers keep denying the obvious, that this is about robbing Paula to pay Paul, stripping Kiwi women of fair pay to clean up Nicola Willis’ economic mess?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To quote someone: I refute the premises of that question. The second thing is that the law worked successfully in 2017, as evidenced by the settlements. But when the law doesn’t work, even though it was supported by every party in Parliament, our job when we make mistakes is to recognise that and fix it, and fix it we are. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Everyone quiet please.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding rapid transit in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Excellent news. A couple of weeks ago, I was proud to announce, alongside His Worship Mayor Wayne Brown, that faster, more frequent reliable public transport for Auckland’s north-west is one step closer with the New Zealand Transport Agency board endorsing the north-west rapid transit investment case. As members will know, the north-west of Auckland is home to 90,000 people, one of the city’s largest planned growth areas—100,000 people will live there by 2051. They deserve reliable, frequent public transport like other parts of Auckland do as well.

Dan Bidois: How will Aucklanders benefit from this project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This is a big project and a big win for the people of Auckland, particularly the north-west. Sixty percent of people in the north-west commute out of the area every day. Delivering the north-west busway will be a game-changer and build on the northern busway, the City Rail Link, and the Eastern Busway. We’ll be able to move 9,000 passengers per hour in each direction. It’s the equivalent of four motorway lanes and, when built, will provide 25-minute journey times from Brigham Creek to the city centre all day and every day.

Dan Bidois: Very good. Supplementary, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] What work is already—

SPEAKER: No, no. Sit down. You’ve made a comment rather than a question. We’ll move to question No. 4, Carmel Sepuloni.

Question No. 4—Women

4. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Women: Does she agree with the statement on the Ministry for Women website that “The majority (80%) of the gender pay gap is driven by harder to measure factors like conscious and unconscious bias and differences in choices and behaviours”; if so, how has this shaped her advocacy?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): In response to the first leg of the question, yes. I’d also agree with the statement on the website that Aotearoa New Zealand has a proud history of advancing equal rights, and the Equal Pay Act of 1972 “outlawed discrimination in wage rates between men and women performing the same job.”, and this still stands.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “this is a Government that’s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.”; if so, why has the Government pushed through legislation under urgency to stop women from making pay equity claims?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Of course, I always agree with the Prime Minister, and I’d like to elucidate for the member that this is positive news for women. This law change provides a very clear legal framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just stop. We’re not having that ongoing barrage like that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.

SPEAKER: Unusually, you didn’t say anything. But your colleagues certainly filled in for you, and almost matched your volume. Please, Nicola Grigg.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As I was saying, this law change provides, finally, a very clear legal framework for proving sex-based undervaluation and raising and resolving those claims. That can only be a good thing for women.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just wait for quiet, because it’s people behind you who are pretty excited.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement, from only 6 March this year, that “This Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act.”; if so, what has changed?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Of course I stand by my statement. I want to be clear to this House that this law change is not walking back equal pay or pay equity; we are making improvements to a failed system.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she advocate for a robust select committee process for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to allow women the chance to have their say, or is this bill so urgent that the Government doesn’t need to hear from women?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with Kristine Bartlett that “I feel as though women have just been let down so terribly today. It’s just so sad. I don’t know what is going to happen in this society.”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: What I would say to Ms Bartlett is that we are amending the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, more workable, and more sustainable.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is her top priority still to “support women to economic empowerment”, and, if so, how does undermining pay equity and cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce achieve this?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Yes, I do stand by that statement. Supporting women to economic empowerment is my number one priority as the Minister for Women.

SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Carl Bates.

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on, hang on. It’s a simple rule; if there’s a question being asked, don’t speak.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How come you’re looking at her, not the Minister who interjected at the end of her own question?

SPEAKER: I’m terribly sorry, I just assumed that there was a general noise coming from around the House, and I was wanting to affirm a position with your good self, given your vast experience in Parliament! Carl Bates.

Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear! Rules!

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: That’s right, Mr Jones, rules. Please be quiet.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government has been relentlessly focused on restoring law and order in New Zealand. We’re putting victims back in the heart of the justice system and we’re restoring real consequences for crime by taking a range of actions such as restoring three-strikes legislation, giving police more tools to effectively deal with gangs, and strengthening the sentencing regime. We have an ambitious agenda and we’re progressing at pace.

Carl Bates: What update can he provide on the Government’s violent crime reduction target?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on entering Government at the end of 2023, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey recorded 185,000 New Zealanders as being victims of violent crime over the preceding year; that is, victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults. The Government has focused the justice system on reducing that number and has set an ambitious target of reducing the number by 20,000 to 165,000 victims by 2029. I’m pleased to tell the House that the latest figure that was released recently is 157,000. That’s 8,000 fewer than our target for 2029. It’s still 157,000 victims too many, but it does show great progress.

Carl Bates: What impact does such good progress towards the violent crime reduction target have on New Zealanders?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, 28,000 fewer victims recorded between October 2023 and now is a statistic amongst a world of statistics. But each of those 28,000 people represent an individual that is spared from the trauma of violent crime—somebody’s son, daughter, husband, wife, partner, friend, or loved one. That’s why our Government has focused the justice system squarely on reducing the number of victims of crime.

Carl Bates: What is next in the Government’s plans?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government soon will be taking decisions to further strengthen consequences for crime by reforming the Crimes Act, and, in doing so, we’ll continue to receive and consider advice from the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, relating to strengthening trespass laws, addressing low-level offending, as well as progressing law changes to make the citizen’s arrest provisions sensible and effective.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: In all good tidings, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with his Minister of Conservation that “The richness of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biodiversity and our iconic landscapes are a source of great pride to New Zealanders. We need to focus our minds on protecting this taonga now and into the future”, and, if so, what is his Government doing to protect te taiao?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The one qualification as to the name of the country you’re speaking about, I agree with him totally.

Hon Marama Davidson: How long has he given the public to submit on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, which will allow developers to lawfully kill New Zealand’s protected wildlife?

SPEAKER: That’s a very specific question that might better be addressed to a select committee as opposed to a Minister. Ask a different one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I’m happy to answer it.

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. Right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Long enough for us to come up with some very sound, practical, and workable legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he see the irony in rushing through a bill to authorise the killing of wildlife when his own Government’s biodiversity implementation strategy, released on Monday, states that “New Zealand has one of the highest proportions of threatened species in the world”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, all members of this Government understand entirely what that member is talking about, but the reality is that this is a long programme over decades that we have been working on, and it’s nothing new that we don’t know, so to speak. But certain culling has to happen in the interest of the total number of species in this country. That’s just plain common sense.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does he expect the Department of Conservation to fulfil additional expectations, as proposed under his Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, when the director-general has already said “the department is not currently financially sustainable for what we are being asked to do”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer for that is to go and ask all those people around this country—and there are tens of thousands of them—who would be happy to contribute and help out the Department of Conservation on that very issue. That’s what sharing the burden looks like, and I can say there are thousands and thousands of New Zealanders, men and women, who would want to help now, and they’d not want to be paid for it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that without funding in the upcoming Budget, conservation work will continue to be chronically underfunded and reliant on private philanthropy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, this Government has never believed that tossing money around like an eight-armed octopus is the answer for everything.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can I ask, Acting Prime Minister, had previous Governments been responsible for numerous authorisations that had been issued for the incidental killing of wildlife, and also, does he have a concern that if we follow the recent judgment that’d stop this, the TV3 programme, a number of roading projects, and green infrastructure projects will be ceased?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That sounds different from culling.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, this is the truth now. With respect to both questions, on the first one, we most certainly agree; on the second one, thank you to the Minister for pointing out the abysmal record of the past that we are seeking to correct.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with Associate Finance Minister David Seymour that “I actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions. She’s saved the Budget for the Government.”; if so, what are the savings from the changes to pay equity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I understand from my colleague Mr Seymour that he was speaking as ACT leader when he made that statement, not associate finance Minister. The words the ACT leader chose are not what I would choose. I agree that changes being made to pay equity legislation will reduce the Crown’s expected future costs from pay equity settlements. There is some important context here and, as has been the practice with successive Ministers of Finance, it is my judgment that it is in accordance with the public interest to provide detailed information about this in the full context of the Budget. However, to help the member, I can confirm that there is a reduction in projected future costs to the Crown of several billion dollars. However, there are two reasons why the projected costs of pay equity settlements projected by the Treasury have been rising exponentially, and they are not all related to the changes in the bill which the Government is progressing. The first relates to the costs to the Crown as an employer. This Government intends to keep meeting those costs. Where claims are made that demonstrate that women employed by the Government have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, it is our Government’s intention to fully fund those settlements, and we will provide funding for that in our Budget—

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is also the Government’s intention to fully uphold settlements. You’re getting impatient but they want the information, I tell you—

SPEAKER: Yep, I am.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But the second issue relates to the way that the Government responds to claims made against private sector employers. The last Government established an expectation that those costs would be fully met by the Crown, and that is not our expectation.

SPEAKER: Yes, good. I think supplementaries from the Minister’s own side might help with that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When did she first receive advice by the New Zealand Treasury on the potential savings from changing the law to cancel 33 active pay equity claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have been receiving briefings about the projected future costs of pay equity settlements—as I recall—from within my first days as Minister of Finance, and what I do recall observing was that those projected costs were far, far greater than I had ever appreciated, and far greater than I think Parliament appreciated when it first passed the pay equity reforms in 2020. As I just said, this, in particular, related to a Cabinet decision made by the last Government that it would fully meet the costs of successful claims against private sector employers—that is to say, the taxpayer being a backstop for employers found to have discriminated against women on the basis of their gender.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that “We are committed to maintaining stability for New Zealanders by continuing to invest in essential front-line services.”, and, if so, how is cancelling the pay equity claim for 75,000 teachers investing in the front line?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by all my statements. As I have said, it remains the Government’s solemn commitment that where pay equity claims are proven against the Government as an employer—for example, as the employer of teachers—if a pay equity claim is proven, that teachers have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, then we will meet the costs of that settlement. It’s important to note that workforces advance their working conditions and pay through a number of channels. One of them is pay equity, and that should relate to gender discrimination. The other, second, very important channel is through normal bargaining; that’s how workers bargain for improved conditions and improved pay and, yes, I can confirm the Government has put aside funding in our Budget to meet the costs of future teacher bargaining.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What is she doing to assist the additional 9,000 women who are unemployed compared to this time last year, and how will cutting women’s pay incentivise them into work?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I object to the statement made in the latter half of that question, which is untrue. We are not doing that, because what the member is referring to is claims that have been made that have not been proven. Where there have been settlements, the Government is continuing to fully fund the upholding of those settlements, and, second, we are continuing to allow claims to progress where discrimination can be proved on the basis of gender. So those sorts of outlandish statements undermine the credibility of the member and her party.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Throughout this question, the Minister of Finance has given incredibly long answers that extended well beyond the scope of the question, including insulting the people who are asking the question. You’ve been quite hard on our side of the House today, and I simply ask that you apply that standard to the other side of the House and that Ministers answer the questions that they’re asked and they refrain from insulting the people who are asking what are very fair and legitimate questions about a bill that’s going through the House under urgency with no public scrutiny.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Thank you. Just before we hear from you, Mr Bishop—I will hear from you—I’d just ask the Leader of the Opposition to reflect that the last question that was asked was very wide of the wicket and it didn’t relate to any previous answer. I was about to stop it, but then thought, “No, it’s a big issue. Let it run on.” The Hon Chris Bishop—no? OK.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement from 2 May 2024 that “In the past few years, a substantial number of public sector claims have been settled and the taskforce has supported agencies to build up their expertise and knowledge of their obligations. It is a sign of success”; if so, what has changed since May 2024 that requires legislation to be passed under urgency before her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I stand by that statement because it remains the case that those settlements that have been reached will be upheld but also it is the case that the expertise that was built up by public servants through the claims process is partly what has informed the Government’s decision to refine this Act, because what we found was that claims were being able to be progressed across a range of issues that went beyond the intended scope as it related to discrimination on the basis of sex. Finally, what I would make clear is that we are passing this legislation under urgency in order to provide absolute clarity and in order for claims to once again be submitted. It is not the case that this is required for the Budget, because, actually, the decisions made by Cabinet were enough to put the financial implications into the Budget. The legislation did not need to be passed in order for that to happen.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What claims were outside the scope of the legislation that required the legislation to now change urgently before her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it’s long been a practice of this House that we won’t make legal judgments about which claims may or may not be successful in future.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is more important: saving her Budget, or ensuring women are paid enough?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation in the first part of the question. In answer to the second part of the question, I stand by the statements I have made for several years, which is that I wish to see women be advanced and I wish to see them have equal rights and opportunities to men. It remains my view that women don’t always have equal rights and opportunities to men, and that is why we are entrenching a workable pay equity regime that, by the way, is one of the most progressive in the world, as it stands, in the legislation we’re advancing today, so that where women are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, they can make claims and have them settled.

Question No. 8—Mental Health

8. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made supporting Women’s Refuge through the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Last week, I announced that the Women’s Refuge—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry—everyone can calm right down.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the Women’s Refuge was the latest recipient of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund. The funding will support 250 advocates based within the 41 women’s refuges across New Zealand. Over the past five years, Women’s Refuge has supported, on average, 15,000 women per year. This funding will help Women’s Refuge better support these women and children in their time of need.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund support Women’s Refuge?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The funding will support Women’s Refuge to upskill their staff and improve connections with local mental health services and referral pathways. The feedback I often hear about mental health services is that they are too hard to navigate because the system is too disjointed and people don’t know where to go. This funding will help Women’s Refuge to join up the system to make it more accessible to those in need. Government funding will be match-funded to total over $1 million to deliver this initiative.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has the Minister received on this recent announcement?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said, “This is a project that we wouldn’t have been able to look at without this funding, … [and] it would have been impossible without”. I had a message from Bethany, who said, “This is awesome to hear. Our Women’s Refuge centres across the country do amazing work. I hope the funding will be spread to the regional centres.” I’m happy to tell Bethany and the House that this funding will support Women’s Refuge across the country and all of the 41 Women’s Refuge centres. I’m proud that we’re able to help Women’s Refuge support women and families in their time of need.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What other organisations have benefited from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund, and what changes has he made to round two of the fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: So far, we’ve been able to support MATES in Construction, the Mental Health Foundation, Youthline, Wellington City Mission, Rotorua’s Youth One Stop Shop, Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and there are still further announcements to come. Round two of the fund will also see a lower limit required from $250,000 per application to $100,000. This means more front-line services will benefit, but the real winners are New Zealanders looking to access timely mental health and addiction support.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. 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 WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did his Government choose to pass the pay equity amendment legislation under urgency, bypassing public and expert input and good lawmaking practice?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The judgment of that question, at the conclusion, is demonstrably false. It demonstrates that the person knows nothing about industrial relations law and doesn’t understand that, at the very bottom of where the labour unions and others are, we made our consideration way back then on the question of minimum wages. Now, the fact is that we need one system for all claimants. We did not need the confusion that arose after 2020, so we’re going back to a system in 2017, which worked so successfully that the then claimants got $2 billion.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If we are to believe the Prime Minister that the pay equity amendment is about a more robust and workable system, why has his Government chosen to unexpectedly announce and pass the law under urgency, without any chance for public or expert engagement or scrutiny, in just two sitting days?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the famous words of William Shakespeare, if the deed should be done, it had better be done quickly.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is not robust and workable about the current pay equity scheme?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What’s not robust about the current pay equity scheme is that you’ve got all sorts of illogical comparisons, with no relativity whatsoever, and that’s one of the reasons why the claims have been dragged out these last five years. We want to have the system fixed, and remember: some of us have got a record in terms of fair pay, superior to any other people in this Parliament. That’s our record, and so I’m certain that, when it’s over, as the Minister of Finance has warned over and over and over again, there will be a fiscal impact. Why don’t we wait and see what the findings are?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is the purpose of making the pay equity process more difficult and cancelling 33 active claims, representing hundreds of thousands of women in this country’s lowest-paid industries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Nothing has been cancelled, to the extent that they can revive all those claims under the new regime. It’s so simple: we’re going back to a law that worked before some misguided politicians—unfortunately, far too many—changed the law and it didn’t work.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Thomas Coughlan of the New Zealand Herald, who said about her changes to pay equity legislation that “It is deeply wrong that Parliament can take away that work in a matter of hours”; if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): May I start by making something very clear: this Government is committed to maintaining a pay equity regime, and none of the changes this Government is making undo the hard work of Kristine Bartlett, whose work Thomas Coughlan was referring to. This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on a minute. If there’s going to be concern about the answer to a question, I need to be able to hear it, and there’s too much noise for me to be able to hear that. Please carry on.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. We will continue to have an Equal Pay Act to address cases of genuine sex-based discrimination. We are continuing to allow anyone to raise a pay equity claim. What we are doing is making the system more robust, workable, and sustainable. On that basis, I do not agree with Thomas Coughlan’s characterisation. However, I do agree with a different journalist’s characterisation, which was Mike Hosking from this morning. His article said, “Reform for the Pay Equity Act is good.” [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just stop. Just wait till the excitement settles down. [Interruption] Now, just wait—I said just wait.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: He said, “Kristine Bartlett was, to many, a hero. She was a very likeable woman. She was a caregiver who argued her work was undervalued and she deserved more. The Labour Party who love ‘feels’ and are not exactly unfamiliar with the unions and leapt all over it and the Equal Pay Act … was born. The downside was how to compare this so-called ‘underpaid work’ like in nursing homes [etc.] … They decided at the time comparing mechanics to rest home workers made sense, even though it didn’t, and doesn’t. [And] That’s why Brooke van Velden has announced pay equity is going to be, quite rightly, tipped up and sorted out.”

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why is she mandating that pay equity claims can only use comparators from the same industry when the very point of pay equity claims is to highlight that female-dominated industries are less valued than male-dominated industries?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The reason why we are introducing the hierarchy of comparators is so that we have greater confidence in the pay equity system rightly identifying issues of genuine sex-based undervaluation. We start at home, making a comparison with people who work within the same company or employer. If there is no comparison with people who have a different but similar work environment, a different employer—if there is no comparator there, within the same sector but not across industry. This means that we can have greater confidence that we are picking up genuine sex-based undervaluation and not other labour market forces and things like inflation.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Did she compare social workers to air traffic controllers because she fundamentally believes that work done mostly by women is inherently less valued than work done by mostly men?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, I did because they do it themselves.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she think “very real and significant cost reductions to Government.” is a price only women should pay for?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, I believe women should be paid for their work. Every woman in this Cabinet believes women should be paid for their work. What we don’t agree with are muddied laws. We have laws that Labour pushed through that have made pay equity confused with things like collective agreements; confused with inflation; confused with other labour market forces, things like technological change, demographic change—a whole range of labour market forces. If you genuinely believe in gender-based and sex-based discrimination being stamped out, then you would support this bill, because that’s exactly what it does.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether the questioner, who is a primary school teacher, has told her as to who gave primary school teachers—massively filled with women in that population—pay parity?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how is that question in order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because you’re looking at it; that’s why.

SPEAKER: No, hang on a minute. I’m not about to dissect the question, but in the context of the question that is asked, in the context of the supplementaries that I’ve been listening to very carefully, because the answers have been lengthy, it’s not an unreasonable question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely unreasonable to refer to the background, the prior employment, of any member in a question to a Minister. How is that in any way in order? It is a complete departure from the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can be very helpful.

SPEAKER: Well, we’re not going to go on too long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality is that the teaching profession in more recent years has massively become more the province of women than men, it’s sad to say. But the reality is I was just trying to make the point that this person, who has an experience as a headmistress of a primary school, was the—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Principal.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, well, the principal—same thing. There’s a lot of ranges of the way to describe them. Some still describe themselves as headmistress. Not everybody’s like that person: confused about what a woman is. But the point here is that they were the beneficiary of pay parity.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Mr Speaker, I’m willing to attempt to answer the question.

SPEAKER: I think everybody in the House—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. I think everybody in the House already knows the answer, so we won’t be hearing it. Point of order?

Hon Jan Tinetti: Well, I was just going to say, how does that Minister have responsibility for pay parity and giving it to teachers?

SPEAKER: I’ve just said I think we know the answer. The question’s not going to be answered as it was being asked. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Jan Tinetti: Yes, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that this gender pay gap, as it currently stands, simply isn’t wide enough?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I believe that the gender pay gap and pay equity are separate concepts. The gender pay gap has far more individualistic elements to do with career choices, time away from work, part-time work. Pay equity is about systemic sex-based undervaluation, not on an individual scale but on a workforce-wide scale.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is her message to Kiwi women whose work is undervalued that they should just suck it up and work harder to grow the economy?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My message to women who believe they are undervalued is that this Government does value women. We believe in having a pay equity system that is fair, that is workable, and that is sustainable. That is not changing. People can still make claims, but if we genuinely believe in stamping out sex-based undervaluation, everybody should be in favour of being able to correctly identify it.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is she comfortable that taking the women’s movement backwards by decades will be her political legacy?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My political legacy shouldn’t be the focus of that member. She should focus on doing her job. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Are we all right?

Hon Member: No, I’d like to keep going.

SPEAKER: Well, if some people need to let a bit of steam out, leave the House and just let it go out in the fresh air somewhere.

Question No. 11—Children

11. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that “increased reporting also shows that people feel like they can report their concerns to Oranga Tamariki or other government agencies and that these reports are being captured and actioned”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank people who do make reports of concern and remind everyone, whether you’re a teacher, neighbour, family member, or anyone else: if you see something, please say something. I also want to acknowledge the social workers who are the ones picking up the phone, responding to safety concerns, and working alongside children and young people and their families and communities. The work of Oranga Tamariki front-line staff needs to be recognised.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What urgent action is she taking to ensure that every child reported to Oranga Tamariki is assigned a social worker without delay, including the 1,000 tamariki who are currently sat on a waiting list?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I understand the unallocated cases of young children are sitting at a high number of around 1,300, we cannot pretend that this is a new issue. This has been an issue for a very long time. But what I can say is I’m really proud of the hard work of our front-line social workers who have managed to keep that number the same, even with a massive increase of reports of concern.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What reassurance can she offer to the over 300 care and protection social workers who are dealing with a caseload of more than 20 tamariki, especially when work protocol requires intervention at this stage?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are many measures that have been put in place. We have been trialling support staff alongside front-line staff workers to help with work that isn’t necessarily required by a social worker. I am out on the front line talking to as many of these people as I possibly can to hear what the concerns are region to region, because a one-size-fits-all model doesn’t work. I’m out listening to see how we can make a difference.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How is the Minister ensuring that the 45 percent rise in reports of concern is matched with sufficient resourcing so that tamariki are not left vulnerable and at risk due to unmanageable workloads?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think I referred to that in my previous answer. I can’t snap my fingers and fill a vacancy. There are vacancies available, but we are also working alongside other measures to support our front-line staff.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How is the Minister addressing the increasing pressures of a cost of living crisis, rising stress levels, and cuts to social services that the Children’s Commissioner has identified as contributing to the rise in reports of concern?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That’s a massive assumption to make—that assumption as to the reasons behind the reports of concern.

Question No. 12—Regional Development

12. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What reports has he seen on regional development in Northland?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): I was particularly glad to read a report recently that Australians have secured a prospecting permit to explore for minerals in a part of Northland that has a bad problem with P. Opportunities are very narrow for the young people. Sadly, however, it elicited a response of “humbug hapū”, who would rather do nothing. I am not going to tolerate the hobbling of the minerals sector because of fanciful ideas from hapū leaders who are more interested in sovereignty than genuine mahi.

Tanya Unkovich: What plans does the Government have to reindustrialise Northland?

Hon SHANE JONES: At Marsden Point, the Government, through following up on the coalition agreement, is moving ahead with the creation of a drydock facility. It’ll be a landmark project. It’s part of a grand vision that our Government has for the regions. This facility will address an omission in our broader economic infrastructure, and, at the moment, we are talking to a range of parties. It is these concrete developments that give regional New Zealand confidence, not people protesting about sand when they live in houses made of concrete.

Tanya Unkovich: What plans does the Government have to increase economic resilience in Northland?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m sure everyone in Parliament agrees that energy is an ongoing affordability problem. Security continues to challenge us as we go into every winter. Indeed, it was only today that Methanex have announced a partial closedown in an arrangement with Contact Energy, to ensure that secure flows of energy keep the lights on. To that end, an energy bridge is contemplated in Northland. Prior to any final decision, a sum of money has been allocated to ensure that the costs of this project are robust and don’t suffer any problems with either inflation or non-delivery. It’s this type of transmission development and transmission investment that gives confidence to investors and garden variety Kiwis.

Tanya Unkovich: Why is reinvigorating Northland so critical for New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are nigh on 190,000 to 200,000 New Zealanders who call this part of New Zealand home. It’s proximate to Auckland and can create a larger flow of energy, sorely needed, but it is also, as we’ve seen in Kaikohe, a sad indictment on the recent history in New Zealand that meth and the associated criminality has been allowed to spread as some type of cancer. The leader of the Ngāpuhi tribe, Mane Tahere, a bright young man, said, “The police are not the enemy of Māoridom. The police ought not to be defunded, and Ngāpuhi do not believe that.” That is why we are standing strong for the rule of law, the reinvigoration of energy, and to drive the people who peddle P and sell delusions that the police should be defunded out of public life.

SPEAKER: Just before we come to end of question time, I might just ask the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage what that badge is that’s on his jacket.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Mr Speaker, I can inform the House that it is New Zealand Music Month, and that is the badge.

SPEAKER: Well, I thought you could say something more than that!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): And it is an occasion to celebrate the quality of New Zealand music, from Shihad to Devilskin to Lorde, to all those great players, and this is a month when we celebrate that.

SPEAKER: And how is that being celebrated here in Parliament today?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): By the wearing of this badge, Mr Speaker—and also, because we have people from Rockquest at a function at 6 o’clock, which I think all members should attend.

SPEAKER: Well, that took a while to get to! I’d ask other members who have to go off to other duties to leave quietly.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, before the lunch break, the committee was considering the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and was debating Part 2, the “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question again is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are two issues I want to discuss with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first one goes back to a discussion we were having before the lunch break, obviously in Part 2, and I was asking questions about why we’re forming views, rather than forming a view. In relation to amended section 13E—so amended section 13E is different from replacement section 13F. My first question is if the bill was referring to the right section, because 13E, under the legislation as it stands at the moment, is that “Unions and employees may raise pay equity claims”. Then replacement section 13F is the “Meaning of arguable”. Of course, one of the things this bill does is changes the vocab, so we go from “arguable” to “has merit”. We had a lot of discussion—not enough discussion, but some discussion—in Part 1 about those changes to 13F, about the merits.

So when I was reading these sections—both clause 54, which is the amendment to section 82 of the Public Service Act, and also clause 52, which is amending section 161 of the Employment Relations Act—I read it as if it was referring to section 13F, which is what is the meaning of a merit based or an “arguable” claim, as opposed to what is it to do with “Unions and employees may raise pay equity claims”. There might be quite a simple answer to that, but I do want to check that the reference to section 13E of the Equal Pay Act 1972 in both clause 54 and clause 52 is the correct one—that it’s the correct letter; that it’s E and not F. In my reading of it, it would make a lot more sense if it was F. So that’s my first question—quite a simple question there: is it E or F?

My second question goes to comments that the Minister has made in some of her answers just before the lunch break. She referenced that there was a robust parliamentary process happening now with this all-stages urgency bill that we didn’t see until the Minister started speaking on it. In her contributions, she also mocked my colleague Camilla Belich and asked the world to see some of the contributions and amendments that she was making and was very derisive of those comments. I ask the Minister if she understands that we are in an all-stages urgency process and this is the only opportunity we have to ask questions about this.

Normally, a bill goes to a select committee. She will know that there is normally a six-month process, whereby people have the opportunity to make submissions; not only that, members of Parliament have access to officials and can ask officials questions. We have not had that opportunity here. Whenever I have asked questions during this debate and the Part 1 debate about whether advice has been sought—we’ve had questions about evidence; we’ve asked for examples—we have not got any answers. We do not have a regulatory impact statement, yet the Minister takes the opportunity to make a call, mocking the people asking very reasonable questions and, of course, suggesting changes to the legislation—the Minister’s legislation that we do not like. We say: “Your legislation is going to result in fewer people”—your legislation, Minister; not the Chair’s legislation. This legislation in the Minister’s name is going to result in fewer pay equity claims. That is the point of this legislation.

So of course we are going to take every opportunity to try and amend this terrible legislation that we think is a disgrace. Why is it that the Minister would take an opportunity to mock members doing that? Does she understand that it is very unusual and goes against our constitutional conventions to pass such important legislation where there is no urgency, there is no emergency, in all stages without an opportunity for the public to have any say?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that does deserve a response. Look, my suggestion that we were having a robust parliamentary process is potentially too generous if the member does not believe that the contributions from her side have been robust. I believe that it’s the place for this Parliament, to have robust contributions and debate.

In response to the suggestion that my comments were mocking the Labour member prior to the lunch break, that was not my intention. I simply suggested we should look at the oddity that it is the Labour Party that believes in pay equity and wants people to have pay in their pockets, but, at the same time, it was putting forward a contribution to extend the time frame for when workers would receive that money. I think all members of our community external to these walls would be interested in that contribution.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think, as this has come up a number of times by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety herself, it deserves to be addressed. The amendment that I was proposing, which we have traversed, was to allow the period of time where payments could be received to be longer. That could result in more payments to people in pay equity claims. I don’t think that’s inconsistent with any principle that the Labour Party may have. Personally, I take issue with that Minister criticising the Labour Party for our commitment to pay equity. This is a Minister who has implemented a higher threshold for raising claims; this is a Minister who has put in an Act that nullifies review clauses; this is a Minister who is making equal pay claimants wait 10 years; this is a Minister who is removing the authority’s ability to order back-pay, and she has the cheek to suggest that it is the Labour Party who was working against underpaid women. I take issue with that. I do not think it’s correct. I think if she is looking for someone to blame for women not getting equal pay, she should look in the mirror. That is my response to that.

I also have some questions for the Minister. We have previously discussed parts of the first part of Part 2, which refers to the Employment Relations Act, and I did ask, and I haven’t heard the answer yet, as to whether the Education and Workforce Committee would be able to work on looking at this bill, which I think we have established has a number of outstanding questions on it. I have not heard the answer to that yet.

But I do want to move to ask some questions around the amendments to the Public Service Act, which has been changed. Now, I have asked the Minister in previous forums, including select committee, about her responsibilities as the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, and I have to say I am not sure that the actions that she is taking are really within the spirit of the 1972 Act in making the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety responsible for that.

The question I have in relation to the Public Service Act is that often when I’ve asked her in the past about equal pay claims, she has said that she is not responsible for them and that she would like Ministers who have more direct engagement with specific pay equity claims to be responsible for answering that question. So I wanted to ask her, in relation to the changes to the Public Service Act, did she—because she appears to dislike taking responsibility for these claims and in fact is extinguishing all of them—consider making other Ministers responsible for pay equity claims that may come within their ambit? For example, the Minister for the Public Service could be responsible for the implementation of pay equity claims within the Public Service Act, and we are talking about proposed amendments to the Public Service Act. So would the Minister consider changing the responsibility in relation to that and perhaps to some other Minister who perhaps may not extinguish the claims which have been filed under the Act that she’s responsible for? I have asked that question, and I would appreciate an answer to that.

In this particular section, which is clause 54, Part 2, there is also an additional change which looks to—I believe, and I’d appreciate some clarity on this—“whether the claim is arguable” or whether it “meets all the requirements set out in … the Equal Pay Act 1972” and has merit. This is worded slightly differently to the way that the “arguable” and “merit” distinction, which is in Part 1 of the Act, is worded, from memory, and I wanted to ask whether there is consistency throughout all the three Acts when it looks at the “arguable” principle, which of course has been replaced now by “merit”.

So those are the questions I have in relation to that particular part of Part 2 in relation to the Public Service Act changes, and I’d appreciate if the Minister would answer them.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll just quickly respond to the technicality raised by Rachel Brooking in response to her question as to whether the reference should be section 13E or section 13F. I can confirm the officials’ advice: the reference to section 13E is correct.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on replacement section 33, inserted by clause 51. Now, understanding that when we are looking at section 33(2)(d), which is currently being repealed in this bill, in the Employment Relations Act it’s specifically pertaining to the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim settlement.

Now, the reason we have the allowance for a review, and particularly done by authority, is it is another way of not being challenged, for example, by a judicial review. So, in the context of this, without the ability to have a review as a part of a mandate by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), what are the alternatives? Has the Minister anticipated there will then be an increase in the number of judicial reviews that potentially will have to be challenged as a result of a lack of review via these means? Is that something that has been anticipated?

Because, again, when we are looking at judicial reviews or even for some instances according to judicial review, it does provide an additional level of complexity and also of legality that people will have to go through in order to challenge a particular decision that is being made. Usually when we’re looking at the review by the ERA, we’re potentially looking at decisions as well as the process itself. I’m sure the Minister knows the difference between judicial review and also a review by an authority.

But, yeah, I just want to check with the Minister, has that been a consideration that’s been made—that the removal of the ability to review by the ERA would increase the number of potential judicial reviews that we will see?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Look, I just wanted to go back to the query made by Camilla Belich about whether I’d considered making other Ministers responsible for the pay equity claims. The only changes being made to the Public Service Act in this bill are consequential. I have not considered any substantive change to that system and I still remain the Minister responsible for the Equal Pay Act.

In response to the query as to the statements I’ve made in select committee about my responsibilities, it’s true that I’m not responsible for the individual claims that people can take. So my comments through select committee are still true. I’ve always suggested, however, that I’m responsible for the legislation but not the claims that people can make.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first opportunity to ask a question on Part 2 of the bill. It relates specifically to new subpara 161(1)(qd)(va), inserted into section 161 by clause 52(6), where it talks about particulars of phases that the authority is able to rule on. I understand there have been questions on this, but my questions are different because they relate specifically to the scope. So this is about the scope of the authority’s powers, particularly in relation to the words “the particulars of those phases”.

So my questions are, really: does that relate to how payments are made and the timing of the payments? What about confidentiality and what about any impacts or legal status of non-disclosure agreements that are signed? What kind of relationships would those non-disclosure agreements have if they were already in existence with the authority’s scope as it relates to the particulars of the phases?

I’m thinking here about what kind of rights are available, because, currently, most of the rights are limited to de novo rights—but is this something different? I’m thinking about what happens if something goes wrong and what kind of appeal rights would be available. So would this relate to another form of tribunal or court? Will it rely on precedents of the case work that has already happened under the authority’s scope in the existing legislation? Or does this have a new level of scope and, therefore, no precedent to inform it?

Quite technical questions, but really important, given that we’re in new territory here and we want to understand the scope of the authority in this subsection.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked about clause 51 and if we can’t have reviews, what are the alternatives and will it increase judicial review action—the question is not actually about the change in Part 2; it’s about the removal of the ability to include review clauses in settlements, which is part of Part 1, which we did debate at length. As I’ve covered many times, settlements will be able to be re-raised after 10 years.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. A very short question going back to an early contribution I made about clause 52(7), the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii). Paragraph (viii) is about the start date, but is that section repealed because it relates to the reviews as well? I’m asking this because, of course, that section links back to other pieces of the Act—I think the Acting Prime Minister made reference to the tentacles of an octopus today—and it does take some time to work out how all these bits and pieces are linked to each other. That’s my first question.

My second question is, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in response to my earlier contribution, talked about the term “robust”—in a robust legislative process—and challenged me: did we not think we were making enough of a contribution to be robust? We never can, in Opposition, when we do not have the ability to access advisers, be as robust as we can be in a select committee process, where we can hear submissions and ask questions of advisers. So my question there is: does she accept that a process whereby the Opposition have no access to advisers can never be as robust as one where we can?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. My question is from genuine confusion, and I apologise if it turns out that I just simply don’t understand. But, again, I take the point that my friends made: that this is extremely difficult in this particular context. We just simply don’t have time to make sure that we’ve got the detail right.

If the Minister for Workplace and Relations has a look at page 29, Part 2—so it’s clause 52(7). It says, “Repeal section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii)”. What I understand that is about is the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority. But it says it’s going to repeal it. So it looks like the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority will no longer be exclusive on these matters. Can I confirm that I am right, in which case is there another body where this will be able to go through, or have I just simply got that wrong? I’d just like to understand why we’re repealing that and what the impact of that repeal is. It really does relate to what’s going on here, and so it marries in with where do things go from here—is this an exclusive right? I can see your advisers looking into that; thank you.

I might spend the remainder of my time just asking about clause 54. Again, it comes back to this issue about the use of the word “merit” in that context. I did ask about merit in a previous question, and I made sure that the Minister was aware it was also in this clause. I was actually talking about a clause above—52(2), on the use of the term “merit”. I ask the Minister to consider using a more neutral term. Talking about the matter as having merit or not leads people into a situation where they think it has no merit. I remind the Minister that I talked about situations where maybe there’s 68 percent who are women, so they don’t get to the threshold, and when we say in plain language that case has no merit, it’s not actually correct—is it?—because it has lots of merit.

So is there a way that we could reword this clause along with the other one, and what’s wrong with doing that? If we reword it in a way that says “has not met the thresholds in section whatever”, we would actually move away from the idea of merit. Now, I understand that the term “merit” is used in the first part, but do you think that we could, in this situation, use something that’s more neutral so we were not telling women all over the country who had been disadvantaged and discriminated against that they had no merit in their case? Particularly with regard to this section, I’d like an answer on that, because we’re talking here about the Public Service Act, but I haven’t had an answer to the first question either that’s related. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question is in Part 2 in relation to clause 51, “Section 33 amended (Duty of good faith requires parties to conclude collective agreement unless genuine reason not to)”. I just have a couple of questions in relation to that particular point.

I think it’s important to understand—first of all, I’d like to know what consultation has taken place in that space, but specifically in terms of what analysis the Government got hold of or what even were the workplaces or the employers who were consulted in the development of some of the changes here in clause 51, but also in part of that Part 2. I think it would be really useful, because I’ve had emails on this; there are a lot of women and workplaces who are contacting us now to understand the implications for them. I think this represents the difficulty with not having a select committee process, which is that now we are trying to funnel in a whole range of people’s views. What employer groups, if any, were consulted prior to taking this decision and what are the sectors most likely to be impacted by this section and what is the work that’s gone on in that space?

I think it’s really important to understand that if you are talking about good faith between employees and employers, then undertaking these changes significantly undermines that good faith between employee and employer. It is really important to understand if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety did undertake any consultation. We’ve already been asked if the Ministry for Women has been involved. I understand they haven’t, but what other consultation has taken place in that space?

I do know that this question has been asked, but it is incredibly important, and I don’t think we have had an answer, so I’m going to ask it again. I would like to understand what advice did the Minister receive specifically in relation to those existing free-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and the UK. We know there are specific implications in there, in terms of our stance on pay equity, and I did want to understand whether that had been covered off or not.

The final question that I would like to hear from the Minister on is that while we have discussed in terms of good faith and the impact upon women’s wages, we don’t have a regulatory impact statement. So I’m asking: what happens in terms of the existing child poverty reduction targets and has there been any analysis done by either the Treasury or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that would give further insights into the impact on the existing child poverty reduction targets?

Now, these sorts of frameworks, this sort of analysis is always done as a part of the regulatory impact statement. It is absolutely shocking that we have a bill from the ACT Party, who set up the Ministry for Regulation, who’s put forward such a fundamental bill that changes the whole framework of pay equity for women, and there is zero analysis in terms of regulatory impact for New Zealanders.

So I think it is completely justified that we ask these questions about what consultation was undertaken with other employers, what advice was received in terms of the impacts on fair-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and UK, and also what is the impact on those child poverty reduction targets that are monitored. Even though they have been changed under this Government, they still exist. Those sort of fundamental parts of analysis should have been provided as part of the regulatory impact statement. So I would ask the Minister to fill in some of the gaps that she has left wide open as a result of not having that important analysis in terms of what the impacts will be on New Zealand women as a result of this legislation.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take a shorter contribution to get through a few of these questions.

Firstly, to the question from Ingrid Leary about section 161(1)(qd)(v)—“What are the authority’s powers in relation to the confidentiality and legal status of non-disclosure agreements and appeal rights?”—this clause is a consequential amendment. Part 1 sets out the requirement in relation to the pay equity system, and the Employment Relations Act sets out the authority’s powers generally. Those are unchanged.

Rachel Brooking and Helen White both had a similar question around the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii), related to review rights, and this reflects the change made in Part 1 that related to the ability of the authority to include back-pay in determinations. As the authority’s ability to make back-pay has been removed in Part 1, the reference to that has been removed in the Employment Relations Act also. The authority’s exclusive jurisdiction in relation to Equal Pay Act disputes remains.

Helen White also then had a question about whether I would consider the use of a more neutral term than “merit”. No; I can say I won’t be doing that. Merit is defined already in Part 1, which we’ve already voted on, and this change reflects that in Part 2 for consistency.

Ginny Andersen has made queries about clause 51—what consultation in place of “relation to good faith”? Clause 51 is, once again, a consequential amendment from Part 1, and I consider I have covered questions about the consultation in that part. I’ve answered questions about the international obligations in relation to the bill in that part, as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll just note, at the moment, that this is a relatively short part, and I have been crossing out questions as they’ve been asked. I’ve got lots of marks on my page, so I’ll be looking for new material from here on.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m hoping for a short contribution. Thank you for allowing me to take a short contribution here. I want to ask in particular about new Part 2, “Provisions relating to Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025”, in the Schedule, and my question is around clause 9, on claims relating to employees and work—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, we’ve already—

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Oh, that’s been covered? That’s my specific question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We debated the Schedule as part of Part 1.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Is this not part of Part 2—this Schedule?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, the Schedule was in Part 1.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m so grateful to be able to take a call on this question, which is quite a small, technical, and detailed question. It has not been asked, but, in my view, is quite critical, actually, because this is around certainty for those who are going into this kind of process. It’s looking at the change of words in amended section 82(3)(a) inserted by clause 54 where it’s replacing the words, and I quote, “forming a view on whether the claim is arguable” with “forming views on whether the claim meets all requirements”, etc.

Now, I know it’s a small distinction but “forming a view” in legal terms is quite different than “forming views” followed by an “and” and then having a subsequent hurdle to get through which is “whether the claim has merit”.

So my question to the Minister is: why was the change in language from “forming a view” to “forming views” made, and what views would need to be formed or would be tolerated—could there be different views in meeting that part of the sentence—and then going on to “whether the claim has merit”, or does it have to equate to forming a single view with a single mind? If that is the case, why didn’t the words stay the same?

I’m wondering, actually, if the answer from the Minister is going to be that they have the same effect, is this an example of maybe sloppy drafting because it’s been done in a hurry? If it is being done deliberately, which I would hope is the case because they are quite different, I think, in effect then I would like to ask some further questions so we can really tease out the difference between what this provision will do when this bill is passed compared to what it is now.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll take that last contribution first. I’ve already answered that query; it was made by one of your colleagues just before. It’s based on multiple views of the employer, but you can find that reference because your colleague already asked that one.

Ginny Andersen: what happens in terms of existing poverty reduction targets and the analysis done? The changes made by this bill are intended to improve the pay equity system, but I note that the question relates to a policy that was debated in Part 1.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Two quick questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I acknowledge the answer just then, that the Minister’s answered, and given the same answer, about the views—the “S”—and the employers, but it would be good if she could expand on that answer and—

Ingrid Leary: Relates to the question.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —how, yes, as my colleague is saying, it relates to the rest of the sentence and why the “employers” is different in clause 54 with the views to, back up the page, in clause 52(1)(ia) when it’s talking about “all requirements”. That would be useful for the Hansard.

Then I also want to ask a different question, and that is—I take the Minister’s point that everything that we’ve discussed so far has been consequential, and I’ve been trying not to raise policy issues because of that, but I do need to ask, in terms of the review clauses that have been discussed and the retrospective nature of this, if she agrees with a statement around the rule of law: “the law should be clear and accessible; the law should not adversely affect rights and liabilities, or impose obligations, retrospectively”. Does she agree with that statement?

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a question in relation to Part 2 of the bill that relates to those consequential amendments. Clause 8 provides that on the commencement—are we on to that? No, no we’re not, sorry.

In terms of the consequential amendments, particularly those that amend section 33 of the Employment Relations Act, that requires parties for collective bargaining to conclude a collective agreement unless there was a genuine reason not to. So, as I understand it, at present, section 33(2)(d) provides that “the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim settlement” is not a genuine reason to complete a collective agreement. That provision, in fact, is repealed. It is redundant in this Act because it removes those review processes from pay equity claim settlements.

This is the particular issue that we are getting repeated people emailing in about. I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: has she considered having another opportunity—seeing this impacts on so many women and the outcry that we are seeing right across email, social media, and other channels we receive—that people are asking to have a say, particularly on areas that take away that ability to review a pay equity claims settlement? So I would like the Minister to take into consideration if there is any possibility at all for her to have a window opened for women in New Zealand to be able to have their voices heard on an issue that directly impacts women that are underpaid already in New Zealand. If she could respond to that, I would be very grateful.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’ve reflected on Rachel Brooking’s query and wish to expand on “view” versus “views”, which I’ve done twice in the Chamber today. Clause 54 talks about “views”. It is “views” because it is both a view on if “the claim meets all requirements … in section 13E”—so that’s the first—and if “the claim has merit”, which is the second. When the bill says, “a view”, it is because only one thing is being considered.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete clause 54 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to the vote on the Schedule.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete new clause 8(1) and (2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care and support workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care and support front-line managers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for social services workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for university library workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for university administration workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections probation officers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections psychologists be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Awanui Labs workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Artificial Limb Service workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for residential schools workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for local government library workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Public Service admin/clerical be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for workers in residential schools is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for early learning teachers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for tertiary education administration and clerical worker be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for service managers in the Ministry of Education be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for teacher (PS and ECEA is funded sector) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Tracey McLellan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for education advisers (learning support) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Tracey McLellan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for psychologists employed by the Ministry of Education be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care support workers 2 (lodged in 2023) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for social service workers at NGOs be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim 1 for Public Service administration and clerical workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for tertiary education library assistants be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim 2 for Public Service administration and clerical workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Public Service administration and clerical workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for front-line managers and co-ordinators in funded health be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care support workers (lodged in 2022) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Plunket nurses and clinical workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Plunket administration and clerical workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Access community nurses be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for community midwives in primary birthing units be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for primary care administration workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Labtest Awanui workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for hospice nurses and healthcare assistants be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for primary care nurses be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for librarians and librarian assistants in councils be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for New Zealand Artificial Limb Service workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for nurses in residential care be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa workers be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections probation officers and senior practitioners be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections psychologists is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 8(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I was pretty keen to take a call on this because I’m of the view that this bill is named incorrectly. It’s called the Equal Pay Amendment Bill but, actually, if you consider the arguments that have been put forward by the Government Ministers, this isn’t an amendment bill; this is a repeal bill.

In order to justify what is proposed in this bill, they have tried to minimise the impacts and say, “No, no, all we’re doing is going back to what was in the bill when introduced in 2017.” That is very interesting, indeed. They’ve spent a lot of effort in trying to say that what this bill does is simply go back to provisions then, despite the fact that it was those Ministers that voted for the very changes that they are now saying need to be removed.

Now, that isn’t an amendment; that is a repeal—a repeal, in effect, from the 2020 bill—and if this House wants to send an accurate and honest reflection to the New Zealand people as to what is in this bill, then the title should be accurate and upfront. This is more than an amendment; this removes a whole swathe of changes that were brought in in 2020 and were supported pretty much across the House.

Now, I’m not one to read from my phone when I’m in the House, but I did see the finance Minister doing it the other day, and so I thought it, therefore, must be OK. During the debate in 2020—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It’s not illegal yet.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Sorry, sir?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It’s not illegal yet.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Oh, really? Well, a pending member’s bill perhaps, sir! But in the debate in 2020 for the bill that this Government is now, essentially, repealing, National MPs at the time were scrambling over themselves to support it. Nicola Willis, for example, said this: “I’m proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will be supporting this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.”; the bill that they are now repealing. So I would propose that having a title that says “Equal Pay Amendment Bill” doesn’t tell the full story.

If Government Ministers are going to, in only a matter of five years, stand up, fight for a spot to declare how supportive they are of the provisions, and now sneakily try to get rid of them in urgency, only two weeks before a Budget, because their Budget doesn’t add up and they need the money, then they should be upfront in the title of the bill, and say that this is a repeal.

Not only were they so keen to support the bill, they actually tried to take credit for the crafting of it. Nicola Willis said that her party had “contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House”—and now they’re sneakily trying to get rid of it. That is a fact. It is on the Parliament Hansard, and so it should be reflected in the title of the bill that we are debating.

There’s another quote here which I thought was quite interesting in that very same debate. This one was from Erica Stanford, and I quote—this one’s a bit longer, but it does make the point—“The dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren—one day, when I have them, hopefully—is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome.”

These are the words from the National Party members who are now Government Ministers and are trying to tell the country that this change is minor. It’s wrong, it is clear to be wrong, they themselves said it was a good thing, and they’re only getting rid of it now because their Budget doesn’t add up.

So my simple proposition to the House is that if the Government is going to be upfront with the people of New Zealand, at least have a title that reflects not only what is in the bill but the effect that this bill will have and, actually, is transparent around the journey of this bill: it was brought in in 2017; it was improved in 2020; Ministers in this Government, like Nicola Willis and Erica Stanford, not only crowed to support it but also claimed credit for it; and now these are the very same Ministers who want Parliament to vote against it today.

That is why I’m proposing to change the title from the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the “Equal Pay Repeal Bill”, because that’s what this bill does: it repeals what those Ministers voted for.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is my honour to take a call on this bill, because any moment that we can stop this bill becoming law is a win for the women of New Zealand, because, make no mistake, this is a bill that does nothing more than cut women’s pay.

I want to speak in this title and commencement debate to an amendment that my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen has put up to clause 2 of the legislation—so that’s the commencement clause—and it says the “Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” Now, my colleague Ginny Andersen has proposed that, in clause 2, we replace “on the day” with “10 years”, and there is a very clear rationale for why this should be the case: this delays the commencement of the Act so that the existing claims that were lodged under the previous legislation can be examined under the law that was there at the time they were lodged—so this is the 33 claims that are already lodged.

What we have is a Government that is, effectively, putting in place retrospective legislation. There are groups of workers and their organisations—dare I say the word “unions”—that have done a lot of work to get these pay equity claims lodged and in, and it is our contention, and through this amendment of Ginny Andersen, that these claims should be examined under the law as it was when they were lodged.

Now, I think one of the things that is getting lost, certainly from the non-answers we’ve been getting from the Minister in the chair, Brooke van Velden, and certainly from Government Ministers—certainly the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon; the finance Minister, Nicola Willis—when they’ve answered this, is a lack of any focus on the real people that this bill is going to affect. If we look at those lists of the 33 claims that are going to be turfed out and then, because of clause 2 of this bill, will be examined under this new piece of legislation rather than, if my colleague’s amendment went through, be examined under the legislation as it was when they went through.

So we’re talking about hospice nurse and healthcare assistants. We’re talking about home care and support workers. We’re talking about some of the workers in this country that do some of the hardest, hardest work that we call on people to do. All we are asking through this amendment is that these groups of workers are able to go through and have those claims examined under the legislation as it stood.

Now, one of the reasons why I think this is vitally important, because we’ve heard a lot of words—let’s call them those—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Generous.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —from members of the Government. Generous—you’re right, Kieran McAnulty; it is generous. But we’ve heard a lot of words about what the problem is: that there were a whole lot of claims that had been lodged and, basically, that they weren’t fit, that that wasn’t what the legislation was intended to. But in the course of this debate and in question time today, we have not heard one example of what one of those claims are. We’re just hearing assertions from Ministers who know they are doing the wrong thing. They are doing nothing more than cutting women’s pay and selling the women of New Zealand absolutely down the river, but they will not front us and tell us what the problem is. What are the egregious claims that are sitting there that mean that we have to change this legislation, not only for future claims—and speaking to the amendment to clause 2 that my colleague Ginny Andersen has here—but for those existing claims so they could be heard under the legislation as it was lodged?

So I ask the Minister to tell this committee. We haven’t had a select committee process. We don’t have the option to tease that out through the committee process. We don’t have a regulatory impact statement. In fact, there is no analysis that we can see. What is the problem definition here? What are the claims that are so problematic that for 33 groups of workers that currently have claims in at the moment, the law is going to change and, because of clause 2 of this legislation—they lodged claims believing they were going to be examined under legislation as it was at the time, but this Government is going to pass what is, effectively, retrospective legislation, so that all changes. The Minister needs to front up. She’s not fronting up on much, but she needs to front up and tell us.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call. The amendment that I want to make is to the title. This bill is titled the Equal Pay Amendment Act. I want to suggest a different title for this bill because I don’t think it accurately reflects what this is doing. Additionally, I’ll give a bit of a history lesson on equal pay that means I think the Minister for Workplace and Relations should consider perhaps a different title.

Many different things have happened in relation to the history of equal pay in this country, and many of the different Acts have specific names relating to the particular type of law that they were bringing in. We had the Government Service Equal Pay Act, that was one of the first pieces of legislation, and that was in 1960. That was appropriately named because that only applied to people in Government service.

Then the Equal Pay Act 1972 came in—that’s the primary Act—and that was the Act which made it illegal, if you can believe it, for men and women to not be officially paid different wages, because those with long memories, and I’ve looked into this, will remember that there was actually a time where it was legislated and it was in employment agreements that there were men’s and women’s rates for the same job. So that bill came in.

Now, throughout that period of time, after the passage of that bill, it was obviously good that it got rid of men and women being paid different wages, but there was also something that actually had been the work of the suffragists in New Zealand after they obtained the vote. They had wanted to focus on equal pay; it had been one of their objectives. That continued on after the 1972 Act. In 1990, there was a new Act, and the title of this Act was the Employment Equity Act. That was brought in in 1990. That bill sought—as I understand it—to look at pay equity but also look at other discrimination that was faced in the workplace. So I think that was probably appropriately titled.

Unfortunately, that Act brought in 1990—there are pictures of Helen Clark receiving flowers in this very House after that was passed—was repealed by the National Government that very same year. So that bill, as we had it, is no longer on our statute book.

Then we had a situation where there was a pay equity unit that was established. There wasn’t legislative intervention. The pay equity unit was also disestablished by a National Government. Then we had a case brought by Kristine Bartlett, which was really important, very significant. That was in 2014, and that case, in 2014, was really a landmark case. I think everyone in this House respects greatly the work that Kristine Bartlett did to bring that claim—she was Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year—and it resulted in a law change, and it was actually, at that time, championed by a National Government.

I had hoped that that was the change that we were to see, that we were all on one page when the National Government agreed to Kristine Bartlett’s claim. Unfortunately, after that settlement was put in place, that settlement has now expired and Kristine Bartlett and her colleagues are now, due to this Act, unable to take a pay equity claim. They’re on the minimum wage—most care and support workers—until 2027. So there’s a long history of equal pay, really, is my point.

It is appropriate that things are named appropriately. So I think that this is another step backwards for equal pay in New Zealand. It’s not unusual for this to happen, as you would see from the history. There are two steps forward, one step back. We had been making progress; New Zealand had been going forward. We had been looking to settle claims. It’s a hard process. I don’t think that any of our comments about the process said that it’s easy; it is difficult. It’s a process that takes time. But people, in good faith, were going through that. This bill is reducing the ability to do that.

Yes, it’s not getting rid of pay equity entirely. I mean, that would be a retrograde step that I put past even this Government. But this Act reduces the ability for women in New Zealand—underpaid women—to claim pay equity. So, therefore, I think the title is inappropriate. It’s the same title as the last Act that was passed, that it seeks to repeal—the Equal Pay Amendment Act. It should have a different title. I think it should be called the “Equal Pay Reduction Act” because that is what it does. It reduces the ability for women to take equal pay claims. It makes it harder. It reduces the amount of money that they’re likely to see. It makes the group of people that can take those claims smaller. It reduces women’s rights.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to talk to the commencement part of this particular part that we are debating at the moment. I have an amendment in front of me in the name of my colleague Camilla Belich. She’s been very busy and, as you can hear from her history that she has given of the pay equity journey, has an absolute knowledge that is probably second to maybe those people that fought in 1972. But apart from that, we are very honoured to have Camilla as part of our team here with the knowledge that she brings, because I think it is really important that we bring that history here.

Now, the reason I wanted to talk about the commencement—like my colleague Megan Woods—is around the fact that it’s concerning that the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. Yesterday, when we were out the front with this rally that was called within an hour and a half and had quite a large number of people turn up to it on very, very short notice, we were gifted the opportunity to hear from people who have been part of the pay equity claims process. Listening to them was quite enlightening, about how robust the process has been, but how successful the process has been as well because of the ownership that members have had with that process. So it’s not a once-over-lightly; it is a process that takes many, many years and many iterations to go through.

That gave me confidence yesterday, when I listened to those people, about how incredibly robust that process was, that we had something that was incredibly successful. As a result, we have seen many claims that have been successful since the last amendments were put through in legislation.

Now, what I would like to argue here is that if we’re talking about—here, in this House today—the Act coming into force on the day after Royal assent, then all of that work means absolutely nothing. So all of the work that those people talked about—and in my first reading speech yesterday, I mentioned a woman who stood on those steps, called Tessa, who has been working as part of a librarian team with their pay equity claim for four years. Four years of work that, if this goes through the House today, will mean absolutely nothing. What that means is that, once again, women are having to go back to ground zero. All the gains that they have made, they’re actually going backwards because we are getting rid of something—well, not we, but the Government—

Carl Bates: Shouldn’t have put it in place in the first place.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —is getting rid of something that has been working incredibly well. I sort of heard a little bit of a heckle coming through there, saying, “Well, maybe it shouldn’t have been put in place in the first place”. I suggest that those members who are calling that out go and read the history and understand what has happened since 2020, and also understand the process, because if they’re going to be short-sighted enough to call out heckles like that, it is obvious that they have no understanding of what they are talking about.

Now, my colleague Camilla Belich has proposed here that in clause 2, we would replace “on the day” with “five years”. Now, the reason that I want to talk to this is that I believe five years will see those claims get through. You know, when you hear that Tessa and her group of librarians have been working for four years, they’re probably at the tail end of their claim process. But there are some in that 33 who are right at the beginning. So if they are right near the beginning, then that means we’d give them five years to get their claim all the way through. I think that that is actually a very, very fair metric. It also means that we would not lose all of that work that has been done to this date. It means that they would still have ownership of the process, and it is incredibly important, for this to be successful going forward, that people have ownership in that process.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of tabled amendments on the title of this bill, and I want to address some of them, because I think one of the things we’ve heard throughout this discussion is still a lack of clarity from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the rationale behind why this bill needs to be introduced into the House under urgency, other than the fact that it is a budgetary concern. But what I’m particularly flabbergasted by is the fact that we have a system in place where literally the Government is wanting to do anything, including punching down on low-paid New Zealanders, other than to improve the tax system. So I want to ask the Minister if the Minister would consider my tabled amendment that says that this bill is better called “Equal Pay (Do Anything Other Than Improve the Tax System) Amendment Bill”, or “Equal Pay (Punch Down on Low-paid New Zealanders) Amendment Bill”, because what we are seeing as a result of this bill is that there is going to be more blue, yellow, and black tapes being placed for women to have that equal pay claim. So would, then, the Minister consider my amendment, which is “Equal Pay (More Blue, Yellow, and Black Tapes) Amendment Bill? [Member stands to take a call]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He’s still speaking.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He takes a breath occasionally.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: That is just some of the considerations, but—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, I’ve got a point of order, sorry.

Tim van de Molen: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with regards to the titles being proposed by the member, there is a longstanding convention that they must be genuine attempts to reframe the title of the bill in a reasonable manner. The ones that have been proposed, they’re clearly disorderly, which is actually outside the Standing Orders.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): They’ve come through the process and they’ve been approved.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, thank you for raising that concern. I think whether they are in order or not will be determined as part of the voting process.

So, continuing on, let us be clear in terms of this bill. This bill is nothing short of a war on women. So I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would actually consider “Equal Pay (War on Women) Amendment Bill”, because all we are hearing from the Minister, when we are giving the Minister examples of people who have spent decades of their lives trying to fight for equal pay and equal rights for themselves, all the Minister is able to tell us is that “Oh, we really appreciate the work that they are doing and we really see them and we really care about them.” So, from my perspective, that is the equivalent of “thoughts and prayers”. So would the Minister consider my amendment “Equal Pay (Thoughts and Prayers, But Your Salary Won’t Get Higher) Amendment Bill”? Because this is what this bill is going to be doing.

But, honestly, I’m just simply at a loss for words, in terms of what this is doing, because, over and over again, we have heard, through this last day and through the debate, around the fact that this particular bill will have a detrimental effect on people—actually, not just on women; this bill will also have considerations and concerns for all workers. So this is on behalf of my colleague Francisco Hernandez, as well. Finally, would the Minister consider the “Equal Pay (War on Workers) Amendment Bill”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take the time to respond to a couple of the contributions that have just been made. Firstly, starting with Camilla Belich: no, I won’t be accepting the title change to the bill that the member has suggested, although I do thank the member for at least getting to the heart of the matter here, that we are not actually getting rid of the Act. I thank the member for acknowledging this, because the other member in her party—Kieran McAnulty—stood to make a contribution suggesting that we change the name of the bill to a repeal bill, but that’s not true, because we are not repealing pay equity and we are not repealing the Equal Pay Act. The title of this bill is quite correctly named because we are amending the Equal Pay Act, so it has been named accordingly as an amendment to that. That is the same answer that I have to Lawrence Xu-Nan, and his contribution on behalf of Francisco Hernandez, as well.

I have to admit, I enjoyed Jan Tinetti’s contribution, because while she started out talking about changes to the commencement date—which we won’t be making—I heard her try to rewrite history. I think that’s quite amusing, because she made a contribution suggesting that when amendments first came through this House in order to put in place a pay equity system, they were comprehensively tested, which is not true, because Labour’s amendments came through under an Amendment Paper (AP) that was rushed under urgency, without consultation. So it is quite rich of the Labour Party to stand here talking about process, when the pay equity system, with substantive policy changes to pay equity, came through an AP rushed by the Labour Party through urgency.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I, first of all, want to talk about the commencement period. There is a proposed amendment which talks about a 10-year period, and I want to argue in favour of that period. What the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has done means that all the benefit of a 10-year period goes straight to the boss, in the law as it is. At the present time, the proposal on the Table is that the people who will suffer are the people who have been injured. So the amount of time that will elapse before someone can take a case, again, if there is sex discrimination, is going to be 10 years. During that period, no back-pay claims can be made, so they also pay the price for that full 10 years.

Is it fair that the law comes into place now and it isn’t a 10-year period—if we’re going to be fair about things? Shouldn’t we have a 10-year hiatus where we get through these claims, and they apply and we do things for 10 years, and wouldn’t it be better to commence this law after 10 years, given that the Minister’s willing to give that full freedom of 10 years to the boss and actually allow them all the benefit of discriminating for that period and deprive women in New Zealand of what they should be being paid? Effectively, the Minister’s proposals for the change in the law are saying “It’s OK to discriminate for a full 10 years, and we will take the profit. We, as the employers, will take the profit off the workers. We will discriminate—too bad; that’s what we’re going to do.”

I wondered whether the Minister might consider actually renaming this bill with a title that is perhaps reflective of what it means for women in New Zealand today. “The Mother’s Day Gift Bill” might be appropriate. Mother’s Day is this Sunday. My mother was—and I talked about this earlier—one of the women who started to work in the 1960s under a law that meant that she got paid a quarter of a male wage, and it’s those professions—she was a schoolteacher, but it happened in other professions as well—that suffered because so many women were employed on much lower wages than their male comrades. Their male comrades were paid four times more because they were assumed to have families. So what happened when that happened to them was that they dragged behind for years and years and years. So they did not save the kind of money that their male colleagues saved. They did not leave violent relationships because they could not afford to. Their children also suffered.

That is what happened and that is the history that meant we’ve had deeply unequal amounts of pay in this country. It had nothing to do with the value of their work. And it definitely had nothing to do with the term “merit”, which has been used here in a way that I hope you understand, by my contributions today, is deeply offensive to me. To suggest that somebody who’s in a profession that’s 68 percent female and has been discriminated against, and historically, all those factors mean they’re being paid less, is not a meritorious claim. That’s deeply offensive to me, and it’s deeply offensive to people like my mother, who actually fought to work for equal pay in this country and deserved better—absolutely deserved better.

I also wanted to suggest that maybe another change we could look to is a title that reflected the complete walkaway that the ACT Party has done from the capacity of people to make a contractual bargain. All these settlements were actually contracts, and people made them—blood, sweat, and tears made those contracts, those agreements. They came up with a deal. They negotiated and they came up with a deal. What the ACT Party, and this coalition Government, does today—National can’t walk away from responsibility for this—is they walk away from—they squash—that contractual freedom, all the work that went it, and all the bargains that were struck: tough.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I couldn’t listen to a second longer of that contribution—I’m sorry—especially hearing the member note offence so often in that contribution. I wanted to make it known that I personally find it offensive that we have a member who is conflating the issue of being a woman with being a mother. There are women who cannot become mothers, and there are women who have struggled to be mothers. When we have this bill talking about discrimination between men and women, we should not be trying to rename it to a “Mother’s Day Bill”, because there are so many working women in this country who are struggling to become mothers, and I personally find that hurtful.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Unequal Pay Entrenchment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Equal Pay (War on Workers) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Equal Pay Regulatory Framework Amendment Bill” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Equal Pay (More Blue, Yellow, and Black Tapes) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Equal Pay (Do Anything Other Than Improve the Tax System) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Equal Pay (Punch Down on Low Paid New Zealanders) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to “Equal Pay (War on Women) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to the “Equal Pay (Thoughts and Prayers But Your Salary Won’t Get Higher) Amendment Bill” is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “one year” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “five years” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “ten years” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “two years” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “twenty years” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “six months” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace “on the day” with “three months” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a third 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.

Amendment not agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations. I consider that the current legislative settings are too permissive and have resulted in the pay equity framework not working as intended. The current Act only requires that pay equity claims are arguable to progress. I consider that the settings have resulted in claims progressing through the entry threshold without strong evidence of undervaluation. The bill addresses this by increasing the threshold for raising a pay equity claim, including requiring claims to have merit.

The current Act includes limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims. This has led to broad claims where it is difficult to determine whether the differences in remuneration are due to sex-based undervaluation—for example, the DHB allied and technical health pay equity settlement covered 90 occupations, including hospital dental assistants, physiotherapists, wheelchair technicians, and cultural advisers. The bill addresses this by providing employers with the tools they need to ensure an appropriate scope of claim. There is insufficient guidance in the Act for choosing appropriate comparators and on comparison methodology. This has led to comparators being used repeatedly across several claims, despite there being a number of differences with the work of claimants and respective skills. Fisheries and corrections officers have been used as a comparator for nurses, DHB administration, and clerical claims, as well as school library staff. The bill address this by introducing a hierarchy of comparators and adding more prescription to the comparison methodology.

The current requirement to include review clauses in pay equity settlements has led to reviews considering factors that may not have been connected to sex-based undervaluation. Review clauses in the teacher-aides and DHB admin and clerical claims have sought to consider a range of factors beyond whether sex-based discrimination had returned. This includes the—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a lot of noise in the House and it’s not coming from the gallery; it’s coming from downstairs. Can we have a bit more respect, please. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This includes the Consumers Price Index. The bill addresses this by removing the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and limiting when claims can be re-raised. The current Act does not allow for the phasing of pay equity settlements. This does not acknowledge the disruption that can happen when wage costs shift unexpectedly. The bill addresses this by providing for the phasing of pay equity settlements. There are also a number of issues with the current parameters for the Employment Relations Authority relating to fixing remuneration, which do not provide the right incentives to resolve pay equity claims. The bill addresses this by changing how and when the authority can fix remuneration, including requiring phasing when the authority fixes remuneration and removing the ability for the authority to award back-pay.

It is worth noting that New Zealand’s pay equity regime is an outlier internationally. Most countries that we compare ourselves to, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, do not allow multi-employer claims or comparators outside of the employer’s workplace. Australia’s pay equity regime does allow multi-employer claims but they’re usually progressed through their modern awards system that does not require the use of comparators. New Zealand has had significantly more pay equity settlements than Australia since pay equity legislation was introduced in 2020.

Overall, the bill provides for a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. This will ensure that the pay equity regime is workable and sustainable. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Well, here we are, just over 30 hours after the Government announced this bill, which, in my time in Parliament, is right up there with one of the most egregious pieces of legislation that this House will put through. I continue with my anger and my disgust that a House of Government would put women in a position of putting them on the back foot, and would put their bad fiscal management in front of women’s rights, and in front of making it a better day for women by increasing their pay. This is taking the women’s movement backwards, and ensuring that women will continue to be paid less, well into the future. Again, what an egregious piece of legislation.

What have we heard over the course of the last 30 hours? We have heard a Government who has gaslit the public. They are saying that this is going to make this process better. We have heard it from all three coalition partners over that time—throughout the debate and throughout question time—that this will make it better. I cannot believe that particularly our women members on the Government side of the House can hold their heads up and say that. This will do nothing but put women backwards. Once again, women are paying the price for the bad fiscal management of that Government. This has happened year after year after year with a conservative Government. And, once again, women will pay the price.

But in that gaslighting, we had one MP—one MP—who was caught telling the truth. Yesterday, we had the Hon David Seymour telling the media that this, of course, will save the Government billions of dollars—that ACT have found the money to make the Budget work. So we know—we have had confirmed what we know—that this is setting off a Budget that they could not make work. They went out and they thought, “Where can we find the savings? Women: that’s where we can find the savings.” How dare they? How dare they do that to women of this country? I am absolutely disgusted and I find it completely disgraceful that we are in the position that we are in today.

Yet when I look over there, I can see people laughing and thinking that this is a joke. I heard members in their first reading speeches talking about “the Opposition will dramatise this because they always do.” We are not dramatising this. We are angry. We are angry for the women who this will impact. We are angry for the Kristine Bartletts of this world who have changed the course and done everything that they can in their lives to make it a better day for living. We are angry and so are they.

They are out there and they are protesting this in great numbers, and they will continue to protest this in great numbers. This is outrageous, dishonest, and, once again, it’s taking us backwards. The ACT Party has shown their hand for what it really stands for. But what is absolutely disgraceful is that all coalition partners are standing by and doing nothing to stop it—nothing to stop it. Nothing to see and nothing to help stop what is happening to put those women backwards.

Now, yesterday, I had—as I’ve said in this House, over the past 24 hours, from a number of people—a large, large number of emails coming through from different people from different walks of life. All of them are absolutely taken by surprise and asking what on earth they are thinking about. Some of them—and a lot of them, to be fair—were their voters, and are their voters. They are asking what they are thinking. One of those people said, “It feels like we are in a parallel dystopian universe. It feels like we’re going back to a Handmaid’s Tale time.” Well, that is what women are feeling. They are feeling aggrieved—absolutely aggrieved.

We had in this country—have, actually, until this bill goes through—a strong process for pay equity claims. Many women—many women—felt absolute ownership of those pay equity claims, because they have worked voluntarily, many of them, to ensure the process was robust, to make sure we are making a positive difference for our future generations. In fact, I want to mention a couple of those women. There was one that was on the news last night, Ally Kingi. Ally Kingi is a teacher-aide and a NZEI Te Riu Roa member. Now, that’s probably going to get the other side a little bit, you know, agitated, because, I just mentioned the name of a union. But Ally, as I said, is a teacher-aide. For those of you who don’t know, teacher-aides are one of the most vulnerable workforces that we have in this country. They go from year to year not knowing if they have a job. Some of them go from term to term not knowing if they have the same hours for the next term. Many of them are on incredibly low pay.

Ally worked incredibly hard over her time on the team that worked through their pay equity settlement, to ensure that teacher-aides were valued for the work that they do. In fact, ask any principal and they will tell you that they cannot run their schools without their teacher-aides. Ally says, “Our pay equity settlement in 2020 was life changing for teacher-aides. But those pay gaps reopen over time. To be told this Government is happy to allow gender pay gaps to open up for a decade at a time, without the opportunity for review, is devastating.” On the TV last night, Ally said, “I gave myself to this process so that my daughters and my granddaughters will have a better life because they won’t have to worry about fighting like I am now to be valued for the work that they do.” She said, “It feels like we’ve just been kicked.” That’s exactly what many women like Ally are feeling.

Ally is a national treasure for the work that she has done for women in this country. What this Government has done has absolutely kicked women like Ally, and we’ve gone back to zero again—where women are just being expected to put up with it. Women in this country are being asked to put up with the fact that that side of the House have bad fiscal management, can’t make their Budgets work. They’re paying the price for tax cuts, tax breaks to landlords, and tobacco companies. [Interruption] And listen to them try and deny it—listen to them try and deny it.

This has been rushed through with little, little prosecution over that time. It wasn’t even taken to select committee. They never even gave women and people who are very much invested in this a voice. They took their voice away from them. They did not take it to select committee so that women could have their democratic say over such an egregious piece of legislation.

We’ve already found anomalies, and we’ve found mistakes in the legislation. That is sloppy lawmaking, and that is the price that that side will pay for not giving people their democratic rights and their democratic say through a select committee process. That is just unacceptable, and the women in this country are absolutely angry and livid. The ground has been swept from underneath them.

Finally, I want to acknowledge someone who has done so much for women in this space, an absolute national hero, and that is Kristine Bartlett. Kristine Bartlett fought for and got a settlement for rest home workers. She said yesterday that this news brought her to tears. It was gut-wrenching. She feels so sorry for these women workers. Well, what I say to Kristine and other workers is to hold on to that anger. Hold on to that anger because that means we can organise, and we will mobilise. Women will not stand for such egregious legislation. Women will not be put on the back foot again. I absolutely condemn this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I know that we can live in a country where all people have enough to live good lives and where the people who undertake some of the most important caring work that binds together our communities and supports us all are properly paid. I am talking about midwives who care for mothers and babies before, during, and just after birth; early childhood teachers who are educating our tamariki at a time that is absolutely influential to their outcomes later in life; our primary school teachers; our secondary school teachers; our nurses who care for us when we are sick and injured; and the clerical and admin staff who do the mahi so that doctors and nurses can do their job and we can get the healthcare we need; care and support workers, like Kristine Bartlett, those looking after our disabled whānau, looking after our elderly in retirement villages and rest homes. And there are others as well. These professions have been underpaid because they are mainly women doing the work, and that is not something anyone has debated.

I know that Nicola Willis has acknowledged there is a need for pay equity. I know that members opposite, women in the Cabinet, know and understand that there are professions that have been underpaid because they have historically been female dominated.

But the coalition Government of National, ACT, and New Zealand First would have us believe it is unreasonable, that it is unaffordable or unsustainable, to pay these people what they deserve. This bill, and the way it’s been rammed through under urgency over the last two days—two weeks before the Budget—is a disgrace, and the Green Party has always stood for fair pay. We oppose this bill.

Closing the gender pay gap was one of the key priorities in our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government from 2017 to 2020. Following on the work of my colleagues in the Green Party, Catherine Delahunty, Denise Roche, and especially Jan Logie, it was my honour and privilege to serve as Minister for Women. I worked alongside Labour to pass the 2020 amendments to the Equal Pay Act that established the process for pay equity that has delivered 10 pay equity claims that have resulted in absolute life-changing increases in pay to mainly women, to low-paid workers who do some of the most important work in our communities. That legislation would have delivered another 33 claims covering hundreds of thousands of workers in this country if it weren’t for the shameful legislation that we are debating right now.

It is not us alone. The fight for equal pay has been going on for over a century, and the fight for a pay equity process that would actually deliver for women and men and others who work in these female-dominated professions was many years, and even decades, in the making. Others have of course referred to Kristine Bartlett, who, under the last National Government, she and her union took a claim as a care and support worker that she had been underpaid because the sector is female dominated, and they won. She forced the then National Government to reckon with this issue, and it massively changed the lives and financial circumstances of over 50,000 aged-care workers and support workers. She was recognised as New Zealander of the Year in 2018. She’s been recognised so many times.

I acknowledge Kristine Bartlett. I acknowledge the whole union movement, men and women who have been working to get a good, evidence-based process that would properly deliver fair pay and pay equity, because that is what we need to do in order to close the gender pay gap. We need this process—which was world-leading, and now the Minister refers to it being world-leading as though that’s a reason to change it back, so we can go backwards. Well, Aotearoa New Zealand has often led, but not because of the people in power; because of the ordinary men and women who organised and fought for the right to vote for women, who organised and fought for rights when it comes to te reo Māori, and who organised and fight—and continue to fight—to close the gender pay gap and for pay equity.

Our people and our country cannot thrive if we do not have people doing this work. It is public good work. It is ridiculous to claim that the commercial economy is somehow independent of this public investment. The commercial economy relies on public investment in people and infrastructure. We don’t have an economy if we don’t have healthy people, if we don’t have public education. This system benefits from underpaying workers. That is the status quo and that is what we are up against. That is what this coalition Government is now promising to do for years to come.

The most outrageous aspect about this bill being passed under urgency is that it completely cancels and annuls the work that has been done over the past five years since the legislation was introduced. Hundreds of thousands of workers are going to be affected by this decision to cancel those claims. It is deeply, deeply cynical. We see you, Minister of Finance Nicola Willis. We see you claiming that you’re a good economic manager, and we see you ensuring that hundreds of thousands of workers—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Julie Anne Genter! Please apologise. It’s about the Government; it’s not about individuals. Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Madam Speaker, are we not allowed to refer to the decisions made by the Minister of Finance and the consequences they have on the people of this country?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, except this is not the Budget and you were singling out the Minister. So, carry on—and carry on without singling out the Minister.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I would like to refer to this Cabinet paper by the Hon Nicola Willis when she was Minister for the Public Service, date of issue 25 June 2024, entitled the Pay Equity Reset. I would like to quote from this because it is directly related to the legislation that’s being brought today. It says, in paragraph 4, executive summary, “pay equity costs to the Crown have become significant”. And then it says, in paragraph 7, “Changes are required to ensure that there is a greater focus on transparency of costs and better management of claim costs. I propose a new fiscal management approach,”. It is very clear—through the Cabinet papers, delivered by Nicola Willis in her role as Minister for better public services, which disestablished the Pay Equity Taskforce, which was located within the Public Service Commission, who did a lot of really important work and mahi to help ensure that we were supporting closing the gender pay gap and progressing pay equity right across the public sector.

So there are decisions that flow from individuals in the Government and in the Cabinet, and those decisions have consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. They’re the people who are not on hundreds of thousands of dollars; they’re people who are on $60,000 or less and they are trying to make ends meet under really difficult circumstances. We all know that some of these professions—and 33 of them had active claims—had been systematically underpaid due to gender-based discrimination. The only way we will ever change that is if Governments take action.

The truth is that the Government, as an employer, benefits from underpaying these people. They benefit from women being willing to do the hard caring work, and they exploit these women and their work. They exploit them, and then they claim that we can’t afford to pay them more. But all of this is a political choice. Governments are elected by the people, and we, as the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, can show our values. If we’re serious about closing the gender pay gap, if we’re serious about fair pay, if we’re serious about ending horrific levels of inequality and doing more for the worst off in our society, then we can do that. We can choose to do that. We don’t have to sit back and say, “It’s too hard; we can’t afford it.” We can make the tax system fairer. We can tax wealth. We can tax capital.

Every decision this Government has made disadvantages workers and it benefits the largest corporates and the people who own the most: the landowners. This decision is a decision, and I think it is worth mentioning that Nicola Willis, as a member of the Opposition when this bill was passed and I was the Minister in the chair, spoke in favour of the bill that was passed, the amendment to the Equal Pay Act. I know that they’ll say that there was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but the SOP reflected the changes and the issues that were raised at the Education and Workforce Committee. So, look, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

The reality is that this is an irresponsible Government that can’t pay for their promises, that refuses to make sure that the wealthy in our country pay their fair share. They’re supporting the private businesses, the profits of private businesses, like tobacco companies, and they’re telling teachers and midwives and nurses and early childhood workers and care and support workers that they don’t deserve fair pay for the work that ensures that our country can thrive. I think it’s a disgrace.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Five years ago, I stood in this House, along with my then National Party colleagues, and supported the passage of a reform to the Equal Pay Act. At that time, I made this comment: I said, “We support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim.” I made that comment five years ago and I repeat it today. What I also said five years ago was that we would reserve judgment on a Supplementary Order Paper that was introduced with multiple changes to the bill that we were supporting. In particular, I noted that we would have to watch to see whether that caused issues and problems. So it has proved.

So today, I wish to make a few things clear. The first is the concept of equal pay—that men and women should be paid the same for the same work—remains as strong today as ever. The second is the idea of pay equity. I wish to be clear what pay equity is, because it has sometimes been conflated by members on the opposite side of the House with equal pay. Pay equity relates to the concept that men and women should be paid for work which may be different but which is of equal value. Now, the question for lawmakers is how we judge what is of equal value. What Kristine Bartlett achieved was she said that our Equal Pay Act should be interpreted to go to this question of pay equity. What the last National Government formed a view on was that rather than leaving these matters to be interpreted by the courts, it would be better for both employers and employees if there was a clear process in law that would allow claims to be progressed. We put forward legislation to achieve that. The last Labour Government delayed that legislation so they could do a press release on Women’s Suffrage Day three years later, in the last year of their first term.

They put forward a process. What has turned out to be the case is that that process has led to challenges, which is illustrated by the fact that as of today, there has never been a claim by a private sector employer that isn’t funded by the Government. The large majority of claims have been public sector claims. So there have been challenges.

I want to make three things clear that, again, members opposite have intentionally, I believe, tried to confuse today and yesterday. The first is this: our Government is upholding the settlements that have been achieved under the existing Equal Pay Act. We think that’s important and we are continuing to fund those settlements. So no one is having those settlements taken away from them, as has been stated by some.

Second: we are ensuring that there is a very clear process at law for future claims, and we are doing that clearly and simply and immediately. Members opposite have asked that we take this process over many, many months—that we delay that process so that people are in limbo and don’t know whether they can make a claim. We are making a simple process. In doing that, we are still allowing that where women are able to prove that they have been underpaid for reasons of gender discrimination, for reasons of sex discrimination, then they can make claims.

The final thing that I want to say is this: there are many workers across our economy and, indeed, across economies internationally who continue to want to be paid more, and so they should, because, actually, that aspiration is held on this side of the House. In fact, the very reason I want the New Zealand economy to grow is so that we are an economy that is better able to pay good wages and provide good working conditions for workers. We have in law, our employment relations law, very clearly established processes for people to bargain and argue for better pay and work conditions, and so that should continue.

But this is about gender discrimination. So pay equity processes should be used for genuine issues of discrimination. They should not become a parallel route for bargaining. They should not become a backdoor route for bargaining. They should be about discrimination. With the changes that the Government is making here, we are ensuring that that is the case—ensuring that there is clarity about the comparisons that should occur and allowing people to factor in market-based factors.

Finally, I would say this—to private sector employers that have listened to this debate today and are listening, I’d say this: “Pay women fairly; pay them equally.” I do not subscribe to the tenant and the principle that the last Government did, which is that they, I believe, set up a principle that said, “If you, private sector employer, don’t pay people properly, don’t worry, if the Government is funding you, we’ll provide the backstop, we’ll write the cheque, and we will help pay for the settlement.” They made that decision and it had significant implications. We now are in a scenario where women can make claims, they can have them settled where gender discrimination takes place—this is fair; this is reasonable.

I want to end my remarks by referring to a statement that I made five years ago that I believe to this day and I believe that the Government’s work absolutely upholds: “We all, I believe, want to live in a country and a world in which men and women have equal opportunities, are equally rewarded for their work, and are able to progress and fulfil their own potential to the maximum extent possible.” I said it then; I stand by it today. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: I want to indicate to the House that, at the conclusion of the Hon David Parker’s valedictory statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Hon David Parker to make his valedictory statement.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you all for being here. I was elected for Labour on 27 July 2002, when I won the Otago seat. Campaigner extraordinaire Pete Hodgson trained me when I chaired his electorate committee.

“Park Parker in Parliament”. I wore a purple checked shirt in every photo and every day. People said I’d stolen a tablecloth from a greasy spoon—a fashion crime. Queenstown and Arrowtown had been home for a couple of years—the hitching solicitor.

I’d co-founded with Howard Paterson and Max Shepherd agribiotech companies A2 Milk, BLIS Technologies, PharmaZen, and BotryZen, plus about 10 other businesses with others, so I had some profile as an entrepreneur. I never hid the fact I’d skinned my knees as well as succeeded.

I proudly declared I was born in Roxburgh. There’s a large clan of Parkers who wondered which bed I’d fallen out of. In fact, I arrived as my mother dashed back to Dunedin—one of the few times in my life I’ve been early.

It was a winter election. I’d hired a banner from the owner of the Otago Daily Times, Sir Julian Smith. “But I’m staunch National.” “You’re a media mogul, and this is a purely commercial deal.” We agreed a fee. Each Saturday, a giant “Vote Labour—Parker” banner flew over the winter sportsgrounds and buzzed Central Otago towns and ski fields. Julian donated his fee.

With snow on the ground, the ski fields were booming. I love skiing, and handed out my brochures as people came off tows. They came to me! I didn’t have to move. Close to an upset, a steady stream of Ministers came creating media opportunities. We won by just over 600 votes.

My life and my family’s changed that night. It has been a privilege to be elected to be representing my fellow country women and men. And in the 23 years since, I’ve given it my all.

I was Dunedin raised, in a family of small-business people, for generations on both sides. My mother, Joan, was a talented musician, and dad, Frank, was a self-employed importer/wholesaler in the jewellery trade, and sporty. I was taught to cook and sew by Mum and to paint and build by Dad.

My sisters, Fiona, Christine, and Louise, and I naturally discussed business and issues of the day. We went to Roslyn Presbyterian Sunday School. The Little Gingerbread Man was given to me “For inquisitiveness” by Heather Grimwood—still active in Labour in her 90s. In my teens, I attended a wonderful youth group led by John Hardie. We debated many hard issues.

In 1977, Brad Tattersfield and I were performing a Peter Cook and Dudley Moore skit on religion to raise money for charity. One of our lines was “All those heathens in Africa will go to hell because they worship the wrong god.” How could that be right?

I became an atheist. My atheism is itself faith-based—I can’t explain how the universe began—and to this day, I respect all faiths which have at their heart the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I believe all citizens owe reciprocity.

My State schooling was top-notch. I made great friends—great friends—and fell in love, actually.

My first act of civil disobedience was refusing to wear long trousers in summer, donning junior shorts. The school handled it brilliantly. They ignored me. It didn’t catch on, but it taught me it’s not too hard to stand apart.

I did law and commerce at the University of Otago, tutored in information systems and accounting, and co-founded the Dunedin Community Law Centre. Anti-apartheid protests were powerful.

I studied tax in both my degrees and gained a deep understanding of the economic theory and statutory treatment of taxable compared with economic income, labour and capital income, inflation, real rates of return, and net present or future values.

As a litigation partner of Anderson Lloyd, I appeared in all New Zealand courts except the Supreme Court. I became an experienced CEO and company director.

We each bring our varied life experiences to this place, and democracy relies on it. My experiences made me an egalitarian. Wealth creation and its fair distribution have been central to my being here, and they sit at the core of Labour’s founding values.

My primary commitment is to working people—the waged, the salaried, the unpaid parent at home, the small-business owner, the farmer who owns one farm, not five.

I have three main threads to my political objectives: a prosperous, egalitarian economy, the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, and good environmental outcomes.

My first break in Parliament came from “Corngate”, or the Seeds of Distrust. The select committee inquiry unanimously found no evidence of interference or cover-up by any Minister, including the Prime Minister—she quite liked that!

Helen, Michael, Winston, and Richard Prebble dominated the House. Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald were establishing the Green brand. An exceptionally good coalition Government: nine surpluses, strong growth, low unemployment, and a list of achievements longer than my arm.

The Rt Hon Helen Clark was a fantastic PM for three full terms. So much has endured. She, Sir Michael Cullen, and Heather Simpson stand tall as giants.

I had electorate offices in Oamaru, Queenstown, and Alexandra: Barbara Duff, Angela Dolan, and Sue Parker—no relation. We worked hard for our constituents. I wore out a car, and momentarily fell asleep at the wheel near Allanton—a lucky escape.

By 2005, we had plenty to run on, and the highlight was a public meeting hosted by one Sam Neill—warm, principled, and funny. People flocked to see him in Oamaru, and the media coverage was great. So, despite the swing against Labour, we increased our party and electorate votes, but we still lost when many who’d stayed home in 2002 voted in 2005.

In 2011, Phil Goff did us proud. I stood in Epsom. We had barnstorming meetings. John Banks said he was walking past Ellerslie Racecourse and heard “Whoosh!” as the Labour Party parachuted David Parker in. I’d reply that I wouldn’t take fiscal lessons from the man who had doubled council debt as mayor, and highlighted ACT’s links to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, including the ACT MP who’d stolen the identity of a dead baby for a passport and who railed against discharges without conviction, having got one.

Numbers at meetings built. Paul Goldsmith said, “Party vote National.” Paddy Gower televised a rousing meeting. I got threatened with defamation proceedings by the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust. But our strategy worked. I was trailing third, and the electorate result was too close to call. The single-seat lifeboat of Epsom itself had to be rescued by the now infamous tea party which John Key held in Newmarket.

I stood in Epsom again in 2014 for a ritual thrashing by David Seymour, with Paul Goldsmith having perfected the art of standing to not be elected. Robust contests, but no one overstepped the mark.

It’s been a busy time in Parliament. I was deputy leader under David Cunliffe, which I enjoyed, and for six weeks, I was acting leader of the party—enormous privileges.

We’re here to improve New Zealand. Obviously, being in Cabinet helps. I was a Minister in Helen Clark’s fifth Labour Government, and in the sixth, led by Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins.

Environmental issues significantly define who I am—you can see it’s quite an emotional day for me. Kiwis have a good environmental ethic.

The Māori gods Papatūānuku, Tāne Mahuta, and Tangaroa show environment at the centre of the Māori world view. New settlers from the UK were keen to leave behind privatised access to rivers and water. They understood the tragedy of the commons, where population pressures ruin the environment in the absence of rules, and the importance of private property rights to enable investment. The fused values we now enjoy are a shared ethic.

My two main environmental priorities have been climate change and fresh water, and I’ve tried to align business investment and people’s consumption with good environmental outcomes. There are only three ways Governments can influence this: education, regulation, and price. Price can include subsidies or charges for pollution or the use of public resources. All are necessary.

We build on the efforts of others.

I was Listener’s Environmentalist of the Year in 2008 for my work establishing the emissions trading scheme and the 90 percent renewable electricity target, which remain cornerstones of New Zealand’s efforts to reduce emissions. We got there with votes from the Greens and New Zealand First, who both have a good voting record on these issues.

My passion for having rivers clean enough to swim in comes from my Otago roots. Our rivers and lakes are replenished every minute of every day with clean waters from the headwaters. They shimmer and sparkle. I doff my hat to Nick Smith and the Land and Water Forum for the macroinvertebrate index and periphyton—aka slime—attributes in freshwater management.

My main contribution was to reach community acceptance in the 2017 election that swimmability is the target. Kiwis in rural areas and cities overwhelmingly believe that the most important river or beach is the local one they and their kids swim in during summer. If their local river or beach, and yours, is clean, they all will be.

Where currently polluted, Kiwis will allow time for a gradual improvement, but people will rebel if the national policy statement standards are undermined. You can see I fear this in this time of reactionary politics. Please don’t—we need Ministers for the Environment, not “Ministers for Pollution”.

I had responsibility for the enactment of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, which introduced ministerial responsibility and ensured the right of citizens to challenge every COVID order in the courts via the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Like everyone else, I rolled up my sleeves. I was a go-between, helping Fisher & Paykel (F & P) Healthcare fulfil its extraordinary contribution to saving literally millions of lives around the world for people who needed respirator treatment to live. F & P’s generosity and influence helped New Zealand in ways few understand and few know, and they were ready to do more. Lewis Gradon really is quite a special man.

All COVID decisions, now, are being critiqued, and I’m sure hindsight will be closer to 20/20 than reality. I hope to be called by the inquiry.

We owe the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern an enormous debt of gratitude and respect for her leadership. Had we closed borders earlier, thousands more would not have got home. But with worse comorbidities like obesity and fewer respirators than Italy, our system would have been overrun had we not acted as we did. Outcomes would have mirrored Italy or the UK. Thousands would have died, including many doctors and nurses, and patients with other ailments.

Jacinda’s astoundingly clear and kind communication carried the nation, as she did after the Christchurch massacre—this one always gets a tickle in my throat—when she said, “They are us.”—they are us—and showed respect by wearing a headscarf. That’s leadership I’ll remember.

Now, my wider work on upholding civil liberties included on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act, and this created a pathway for Parliament and the executive to respond to declarations from the senior courts while maintaining parliamentary sovereignty.

On Te Tiriti, we of all countries can find a way through. It’s not long ago that the leaders or deputies of every party here had whakapapa.

An insult hurled across the Chamber at a heated moment last year surprised me: “You’re only 15 percent Māori.” I hope that was regretted, because that cuts, and it cuts in more ways than one.

Dame Anne Salmond describes the Treaty as an exchange of gifts—tuku—between the Queen for her subjects and rangatira on behalf of hapū. I agree with Dame Anne that Te Tiriti is not a partnership between races. She criticises both the phrase and that legal construct from the decision of Lord Cooke in the 1987 Lands case. I don’t think those comments from Cooke are a necessary part of the ratio decidendi of that case, and it would be helpful for the senior courts to say so, if they are of that view.

Kelvin Davis says that article 1 plus article 2 equals article 3.

Treaty rights are substantial, but there is no Treaty right to a parallel system of Government. That would breach article 1.

In 2017, I charted a pathway into the important Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, updating our screening regime for inward investment to include residential land. Kiwis should not be outbid by richer people from overseas, nor be tenants in our own country. This is as true of the most beautiful lakeside property and the most modest urban home which is another Kiwi’s dream.

Interest deductibility: the sale price of housing in New Zealand is often set by landlords, who currently can borrow 100 percent secured over their property portfolios, and they outbid owner-occupiers who just want one house to live in. It’s only possible because of lax interest deductibility rules. Leveraged landlords get capital subsidies year after year. Grant Robertson and I fixed this, but, sadly, it was reversed. Maybe we went a little bit far, but we were right in essence.

I’ve tried to move debates from imperfect, narrow statutory definitions to real-world economics. Economic income increases an individual’s resources—in other words, the ability to buy more kit.

Those in the high-wealth individuals study had an average wealth of $276 million. Most of their income is never taxed. Their total effective tax rate as a proportion of income averaged under 10 percent, including both income tax and GST. The Treasury and IRD papers on income tax, wealth distribution, and trusts were the result of years of exceptional work by officials.

Middle-class Kiwis, by contrast, on wages or salaries pay an effective tax rate of around 30 percent, including income tax and GST—at least double the rate paid by the very wealthy. This is plainly unfair.

Labour income is taxed; most capital income of the very wealthy is not, and New Zealand now is a tax haven for billionaires. Their assets commonly sit in intergenerational trusts.

The top 1 percent own 26 percent of everything. For investments outside the family home, it’s much more. The 1 percent own over 60 percent of all direct New Zealand investment in New Zealand private and public companies—astounding.

Piketty was right: the wealthy earn much more than they spend, and they hoover up much more each year. R is greater than G—their rate of return is higher than growth in the economy. We’re fast becoming what my ancestors came here to escape.

The revenue-neutral tax switch I proposed is sometimes described as a wealth tax, but it’s better seen as a tax on income from capital. Think of it as an average rate of return of 4.5 percent taxed at a third. In fact, it’s less because the family home and contents, plus an additional $5 million of investments each—$10 million for a couple—were excluded.

It’s always been difficult to convince the other side on tax. At times, I’ve found it surprisingly hard on my own side, too.

Now, there’s a debate about the relative merits of a capital income tax or realisation-based capital gains tax (CGT), which I’ve also advocated for, and either solution is good—and, yes, if I had my way, we would have both, with appropriate credit for one against other. Capital income would not be double-taxed.

That would allow everyone to get the first $20,000 income tax-free—$10k immediately and the next $10k phased in as CGT revenue grew—and I’d fix interest deductibility, again. And I’d let everyone inherit $1 million tax-free, be it from trusts or deceased estates, and then I’d treat the rest as income and tax it as such. None of these rates would be high. Broad-base, low-rate would at last be true.

Capital flight is exaggerated. The land, the buildings, the cows, the fish, and the trees stay—even pigs can’t fly. The means of production remains.

The very wealthy rich would still be richer than everyone else, but they, or, more likely, their trusts, would own a little bit less. That is, of course, why we have public companies, and they have shares—shares.

I like success and reward. Mine are not the politics of envy. A good day’s pay for a hard day’s work. Profits for capital taking risk.

But a strong middle class working, producing, consuming, saving, and investing is key to prosperity and cohesion. We’ve been there before, and our country was prosperous. Things would readjust. Homeownership would rise, speculation diminish, and productivity increase.

We would of course need more dentists because more people could afford to get their teeth fixed.

I earlier proposed the variable savings rate alongside Australian work-based savings, as another tool to control inflation. It made The Economist magazine, but did not win the election.

Some people call me a wonk. It could be worse.

I do recommend Bernard Connolly’s book You Always Hurt the One You Love: Central Banks and the Murder of Capitalism. Very low interest rates—sometimes negative—plus enormous liquidity from quantitative easing ruined the creative destruction cycle, inflated capital values, and made already high-wealth inequality massively worse, leading voters to back the policies now flailing the USA. Or has the “l” already dropped out of flailing?

Paradoxically, Lord Turner’s Between Debt and the Devil convinced me that if the Alpine or Hikurangi faults rupture, the Reserve Bank should QE (quantitatively ease) into a long-term, low-rate “principal and interest” Government bond held to term, spreading the cost over time.

Electricity: in competitive, growing markets, prices are set by the long-run marginal cost of new supply.

I still favour consideration of Onslow, though probably not the biggest version. It’s a simple concept: the Manorburn depression is a giant basin sitting next to a giant tap—the Clutha River. It just needs a plug hole.

Perhaps give the job to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Remarkably, since he arrived here in 1979, he’s done many of the biggest jobs at least twice, so there’s precedent here. He really was a qualified tunneller, first class, on the Snowy River power scheme. So give it some thought, Winston—you could tunnel your way out.

I recently set out Labour’s foreign affairs policy as the world transitions from one superpower to a multipolar world. A clear-eyed vision for courteous relations with the US and China, close dialogue with the Pacific Rim countries, and with Pacific Island and European friends, and raise official development assistance as we raise defence spending. Help Pacific Islands develop a fishing fleet—leased to them, not gifted—not least to minimise the risk of militarisation in the Pacific via a paramilitary fishing fleet.

Paul Krugman famously said, “Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it’s almost everything.” Higher total factor productivity in Australia is due primarily to more capital being applied to labour. Their universal work-based savings are why. It’s why those clever Aussies own their banks plus ours, our insurance companies, and much more. It’s why their infrastructure is better, their current account deficit lower, their net international liabilities lower, and their growth rate higher. That’s why their wages and salaries are now much, much higher, and why droves of Kiwis shift across the Ditch each year.

We live in a trans-Tasman market and need to follow suit, with taxing savings less as well by moving to EET (exempt/exempt/taxed), not TTE (taxed/taxed/exempt). Andrew Coleman is an economist with wide respect. He’s written up how this transition could occur. No one is worse off, and the super backstop remains.

My latest project has been pushing for accountability for the internet giants for the harms their dangerous products cause. Young people, investment scams, misinformation, defamation, theft of content, live streaming murders in Christchurch, death threats, and foreign interference. Most of this is anonymous; some is aimed at undermining our democratic way of life and freedoms.

Trust, facts, and science all sit at the heart of democracy and free enterprise. Fascism and dictatorship thrive on lies and propaganda.

The statutory exclusion of liability for third-party content is the underlying cause. It’s unusual, wrong, and should be removed. Allow safe harbours. Set a maximum claim, but do allow people to use the Disputes Tribunal and class actions in the courts—importantly, this does not make the Government a censor.

The megalomaniacal, tax-avoiding, tech-baron owners are greedy and selfish. They won’t change their practices until liable for the harms they cause.

E-commerce, entertainment, and masses of information and point-to-point communication would still flourish. I feel the moment is coming—don’t let it pass.

To do your job for long in this House, you’ve got to have fun. Question time is best when you’re in a corner. Maurice Williamson, the tosser—of the document. Gerry Brownlee and Brokeback Mountain, the Saudi sheep farm in the desert, Baxter poetry with Nicola Willis, and, most recently, Claire Trevett and the cows.

But it’s not all fun. The Exclusive Brethren—who don’t vote—hired private investigators to dig the dirt on me, David Benson-Pope, and Peter Davis. Unfortunately for them, the PI forgot he was private and gave an interview spilling the beans—weird. And a clip of me saying “Jacqui Dean says I hate farmers” cut to “I hate farmers” and circulated on social media.

But the worst stuff happens to our leaders. None of them deserves it.

It’s our staff who help us get through, and I’ve had wonderful workmates, too many to name. I’ll name those who’ve been with me for over a decade: John Blincoe, rust never sleeps; Corin Higgs, I think the best political adviser in the Beehive, under us—probably under you guys, too—snap for Barry Ebert outside; Deb Thornton, twice, because Deb did nigh on two decades; and Janet Gootjes, of late.

It can be hard for our families, especially when bad news is front page, and my kids have been there. To my beloved Ruby, Molly—both here—and Oscar, who is overseas, today will bring mixed emotions for you, too. You were two, five, and eight at the start and it was different not being together when you awoke, not walking to school, and being away for the bedtime story and casual evening chats, and I’m sorry for missing so many events. You’re each so very special in very many ways, and you know I love you dearly.

Can I thank my former wife—a writer—for doing far, far more than her fair share of raising our kids. So very well done.

Thanks to my now deceased parents, and my sisters and our extended families, including Barbara’s.

Now, Barbara is private, but she can’t avoid fame. John and Liesha’s mother, Sadie’s BB—she’s got numerous songs written about her; music videos and paintings. She’s a source of inspiration and strength to many. She’s gorgeous, principled, creative, hard-working, fun-loving, and gorgeous. We’ve been together for 15 years this year. I can’t believe my luck—every day is a treat. And with my kids and Barbara, I reckon I’m the luckiest man alive.

And my friends—well, they’re my friends. They’re important. I arrived here with many and I leave with more. I acknowledge that politics has unjustly hurt some, but they’re philosophical on that, and life’s good.

To all the Labour Party activists, the presidents and members, and to my leaders, Chris Hipkins and Carmel Sepuloni, and Labour MPs: you’re a fantastic and cohesive team—keep it up. We’re New Zealand’s oldest political party. We’ve done lots for our country, and there’s lots more to be done.

Thanks to all the people who run Parliament. A special call-out to Grant Cleland in the library. To the judiciary and the fourth estate, the public servants, unions, businesses, farm leaders, NGOs, academic communities, the comms gurus—thank you.

The artists of all genres, who enrich us all. The scientists who also open up new frontiers.

And my fellow MPs—the opposition is not the enemy.

To Shane Jones: I love you, but we don’t need more coal. The top te reo student, number one in our land, and a Harvard scholar, he probably read Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, which foreshadowed the furious storms we’re just starting to see.

We are all hostages to MMP. Why else would so much political capital be frittered away on identity politics while others fan culture wars, and society polarises? To be clear, MMP drives these behaviours in main parties, too.

Under first past the post, New Zealand became amongst the best countries in the world, but MMP was meant to be better. Perhaps Dr Hooton is right and MMP gets worse over time.

It’s the people’s system, not ours. As things polarise and the hard issues don’t get fixed, we should allow the people to again make their choice.

I’d vote for STV. All 120 of us would have to serve in a seat. That drives behavioural change.

I’d add in a small Upper House—30 people appointed, as in Canada, or voted in STV—and limited to two terms each. And if we become a republic—not high on my list—please avoid giving our president executive powers.

Arena Williams recently surprised me by saying, “You’re different.” I asked, “How?” “You don’t need affirmation, and so you’re happy to disagree.” It can be a weakness too, yet officials thrived on it.

That’s who I am: a conviction politician, clear in my values. My ideology: no communist, part capitalist, part socialist, class not race, and I’m 100 percent sure Labour is my place.

I’ve fought many battles. I’ve stood on principle. I’ve won and I’ve lost, but I leave here knowing that on environment, civil liberties, and—most precious of all—a prosperous egalitarian society, I’ve tried to move the dial.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less travelled by,

And that has made all the difference. (Robert Frost)

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Sitting suspended from 6.11 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. But, firstly, Madam Speaker, if you would indulge me, I would like, on behalf of New Zealand First, as the first speaker after the Hon David Parker’s valedictory speech, to acknowledge his service, his friendship across the House, the strength of his words, his honesty and heartfelt account of an impressive career in politics, which left us somewhat speechless and humbled. I would like to acknowledge his departure from this House.

To this bill, I would like firstly to revisit the key point that pay equity claims will continue to exist after the passing of this legislation. The framework will be changed and existing claims will be impacted, but, as has been repeated numerous times in this debate, the bill delivers a framework for addressing sex-based undervaluation in remuneration. We are delivering a robust, workable, and sustainable solution that is focused on delivering resolutions. There has been much narrative about the adverse impact on women and how women are being disadvantaged in this process, but this is not the case. We have had a history of hard-fought battles to ensure that women are paid the same for the same work that men do. From my recollection, it was not until the 1970s that the Police delivered an equal pay framework for women. The legacy remained and, when I joined the Police in the 1980s, Police women were still referred to as “WDs”—referencing the Women’s Division. It has been an, at times, hard-fought process to address the system of equal pay, and I think we are in a good place.

This bill is delivering the system that will ensure that pay equity will be resolved, that we will be accountable, and that there will be solutions for real race-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations. This does not alter or impact the process by which a fair day’s pay is provided for a fair day’s work. There are mechanisms and protections to ensure this process is followed. This will drive accountability for the value of work and total remuneration conditions. More importantly, as has been mentioned, it will ensure that private sector employers will not be allowed to perpetuate undervaluing the workforce through an equity system that has a Government-funded backstop. Women are not being undervalued in this legislation. The protections will remain to address sex-based discrimination.

I have said before that I have spent nearly all my work life in male-dominated occupations and have worked with amazing women who, because of their value and contribution to their employer, have earned incomes well in advance of their male colleagues. There are workforces that are being undervalued and underpaid, and New Zealand First will fight to ensure there are protections to deliver for the hard-working Kiwi battlers, not because of their gender but because we will deliver First World wages as they deserve. But, in this legislation and at this time—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You’re not going to get First World wages when you can barely lift the minimum wage.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: —very vocal—this bill will deliver a robust, workable, and sustainable system to address sex-based undervaluation, and we commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The next call is a split call—I call Takutai Tarsh Kemp.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Te Pāti Māori rises in staunch opposition to this so-called Equal Pay Amendment Bill. It is an amendment that tramples on the very name of the bill. In fact, it should be called the “Unequal Pay that Discriminates Against Women Amendment Bill” because that’s exactly what it is.

This is nothing but a disgusting attack on equal pay that will only discriminate against women and Māori workers who are taken advantage of. Let me talk to our whānau at home and say that this is what this Government thinks about women. We get notice an hour before the bill is being dropped, and this Government used urgency to push this bill through a process that misses out on the voices of our communities and the voices of our whānau, and there’s no chance for them to actually have their say.

I remember on Tuesday when we were in a meeting, and outside the window we could hear the voices of those women chanting, “Stand up, fight back.” I remember when, on 4 May, I attended the union demonstration in Manukau, where the same groups of whānau were chanting “Stand up, fight back”. Why? Because they’re all fighting for the right for equal pay, fair pay.

There has been no select committee process, no public submissions, no hearing from the very women that this bill will harm. There has been no scrutiny from Māori, unions, lawyers, human right experts, or the Human Rights Commission. What else is missing? A regulatory impact statement. There is nothing to show us what this bill will cost. There is no transparency about the risks or benefits, no modelling and no justification. Perhaps most disturbing of all, there’s been no analysis of the bill’s impact on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, no assessment of whether it violates freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, or the right to equality before the law. When a bill has such sweeping consequences for the rights of women, especially indigenous women, that lack of oversight is not just negligent; it is dangerous.

Let us be absolutely clear: this is not equal pay legislation; this is pay oppression in disguise. The Government has told minorities and women once again to go and stick it, that we are not worthy of due process, that all we deserve is an hour, that all we deserve is actually nothing, and that all we deserve is that they are going to push us backwards on all the work that has been done over many, many years by the women who have stood up to fight back.

Let us ask why, on the sixth day of May 2025, this Government thinks that it’s acceptable to use its power and oppress—to remove pay equity for women. In 16 days, this Government will announce their Budget. It is clear that they’ve fudged the numbers—that’s right—and they’re coming up short. They’ve given $3 billion to landlords. They’ve cut the jobs of nearly 20,000 public servants, and then we hear the Prime Minister say that this bill will save billions. Well, now we know where the billions are coming from—from the pockets of those that work hard and service this country.

This bill is a brutal assault of the rights of working women. It tears down the legal pathway that wāhine Māori, Pacific women, and low-paid workers have used to fight for justice. It guts the definition of women’s work, wipes out every active claim, and gives bosses unchecked power to shut them down with no reason needed. It bans back-pay, delays fair pay for years, and locks women out of raising a claim for decades. Unfair. Unjust. Te Pāti Māori will not stand by this Government to see this happen. Kia ora tātou.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to strongly oppose the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. Let’s be absolutely clear: this bill does not modernise or streamline anything. It’s not about improving processes or making things fairer. This bill is a direct attack on the hard-fought rights of women—especially wāhine Māori and Pacific women, who have, for too long, been underpaid and undervalued in this country. It makes it harder to lodge a pay equity claim. It makes the evidence threshold higher, earlier. It limits what jobs can be used for comparison. It halts claims already under way—33 claims of hundreds and thousands of women.

So what does this mean? Let’s look at a massively female-dominated industry: of secondary teachers. They make up 66 percent of women—but, under the new legislation, there must be 70 percent of women in an industry to make a claim. This is the reality of this bill.

In September 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world which had women have the right to vote in Parliament elections. Almost 32,000 votes—signatures—from women and people all across the country. You can walk over to the National Library and see that scroll of signatures that those suffragettes gathered, showing what a trail-blazing country we were.

In 2020, when the Equal Pay Amendment Act passed, under the leadership of our Green colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter, there was hope in this House—hope that we were finally taking meaningful steps towards pay equity; hope that we were honouring the legacy of the 1972 Equal Pay Act and the activism of trail blazers, like Kristine Bartlett.

But this Government prioritises greed over women’s rights. This Government is showing that they are more focused on reducing costs than upholding the principle of equality. This Government have said that there is a problem because there has been so many pay equity settlements. They think it’s a problem that women are getting paid more. They think it’s a problem that women are getting paid fairly. The Government are saying, “We want women to be paid equally”, while also saying that too many women have won the right to be paid fairly—make it make sense.

This bill turns back the clock on the progress that has been made. Let’s talk about that disproportionate impact on women. The pay gap between Pākehā men and Pākehā women is 8.1 percent; for Asian women, it is 18.2 percent; for Māori women, it is 19 percent; and for Pacific women, it is 20.9 percent. Essentially, Māori and Pacific women, in 2024, worked from 21 October to 31 December for free.

Now, let’s talk about what kind of workers we are talking about. In COVID, we had essential workers who we valued so much because they were the ones out there keeping our country running. We were talking about cleaners, we’re talking about teachers, and we’re talking about at-home carers caring for our disabled and elderly people, and our aged-care workers who were helping those elderly people who were not able to see their families. These are the workers that we were talking about.

Now, through that COVID period, we revered these people, and, today, we are turning back the clock on that and saying, “We don’t value you”. These women have not had their say because you have decided to ram this through without a select committee process, without time to actually have the experts have their say. This is a way of silencing women.

This bill is not just regressive; it’s cowardly, it dismantles a process built through years of negotiation and cross-party consensus—including National’s own support—and it does so quietly, rushed, and without honour. We vehemently oppose the process which this has been passed—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Enough has been said in this debate during the course of today. I stand here with National’s proud record since 1972 through to 2017. In the words of our female leadership, all we’re doing is correcting what the last Government rushed through, under urgency, without select committee processes—as much has been spoken about in this House today—we’re fixing that to ensure a robust, a sustainable, and a practical system is in place. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I think it says a lot when the members on the other side can’t even give a full speech, in the third reading of what it is a significant piece of legislation, when they didn’t even allow it to go through a select committee process. As I was talking—they’ve just stopped now, but they’re laughing as if it’s funny. I need to say to that member Carl Bates and to the members of the Government that are in the House tonight that this is far from funny for so many New Zealanders.

This morning, I went to an Auckland event; they were celebrating 15 years since the Supercity was set up, but almost every woman who I saw who spoke to me when I walked in the room talked about the legislation that Government has put in place, and the halting of pay equity. A prominent woman, who’s not actually a Labour Party voter—they know very well; I won’t mention her name—said she could not understand what they were thinking. Now, what does that say? That says that women in all parts of society, on each side of the divide know that this is wrong. But that side of the House don’t know that this is wrong, apparently. They continue to stand up in the House and gaslight us and gaslight the rest of New Zealand, and tell us that we’re wrong; the unions, the workers who are upset about this are wrong; the women’s organisations who are very vocal in their opposition to this, they are wrong; the academics who are speaking out against this Government move, they are wrong. Again, what we have is a National - New Zealand First - ACT coalition telling the rest of the country that they know what’s right, we’re all wrong, and then gaslighting all of us with regards to this issue.

I’m still confused about how this came about, in some ways. It just happened so quickly and then here we are now passing this ugly piece of legislation, and we’ve had different versions of the truths from that side of the House. However, I suspect that the ACT Party leader’s version of the truth—the soon to be Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand—is probably this time, this one time, the truth. He was very clear about the fact that they’ve saved millions of dollars for the Government as a result of this. What a way to make cost savings: taking money away from New Zealand women workers now and into the future, taking money away from their children, from their families, from their communities. And what for? To pay for tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable in the first place, to give $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords, to give a tax break to the tobacco industry.

You know what’s most shameful about this is that Government were not upfront with New Zealanders going into the last election. No one voted for this. I don’t recall any of their politicians standing up on a platform saying, “If you vote us in, we will repeal the pay equity legislation and we can assure you women will be paid less.” Who voted for that? Any woman in this country or any man with a woman in their life that cares about that woman will be regretting their decision if their decision at that election was to vote for that Government.

I have to say it’s very clear: it comes down to choices and we can see that women are not a priority for that Government, and now the rest of New Zealand can see it as well. I think they have underestimated the sense of feeling of this issue. What is really difficult to watch is the members on that side of the House quote themselves from how many months or years ago, trying to prove to us and the general public that they support pay equity. Simply not the case.

I think that this is not over, even though the Government would like to think that it is. They think that by passing this legislation, it’ll be done and dusted, they could do it quickly, sweep it under the rug and move on. Well, I can guarantee you that will not be the case at all.

What I feel very sad about, actually, is that this Sunday is a significant day. What is this Sunday?

Hon Members: Mother’s Day.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mother’s Day, and what that Government decided to gift all the mothers of this country was a pay cut. Effectively, that’s what it is. What they have said is to all the teacher mums, all the social worker mums, all the mums out there that are carer and support workers—what they have said to them is that you cannot expect to get pay equity under us or in fact for the next 10 years, and you will continue to fall behind your male counterparts and you cannot expect to be paid fairly. That is the Mother’s Day gift that that side of the House has given every mother in this country. Now, let’s not forget that it’s not just about the women and these mothers; it’s about the children that they are looking after. It’s about the families that they care for. It’s about the communities that they live in. Today, the gift that they have been given for Mother’s Day is a pay cut.

We, of course, are opposing this bill, and we can’t help but see so much of a contradiction from that side, with regard to the speeches that they give, with respect to the support they showed, unanimously for the bill when it first went through. We’re sad for Aotearoa New Zealand, because we have had a proud history of being leaders for women—albeit mostly led by this side of the House—and today they take us backwards. Today they reverse that progress. Today they stand against everything that we are so well known for internationally, for standing up for, and the rights and the working conditions and the pays of women are just a few of those things.

I said it in my first speech and I’ll say it again in the third reading speech: all too often, we see members on that side of the House standing up in front of microphones and international forums, talking about the progress New Zealand has made for women, and I’ve seen women on that side of the House talk about the progress that we have made for pay equity. I don’t want to see any of those women or men stand up and speak to these gains ever again. In fact, when those women take the podium at those international events, what they should be doing is saying, “Actually, to everyone in this room, we have to acknowledge that as a country, we’ve just taken significant steps backwards for women.”, and that is because of their Government’s decisions, and you will need to stand up and say that you voted for pay equity to be halted, and you will have to stand up and say, because of you and because of your colleagues, women will continue to be paid less and that gender pay gap will continue to be the persistent pay gap that it is, and you will have to stand up and own that that is because of you. I want to hear those speeches.

It is a dark day for New Zealand today and it has been a dark two days as the country has been taken by absolute shock as a result of this. I feel for the women who probably, for many, are still already struggling with the cost of living, rising rents, rising energy bills, and now they are going to be looking forward to very little in the way of pay increases and will not be able to expect to get pay equity any time soon.

Hon Andrew Bayly: That’s not right.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member Andrew Bayly is yelling out in opposition to what I’m saying, but I’m pretty sure no one sees him as the bastion of support or workers’ rights or the person who should be speaking on behalf of or for women. So perhaps that member should remain silent during the duration of the speech and up until I finish, because I don’t think he has much value to add.

We oppose this bill. We are ashamed for that Government, and the fight continues because the legislation may pass this evening but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to remain silent on this issue or the rights of women in any area.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just make the point before I call the next member, that comments across the House should not be personal. Thank you.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Madam Speaker. If I’m getting heckled by a member on the other side of the House in an interjection, then I think that I have the right to make reference to the heckling.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Absolutely.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on this bill and I’m very proud of this bill; I think it’s a great step forward. I’d just like to say there is a difference of opinion on this bill, and that’s fine. But people should also respect other people’s views. I respect the views of the people on the other side of the House that don’t agree with me, and I think that they really should think about themselves if they can’t respect a different view. Maybe they don’t have a very good argument if they want to attack the messenger. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call—I call Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think what we need to have in this debate is a bit of perspective. There are differences of opinions, as that last member said. But what we need to look at are the actual facts of what the Government is doing here. This Government is changing the current law on equal pay in such a way that it will make it almost impossible for predominately female groups of workers to make pay equity claims and to receive pay equity claims. Now, that is no joke. That is about recognising the rights of women to have their work valued and to live free of discrimination. This is a human rights issue.

I want to talk briefly, if I can—I do have a short call—about the impacts of a settlement. I have a study here on the NGO social worker settlement. The results of when women received the settlement was: 52 percent decrease in employees who skipped a meal; 55 percent decrease in employees who went without groceries; 51 percent decrease in employees struggling to make essential payments or mortgage payments; 91 percent increase in employees who reported that they had other money available and nothing left in their account; 37 percent decrease in employees who required other sources of income—e.g., Working for Families tax credits—40 percent of employees reported they could save more for their KiwiSaver.

This is about dignity. This is about recognising the work of underpaid women in our society, and this is why this legislation was first brought to the House. The changes that this Government is making today will make these types of outcomes for our lowest-paid women, for the work that is undervalued, less likely—very less likely.

I want to acknowledge the people who brought this to the House. When I was first a lawyer, I did research on the Kristine Bartlett case. In my maiden speech, I acknowledged John Ryall, I acknowledged Peter Cranney, I acknowledged Kristine Bartlett, and I said, one of the things I was proudest of, of that Government, was the work they’d done to value the work of women. It is a shameful day to be in the House to see that wiped away today, because I have met so many people in my career who have gone through pay equity processes, and, for the first time in their lives, they look objectively at the work that they do and they realise that what they actually are doing is highly skilled. It is important. It is not low-level work; it requires a lot of intelligence, a lot of emotional intelligence, to do the work—a lot of heavy lifting. They realise that they are, and their work—and some of them have been working in these jobs for 30, 40 years. They realise their value, and this is what is being taken away today.

I know the Government says that there is still an Act in place, but let me tell you a few things. This Act will bring in a higher threshold for making a claim. They will quash review clauses. Care and support workers, of which Christine Barlett was one, have a claim in the authority. That claim will be extinguished when this bill is passed, and all of her colleagues will have to wait until 2027 before they can even raise a claim. Now, when she first brought her claim in 2013, it wasn’t resolved until 2017. So how much longer will these people have to work on the minimum wage without access to pay equity? They have removed back-pay. This is really important. Currently, if you have an equal pay claim, if it’s not settled, you’re not disadvantaged during the negotiations because you know you’ll get back-pay. What incentive is there to negotiate in good faith, when every single day you are losing an extra dollar? It is absolutely ridiculous, and it absolutely proves that this Government is changing equal pay and they’re making it a lot worse and they’re making it more disadvantageous to women.

Even if that wasn’t the case—even if the things to do with retrospectivity, extinguishing claims, and removal of back-pay weren’t bad enough—the hierarchy of comparators that this Government is putting into the legislation will make it impossible for people to prove that they have a pay equity claim. And it also doesn’t make sense. Why are people who work in close proximity to you more likely to be able to help you prove that you’ve been systemically undervalued? It’s more likely if it’s in another industry.

This is a fundamental problem with this Act and it will disadvantage women. It is a huge step backwards. This bill is taking money out of the pockets of working women in New Zealand. We won’t see pay equity settlements. We won’t see rises in pay. All we will see is what we have seen throughout the history of New Zealand, which is consistent undervaluation, consistent not valuing of women’s work, and consistent pay discrimination against working women. It is absolutely shameful. The National Party should be ashamed of letting this bill go through the House. It is absolutely terrible, and I think you’ll live to regret it.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I rise to contribute to the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. I’d like to just say to anyone listening in our public, our neighbours, at home, around the world, actually, that I’m talking to you, dear listeners. I don’t care to refute what has been said and the scaremongering taking place on the other side of the House. I’m talking to you.

The National Party always has—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order. The speaker has repeatedly brought the Speaker into the debate. She may wish to speak to “dear listeners” but maybe she could leave the Speaker out of it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point understood. I was signalling to the member to not bring the Speaker into the debate.

RIMA NAKHLE: My apologies. I’d like to speak to those that are beyond these walls, and I’d like to say that the National Party has, always will, and does support equal pay based on genders; pay equity.

But what I would like to say is when something has ballooned out of control, out of what it was initially intended to address—that is a lack of pay equity based on gender—then we are stepping in and saying, “Let’s take it back to basics.” That’s what we’re doing with this bill here.

I heard constantly about how people across the House are very angry. They’re filled with anger. I wonder where this anger was when they voted against the Gangs Act. I wonder where this anger was when they voted for sexual abuse and against victims when they voted against the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Act. I wonder where this anger was when they voted against adjusting tax brackets—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order. I have taken deep personal offence that that member has said that people on this side of the House voted for sexual abuse. That’s outrageous.

Kahurangi Carter: Speaking to the point of order, I find it deeply, deeply offensive and I am personally offended at her saying that we support sexual offenders. That is deeply offensive and completely untrue.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I will ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

RIMA NAKHLE: I withdraw and apologise. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Earlier this evening, just before the dinner break, the Minister of Finance stood in this House and cried crocodile tears. We know the National Party know they’re in trouble when they send down the Minister of Finance to speak on a bill which is not her piece of legislation at third reading. She waxed lyrical about the greatness of Kristine Bartlett and how proud she was to have voted for that. The only problem for Nicola Willis and every other member of the Government is what Kristine Bartlett herself has been saying. It is that woman’s words that count. She says, “It’s hurting. It’s really hurting. I feel as though women have just been let down so terribly today. It’s just so sad. I don’t know what is going to happen in society.” They are the words of Kristine Bartlett, the New Zealander of the Year who crusaded and fought hard and crusaded with so many other women and men to ensure that women were paid decently and women were paid fairly by valuing their work and rectifying historical wrongs that had seen the undervaluation of women’s work.

The National Party voted for that, but, over the last 24 hours, we’ve seen a National Party that has ripped that up, and, with that, they have ripped up the hopes and aspiration of women across this country, and men who also work in those industries that have traditionally been women’s work—work that is undervalued. We’re talking about teachers, we’re talking about Plunket nurses, we’re talking about nurses, midwives, care and support workers, hospice nurses, healthcare assistants, librarians, and admin assistants. These are just some of the people in the 33 claims that are getting thrown on a scrap heap by this Government. These are the real people.

What we’ve seen is that the Public Service Association have calculated that for one group of these workers—the care and support workers—by tossing out their pay equity claim, they are going to be $148 a week worse off than they are. When you are on a limited income per week, $148 is a huge amount of money. And this Government under urgency has passed this law that takes away the opportunity for those workers to earn that money.

I have been sent something by someone in my electorate who voted National at the last election. She sent me the pat reply that she’s received from a National MP that she contacted when she expressed her disgust. What are the lines they’re sending out? The National Party—and it’s Vanessa Weenink, in this case—are saying that they’re amending the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, workable, and sustainable.

Let us be very clear: sustainable means billions and billions of dollars saved so they can make their Budget add up, because at the core of this is what David Seymour said yesterday, what Christopher Luxon said on the tiles on the way in, and what Nicola Willis had to admit in question time today. This is about freeing up billions of dollars for a Budget that is on the tails of a Budget last year that gave billions to landlords and tobacco companies, and somehow it has to be paid for. It is some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and particularly women, that are paying for this year’s Budget. Let us be incredibly clear about that.

The pat reply that’s being sent out also says that claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of sex-based undervaluation. Well, we have asked—we have asked and asked and asked through the committee stage; we have asked in question time—what are the examples of this? What are the examples of these claims that have been able to progress? Which of the 33 is so egregious that you’re having to let down 150,000 workers in this country? Not one answer. This Government has not gone through the scrutiny of a select committee process. They have refused to answer the questions in the committee of the whole House stage. We and the country are still none the wiser of what the claims that have been able to progress are.

What is the problem we are trying to rectify? If we start from the basics of policy formulation, problem definition, we’re still in the dark. We still don’t know what the problem is. Only we do, because David Seymour let it slip out. The problem is making the Budget stack up and paying for the things that it squandered the money on tax cuts in last year’s Budget for, because that, in reality, is the critical problem definition.

Then the condescending email that is being sent out to people goes on to say, “It is difficult to compare pay rates from across different industries.” That is correct. Is it a surprise to anyone that rectifying sometimes centuries of undervaluation of women’s work is not an easy task, requires complexity, and is difficult? It’s the very reason why we set aside the money when we were in Government. What is more—as my colleague Camilla Belich rectified—we also said, “You know what? We will back-pay this while we work this through, because it is complex, it is going to take time, and nobody should pretend that rectifying centuries of the undervaluation of women’s work is going to be done in the flick of the switch. It is going to be hard.” But this Act that we are debating today—or this bill, which is soon to become an Act—takes away that back-pay. It takes that away and it puts it back into the Budget. It puts it back, essentially, into tax cuts for landlords, and tax breaks for tobacco companies, because this Government cannot make its Budget add up. These are the kinds of lines that this Government is peddling.

But let’s take this back to the humans that are at the source of this. In a second reading speech yesterday, I talked about sitting down with some rest home workers in my electorate many years ago and them telling me about the fact that they could finally afford the bus fare to get to work—but, more importantly, the bus fare to get home from work. They weren’t having to walk 40 and 45 minutes home at the end of an incredibly hard shift, and I think any of us in this House that have spent, either as elected representatives or as family members, time in rest homes have nothing but awe for the workers who work in rest homes. None of us can imagine having to walk home 45 minutes after the kind of graft that those people do—the kind of hard work that they do.

These are the very workers that this Government is letting down. They are saying to the midwives, to the hospice workers, to the care and support workers, to the teachers, to the nurses, and to the admin workers, “You don’t matter. Balancing our Budget is more important. We squandered the money at the last Budget and, I’m sorry, you’re going to have to be the sacrificial lamb.”

What we have from the National Party is a whole lot of excuses and a whole lot of women MPs who, frankly, will not front on this. The challenge for every National woman MP is to get out and explain to women why they think it is OK to use their position of power to legislate away their rights and their dignity, because that is what this Government is doing. They are taking away the rights of women to be valued the same as their male counterparts by getting rid of pay equity. This is not easy work. No one ever pretended that it would be. But this is nothing short of taking money out of the pockets of women.

One of the things that we do know is that there are 150,000 workers across the 33 claims that are going to be impacted by this, and what the National Party need to realise is that for every one of those 150,000 workers, they have family. They have children. They have partners, husbands, wives, parents, sisters, and brothers. The ripple of this change will be enormous. When I think about what $140-odd will do for families that I represent in Wigram each week—the difference that that would make that this Government has ripped away from them. Let’s even just put to one side the fact they’ve let them down over the promises they made about support for early childhood education and the fact that hardly anyone’s receiving that. This is nothing short of a betrayal of women.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought that I might just repeat my speech from last night, but I think it’s already been said many times. Just a couple of things from me: the Government supports women, it—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Read it like you mean it.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: The Opposition enjoyed my speech so much last night, it is almost worth repeating! The Government supports women, it supports gender equity and pay, and it supports equal pay. The National Party began this journey in 2017, to introduce the legislation, and now we are continuing to ensure it is workable and clear. We support the legislation, and we commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I present a legislative statement on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

The Government has introduced this bill today because we need to fix an issue with the operation of the Wildlife Act 1953. The Act is an important piece of legislation, but it’s old and creaking. The Act provides for the protection of wildlife through Aotearoa New Zealand, including some of New Zealand’s most at-risk species. It protects our precious wildlife, and it also recognises the need to regulate human interactions with them so that our actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run. However, an urgent issue has arisen as a consequence of a High Court decision in March that significantly limits the ability of the Department of Conservation (DOC)—Te Papa Atawhai—to authorise and regulate the incidental killing of protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act. The issue is preventing people and organisations from having the confidence to continue with their mahi, their developments, and their infrastructure projects because of concerns that they may be inadvertently breaking the law. It’s also affecting important conservation activities.

Incidental killing can occur during many a lawful activity, such as housing, transportation, energy, infrastructure, and pest control. The harming or killing of wildlife while doing these activities is unintended but foreseeable. It’s also often unaffordable. Without a Wildlife Act permit, it’s illegal to harm protected wildlife. Prior to the court’s decision, DOC regularly provided wildlife permits that authorised incidental killings so long as permitholders met the conditions in their permit. These conditions were designed to maintain the viability of effective wildlife populations and to protect individual animals as much as possible. Through these conditions, infrastructure providers, developers, and others could ensure that their mahi proceeded responsibly while supporting the long-term viability of wildlife populations. This bill addresses the impacts of the recent High Court decision and will enable projects to happen while protecting our precious wildlife.

The High Court ruling in March this year deemed the authorisation of incidental killing of protected wildlife during construction of the Mt Messenger highway in Taranaki to be unlawful. The decision has two significant implications: (1) it means that DOC are now unable to authorise and manage incidental harm to wildlife that is likely to occur during various activities; and (2) it creates significant uncertainty for those with existing Wildlife Act permits. They are now unsure if they can continue their activities lawfully. Without a lawful permit, harming protected wildlife is an offence. This is problematic for managing risks to threatened wildlife, because it prevents new wildlife permits from being issued, and these permits would normally include requirements to protect wildlife during their mahi. It’s also problematic for infrastructure providers and developers who are supporting our growing economy. They need assurance that they can carry out their activities lawfully. And it negatively impacts crucial conservation work, such as pest control and wildlife research. These activities may sometimes harm individual animals, but they are important as they benefit native species and ecosystems as a whole.

The bill is needed under urgency to restore certainty and confidence. Those who have been granted an authorisation in the past have relied on those authorisations to undertake their activities in good faith. We need to fix this problem, this raruraru, so that they can quickly continue their activities lawfully and limit any flow-on impacts on wildlife and, ultimately, our economy. There are over a hundred active authorisations that could be affected. These authorisations apply to developments and infrastructure activities such as subdivisions, construction projects, solar and wind farms, and road and rail projects, to name a few. Other types of projects could also be influenced and affected by this situation, such as pest control to control bovine tuberculosis, also known as the TBfree programme. On top of this, many applications for planned future activities that may require wildlife permits are currently stored. We urgently need to enable those applications to be processed so activities can go ahead with appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife. The bill makes specific targeted, focused changes to fix this problem.

The Government’s intent with the bill is very, very focused: (1) to restore people’s confidence that they can carry out their activities lawfully; and (2) to enable the Department of Conservation—Te Papa Atawhai—to regulate incidental harm to wildlife so that activities do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected wildlife. The bill does not make fundamental changes to the Wildlife Act. As I’ve said, the Wildlife Act has a very important role. It protects almost all our native birds, native reptiles, mokomoko, frogs, whiti poraka, and bats, pekapeka-tau-poto, also known as Mystacina tuberculata—the short-tailed bat—and a few specified native invertebrates and marine fish. Many of these animals, these kararehe, are at risk. It ensures wildlife cannot be lawfully taken, harmed, or killed without a permit, and these permits in turn protect the wildlife by including requirements designed to minimise adverse effects to individual animals and their species.

This bill addresses the issues at hand, following the court decision, while maintaining the existing foundations of the Act. It does not change the purpose of the Wildlife Act or water it down. It does not affect all decisions and permits under the Act but focuses solely on permits for incidental harm. Instead, the bill, essentially, restores the understanding to be the status quo prior to the court’s decision. The court’s decision that authorising incidental harm is unlawful under the Wildlife Act was based on the view that every act of killing individual animals must be consistent with the Act’s purpose of protecting wildlife. However, prior to the court’s decision, DOC had interpreted the Act to mean that a permit could meet the Act’s protective purpose by addressing effects at a population level—for example, a wildlife permit might allow an activity to harm some individual animals but require the permitholder to undertake activities such as habitat improvements or pest control that supported the population of that wildlife. The bill clarifies the ability to authorise incidental killing. It now clearly allows DOC—Te Papa Atawhai—to authorise an activity to incidentally kill some animals if the wider affected population is protected. This will remove the block preventing applications for activities being processed.

But let me be clear: these changes do not change or lower the bar for the protection of wildlife. The bill still requires that making and authorising wildlife permits be consistent with protecting wildlife. Permitholders must still take reasonable steps to avoid, minimise, and mitigate harm to wildlife. The bill also provides some clear guidance on how decisions should be made—for example, it requires DOC—Te Papa Atawhai—to consider what potential impacts the activity might have on the effect of wildlife populations and, of course, the viability of their species and the extent to which the permit will manage these effects. The bill also validates authorisations that have been previously granted for incidental killing. These validations will give those who already hold wildlife permits the confidence and the assurance that they can carry out their activities lawfully. It will not be an offence to incidentally kill wildlife during these activities, this mahi, provided that the permitholders comply with the conditions that are part of their permit. So if you’ve been given a wildlife permit already, ka pai; as long as you’re following its conditions, you do not need to do anything differently.

There’s more work to be done on the Wildlife Act, as my colleague Minister Jones has irregularly mentioned. This bill deals with an immediate problem, a key focus, but there’s much more work to be done. The legal problem this bill deals with has arisen in part because the Wildlife Act is over 70 years old. It’s older than nearly everybody who sits in this House. We know that there are many issues with this legislation, and with age comes wisdom. We need to modernise the Act and ensure it is robust and fit for purpose. I’m not proposing to make fundamental changes to the Act in an ad hoc way right now—no. This would risk making the Act even less coherent, less effective, and more difficult to work with. It’s not a replacement for a full review of the Wildlife Act. A full review remains a priority—I expect it will start very, very soon—but it will be complex and take a little bit of time. In the meantime, this bill is a first step. It fixes the current issue, a very narrow issue we have, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife and, of course, to enable people to travel throughout the country, for the TBfree programme to continue, and a number of other important infrastructure projects, such as renewable energies, to carry on doing what they’re doing. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): It does give me a little bit of comfort to hear the Minister saying that it is still a priority to rejig the Wildlife Act. It is from 1953; it is outdated. It would have been good, given this Government has had a year and a half—they’ve gotten started on it—and given that our Government did a fair bit of legwork in terms of looking at what a review could entail and what it needs to consider. So all they needed to do was to pick that up and run with it. But, sadly, that hasn’t happened.

What we see today with the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a High Court decision. It has been introduced to Parliament today with no accompanying RIS—there is no regulatory impact statement. It’s being passed through all stages under urgency. The Minister has not laid out why there’s such a huge rush for this bill under urgency. He has been quoted in the media as saying that the economic development needs to continue. No one was actually questioning that. What everyone’s questioning—those who are opposing this bill—is the way in which this is being done. As the Minister said, in a decision that was released just in March this year, the High Court set aside an authority that was granted by Te Papa Atawhai—the Department of Conservation—under section 53 of the Wildlife Act to Waka Kotahi—the New Zealand Transport Agency—for its Mt Messenger Bypass in Taranaki.

The issue that many have is with the way that this bill is being shepherded through the House under urgency, but also the fact that it tweaks a couple of sections—well, basically, section 53. As the Minister said, to go back to what was happening prior to the High Court decision is disappointing. As the World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand has laid out really well and really clearly, “These changes are the antithesis of good lawmaking. It is abundantly clear that the Conservation Minister has no genuine interest in conservation, or New Zealand’s unique and threatened biodiversity - despite it being the bedrock of our economy, wellbeing, national identity, and way of life.”

She then goes on to say that all of us understand the legal uncertainty that the High Court decision had presented. But what really needed to change was that new legislation. As I mentioned, there’s already been a review of that. The Minister just needed to implement changes and to, potentially, do a little bit more work to finesse it, but that could have been done in the last one and a half years.

Also, if targeted amendments are to be progressed, the Government could have included, or chosen to include, nature-positive changes that would require any activities for which section 53 permissions are issued, to have an overall positive impact on New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity. But it doesn’t really do that. I go back to the Environmental Law Initiative’s submission on this as well—or it would have been a submission if we’d had a select committee process, but, unfortunately, we don’t. Basically, their win in the High Court meant that developers needed to take reasonable steps to avoid killing wildlife, rather than simply being permitted to kill wildlife. Now, this piece of legislation, shepherded through the House by the conservation Minister, actually goes against the purpose of the bill. That is basically what the High Court ruling was. The primary purpose of this bill is to protect wildlife and to regulate human interactions with wildlife, not just to carte blanche allow the various developments this Minister wants to push through to allow them to do whatever they want. That is not the point of the Wildlife Act. Unfortunately, it is a shame that this piece of legislation, rather than making any meaningful change that would protect our biodiversity, just allows what was happening before, that the High Court has pointed out was unlawful, to be lawful by changing the law. It is a sloppy piece of legislation.

But, again and again, this Government has shown us that they are committed to waging a war on nature. Biodiversity and climate change are the two biggest issues that affect our environment and us as a country. Now, whether it’s through repeals and deferrals of regulation that protects fresh water and native species, their proposed repeal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, setting climate targets so low that they violate our commitments under the Paris Agreement, not to mention this conservation Minister’s priorities, as he himself has laid out. He says, in his Cabinet paper, and I quote: “My vision for conservation is to encourage more visits by tourists and New Zealanders to our iconic landscapes, to activate more commercial opportunities on public conservation land, and to ultimately enhance biodiversity across our country.” Says it all—I don’t commend this bill to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a dark day in the Parliament, I would say. There are two pieces of law going through the House that will have the effect over the course of yesterday, today, and—if we get through to it—tomorrow, in the words of Strictly Obiter on Bluesky, who tweeted expressing the Government’s view that they “wanna kill Kiwi and pay women less for doing it”. That’s basically what the Government will achieve today. They will take the extraordinary step of, while we have an underfunded Department of Conservation—in the words of the World Wildlife Fund, “New Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world, with more than 4,000 of our native species at risk or threatened with extinction”. And they want to reorient the Department of Conservation’s focus from protecting wildlife to killing wildlife, literally issuing permits and authorities for developers to kill wildlife. Well, in the headline of the Newsroom article, “Law change protects vulnerable roads and mines from skinks, geckos and frogs”. That’s what this does.

Except, I would say it actually has this kind of Orwellian, dystopian effect—you know, we seem to be living in this new-reality world where you might think you’ve walked into a Franz Kafka novel, you might think you’ve walked into the Margaret Atwood novel The Handmaid’s Tale, because we seem to be being convinced that destroying the American economy makes America great again, and that you need to commit genocide in an act of self-defence, and here in Aotearoa New Zealand you need to kill kiwi to protect Kiwi. Wow. I mean, honestly, it is discombobulating.

Dan Bidois: Very easy if you’re a Green.

STEVE ABEL: “Very easy if you’re a Green.” Interesting. That’s an interesting thing to say. One thing I think is fascinating about this Government, as my colleague just across mentioned, is they do seem hell-bent on destroying nature. Their priority in the time of a biodiversity crisis and a climate crisis is not to take into account the existential necessity of a healthy ecosphere for all of us. Their priority seems to be to take us back to a 19th century extractive mentality, where nature is expendable, and the only way for us to have a meaningful existence is by destroying it.

There’s a saying that when a clown enters the palace, he does not become a king; rather, the palace becomes a circus. We have a Government led by three clowns. This is truly a circus Government, and this piece of legislation is one of the strongest examples of what a circus it is, because it may well be that, extraordinarily, this legislation actually makes it more complex. It actually may have the effect of increasing blue and yellow tape in terms of people doing developments—because who is going to assess all of these instances of incidental killing and when it’s acceptable and when it’s not? Actually, if you read the existing Wildlife Act, you will find that section 68AB says that reasonable steps taken to protect wildlife are a sufficient defence against incidental killing. So this legislation actually could well be creating a heck of a lot more bureaucracy for our underfunded Department of Conservation, that we want to be focused on actually protecting wildlife, and now it’s going to be focused on providing “permits to kill” to developers. It seems like an extraordinary twisting of the purpose of this legislation.

This is a strange day, and indeed, it’s going to be an interesting evening, as we ask a lot of questions about this quite clumsily written piece of legislation. Honestly, I’ve read it over and over, over the course of the day, and it is really messily drafted; it is very confusing and tautological. I suspect the Government might well find that it is making a bigger mess than the one it is trying to solve. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. I think the Minister summed up very well the situation he’s trying to amend and repair. An event happened in March, earlier this year, where a court decided, as is its right, to make it clear the way these laws are interpreted. But it’s not really going in the way this country needs to go, where we can build infrastructure and manage our pest eradication in a way that is in a legal framework. So the Minister of Conservation has done the right thing. He’s brought something along to repair this piece of legislation. It’s a fix. It’s going to allow the active authorisations to continue. Basically, the court said something was illegal. We’re changing the law back to February 2025, not the 19th century, as the previous Green speaker, Steve Abel, said.

I won’t take too long on this call. I just want to add a little story. In select committee the week when the court decision came down, we were assessing some renewable energy. People were coming and submitting on renewable energy. The member Stuart Smith did some very astute questioning of these submitters, just to ask how they thought this change was going to affect them. I hope Stuart Smith is going to take a call and explain the shock that these submitters had at the situation that was developing in New Zealand. Thankfully, this Government and this Parliament are taking steps to address it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): These changes—the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill—remind the decision makers and other stakeholders in the world of infrastructure that there’s a rare mammal that must not be overlooked, known as a human being. This actually allows human productivity—the quality of our life, the ability of our economy to flourish—not to play second fiddle to a set of narrow considerations where legislation has been weaponised by shadowy groups, including the environmental entity funded by we don’t know who, wandering around the country littering the courts.

That is why this piece of legislation shows the sovereignty of Parliament in our constitution is paramount. Yes, you may have a random decision come from the judiciary, but this Parliament is empowered to restore clarity, certainty, and order, because there has been an immense level of disorder due to the weaponisation of an outdated piece of legislation.

We need, obviously, to have guardrails around the protection and the safeguarding of various species, but don’t for a moment think that in the development of our country we have not dislocated species, we have not incidentally killed species. Sure, providing the overarching population has expanded in wellbeing, which is still possible—all this piece of legislation does is restore to those entities who believed that they had legal authorisations the ability to get on with their projects.

Roading is essential for the development and the productivity of New Zealand. Economic development, including my beloved industry known as the mining industry: I want to see a growth in mining that is not hobbled or held hostage by foolish, unworkable interpretations under this statute, which is why this statute by and large should be stripped away with. Most of it should be dealt with under the Resource Management Act, but that’s for the future.

I do want to say that with development comes certainty; with certainty comes investment and the surplus to look after the features of our environment that are important, including the iconic species known as the kiwi. So no more catastrophisation; no more moral hysteria from the other side of the House. These are modest improvements. All this does is restore a level of lucidity to the law that we have always known should’ve been there in the first place, and that will ensure the agenda of the Government, shared by the community, to go ahead and invest and create jobs.

Look, in terms of jobs, I used to say I wanted the nephs off the couch. Well, I want the nephs off the meth, and that’s not going to happen until we have clarity and certainty for more ongoing growth, and a surplus will be available in a sensible way now that we are able to validate authorisations, clarify the confusion which emerged as a consequence of the High Court decision driven by a shadowy, unaccountable unknown. I call upon the media to actually investigate who this environmental group is. Who’s funding it? Are they even New Zealanders? They, in my view, represent a major threat. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Me pēhea nei te whakautu i ngā kōrero kua horahia ki mua ki te aroaro o te Whare? Ngā mema o te Whare e noho whakapapa Māori ana e kōrero ana mō te muku i te wāhi ki te ia, te tātai whakaheke o ngā uri a Tāne. Āe, he manu ētahi, ka mutu ko tāua te tangata ētahi.

Engari pēnei anō i ngā karawhiunga o tēnei Whare, kāre he wāhi tō te whakaaro Māori, ahakoa te māngai nui o tērā taha me ōna e pahupahu nei mō te iwi Māori me ōna mōhiotanga. E kore ana kōrero e whai kiko taketake ki te ūnga mai o te iwi Māori i roto i ēnei tū āhuatanga.

[How is one to respond to the statements that have been laid before the House? The members of the House that have Māori genealogy are speaking about deleting the role of the procession, the line of descent of the descendants of Tāne. Yes, some of them are birds, but also some of them are us people.

But this is similar to the vigorous activity of this House: there is no place for Māori ideas, despite the big mouth and company on that side droning on about the Māori people and their knowledge. His comments will have no real substance to them regarding the engagement of the Māori people with this domain.]

So, just where to start? Killing the kiwis. I mean, get real. Get real. There was clear decision from a court, and so we just bust a sidestep and go around it; we’ll just make it OK. But we’re talking about killing a kiwi. I mean, it’s got to be one of the most stupid things I’ve heard this House consider to date.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: There’s more to come.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: There’s more to come, no doubt. But—

Cameron Luxton: Four kiwi died in the Bay of Plenty this year.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Kiwis die all over the place. Endangered animals. We’re really getting to the place of biodiversity. The place of biodiversity—let’s talk about that. Let’s not put a mine or a road in front of the value of biodiversity. What comes from biodiversity? Everything you rely on. What comes from biodiversity? Every medical advancement that’s ever happened. What comes from biodiversity? Our national identity. All of these things are folded into this convo, but the Government’s happy to just say, “Whack! Nope, we’ve just got to get around this so we can build mines and roads.” How much care do you think those road builders and those mine diggers will take?

Andy Foster: Quite a lot.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: None—oh, quite a lot, quite a lot. I think they were taking a lot while they killed those other kiwis. So, I mean, we’ve got Ministers over here who are complete natural-world denialists. You’ve got a Minister of Fisheries who denies that the Māui dolphin exists. We’ve got a Minister of Te Papa Atawhai—

Hon Shane Jones: Hector.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, yeah, “Hector”, he calls it. Te Papa Atawhai is OK for kiwis to be incidentally killed along with pekapeka, along with poraka, along with ngata—all of the taonga species protected by Waitangi claims. No, no, it’s all right!

Andy Foster: Oh no, they’re not.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, that tells me how much you know.

Andy Foster: A lot more than you do, mate. You haven’t got a clue.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: You might want to catch up. You might want to learn what taonga species are. But I guess all the kōhanga reo all around the country one day will have a new book called Tama the Kiwi Killer.

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, it’s relevant all right. Ngā mokopuna. Ngā mokopuna. Pēhea nei ō mokopuna, e te uri o Te Aupōuri, i te korenga o te kiwi, i te korenga o te pekapeka, o te ngata rānei? Ēnei ngā mokopuna i heke mai i ngā tātai a Tāne.

Ēnei tū kōrero e kaha nei tēnei tokorua ki te karawhiu ki runga i te mata o te motu, engari ki konei, huri tuarā atu ai.

Nō reira kei te pai, haere me tō tuarā. Ko tō iwi Māori tērā e nohonoho nei i roto i ngā wā kāinga o tēnei whenua e tohe ana kia mau, kia pupuri te mauri o te whenua. Āe.

Haria ērā whakaaro ki te moe, e Shane, kōrua ko Tama. Kōrua ko Tama. Kāre anō kia pau taku hau, tāria te wā kia heke ki te kore, kātahi ka heke.

[The grandchildren. The grandchildren. What about your grandchildren, to the descendant of Te Aupōuri, without the kiwi, without the bat or the snail? These grandchildren that descend from the lines of Tāne.

These types of statements that these two so often throw around over the face of the nation, but here, they turn their back.

Anyway that’s OK, carry on with your back. It will be your Māori people that are living in the settlements of this country that fight to preserve and hold on to the life-force of the land. Yes.

Take those concepts with you to sleep, Shane, you and Tama. Both yourself and Tama. I have not run out of wind just yet, wait for that time that drops to zero and I will sit down.]

Heoi anō rā, heoi anō rā, ahakoa ngā hiahia [However, however, despite the desires], and despite what your hopes for development might be, if you just leave the door open to eradication, that’s what your whakapapa will—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise to support this bill. It’s a practical bill. It’s common sense. It fixes an urgent issue which we have, a technical flaw in the Wildlife Act, and a technical flaw which is preventing already authorised projects like solar farms and wind farms from going ahead. We need this development. We need to be progressive while also protecting the environment. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. I’m interested in that last comment about protecting the environment, because that does not seem to be what this bill is doing.

I want to start by responding to the Minister for Resources—which I presume is why he was speaking on this bill—the Hon Shane Jones. He told us what he really wants in his speech, and that is one of the reasons why we will be opposing this bill tonight on what is 6 May, according to the parliamentary calendar, even though in other parts of the town it’s 7 May. But we’re in urgency here because this Government has decided that two bills need to go through all-stages urgency. That is a despicable thing to do when there is no emergency or real reason to do so.

Hon Shane Jones: What about COVID?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It would be—oh, “What about COVID?” the Minister says. I think COVID might have been an emergency, and that is quite different. But I’m glad that the Minister has brought up COVID, because I will have questions in the committee of the whole House stage about review of these changes. Because there’s nothing in the commencement of this bill, nor the one that’s just been through, about a requirement for a review of the legislation—which can actually take some proper time and have some proper consideration rather than us getting the bill just before we have to speak to it. In this case, we did get it a whole day ago, so we’ve had a little bit more time with it, and it is shorter than the last one. But this is very bad process, and it is not necessary.

This bill is about a court case—a decision that was made in March, and it is now May. So there has been a couple of months that have passed since this decision was made, and the world has not ended. Another week—

Hon Shane Jones: Parliament is sovereign; Parliament’s in charge. Not the courts—Parliament.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, I would say to the Minister, who’s saying that Parliament is sovereign and it’s not the courts that are in charge, that it would be good if Parliament had a chance to properly examine the legislation, because what is happening here is the executive is in charge. That is all that this Government does, is make the executive in charge, and it makes—

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The Minister says it’s democracy. They are breaking constitutional conventions day after day, and it is putting our democracy in real jeopardy. They should take this matter a whole—

Grant McCallum: Look in the mirror.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —lot more seriously. Oh, I’m told now to look in the mirror. Well, I’m going to give that member from Northland an example of what you can do if there is a real emergency. We’ve worked out that there’s not an emergency here. We’ve worked out that there’s not an emergency because this decision was made two months ago—it is not an emergency.

This bill could be sent to a select committee for a week—for a week. It could have been sent for two weeks. That is a short amount of time, and we know that it is a small bill that a lot of people are very interested in. When I say, “a lot of people”, there are a number of people—we can probably name most of them. There will be environmental groups, there are developer groups, there are people who work with the Department of Conservation, who would be able to submit on this bill and give some thoughtful analysis, and the members on that select committee could ask some questions of officials.

We do not have that opportunity with all-stages urgency, and so that is why this bill is a disgrace. Again—again—we have a disgraceful bill from this Government, and it does not need to be, if you follow the logic of their arguments.

Now, going to that logic, there’s a complaint about the High Court case. The High Court case was implementing the precedence from the Supreme Court in the case about the sharks. So, again, this is not an issue in terms of needing to pass this bill today; it could be passed next week. What we’ve heard the Minister Shane Jones say is he’s called the group that took the case a “shadowy group”, that they’re unknown. We don’t know where their funding has come from. Well, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that this group did not donate to my campaign.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s interesting, as I sit and listen to the Opposition’s views on this very important and urgent bill, and a couple of names spring to mind. One of them is Eugenie Sage, a former Minister of Conservation from the Green Party. And guess what! She was a Minister of Conservation and oversaw the use of just these instruments to allow people to do things—just to do things. And, then, interestingly enough, I’ll give you another name: the Hon Kiri Allan, another member from the other side of the House, who was a member of the Labour Party and a Labour Party conservation Minister. It’s interesting, isn’t it? So they suddenly forget about all the things they did, and they think, “Oh, well, here we go; let’s have a crack at these guys.” I certainly think that they need to think about what they’re doing, and I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I just want to start by pointing out the irony: today, little spotted kiwi are being translocated from Kāpiti Island tonight to the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary in Nelson Whakatū—and I congratulate the Brook—the very same day we’re passing legislation that makes it easier to kill them. It’s just so ironic, on a day that we’re celebrating such a momentous occasion for such a precious taonga in our motu.

I just want to reflect on some comments made by my colleague Rachel Brooking but also the member opposite who’s just sat down, Grant McCallum, to whom I’m just going to give a little bit of education around process here and then talk a little bit to the bill. We had an emergency, members of the House will recall, in 2023, which was Cyclone Gabrielle. It created a massive mess on the East Coast. Following that, we had to put special legislation in place to ensure that agencies could act. We needed them to be able to act quickly, to be able to make decisions quickly. We put it through a shortened select committee. So even though it was an emergency, even though it was urgent, we sent the bill to a select committee, which I sat on, and we reached out to stakeholders and we heard from them in a shortened select committee process.

The issue with this bill is that it’s going through all stages tonight, under urgency. As my colleague Rachel Brooking has so correctly pointed out, if it is so urgent, why wasn’t it brought to the House back in March? Why wasn’t it brought back to the House in March? Now, we in the Opposition do agree there are some issues that need to be addressed as a result of—[Interruption] Absolutely, but with a proper process. With a proper process—this is not a proper process. The High Court ruling does need to be examined by the Parliament at select committee, with input from officials, with input from stakeholders. We don’t even have a regulatory impact statement (RIS). We don’t—again, the second bill during urgency—have a RIS in front of us to be able to consider.

Tangi Utikere: Process, process!

RACHEL BOYACK: Process matters. It is important that on matters like this, we’re able to actually properly examine the bill, actually write to the relevant stakeholders, and seek advice and suggestions from officials.

Now, I do want to talk a little bit about the bill, specifically around the Act because, as I’ve said—and I know they’ll yell across the House back at me—the Labour Party does believe that there needs to be wholesale reform of this Act. It is 70 years old. In fact, I’m looking here at a press release from one of our former Ministers, my colleague Willow-Jean Prime, in 2023, saying that the Wildlife Act will be replaced with modern, fit for purpose legislation to better protect native species and improve biodiversity. So when we were in Government, Labour had actually begun this work, but we haven’t seen that put under urgency, we haven’t seen that work continued.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Shane Jones wants to get rid of the whole Act.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, he does want to get rid of the whole Act. OK.

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s what Tama said.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, that’d be interesting, to find out about conversations between the two Ministers there, because, actually, New Zealanders do believe in protecting our wildlife—

Hon Member: We do.

RACHEL BOYACK: They do, and it’s important that they do. But the situation with this particular bill is it does respond to a High Court ruling, which has found that the Department of Conservation has been using the wrong permits. I accept that that is the ruling and that it has gone on for some time; that is what the court has found. It does need to be addressed—I’m not going to stand here, as animal welfare spokesperson, and say that it doesn’t need to be addressed. But this is not the way to address it. The way to address it is to actually send it to a select committee—[Interruption]

Hon Member: Process?

RACHEL BOYACK: I know! Process, process—I know. We know that when transport projects are being put in place, there actually is a significant amount of surveying that goes on. I’ve even spoken to one of the people who does it, recently, who lives in my electorate, who goes out and does surveying of lizards before roading projects go ahead. I accept—I’ve spoken to him about it—it can actually be a time-consuming process, and it does need to be looked at to ensure it’s fit for purpose. But what this bill is doing is, basically, saying the lowest standards that we require are actually going to be OK going forward. We need to examine this properly and thoroughly at a select committee. I do not commend this bill to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): More than 300 applications are currently with the Department of Conservation, around half of which involve incidental harm. Without this fix, they are in limbo. We’re tired of New Zealand being in limbo. We’re here to fix it. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a second 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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge and thank the members for their insightful feedback and time under urgency as we progress with this crucial fix to the Wildlife Act. I also note the spirits of the predecessors of those various parties who endorsed the understanding of the Wildlife Act that this bill proposes to return to, whether or not that was from Norman Kirk to Bill Rowling, David Lange, Helen Clark, and of course, Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, amongst others: Eugenie Sage, Te Ururoa Flavell, Dame Tariana Turia, and Matua Tā Pita Sharples, who all endorsed the approach that we are now proposing to return to.

The Wildlife Act is an important piece of legislation. It’s not perfect, it needs some mahi ASAP, but for the time being it provides the protection needed to ensure the persistence of our precious indigenous species. The Act protects our wildlife, and it also recognises the need to regulate human interactions with them so that our actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run.

The High Court decision has impacted on the ability to issue section 53 authorities. As I mentioned earlier, the High Court recently decided that it was unlawful to authorise the killing of protected wildlife under section 53 of that Act unless there’s a direct link between that killing and wildlife protection. This decision has wide-ranging impacts that could delay or stop many important projects at the heart of our environmental protection, such as TBfree—bovine tuberculosis—and also other broader, larger projects around our economy. Infrastructure development projects, future projects that would require authorisation under section 53 of the Act, such as wind farms, power line maintenance, housing development, roads, tourism activities, and many others that are important for our society, our communities, jobs, and the economy. Other conservation work, like pest control and research, could also be impacted.

The bill makes specific, targeted changes to fix this problem—to fix this challenge. The Government’s intent for the bill is to restore people’s confidence that they can carry out their activities lawfully, and to enable DOC - Te Papa Atawhai to regulate incidental harm to wildlife so that activities do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected wildlife.

The bill validates section 53 authorities, those that are existing. There are between 100 and maybe up to over 500 active authorities that could be impacted by this decision. These authority holders are impacted through no fault of their own. These people need certainty that they are not breaking the law. This bill validates these existing authorities by inserting a new schedule to the Wildlife Act to provide this certainty. The validation will generally apply to all authorisations granted under section 53 of the Wildlife Act before 5 March 2025 when the High Court made its decision.

These validations would mean that it would not be an offence for holders of the authorisation to incidentally kill wildlife as part of their mahi, provided that they undertake that mahi in line with the authorisation and any conditions in it. The bill still requires that making and authorising wildlife permits be consistent with protecting wildlife. That is the purpose of the Act. Permitholders must still take reasonable steps to avoid, minimise, and mitigate harm to wildlife.

The bill does not green-light development projects. I want to be clear, the changes that are proposed in this legislation will not green-light major construction projects that are a threat to our endangered wildlife and precious taonga species, and the protective purpose of this Act remains the same. Some development or infrastructure projects may pose threats to wildlife, as may many other human interactions with wildlife. Having section 53 authorisations helps to manage those risks and ensure that conservation efforts are integrated into the planning and execution of such projects.

The changes being made to this bill will ensure that our treasured species continue to be protected, even in cases when we know that some harm may occur. While this might initially seem contradictory to the goal of protecting wildlife, these authorisations are designed with tailored safeguards. The changes proposed to section 53 will only allow incidental harm under strict conditions so that the actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run.

The bill restores what was understood to be the status quo before the court’s decision. The bill does not limit the existing powers under the Act to expand on how they are exercised. Instead, the bill provides clarity on the types of conditions that the director-general may impose as part of an authority for incidental killing. These include measures to avoid making a species more threatened or extinct, measures to avoid, minimise, or mitigate harm to protected animals. These measures are consistent with the types of conditions that the director-general has previously set for authorisations to incidentally kill wildlife over 70 years.

Prior to the court’s decision, DOC - Te Papa Atawhai regularly provided wildlife permits that authorise incidental killing, so long as permitholders met the conditions in their permit. These conditions were designed to maintain the viability of affected wildlife populations and protect individual animals as much as possible. Through these conditions, authority holders could ensure their projects proceeded responsibly, while supporting the long-term viability of wildlife populations.

We should be able to continue with projects that provide essential benefits to the lives of New Zealanders without compromising our indigenous species. This balance is key in the protection and conservation of wildlife populations and key to protecting the world that our mokopuna deserve.

There’s more work to be done on this legislation. It’s been articulated very well in interjections even to my kōrero by Matua Minita Jones. These changes are targeted to address the specific issues read by the court decision. They address a symptom of a bigger issue, and might I recount that in the previous Government—and majority Government at that—they were unable to carry out and expedite the changes, but we will do this in due course.

The Wildlife Act is old, it’s lost coherence over time, and that is a key reason why we are sitting here today having to make these urgent amendments to ensure that our treasured species and taonga continue to be protected. Not like that Caulerpa I saw up at Omakiwi and Rāwhiti last week—no, that’s gone.

Hon Shane Jones: Labour done it—Labour did the Caulerpa.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This 70-year-old Act needs replacing, Matua. But along with 70 years of amendments, there have been 70 years of establishing processes and systems.

I’m not proposing to make these fundamental changes to the Act in an ad hoc way now. This would risk making the Act even less coherent, less effective, and more difficult to work with. A full review remains a priority. We will crack on with that very shortly, but it will be a little bit complex and take time. As the Opposition knows, they took three years and couldn’t make a decision. In the meantime, this bill is a first step. It fixes the current issue, the current raruraru we have, while maintaining appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I began my contribution in the first reading of this bill, saying that I had some hope because Minister Potaka talked about the fact that he is still committed to, and still prioritises—I think the word was that he used—a full review of the Wildlife Act 1953. Then, if we have heard correctly on this side of the House, Minister Jones then said he wants to do away with Act in its entirety.

Now, I have way less hope than I did about half an hour ago that this is ever going to get done, and I’ll tell you why, because when we were in Government, my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime had requested Te Papa Atawhai - Department of Conservation (DOC) to undertake a review of the Wildlife Act 1953. It was in the Labour Party manifesto where we committed to do that, and she undertook that. Now, all this Minister had to do, all this Government had to do, was to pick up that work and progress it. They are halfway through the term, and what does Minister Potaka say? Very shortly they will commence work on reviewing the Wildlife Act, which then says to us, on this side of the House, that they haven’t even started—they haven’t even started.

This Minister then goes on to say that he doesn’t want to make changes in an ad hoc way to this piece of legislation, it is old, and it is outdated, and what is he doing today? A knee-jerk reaction to the High Court ruling of just two months ago, which makes this bill even less coherent and less potentially relevant. It definitely dilutes the purpose of this bill.

Now, generally at a second reading speech, we would be feeding back to the House, to Parliament, what submitters have said, what the select committee process was, what did we hear from the officials, how do we genuinely work across the House to finesse a piece of legislation. We can’t do any of that today, because there has been no select committee process. As my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking outlined in her contribution at the first reading speech just about half an hour ago, this could have taken a week or two. There is no urgency to this. The High Court ruling was just in March this year. There are a number of permits that are potentially facing legal uncertainty as a result. We accept that on the side of the House, but there was no urgency to push this bill through all stages with no select committee process at all, and the Minister has not been able to give us any clear rationale as to what that emergency was that is putting us in this position.

So why are we here today? In that decision of March this year, the High Court set aside an authority that DOC had granted under section 53 of the Act to Waka Kotahi. That was for, as we’ve mentioned previously, the Mt Messenger Bypass. It was a project in Taranaki that passed through areas of native habitat and proposed extensive ecological mitigation and offsetting. Now, as part of that process, various protected species were proposed to be caught and to be relocated. Authority was also sought to kill protected wildlife—

Steve Abel: 46 species.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: 46 species. Unlimited amounts from memory, as well, of 46 species of protected wildlife during that construction period. This was in the context of them saying that it wasn’t possible to trap and to relocate every individual of that protected species.

Anyway, this was then challenged. What is the actual crux of the problem definition that brings us here today? DOC approached applications for wildlife permits under section 53 by looking at whether the projects as a whole and whether the viability of a population was either maintained or was improved through the actions or through some other unrelated action, whether it was a mitigation or something else. They looked at it at a population level. Now, the High Court found that section 53 of the Wildlife Act, that authority, or the way that it was prescribed, permitted, given, or granted was, in a sense, illegal overreach, and that a section 53 permit is unlawful and cannot purport to authorise the killing of protected wildlife if the primary purpose of that killing doesn’t have a direct nexus to the purpose of the Act, and so that was the problem. The High Court’s ruling or finding was, basically, that the permit that was granted under section 53, in that case and potentially in these other cases, goes against the intention or the purpose of the legislation.

So, then, the Government of the day has a choice to make. Do we then do this properly? Do we redraft? Do we review and rewrite the Wildlife Act so that, actually, then the permits that are granted, whether through section 53 or section 71—the latter was not found to be unlawful in this case. Do we rewrite legislation to actually work in a way that it promotes the principal purpose of the Act, which is to promote wildlife and to regulate human interaction?

To Minister Jones’ point, nobody on this side is standing up to say that we don’t need economic development. What we are saying is that those who then build roads or mine, in the case of Minister Jones’ example, need to take reasonable steps to protect biodiversity. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable ask. So we could have changed legislation so that the activity, the behaviour, is in line with the purpose of the Act. But, oh no! This Government doesn’t want to do the hard yards; they just want to tinker around the edges and make it now lawful to do what the High Court said was unlawful. That’s the fix that this Government is—

Tim Costley: You did nothing!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We did nothing? The High Court ruling was in March this year. So you might just want to, if you’re heckling from across the cross benches, maybe actually do some reading first.

So back to the purpose of the Act. Now, section 71 of the Act allows for things like roads to be built. Permits can be granted in circumstances where the activity is otherwise subject to one of the Acts that’s listed in schedule 9, which lists a whole bunch of Acts, legislation, that is exempted. It’s an exemptions regime, basically.

One of the questions that I will get to in the committee stage of this bill, which we will get to very shortly no doubt, is to ask the Minister why some of these other options weren’t considered. Why is it just tinkering around the edges to make what the High Court said was unlawful now lawful? Why is that the best fix that this Government can come up with?

To go back to this, now, as I said previously, at my second reading speech, usually we would be talking about what submitters have said. We don’t have that. The best that we have is press releases by those who are concerned by this piece of legislation. I have shared some of what the World Wildlife Fund has talked about in terms of this change, both the process of lawmaking, which goes against the very democracy that Minister Jones seems to be so invested in, because it doesn’t allow for New Zealanders to have a say. Internationally, we are regarded to have such a transparent process where every New Zealander can have a say on every piece of legislation that they care about. It’s lauded internationally, but not today, because we’ve got significant pieces of legislation, twice, sitting here for over 30 hours to consider significant pieces of legislation that are being rushed through, rammed through, in urgency for absolutely no reason at all.

The other point that I wanted to make in the time that I have remaining is the fact that those who have, I will say, submitted, because what they have done is to put out press releases about this. They have pointed out that New Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world, with more than 4,000 of our native species at risk or threatened with extinction. Not only is, now, DOC woefully underfunded to be able to take on this work, but I would really like to know from the conservation Minister what he is doing in terms of improving biodiversity in New Zealand, because I haven’t seen anything. There’s no Cabinet paper for this piece of legislation that we could find publicly or proactively released. As I mentioned previously, there’s no RIS—there’s no regulatory impact statement. I haven’t seen a single Cabinet paper that this Minister has taken or considered that actually improves biodiversity or extends, for example, marine protection, even though he said that 30 by 30 was just aspirational. We’ve seen all of the targets towards meeting our climate change goals diluted, watered down, as well. So is this Minister’s legacy going to be making it easier to kill kiwi?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Steve Abel.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, a calm, measured speech, no doubt!

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you. I appreciate that. It will be a calm, measured speech because I genuinely think that the Government is making a big mistake here. It’s actually tying up all sorts of processes in blue and yellow and black tape.

Andy Foster: Just copying now.

STEVE ABEL: Pardon me? Let’s be clear about what the decision that has precipitated this knee-jerk piece of legislation was. Justice McHerron highlighted that section 53 permits can only be issued if their purpose is to protect wildlife. In a previous case, the Court of Appeal suggested that one such purpose could be culling of some individuals to prevent the spread of a disease to a wider population. That’s obviously protective, right? The other obvious instance would be using baits or poisons to kill predatory species for the purpose of protecting wildlife but you may incidentally kill some of those native species in the process. But the overall purpose—

Hon Shane Jones: What about people?

STEVE ABEL: I’m getting to that, Minister. The Environmental Law Initiative challenged the decision to grant—[Interruption] I’ll give a calm and collected speech if there’s less interruption, Mr Speaker. It challenged the decision to grant the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi authority to kill 46 species of wildlife, including North Island brown kiwi, short-tailed and long-tailed bats, Archey’s frog—the Minister’s favourite frog—as it constructed the Mt Messenger Bypass in north Taranaki. The advocacy group argued that the Department of Conservation (DOC) was only able to grant permits to capture or kill wildlife if it furthered the purpose of the Act, which is protection of wildlife.

The judge found that he did not accept the Crown’s submission that the legislation can authorise the killing of wildlife for any purpose merely if the viability of populations of wildlife that any animals killed belonged to are otherwise being maintained or improved through some other related or unrelated action. Basically, he’s saying that DOC cannot give a licence to kill wildlife—i.e., DOC doesn’t have the power to override the purpose of the Wildlife Act, which is to protect wildlife.

But get this, here’s the nub of it: the problem is not that there will be incidental deaths of wildlife in the building of motorways—and one question that I’ve got for the Minister when he gets up in the chair at some point is, how is it this Act has been in place since 1953 and we haven’t built any roads since then? How is it?

Andy Foster: We’ve built lots of roads.

STEVE ABEL: Exactly. So how is it that a correct interpretation of this law means that you can’t build roads? It’s a serious question—it’s a serious question.

Tim Costley: You’re smarter than that, Steve.

STEVE ABEL: I am smarter than that, and I want to say that the Environmental Law Initiative said—[Interruption] Listen to this; you might learn something here—“There was never any credible risk of developers being prosecuted for incidental killing of wildlife, provided all reasonable steps were taken to prevent that.” This is the Environmental Law Initiative. These “foreigners” that the Minister accuses of being “shadowy”—they’re saying that there was never any credible risk of developers being prosecuted, provided all reasonable steps were taken to prevent that. In that sense, this was not a question of whether development projects could go ahead or not; it was about making sure all reasonable steps are taken to protect what we have left of our wildlife. That is what I would think most New Zealanders would expect.

Just to be clear, in the Wildlife Act, at section 68AB, “Mens rea and strict liability offences”, in cases where it is alleged that anything required to be done—i.e., to not kill wildlife—was not done, the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that it was done. That is a defence in the Wildlife Act as it stands: in any case where it is alleged that anything prohibited was done, that the defendant took all reasonable steps to ensure that it was not done.

In other words, according to the Environmental Law Initiative, who brought this case and won this case, the problem was not that you couldn’t build roads and have incidental killings, the problem was that DOC was issuing permits to kill—issuing permits to override the Wildlife Act. They should not have been issuing those permits.

Grant McCallum: And, therefore, you couldn’t build the road.

STEVE ABEL: That’s right.

Grant McCallum: And, therefore, you couldn’t build the road.

STEVE ABEL: No.

Grant McCallum: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Could I ask members not to have conversations across the House.

Hon Todd McClay: But it’s more interesting than the speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That may be so, but if you want to do that, I’ll invite you to step outside.

STEVE ABEL: I’m actually trying to cut to the chase, in a sense, Mr Speaker, because I genuinely think that this legislation is a mess, and it doesn’t solve the problem that the Government thinks it’s solving. It’s actually creating more of a complexity, because now, what is the Department of Conservation to do? For example, if I’m to plough my field, and perhaps I’m going to incidentally kill some skinks, do I need to get a permit to do that now? It’s a question—it’s a serious question.

Let us remember the purpose of the Wildlife Act, because we are a nation that has these extraordinary indigenous species unique to our part of the world, the endemic ones, and 4,000 of them are threatened and endangered. That situation is not getting any better. We set up things like the Wildlife Act, we set up agencies like the Department of Conservation, and their purpose is to protect wildlife. This legislation is saying that their purpose is now to issue permits for developers to kill wildlife. It’s absolutely extraordinary.

Andy Foster: Not deliberately. Just accidentally, occasionally.

STEVE ABEL: Yeah, and currently under the Wildlife Act, if you take all reasonable steps and you incidentally kill wildlife, you can’t be prosecuted. It’s a defence against prosecution.

So that’s why this legislation is actually a massive waste of time—a massive waste of time of the House. Had there been some consultation on it—some external consultation—perhaps the Government would have found out that, actually, the best solution to the problem was to just stop the Department of Conservation issuing these licences to kill, which were found to be unlawful.

All this legislation does is it retrospectively validates existing authorities to kill wildlife under section 53, and it provides authorities granted under section 53 are not unlawful, when, in fact, the court found that they were unlawful, because it doesn’t make any sense that the Department of Conservation has the right to tell a developer that they can break the law. This is about building a motorway through a rainforest.

Now, in the broader sense, as my colleague from Te Pāti Māori spoke about earlier, you can somewhat judge a society by its hierarchy of values in terms of what it determines to protect and what it is prepared to destroy. [Interruption] Pardon me?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Keep the interjections down, please. Just keep them rare and infrequent, and, at 9 o’clock at night, witty.

STEVE ABEL: You can judge as a society by what it chooses to protect and what it’s prepared to destroy. We as a society have consistently, over the course of many generations, chosen to destroy rainforest. We have now 6 percent of our lowland rainforest left. Most of it’s been cleared for pasture; 40 percent of our nation is pasture. But also to this day—and Mt Messenger is an example of it—this rainforest was going to be destroyed and the 46 species impacted to build a road through a rainforest.

Now, the important thing here is that we actually need the forest more than we need the road—[Interruption] You can sigh, Grant, but it is actually science, my friend. Do you realise that rainforests are the cause of the amount of oxygen in the planetary atmosphere that makes the Earth habitable for Homo sapiens? You cannot replant ancient rainforest. You cannot replace extinct species. We are in a mass extinction event on the planet right now because of the mind-set of extraction and destruction of nature and contamination of water and pollution of the atmosphere, and we have to change the mind-set.

That is why we need things like the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Department of Conservation to be properly funded and supported, and we need mechanisms for making sure that our means of living and surviving and thriving on this planet is consistent with every other species on this planet living and thriving and surviving. The attitude of this Government, to declare war on nature, to go rip, shit, and bust and destroy rainforest or destroy ecology for the benefit of Australian miners for coal, for gold, for whatever—

Grant McCallum: Jobs.

STEVE ABEL: —is so backward. There are no jobs on a dead planet, Mr McCallum.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was interesting to hear a soliloquy there about the hierarchy of what we prioritise. I would have appreciated hearing the member Steve Abel elucidate more where he prioritises humans getting the infrastructure we need to have a country where we can get around, visit our friends and family, where we can go to work, and where we can get things that we need. Yes, from out of the ground; yes, from out of the air; yes, we need to produce stuff to pay for our way in the world. It’s not just some Gaia utopia where humans can’t go about producing for ourselves. That’s what we have to do.

Bringing it back to this bill: the Wildlife Act, which this bill is amending, is 70 years old. In a tangled fleet of old legislation, this is a standout. It is quite old. So perhaps it was unsurprising that with such an old piece of legislation, issues like this have sprung up. But we are here tonight because the Minister has brought an amendment to the House that will go about remedying this situation that has occurred—and I remind the House—in March this year. It is not a thing that has been intended by the bill. It may have been what the court read into the description of the bill, but this House is going in another direction.

We want to be able to allow developers and builders and engineers—people trying to get out there and create a country of infrastructure—to have the confidence that this Government has their back, that they can go out and apply for consents, they can get people employed, and they can do some stuff to build this country up. The case that started this, yes, is still happening under another section of the Act—section 71. So there has been a change in that. So Mt Messenger is still going ahead with the extreme costs that went into getting it to this point. I’m glad to hear that it is still going ahead.

The Wildlife Act, it is designed to protect our valued species. It is there because New Zealanders—as has been elucidated—value our biodiversity. We value what we have in our country. That hasn’t always been the case. There’s been a time in our history when it wasn’t valued highly enough, but New Zealanders have taken that into account. We’ve gone through this House and we’ve gone through processes to value it. The court made a decision that sits at odds with what New Zealanders want from their country—a country where they can afford to pay for conservation because they have an economy. That’s what we’re putting back in place tonight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Mr Speaker. Look, we are here, as we’ve heard, because of a High Court decision. That decision was about the Wildlife Act, which is a very important Act. I think we’ve all said that it’s very, very important we look after and protect native wildlife in New Zealand, and that Act has been happily helping to protect wildlife since 1953. Possibly one of the surprising things is that there hasn’t been a challenge to it in this light before this—if it was a problem—but what the ruling did is it upset the long-held understanding.

It has been 70-odd years that the understanding has been that the director-general could issue authorisations for the accidental, the incidental—not the deliberate. We’ve heard about 46 species. Nobody is going out there trying to kill 46 species. They’re not even going out there trying to kill one species. What they’re trying to do is avoid that. They’re trying to put conditions in place to avoid that. But, just in case it happens, the authorisations by the director-general are about protecting those people who are doing that work from the liability of that accident or incident. So this bill is really, essentially, about putting back the understanding that has been in place for 70 years. It’s not about going through a big select committee process, etc. It’s not doing something radical; it is just saying we want to go back to what we understood the situation to be since 1953—since 1953.

Tākuta Ferris, in his speech in the first reading, told us that the road builders don’t care. Well, I don’t know, Tākuta, how many of these projects you’ve been to. I’ve been to this one and many others, and what I can tell you is that the people who are working on this project take great pride. There are a lot of conditions. There’s a lot of work going on to protect—to protect—indigenous wildlife and the indigenous environment and to make it better. That is what they’re trying to do. They’re not trying to wreck the place; they’re trying to make it better. That is what the authorisation allows them to do—to say, “We want to build this road. We want to try to make the environment better around there as well.” But, sometimes, something might go wrong, and they simply need the protection against that.

The Environmental Law Initiative won this case, and we’ve heard the reasons for that. Basically, what the court decided—they looked at the Supreme Court and they said, “Well, the Supreme Court has said—and we have to agree with that because we’re the court below that—that it doesn’t matter that section 53 at the moment doesn’t put any real conditions on that.” The problem is that they read it in the context of the Act, and they said that the Act actually says it’s all about protection—it’s not about anything else; it’s about protection. If you do anything which is not about protection of species and about individual creatures, you are ultra vires. They use the words “unlawful” and “ultra vires”.

There is a constitutional point that I wanted to make, and that is that this is a classic case of a court making a decision and then Parliament saying, “Actually, we’ve got a problem with that decision, and we need to fix it.” For those who are first-term MPs, we had the pleasure—and I understand it’s the first time this has been done; some of the MPs who have been here longer said it had never been done before—of being invited to the Supreme Court last year. We met with the heads of each of the levels—District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court—and our Chief Judge was quite specific—it was in the context of the Resource Management Act, but quite specific—in saying that, the role of Parliament is to make law, and the role of the courts is to interpret the law. If Parliament doesn’t like the interpretation—and we can all think of plenty of really important areas where we might not like the interpretation—it is Parliament’s job to be able to fix that by passing new legislation so the court then needs to give effect to a new piece of legislation. So I think there is a very, very important constitutional issue here, and that is that it is Parliament’s job as the sovereign of the country to fix things that need to be fixed.

Wildlife protection is very important. It’s very important to all New Zealanders. It is very important to me. It is also important for its intrinsic sake. I used to give—and would if I was invited to give them again—speeches about what we’ve done to our indigenous biodiversity in this country. We have a very, very high level of endemism—that is, species which occur nowhere else on the planet. That is because these islands have been separate from any other area for something like 70 million or 80 million years. That means they have evolved in isolation. There have been no mammals, other than a few bats—and Dana tells me she doesn’t like bats particularly—that makes our indigenous wildlife unique. But since human beings have arrived here—and what I used to say is that, if you take that 80 million - odd years as a 24-hour day, human beings have been here for, guess how long, one second. One second of that 24-hour day, and we’ve done an enormous amount of damage since then. I think New Zealanders understand that. I think New Zealanders really, really care for wildlife, and New Zealanders really, really want to look after wildlife. This bill doesn’t change that at all. There are condition which have got to be wrapped around it. It still says that we’ve got to look after that native wildlife, but it does provide protections against something going wrong, which, from time to time, it will.

There are two ways in which the existing Wildlife Act allows the director-general to give some dispensation, some authorisations: section 53, and we’ve also heard about section 71. So let’s have a look at section 71 and say, “Why couldn’t you just rely on section 71?” Well, the problem is that section 71 says you can only give effect to, effectively, about 16 different Acts. In the case of Mt Messenger, they actually went back and they did a retrospective consent. Do you know who did the retrospective consent? Who did the retrospective consent? The Hon Willow-Jean Prime was the Minister of Conservation, and the Hon David Parker was the Minister of Transport. They authorised this particular road, which is the subject of this case, to go ahead under section 71. They could do that because the Wildlife Act includes, in its Schedule, a number of different Acts, one of which is the Government Roading Powers Act. So they were able to use that. But think of all the times, all the projects, all the things that we would like to see happen in this country, that cannot rely on those 16 Acts.

I’ll just give you a little bit of a list before I sit down. Think about building a road by a local authority or by a developer. That’s not covered by any of those. Think about laying a pipe—not covered. Think about creating a subdivision—not covered. Think about building a dam—not covered, unless it’s under the Public Works Act. Think about building and operating a windfarm. My colleague Cameron Luxton said exactly that when we were considering the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill—very important stuff. Think about operating a farm, clearing vegetation, and pest control. I’ve done pest control for quite a number of years, and you might catch hundreds of rats but you might occasionally catch a protected species in there. You didn’t want to do that, but that would fall foul of this, potentially. Think about predator-proof fences and seeing birds which have flown into those predator-proof fences and killed themselves. Do they fall foul of the Act as this it? So it is important.

Why is this urgent? Because of a whole lot of action that is going on, a whole lot of projects that are going on around this country at the moment, which are then put in limbo—projects which would be going on around this country and are then put in limbo—and it is important that we fix this, give them certainty, and, as the Minister has said, there will be further legislation, undoubtedly, to come to clear all of this up to modernise the legislation, and I look forward to that. I commend this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te tuku i ētahi tāpiritanga whakaaro ki ngā kōrero kua hora ki mua ki te aroaro o tēnei Whare i tēnei pō mō tēnei o ngā pire, te Pire Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.

[I stand to offer some additional thoughts to the comments that have been spread before this House tonight regarding this bill, the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.]

As I think about the title of the bill, it strikes me that the authorisations being given are to kill protected wildlife. It seems a little bit of an oxymoron but it is what it is. Whilst many of the issues have been vigorously debated, I want to cut to what is ultimately one of the major problems with all the issues we’re dealing with, and that is that you have a Government who believe in deeming themselves above the courts. Case in point: there’s a ruling by the High Court that says, “You’re out of line. You’re outside the law.”, and so the Government just moved to override that and do something they want to do and just continue to do it.

Today, we had the pay equity bill rushed through as quickly as you could possibly do it—just wiping out active cases before the courts. We had the takutai moana saga last year, with iwi and hapū who have been fighting to get their rights recognised in their own rohe moana. They won those cases, and then this Government decided they didn’t like that ruling so they went over the top of it. So the consistent theme is that we have actions from a Government who deem themselves to be above the courts of the country.

Grant McCallum: We are above the courts.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: This guy doesn’t know what sovereignty means—he’s got no idea what sovereignty means.

So that’s the problem, right? That’s the problem, and we keep coming back here and having this circular debate that goes nowhere, and that side of the House just rushes laws through. No public opportunity to comment. No public opportunity to input. No public opportunity to interrogate. No public opportunity for democracy. I truly believe that that’s the root cause of most of the rubbish this House is dealing with now.

So how can you fix that? Well, it seems there aren’t a whole lot of levers available to this House other than an election that’s coming up. So I hope that the people at home are paying tight attention to what’s going on, very close attention, because it is truly undemocratic.

Hon Member: One person, one vote. All equal.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, there they go. So here we are debating whether or not it’s OK for the Minister of Conservation, of Te Papa Atawhai and all of the good work that Te Papa Atawhai and its leaders have done over the last 30 or 40 years to claw out the space for Māori views, Māori ways of being, the importance of the relationship between people—we’re talking a lot about people over here—and the natural environment, and here we have a Minister making a call to just cut straight through all of the guts of that work. I’m talking about 40-odd years of work, a lot of which was championed by my late uncle Piri Sciascia in times when these conversations weren’t had, weren’t cared about, weren’t ever entertained. And here we are today, 40-odd years later, with the understanding that we have about te ao Māori, the place of the natural world, the place of people in it, and we’re dealing with this tonight. It is truly astounding, it is truly shameful, and it will be that Minister’s legacy. Kia ora.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): I rise to express staunch opposition to this Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. It legalises destruction of wildlife, it erodes protection, and it circumvents accountability. It betrays the values that we all claim to uphold. It’s ironic that this bill is introduced under urgency the same week that the public is called to consult on Action for nature: Implementing New Zealand’s Biodiversity Strategy.

Well, now we can recognise the worst predators on nature. With over 4,300 species now at risk or threatened with extinction, Aotearoa’s taonga species need protection, not a licence to kill. We know what triggered this bill: the Mt Messenger Bypass, an infrastructure project bulldozing its way through ecologically sensitive land. I’ve walked among the beautiful kahikatea and swamp maire that will be destroyed for less than 10 minutes time saving. This bypass is a huge dollar cost blowout from 2016. It’s gone from $90 million to $280 million. It’s now more than $365 million. That’s a million dollars a day for a year. It’s now become the catalyst for much wider cost implications if you count the value of things beyond the dollar. It creates much greater damage through triggering this law change.

The Environmental Law Initiative, made up of Kiwi lawyers, took Waka Kotahi to the High Court and they found that Department of Conservation had acted unlawfully. But those same good lawyers say the existing law gives protection from prosecution, as my colleague Steve Abel said, if all reasonable steps are taken to avoid harm. It is a myth that this would halt renewable energy projects. It is a myth that predator control would be threatened. I have probably killed more rats and stoats than anybody else in this House and fed them to the eels.

Dana Kirkpatrick: It’s a big call, Celia.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): It’s a big call—you can talk about it afterwards, but if we could keep the remarks down so we can hear Celia Wade-Brown.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: This Government has not strengthened protection; it’s done the opposite. It’s rewritten the rules to make that breach legal, defensible, and it has made it retrospective. So what are we really trading here? We’re trading kiwi for concrete; we’re trading long-tail bats for a few minutes saved in travel times, and we’re trading integrity for expediency.

The Mt Messenger Bypass alone put at risk the critically endangered Archey’s frog, the North Island brown kiwi and the pekapeka—all of them, Freddie or Frida alike—were promised protection under the law and they can now be killed under licence. Minister Potaka said in his introduction to Action for Nature: “We need to focus our minds on protecting this taonga now and into the future.” This wildlife amendment bill is short-sighted. It’s myopic, not focused. No Minister is asking the public to volunteer money for the billions of dollars on roading. No Minister is asking the community to volunteer money for military helicopters, but coalition partners constantly suggest that the Department of Conservation puts out the begging bowl, and now they give them a whole new administrative burden.

This is not protection of wildlife; it is protecting the powerful and releasing them from a duty of care. The Green Party will vote against this bill.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking as somebody who has for many years on our family farm worked very hard to improve the biodiversity and remove pests, I get really frustrated. One of the reasons that we’re able to do that is because we’ve managed to run an economic, profitable business, and one of the key things about that being able to happen is, and I want to talk about it, and that’s a road, OK. And, no, it’s not the Brynderwyns; that was for another—no, that’s another day. No, it’s actually about the Dome Valley, because 100 years ago this year, a bloke called Gordon Coates, a former Prime Minister of this country, opened that road, 100 years ago today, and that was what connected Northland to the rest of the country. Guess what! Unless we make these changes, the road that we want to build next year to replace that road, a new road through the Dome Valley, will struggle to be built. So that is why it is so vital that we make these changes, so that the people of the North can have economic opportunities and get ahead and have jobs. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to speak at this second reading. There’s quite a lot of noise in the House this evening but I’m not criticising that at all; in fact, I’m delighted that so many of my colleagues from this side of the House, and the other side of the House, want to be the member who has killed the most—what was it that you were killing? Rats? Mustelids? Let’s go with mustelids. And they’ve killed the most rats. Great work, colleagues. Well done. Now, they, of course, are not indigenous species, and it turns out that they aren’t protected by the Wildlife Act, these rats, because the Wildlife Act is a curious Act. We’re going to traverse the ins and outs of this bill later, in the committee stage. As many members have said, it’s an old Act, and old doesn’t mean bad, but in this case it does mean convoluted and difficult to follow, which, of course, was why, when Willow-Jean Prime was the Minister of Conservation, she announced the work on the changes, and that was in the Labour Party’s manifesto as well.

We accept, in the Labour Party, that the Act that we’re dealing with, passed in an important year, needs some attention. What the Act does—it’s curious in terms of the fact that it doesn’t really have very many purpose clauses or anything like that that starts it up. The scheme of the Act is that at section 3, wildlife is absolutely protected, but then there are a whole lot of exceptions to that statement that work through in various different schedules. I’m not going to go through that, except to say that we get to this point where the wildlife that is protected is important indigenous wildlife, and, of course, some of them are mammals, in the form of pekapeka.

We know and accept that the Act needs changing and needs reform. And we’ve heard from the Minister of Conservation that the Act needs some mahi—that’s what he said. We ask that Minister to do that work, because we’re now at least halfway through this term of Government, and it seems, from what he is suggesting, that it’s still something that he intends to do at some point.

We encourage that Minister to do this work, because the protection of this wildlife is important, and he is in a coalition Government with another Minister who has already spoken on this bill, being Shane Jones, who told us that he just wants to get rid of the whole Act itself. He said, “Oh, just rely on the RMA.” And what does this Government want to do with the Resource Management Act (RMA)? Well, we’re not quite sure, because when we were in Government, we got rid of it and replaced it with the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. This Government came in and repealed those changes and brought us back to the RMA, and we all know that the RMA does not do well enough in protecting our environment. It also does not do well enough in having efficient processes. There are two problems with the RMA, and both need to be addressed.

What this Government did was repeal those changes so we’re back to the RMA, and then they introduced the fast track, the fast track that is nothing to do with speed but is all to do with overriding environmental protections. I mention this because it goes to the cynical and dangerous approach that this Government has to the environment and anything to do with the environment. We’ve seen that with cuts to the funding for the Department of Conservation. We’ve seen that with funding cuts to the Ministry for the Environment, for all community groups, the ending of Jobs for Nature. Yes, that was due to end anyway, but in Labour’s manifesto it was going to continue, and we haven’t seen anything about the continuation of that.

Then we’ve had changes to the waste levy. So the waste levy can now be spent on anything to do with the environment. The relevance of waste reduction and waste minimisation does not have to be there; there doesn’t have to be any nexus with waste. We’ve seen this Government tell regional councils who might want to implement some up-to-date rules and plans, “No, you’re not allowed to go ahead and notify that plan that might do that, because we’re going to change the national policy statement on fresh water at some point.”—who knows when?

This is the context of, now, this bill coming before us and why it is passing through all stages in urgency. We have no regulatory impact statement, we have no opportunity to ask officials questions. We will, of course, ask the Minister questions, but we do not have the opportunity to ask officials questions. We know that there is a clause in the bill specifically about the impact—well, I’ll ask the Minister questions—of the Environmental Law Initiative’s case and what happens with that, but we’ve not seen, in the documents that I’ve seen—there’s been no examination of the shark case, and that’s where the Supreme Court was really talking about the importance of decisions made under the Wildlife Act—it has to be consistent with protecting wildlife, which is what, of course, the Act is all about. It’s because of that shark case and the Supreme Court decision, that, then, the High Court, obviously being subservient to the Supreme Court, made its decision on this specific case that we’re now seeing the legislation for. The legislation does not appear to make any changes to section 71. So we also know that we have this departmental disclosure document that talks about there being no consultation as well.

What we’ve been saying on the Labour Party side of things is we know that there are problems with this bill, and we want a commitment from this Government that we will go ahead and do that reform, in some sort of good faith to the environment, to make it workable. We know—we’ve heard from the other side as well—that the Ministers who made the decision under the Wildlife Act were Labour Party Ministers, and that was what was appealed. The problem is that this is an all-stages urgency process. So we could go to select committee for a week, we could even go to select committee over a weekend. Having some opportunity for the thoughtful people who are involved in the environment sector, the thoughtful people who are involved in the infrastructure sector—they can tell us how the wording could be improved and what some of the issues are that might arise from it. I will be asking questions in the committee stage about how these new sections will work with the prosecution section because I’m not sure that they’re consistent; in fact, I think a lot of the clauses are in conflict with each other. That process could happen. We could have it go to a select committee quickly and come back. It doesn’t have to take the six months of the normal procedures. But there needs to be something that is not all-stages urgency.

We also will need to discuss in the committee stage the role of section 71 versus the role of section 53 and the amendments in this bill to section 53. So section 71 allows—and we’ve heard from the New Zealand First member—two Ministers, normally the conservation Minister and the one that’s doing the development; so, in the case that was before the High Court, that was the Minister for Conservation and the Minister for Transport, because it was a road. For projects that come under different Acts that are listed in the Schedule—and the Schedule is old and most of those Acts are out of date, but the roading one isn’t. So that is why section 71 can be used, but it’s cumbersome because, of course, it requires two Ministers to make a decision, and that takes, normally, quite a long time, whereas section 53 is one that the director-general can make. So what will the role of section 71 be if section 53 is still used? I’ll come back to that in the committee stage.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I was chatting with a developer the other day, who was building 130 new houses—much-needed houses for us—in Ōtaki. They have been held up for more than half a year because the wildlife permit—that was always issued by the Department of Conservation and always used to be fine, and successive Governments, Labour and National, have supported—could now not be done because of a legal decision which needed to be—hence we bring this bill to change it. The kicker is that they went and consulted a wildlife expert to say these are just your Janet and John ordinary skinks; they’re not protected. But they all said, “How can we do the best thing for them?” And they said, “Move them in May, because with the breeding cycles and mating habits, this is the safest time of year to move them.” But, for more than six months, they have been held up because they can’t get the wildlife permit that they need. So not only are we missing out on houses but we’re missing out on the best course of action for the animals that will be impacted.

These people are trying to do the right thing for our community. They are trying to do the right thing for our wildlife. But we just need to reset the settings to what they always were and what they were always understood to be. So I support this bill because it’s sensible. Yes, it’s allowing people like this, who want to build houses for us, to go and do the best thing for animals, but it’s doing something even better in that it’s providing houses for mums and dads and Kiwi kids right across this country. This isn’t something we should be scared of. I know, over the other side, they only have one setting, which is “No.”, but, actually, we can do some sensible things there, and one sensible thing would be commending this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to just start by traversing a little bit the problem that has occurred through the court case and just talk to that—because I do want to put on record from the Labour Party the challenges that have appeared as a result of the court case ruling in March—and then talk to some of the concerns that we have, including around the process.

As people will be aware, there was a court case that found that permits that had been issued were potentially unlawful. The particular thing that was found was that the killing of wildlife needed to have a nexus or a connection with the protection for wildlife that is found in the Act, and so there was that inconsistency found in the application of the Wildlife Act. What that has meant is that there is some uncertainty—and we accept that, in the Labour Party. There is some legal uncertainty for the permitholders, especially because a number of those permits have been granted for a long period of time, and this has been what has been in operation for around 20 years or so. So we accept that that point is a real legal point that has occurred, but what we don’t accept on this side of the House is that we can’t take a short period of time to examine this in great detail in a select committee process. That is the point that we have some real concerns around.

There are a number of good legal experts out there who work in this area, but there are also a lot of organisations that work in this area that I would like to be able to ask questions of. I mentioned a constituent of mine in my previous speech, who I often bump into because he flies around New Zealand from Nelson, doing really important work surveying where lizards are prior to roadworks and other operations taking place. He’s exactly the kind of person I would like to be able to sit down with and actually talk to about this bill, but we don’t have the opportunity to do that. He is the actual expert on this, but we don’t get to hear from him. We don’t get to ask some questions around how we could make the bill workable, because he’s a person who works, obviously, to identify where lizards are so that prior to work happening, mitigating steps can be taken to protect them. He has the expertise, but he also has a strong understanding of how the permit process works and that interaction with the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

I’m frustrated that I’m not, as a member of Parliament, able to make a good decision here in the House, because that is what the public of New Zealand expects us to do. They expect us to make good decisions based on evidence. They don’t expect us to turn up here with one day’s notice on an urgent bill that’s actually an important matter. Protecting our wildlife, our native species, is an important matter. It speaks to who we are as New Zealanders.

Having the Government members getting up and passionately giving their short calls about particular projects—that’s fine. But you actually have to think about what could be the unintended consequences of the way that the bill has been drafted—and we will get to that in the committee stage.

The other point I wanted to note is the retrospective part of this. Whenever we are making legislation that has retroactive application, we should take more care. We should give more scrutiny to it, and that is a principle that is important in this House. When we are looking at decisions that have been previously made and then we take urgent action to change that, we actually need to take more time to do due diligence on it, and that’s a principle that I’m concerned this House is abandoning tonight.

We will get the opportunity during the committee stage to interrogate the Minister, but, again, that does not satisfy us in terms of being able to hear from experts and from stakeholders, and to hear from the officials who have drafted this legislation and their intent. From the way that the clauses have been written, we can’t engage with the Parliamentary Counsel Office on that, for example. I think that that is an error, and so I do not commend this bill to the House.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to speak in support of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. In my electorate of Banks Peninsula, we’re currently still in a state of emergency in parts of the electorate, and I think that that really highlights the fact that, actually, climate impact is here right now. We have to be able to do everything that we can to mitigate and protect against that. One of the things we need to do is adapt: build houses in different places, we need to be able to build wind farms and solar farms, and other ways of producing energy. When we have processes that block the way, we need to clear them out. This is a pragmatic way of setting back the rules to the way they were expected for the last 20-odd years or more. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This is not my area of specialty, but I have been listening to the debate and I have yet to hear, from any of the contributions, any kind of credible justification for the fact that this bill is being pushed through under urgency.

I have to mention the fact that pretty much all of the time of the House today has been spent debating a momentous piece of legislation, the theft by the Government of a massive amount of wealth of this country that is owed to women workers and has been taken from those people through this Government’s destruction of years of work that has been done on pay equity. It’s an absolute scandal that that was pushed through this House under urgency, a real travesty of democracy. Now, you can’t make the same claim about this modest Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, but nevertheless, why—why—is this being pushed through under urgency? What possible justification is there? Goodness knows we spend enough time in this Parliament fixing the mistakes caused by rushing law in an ill-considered way through the legislative process, and yet here we are doing it again. This Government is addicted to pushing through legislation under urgency with no reason.

I was the transport Minister for part of the time that the Mt Messenger road was in gestation, and it was a cause of great frustration to me at the time that we weren’t able to make more progress more quickly. After my time, David Parker, as transport Minister, was the one who signed off with the conservation Minister the permit that allowed the incidental killing of wildlife that was a necessary corollary of the construction of that road. That is the story, really, that underpins this debate tonight. Labour is supporting the bill, albeit with reservations, and fundamentally about the process—

Hon Member: No, you’re not.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Oh, aren’t we? OK, sorry—I misspoke; I misspoke. We have fundamental reservations about the process associated with this bill. There has been no consultation. It’s clear that, because it’s going through under urgency, there will be no real scrutiny, no expert opinion, and no opportunity for the public to have their say on this bill.

Putting aside the rhetoric in the debate tonight, the competing claims of who has killed the most rodents, who is the most pro-development—the constant sort of enthusing from the Government benches that they are the most pro-development, they want to see the most houses built, the most roads built—there is a basic truth that underpins this bill, and that is: we do have to be able to build infrastructure, we do have to be able to build roads, we do have to be able to build houses and industrial development, and from time to time, that will have a negative impact on our environment. When that infrastructure does actually cause habitat destruction, where it cannot be built without the incidental killing of wildlife, there needs to be an evidence-based and a considered decision-making process so that the right trade-offs can be made.

I don’t think New Zealanders want to see development at all costs; New Zealanders prize our natural environment, they want to see it protected; they don’t want to see, whether it’s a frog or a bat or any other native species, the unnecessary loss of our biodiversity. What this bill does is return to the status quo before the court case that stopped the progress on Mt Messenger and the permit that was issued there. That’s all very well, but we need to know that this mechanism will work, that it won’t actually end up creating more legal uncertainty, and because of the very poor, rushed process associated with this bill, it’s very hard to have that confidence.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): The reason why we’re doing it under urgency is because we just can’t wait any more. We don’t want development to be in limbo. This country’s been in limbo for too long. And if all else fails, I’ll go to the bill where it actually says, “The Bill ensures that activities, such as development and infrastructure projects, and conservation work, such as pest control, do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected species.” I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments about authorisations

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4, “Amendments about authorisations”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would be very useful for the Minister of Conservation to go through this part very carefully with us. As you just said, we’re just talking about one clause, clause 4. But this is a very important clause—

Grant McCallum: Very short clause.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and where we’re talking—the member opposite is saying it’s a very short clause. It’s not a short clause. It’s a couple of pages clause, but it is only a couple of pages. So I think the Minister will have time to go through it with us slowly and deliberately.

So this is inserting some new provisions after section 53 and what my questions will be about is how these new provisions interact with each other. Section 53 of the Act is not being amended and that says, “The Director-General may authorise taking or killing of wildlife for certain purposes.” Then it goes on to say, “The Director-General may from time to time in writing authorise any specified person to catch alive or kill for any purpose approved by the Director-General any absolutely protected or partially protected wildlife or any game or any other species of wildlife the hunting or killing of which is not for the time being permitted.” So that is a very wide power that is given in section 53. Section 53 has not been amended by this bill, but it’s important because the context is there, setting up that the director-general can make an authorisation to kill.

Then we know we’ve had this case with the Mt Messenger Bypass where the judge said, “I”—the judge—“have to look at what the Supreme Court has said in the shark diving case.” That is that we have to import the purpose of the bill, which is about protecting wildlife, into that section. So a decision maker using this section can’t just look at the words by themselves and go, “Oh, I can do whatever I like.” It’s got to be in the context of making a decision that is consistent with the scheme of the Act. So, hopefully, nobody’s disputing what I’ve just said—setting out, that is, section 53.

What this bill is then doing in clause 4 is inserting a whole lot of other things which the Government will say is for clarity and is to allow an authority under that section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally. I’ll ask questions about the relationship of section 53 to section 71 later—well, my colleagues might—but now if we go through section 53A which is being inserted after section 53, which is the director-general can make a decision. Then it says—and there are a whole lot of terms here that I would like the Minister to focus on. So it starts with “Without limiting section 53”, the section 53 that is very broad and that we’re about to limit in the subsequent sections. Why is that phrase there: “without limiting section 53”? Surely the whole purpose of what comes after in clause 4 is to limit section 53.

So then it’s “The Director-General may grant an authority”—so it’s discretionary, that makes sense—“that authorises the killing of wildlife that is incidental”. Then for it to be incidental it has to be, “is not directly intended but is unavoidable and foreseeable as a consequence of carrying out the lawful activity.”

So there is a question in here as well about what sort of activities has the Minister received advice on that would be both unavoidable and foreseeable? So that’s one question. The other question on 53A is, why is the phrase “without limiting section 53” there when the whole scheme seems to be to limit to section 53?

But then we move on to these other clauses, and I think we’ll probably have to spend a bit of time on those, so I’ll come back to them in a moment if the Minister is of a mind to answer those first two points.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Take your next call while the Minister is debating.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. The question is about the set-up and the consistency of these different clauses together. We then have section 53B inserted by clause 4, which is “To avoid doubt, the Director-General may grant an authority referred to in 53A only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife.” That “only” seems to be very important and seems to be a limitation on section 53. The “only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife” does also seem to be incorporating that Supreme Court shark case and the more recent one. So I’d like the Minister to comment on the word “only” there and tell me if he agrees that this is the very important clause that incorporates that case law.

But then we go to section 53B(2). It’s that “The authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife”—which is the only—“if in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect would be consistent with the protection of populations and individual wildlife.” So it appears then we’ve got this at subsection (1), only if it’s consistent with protection of wildlife. But, actually, then it says at subsection (2) that it’s not what we might all think is the protection of wildlife, it’s the overall effect. So what then? How do you interpret an overall effect?

Then we go to subsection (3), which is about that overall effect. So when “In determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of [a population] of wildlife rather than the individual wildlife”—and both are to be considered—“the Director-General must have regard to (a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on (i) [the] populations … and; the viability of the species to which that wildlife belongs; and (b) the extent to which the authority addresses those potential adverse effects;”, and any other matters.

What sort of circumstances are foreseen then in the drafting of this that we have—you’ve got to protect the wildlife, but we’re diluting that by talking about an overall effect and then there could be potential adverse effects on those populations of wildlife. So what sort of adverse effect would be acceptable on that population of wildlife that somehow isn’t an overall effect? That’s the question here.

But then we go on to subsection (4), and “The Director-General may be satisfied that the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of the individual wildlife”—so until we hear about individual wildlife rather than populations, subsection (3) is about populations; subsection (4) is about individuals—“only if satisfied that the holder of the authority will take reasonable steps … to avoid, minimise, and mitigate the adverse effects of the lawful authority on the individual wildlife.”

Now, this again seems to be a dilution of the general idea of protection of individual wildlife because that “avoid, minimise, and mitigate any adverse effects” is a hierarchy that we see in the Resource Management Act (RMA). There is case law in the Resource Management Act to say it is a hierarchy. That you have to do the avoiding first and if you can’t do the avoiding, then you do the minimising and then you do the mitigating. So that is the hierarchy in the RMA.

So another question here is: does this hierarchy of effects from the RMA—is that supposed to apply here in this Act as well? But if it does—or even if it doesn’t—why would we only be looking at mitigating adverse effects that may have something to do with an overall effect and a negative impact on the viability of an individual animal? So that’s another question. Then we go to—[Time expired].

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. Look, really pleased to be able to speak to this tonight and get some really, hopefully, clear answers from the Minister with such an important bill that has such a change in the full purpose of the Wildlife Act. So I really want to start at that broader level where Part 1 starts to unpick it, because right here already in Part 1 it’s talking about the “Authority may be granted under section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally”. So this is new section 53A in clause 4.

Now, in general, what I would really like to hear from the Minister—and, Madam Chair, should I continue when the Minister’s talking to officials?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah. Just ask the question. We can pass them on. Yeah, the officials are listening too.

LAN PHAM: OK, great. Thank you. So, initially, I would be really interested to hear from the Minister why he and his Government feel that the Department of Conservation (DOC) actually needs—that there is a requirement and a justification for them to actually authorise the killing of protected species. I ask that question because the Wildlife Act, as I understand it, already includes a defence to prosecution. It applies to anyone already who kills protected wildlife unintentionally, so long as they took all reasonable steps to avoid it.

Now, this to me seems like a better situation to be in, simply because of the fact that these amendments will be changing the entire purpose and implementation of the Wildlife Act in a way that is no longer protective. The whole point of the Wildlife Act is the protection of wildlife. This change, quite contrary to the claims of making sure there is certainty and protection for developers or anyone who’s carrying out activities—which, by the way, is something we all want. We know that there are situations where this unintentional killing happens and we’re simply asking: what is the pragmatic way to do this?

Now, the Government should not be putting the Director-General of Conservation in this situation to actually be in the position of permitting the killing of protected species. This is really tricky. This, in terms of actually reading the situation, could cause the uncertainty that this Government is actually trying to fix. As far as I’m aware—and my understanding of this, and I’d love more information about it, because there’s no regulatory impact assessment, there’s no experts that are coming in—DOC are the prosecuting authority when it comes to situations under the Wildlife Act where, for example, unintentional killing or deliberate killing takes place.

Now, because they have this prosecution responsibility—and, as far as I understand, no other authority does—why then, again, to the Minister, does the justification exist to complicate the Wildlife Act and change its purpose from so clearly being protective to suddenly having these additional authorisations that actually change it?

Now, the preliminary commentary in the bill kind of touches on this. It seems just blatantly wrong. It says it “restores the regulatory approach that had been taken by the Department before the judgment.”, and that it “enables the Director-General to continue to authorise the killing of wildlife”. Now, as far as I’m aware, that is categorically wrong because the director-general has never been able to do that. That is what the High Court decision was saying. This change in legislation will now be the first time that this is put into the Act and therefore complicates the purpose and the implementation of the Act. I would really like some clear answers from the Minister about that.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to continue with a series of questions that continue on from where my colleagues have begun, because what is really obvious reading through the existing section of the bill—so section 53—and the new sections being inserted is that is becoming more complicated. So I have a lot of questions for the Minister about how these clauses—because my prediction is that if this passes in its current form, it’s going to create even more legal uncertainty, and so the winners of this are going to be the lawyers and the courts who are going to spend even more time going through to interpret it.

So if I read out 53 from the Act: “The Director-General may from time to time in writing authorise any specified person to catch alive or kill for any purpose approved by the Director-General any absolutely protected or partially protected wildlife or any game or any other species of wildlife the hunting or killing of which is not for the time being permitted.” Now, what the High Court found was that they took that section and then considered it alongside the purpose of the Act around wildlife and protecting species as a whole. So it said there needed to be a nexus or a connection between the two Acts. What has now happened is instead of amending section 53, it’s added section 53A and 53B and 53C, so what the Department of Conservation is going to have to do and the director-general is going to have to do, and then, ultimately, the courts are going to have to do is read those two sections together, which creates the complication.

I’m just going to basically refer back to what I just read out and the pieces where I think we’re talking about them; really complicated parts, now. If you look at 53B(1)—well, 53B talks about the consistency with the protection of wildlife. So, again, we’ve got that piece that actually caused the High Court case in the first place, which was the interaction between 53(1) and the purpose of the Act, and we’ve actually gone and added the purpose of the Act part in here. So, in my reading of it, it actually looks like we’re reinforcing and accepting the court’s decision and putting it—my colleague Lan Pham has made this point. But my reading of it, the reason I want to raise it again is that we’ve got to hear from the Minister because when the courts are interpreting this, they will read the Hansard to see the Parliament’s intent, and if we don’t have the Parliament’s intent from the Minister on the Hansard, we are going to have court cases coming out the wazoo, actually.

No, I haven’t finished; I’m going to go to another piece. Sorry, I’ve got a lot more questions; I’ve only just started, sorry. If I then look to 53B(2). To me, this goes on about the interpretation of that piece about the protection of wildlife. Now, the protection of wildlife, if you consider the actual bill, is mostly talking about the species as a whole. What it does in 53B(2) is says “The authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife if, in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect would be consistent with the protection of—(a) populations of wildlife; and…individual wildlife.” It’s not “or”. It’s not looking only at the species; it’s actually looking at each individual piece of wildlife and the population of wildlife as a whole. To me that feels stronger than what we currently have in the Act, potentially. That’s my question to the Minister: is it actually making it even harder than what the bill wording currently says and which led to the court judgment?

Again, I say we need to have this on the record and in some detail because lawyers will be combing through this, NGOs will be combing through it, and that’ll then be leading to court cases. So I’m really concerned. I have some more questions, but I’m actually, I mean—the drafting, and I say this with respect, I mean the actual Act is a hot mess, in terms of its writing. But it’s confusing in its writing, especially when you put the two together. So I’m going to have to sit down. I’ve got some more questions around 53B that I’m going to come back to in a future call. And it looks like the Minister may finally have an answer for us.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to respond to some of the inquiries and questions. You know, our forefathers and foremothers in this House many years ago saw the importance of protecting wildlife but also the pragmatism that must go with protecting wildlife. For example, the bovine tuberculosis TBfree kaupapa, which a good friend, Minister Hoggard, and others look after, and also the building of roads and, more latterly, renewable infrastructure, that is well supported across the House.

But that pragmatism required for protecting wildlife enabled the incidental killing, with the appropriate conditions—reasonableness, hierarchy of effects that apply within that—to enable that incidental killing to take place. So we should be absolutely clear about the intentions of this Government to continue to protect wildlife by way of the Wildlife Act and the authorisations that go with it, to ensure that the existing authorities are validated, that the understanding over many, many decades, not only under National conservation Ministers but also those from the Green Party and the Labour Party—we enable new authorities to be issued. The wording that has been proposed enables this as a set of targeted amendments as a solution for a very narrow court decision that has created uncertainty, ambiguity, and the need for assurance across both environmental and economic activities.

Now, we can all admit and acknowledge that the Wildlife Act is old and creaky, and matters such as the defences will be looked at in any comprehensive review. It’s not timely for that right now. What’s timely is a set of targeted amendments for the immediate issue that we have at hand and, of course, restoring, by way of these targeted amendments, the understanding on the status quo prior to the court decision. Whilst there has been comment around the complications that are perceived to arise from the proposed amendments, I think that those amendments that have been proposed are very clear—very clear about the intentions of this Government and soon to be, I intend, this Parliament to ensure that the Wildlife Act is focused on protecting wildlife but captures the intent, the pragmatic intent, of our forefathers and foremothers in this fine House to ensure that incidental killing can take place.

Yes, the director-general has been authorising the incidental killing of species over many, many years—a couple of decades, in fact, within the ministerial leadership of conservation Ministers from different musters and parties of this House. The director-general can set conditions, and that’s why we have this hierarchy of effects set out in new section 53B(4), inserted by clause 4. That’s why we have the “avoid, minimise, and mitigate any adverse effects” phrase set out in that subsection. Of course, it must be consistent with species protection at a species level, not just at an individual animal level. That’s what we are focused on this evening.

There’s a whole range of organisations that are involved in upholding and satisfying conditions within authorisations that are issued under this Act, whether or not they are infrastructure developers, pest controllers, kaimahi out on the conservation and other estates throughout the country, acting in a manner to uphold the TBfree aspirations. They do sometimes, and foreseeably, kill wildlife; that has been undertaken for many, many years.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the questions that my colleagues have asked going to the heart of clause 4, and new section 53 and the different parts of section 53A, B, and C, because there is no appeals process in the Wildlife Act. So if Parliament doesn’t get this right tonight, then the only recourse again is judicial review. So it is important that we nut out some of the detail.

I don’t agree with what the Minister said at the start that this clarifies the process, and I think as many of us have been reading the detail it actually muddies the waters, and that’s why we’re drilling into the detail of section 53A, B, and C in relation to the existing section 71, and how those parts interact with section 71.

However, I want to zoom out a little bit in my line of questioning, and I do have a number of detailed questions as well for the Minister, but I want to zoom out a little. The fact that we’re doing this under urgency, the fact that we don’t have a select committee process tonight—the Minister has been quoted in the media, pointing to the legal uncertainty that exists as a result of the March 2025 High Court ruling, and he talks about the different projects that have been given permits by the Department of Conservation (DOC) and are coming through the pipeline as well and the fact that they might have to wait a little bit before conducting the construction work and the rest of what’s required for those projects. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a process of passing this bill, all stages under urgency with absolutely no select committee process. It could have been, as we’ve pointed out already, one or two weeks.

So I’d really like a bit more of a rationale from the Minister in terms of what are those projects? What is the urgency there? What would have happened if we had had one or two weeks of a select committee process to consider and to hear from those who’ve been working for many years on reviewing and redrafting the Wildlife Act in a way that permissions granted through section 53 are more robust. So that is my first question.

I would also like to know: what are some of the other options that the Minister has considered? So this is a piece of legislation that’s come to us under urgency that fixes—well, it doesn’t actually fix anything because what it does is, essentially, disagree with the High Court ruling and to return the interpretation of the Act to what DOC had interpreted it as before the High Court ruling. So it kind of reverts to earlier practice. The High Court ruling pointed out that those permits that were granted were not in accordance with the purpose of the Act, which was to protect biodiversity.

So I’d like to know from the Minister: which part of that High Court ruling does he disagree with? Why has the Minister decided to take an approach that is, frankly, reasonably sloppy? All it does is revert. It doesn’t improve the Wildlife Act at all. The principal purpose of the Wildlife Act is to protect biodiversity.

Others have pointed out, and I agree, that this particular piece of legislation dilutes the very purpose of that Act. So why? What were some of the alternatives? We don’t have a regulatory impact statement, so we can’t consider that. There is no proactively released Cabinet paper, so we don’t actually know what the rationale was or what the Minister’s thinking was in landing here, where we’ve landed today. What were some of the other alternatives or options that officials might have provided to the Minister? What has been considered and why was, then, the decision to land on just this one targeted piece of legislation that, frankly, doesn’t clarify the purpose of the Act any better and muddies the waters even further?

I’ve got a couple of questions also around section 53A, B, and C specifically, but for now, the other question that I’ll leave the Minister with is this: the Environmental Defence Society, for example, has done a fair bit of work on what a review of the Wildlife Act could look like. It’s quite a lengthy document. One part of that was to actually bring in an appeals process. Were those sorts of considerations things that the Minister looked at when looking at how to improve the Wildlife Act, or was it just to revert to behaviour that the High Court has actually ruled against and said is not in accordance with the principal purpose of this Act?

I would like to come back, though, to some of the questions that I have, specifically around section 53, as well.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I’m hoping the Minister’s going to give more in-depth and substantive answers in the course of this process, because there are a lot of serious questions here and we’ve got a piece of legislation that has not had any external consultation on it.

The questions that my colleague has just been asking about the advice the Minister has received would be very useful to hear. I have a few relatively quick questions on that, in a general sense. What advice has the Minister received on how this bill aligns with New Zealand’s international conservation treaty obligations? How do other jurisdictions deal with this challenge of incidental killings and development processes?

Simon Court: Good question, Mr Abel.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Court. And how do they grapple with this problem of a piece of legislation like a Wildlife Act, whose primary purpose is to protect wildlife, and then a conservation authority being given the task of issuing permits to go against the purpose of the Wildlife Act—the primary purpose—which is what has been deemed to have been unlawful by the court?

Just while I remember, the Minister said that for 20 years these unlawful permits have been issued. I wonder, given the Wildlife Act has been around for best part of 70 years, or more, what was done prior to 20 years ago when roads were being built and other forms of development being enacted, which would have involved incidental killing of wildlife. I think this perhaps captures the nub of our question here: is the action taken in this legislation necessary? Were those permits that have been issued for 20 years even necessary? That is the speculation of the Environment Law Initiative, that perhaps it wasn’t even a necessary measure to take.

My other question, in a general sense, is: how has Te Tiriti o Waitangi been considered in the drafting of these provisions, particularly regarding customary wildlife protections? As my colleague Tākuta Ferris was pointing out in his earlier speech, these are taonga species we’re talking about. Those species that are absolutely protected by the Wildlife Act include kiwi, kea whio, tūī, fantail, pīwakawaka, toroa, tuatara, jewelled gecko, moko kākāriki, Hochstetter’s frog, Archie’s frog, long-tailed and short-tailed bats, flat snails, and many other species. Numerous species—manta ray, basking sharks, and sea turtles.

Finally, in terms of broader questions: what opportunity was provided for stakeholder engagement, both tangata whenua stakeholder engagement, in terms of those customary wildlife protections, but also engagement between iwi, conservation, and non-governmental organisations? What consideration was given to the perspectives of how to reasonably manage this challenge of incidental killings? It’s obviously a thing that we’ve been grappling with for some time, and, in fact, one would argue—and it hasn’t really been answered by the Minister yet—that it’s covered already by section 68AB of the Act.

A key question I’ve got on new section 53A, in clause 4—now that we get to the key parts of Part 1 after those broader questions—is: how does it not weaken the protective purpose of the Act to make these changes to Part 1? The clear intention of the Act is to protect wildlife. So I’d just like a very straightforward answer from the Minister: how can it not possibly weaken that protective purpose? Is there not a risk, Minister, that these provisions will create a more permissive killing regime under the guise of being incidental killing? When you have issued a licence to kill or an authority to kill species incidentally, have you not therefore created a circumstance where there will be a more laissez faire attitude to the possible impact of activities that have been undertaken in the process of development?

To give an example that specifically could relate to the Mount Messenger bypass example, say one is building a road and comes across a large mature native tree species where, because of bat surveys, one is highly aware there are likely to be endangered native bats living, but you’re talking about a very large tree. If there was not an authority to kill but a requirement to meet the obligations of the Wildlife Act and protect those species, then greater effort may be taken to relocate them. Whether that relocation would be successful or not is another question, because obviously where a species has been relocated and, in the process of that relocation, one of them dies, who is going to be prosecuting somebody for that? It is not credible that that’s going to be happening, but it is credible that when presented with the challenge of a large tree that has bats at the top of it in a nice woody rotten knot, if the operator has a licence to kill, they may as well just knock that tree down and incidentally kill those species. They will not take that extra effort.

Under a direct interpretation of the Act, through working with the Department of Conservation, a given developer could take all necessary steps or reasonable steps to protect species. But is there not a risk, Minister, that you’re creating a more permissive regime for developers to be more reckless in their efforts or less concerned in their efforts to protect wildlife, because they’ve already got a ticket that says they can incidentally kill wildlife and they get to say when they’ve done that? Realistically, Minister, who is going to be watching every single day of work on a given project to make sure that the killing that was incidental was legitimately incidental? How will the monitoring and how will the actual observation be taken to make sure that it is appropriate incidental killing?

Another question I’ve got regarding new section 53A is: why is there a difference between a foreseen but undesired killing of a native species and a foreseen but supposedly desired killing? I sort of infer that what is being got at here is the difference between direct and indirect intention, but both have the same effect and neither is protective. So, in meeting the requirement of any legitimate activity that is incidental and the purpose of the Act to protect wildlife, why is there a difference between foreseen but undesired killing and foreseen but supposedly desired killing?

How is the authority to kill wildlife incidentally consistent with the purpose of the Act? That’s another part of that same question of how does it not weaken the protective purpose of the Act. How is the authority to kill wildlife incidentally consistent with the purpose of the Act? The reason I ask that question, Minister, is because I think it will help take us on the mental journey through the deeper question of what the purpose of the Wildlife Act is and how these changes in new section 53A fundamentally, in my proposition, undermine that purpose in a way that ties the legislation in knots, frankly, and makes a real mess for the Department of Conservation to deal with and the courts to deal with in the future.

I actually think that this legislation has the potential to create a lot more headaches for the courts and for the department. Thank you. I hope you can answer some of those questions.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Madam Chair. It feels like I’m not unlike a hobbit that I’m on an intrepid journey this evening. In response to the comments by my colleague Mr Abel and the question that was posed: “How does it not weaken the protective purpose of the Act?”, we all understand that the key purpose of the Wildlife Act is to protect wildlife. But without the ability to grant authorisations, Te Papa Atawhai—the Department of Conservation—will not be able to properly regulate and ensure the protection of wildlife.

There is a question posed or offered regarding the international obligations. I’ll just refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity; our view is that the actions that are being taken—the provisions of this bill, as proposed—are consistent with that set of international obligations because we are able to clarify and reinforce already established conservation processes and balance protection and human wildlife interactions.

There was a comment about how these provisions are muddying the waters. Members opposite offered those comments—albeit that my view is that the only waters that are being muddied at the moment are the convection and the complications that the members are introducing to this discussion in the committee of the whole House. Government can disagree with High Court rulings. I mean, talk about the 2003 foreshore and seabed matter as an example. But killing must relate to protecting wildlife under certain conditions. Pragmatism in these matters is very, very important. The court’s view that killing must relate to protecting and there’s got to be a very clear nexus does not reinforce the status quo and the understanding prior to that court decision, whereby the director-general enabled incidental killings under certain conditions. This is what is proposed to be restored under the proposed legislation.

There was a question posed around the options that were considered. Yes, we did consider appeal for the decision, but that would take a very long time. To be fair, we’ve got to get on with a lot of mahi, whether or not that’s in the environmental space, in the infrastructure space, or in the housing space that has been well trumpeted by the previous Government that also used a number of wildlife authorisations with the understanding that we’re trying to restore now. Amazing.

There’s a question about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Well, we think this is a valid exercise of kāwanatanga and we’re quite comfortable in saying that and stating that. We expect many iwi have also used wildlife authorisations in their housing developments and their logistics developments at Ruakura, or Waikato-Tainui out there in Kirikiriroa—city of the future. So, no doubt, there are many iwi who have endorsed the understanding that we are now seeking to restore by way of these proposed amendments.

Monitoring—that was another issue that was raised. Usually, especially if you had the chance to actually read conditions of these types of authorisations and permits, there is monitoring expected. I certainly would have expected that those who have quite deep and meaningful comments this evening on these authorisations have actually taken the time to read the conditions of these types of authorisations so that their questions are informed.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that it’s interesting that Government members are already seeking calls, and I hope that they will be—

Joseph Mooney: It’s been 40 minutes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, we’ve been here for 40 minutes, we hear, when we’re in an all-stages urgency—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just get the Clerk to stop the clock. At the moment, the 40-minute call is—this is a bill under urgency and there has been no select committee, so we’re not focusing on the 40 minutes. We’re focusing on the questions from the members to the Minister.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that reassurance.

I asked the Minister of Conservation a lot of questions about the meanings of words and how it is that these different clauses in front of us, on these two pages, are consistent in how they relate to each other, and he did not answer that question. I heard him say one thing that was useful, and that was when he said that there is a hierarchy when you have the avoid, minimise, and mitigate, and that is supposed to be a hierarchy. That’s useful to have on the Hansard.

I also heard him say in answer to, I think, Rachel Boyack that the decisions have to be made both about species, he said, and individual wildlife. I do want the Minister to clarify that statement, because what this bill talks about is populations of wildlife, rather than species. Populations of wildlife are a subset of the species, so I presume the Minister’s point was just that there is an “and” in new section 53B(2) in clause 4, between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b)—“(a) populations of wildlife; and (b) individual wildlife.”—and the statement about species wasn’t to denigrate from the word “populations”.

Now, just in that last contribution, the Minister said something about there’s got to be a nexus with the protection of wildlife for this, and I’m not asking any questions about anything outside of these clauses and how they work together. No big-picture questions here; just: how do these clauses interact?

It was interesting that the Acting Prime Minister in the House in question time today said in the first answer about this bill that it was to do with the culling of wildlife, and that makes some sense. If you look at it on the face of it and you think that section 53 in the Wildlife Act says that you can consent to killing, but then there’s a big “but” added in these new clauses and we’ve got to look at the overall effect—but, clearly, we’ve then heard other Ministers say that, no, a whole lot of this is to enable a whole lot of other activity, as well, and that it’s not just about culling.

The Minister has just said, “Oh well, everybody should read the conditions of these wildlife permits.” Well, it would be useful if he could take us through where he thinks the thresholds are and if he can go back to saying why new section 53A(1) says, “Without limiting section 53,”. Does section 53 itself need to change, because it’s not changed with this bill.

But where I was getting to before, before I lost my call, was subsection (5) of new section 53B in clause 4—

Joseph Mooney: It’s only 314 words.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and that was that “In granting the authority, the Director-General is not required to be satisfied”—

Joseph Mooney: We’re debating 314 words—314 words.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m sorry, Madam Chair, but I can’t concentrate at the moment on this because I am so angry that members on the Government backbenches are heckling with things I can’t hear when we do not have a select committee process. I am being criticised for going through the words in these clauses, which are very important, and I would ask that—

Joseph Mooney: It’s 314 words.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’ll have some respect, please. Interjections are fine. I haven’t felt yet that it was a barrage, but there has been a bit of talking going on. But I do understand your question, so continue.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Chair, and it’s particularly egregious when we do not have a select committee stage that I am being heckled for asking about the words when the Minister is not answering about these exact words.

The Minister is giving us political answers, so the question here is that we’ve got at paragraph (b) in subsection (5) that “the Director-General is not required to be satisfied— … (b) that each individual act of killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with the protection of wildlife.” So how does that paragraph (b) relate back to subsection (4) where it says that the director-general must be satisfied that the overall effect would be consistent with the protection of individual wildlife; how do those two subsections about the individual act of killing work together?

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister of Conservation, I’m really interested in your previous comments about how the management plans around effects on wildlife are actually designed to mitigate the effects and reduce the risk of harm, and that it appears that my learned colleagues in the Opposition tonight haven’t adequately reflected on all of the protections that are in place. So when we consider that authority may be granted to kill wildlife incidentally, while that sounds extreme, dramatic, and really, really awful, in fact the existing management plans that are already issued for projects like Mount Messenger clarify that is certainly not the intention of the ecology, the scientific, the wildlife protection professionals who work on New Zealand’s major infrastructure projects—who left school, went and studied a science degree, love nature, probably spend most of their weekends in the outdoors looking for little creatures on their walks, and go to work five, six, or seven days a week to protect wildlife on the projects they work on.

So, Minister, I’m really interested, do you see that the amendments about authorisations are really intended to kill more creatures or are they in fact intended to give effect to and support the fantastic planning that already occurs? Because when I read the species-specific measures to avoid or minimise effects on bats, for example, on the Mount Messenger project, it says quite clearly that when removing vegetation, it could potentially support bat roosts, and further detail is required before this happens. The primary mechanism to avoid any harm to bats is, firstly, listening to them to see if they’re in the tree, and visual inspections and ensure any trees that represent potential bat-roosting habitats are only felled if it can be confirmed they’re not occupied by bats. Now, that’s here in black and white in their consents that were applied for in 2017. So if having gone through all of these measures and having turned up to work, wanting to save every single creature on the project because that’s what you truly believe in while you work for a business that is building infrastructure, how is it that this bill is going to do harm, Minister?

The way I understand it, and I’d appreciate if you confirm it, it’s simply confirming that best practice when it comes to managing the risks to New Zealand’s precious indigenous biodiversity are simply to be accepted and recognised as lawful, rather than it being some catastrophe that is highly unlikely and certainly not intended to befall our threatened species.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Brooking—no, sorry, Rachel Boyack. Apologies.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair—it’s not the first time, that’s for sure—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s not the first time; that’s why I’ve apologised.

RACHEL BOYACK: —and I’m sure it won’t be the last! I just want to make an initial comment, I guess in frustration, that this isn’t going through a select committee process, and so a lot of the questions I’m asking tonight I would normally have the opportunity to ask officials and particularly the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The reason we’re going to dig into the detail and actually come back to the Minister of Conservation when the statements have been so broad and, quite frankly, vague is that we’re not getting the answers, and, actually, the concerns we’re raising—

Simon Court: You’re asking the wrong questions, that’s why.

RACHEL BOYACK: I am—I’ll get there, don’t you worry. I’ve got plenty of questions—plenty of questions. There is a genuine issue to be resolved, and we accept that, but actually getting this right is important, because otherwise we’re going to end up back in court—like, that’s my prediction.

Simon Court: Are you going to support the bill because it’s practical?

RACHEL BOYACK: So—if you’ve been listening to our speeches, you’ll hear that we’re not, because the process is so poor, Mr Court. So, again, I do think it’s—yeah—

Shanan Halbert: Point of order. I think you know what I’m going to say here, that, in fairness, we are here under urgency. We haven’t had the opportunity to take this through select committee. There is a barrage of shouting coming down from the other end, and I’d just ask that our members have the right to put our case forward, to put questions to the Minister, that he answers them in detail fairly, and that we treat this process with respect.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep, and I appreciate that point of order. I didn’t hear a barrage, but there definitely was a two-way transaction going on. So perhaps we’ll give Rachel Boyack the opportunity to ask some clear and concise questions around what the member wants from the Minister.

RACHEL BOYACK: They’re very detailed questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the first part I’m going to talk to is new section 53B(2), inserted by clause 4. It says here, “The authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife if, in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect would be consistent with the protection of—(a) populations of wildlife; and (b) individual wildlife.” The piece I’m interested in is the words “overall effect”. What do they mean in the context of the Act? What are we talking about? What is the definition here? I’m asking specifically; I want to know: what is the definition here of “overall effect”?

“In determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of populations of wildlife”—so I’ve gone on to 53B(3)—“the Director-General must have regard to—(a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on—(i) populations of wildlife”—and it goes on with a series of criteria. The piece that I think, when you’re looking at these two pieces together, makes it really confusing is when you look at 53B(5) and it says, “In granting the authority, the Director-General is not required to be satisfied—(a) that the lawful activity is itself consistent with the protection of wildlife; or (b) that each individual act of killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with the protection of wildlife.”

My question is: how does the wording of “lawful activity” interact with the wording of “overall effect”? I understand the definition of “lawful activity”; we’re talking about the building of a road. My understanding around the overall effect is the overall effect of the activity—that’s my question. It’s very confusing for the reader here to understand how 53B(2) and (3) interact with 53B(5), and it’s not unreasonable for us to be asking for a detailed response, because this is complex law. It’s been drafted in a way that is really challenging to understand how these clauses interact with each other, particularly when you then consider the existing section 53.

When I sit in select committee, I often ask questions back again and again to actually understand how this works as a lawmaker. That is our responsibility; we are here to make law. So I am asking for the Minister to actually not talk in platitudes or not talk in vague statements, to actually dig into the detail of the definitions of these clauses and how they interact with each other, because it needs to be on the Hansard.

Look, I genuinely agree there was a problem to be solved. The High Court ruling placed a problem on the Department of Conservation—absolutely accept that; we’re not disagreeing, but we have real concerns around the drafting of this bill and the unintended consequences that are going to appear for the department, for the director-general, and for the people trying to actually apply it. Very genuine, confused set of members over here, including people with significant legal skills in this area.

So, you know, we are actually asking for some detailed responses from the Minister, because at the moment all we’re hearing is answers that are actually adding to the confusion as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Look, I actually think that this is not only an error of law but it’s an error of logic. I actually am in part inspired to ask this question off the back of what Simon Court asked. Let us move ourselves to a completely different area of law to address the logic problem: health and safety law, where the purpose is to protect human life. It’s entirely set up to make sure people are safe from harm and from death in the workplace. Now, I might be an employer in an industry that is a high-risk industry, and perhaps historically, statistically, it is foreseeable, because there have been deaths in the past, that there will be deaths in the future in my industry.

Now, there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be deaths, and it is foreseeable that there will be deaths—that someone will be injured or killed in my workplace. Can I then get a permit to say that I’ve got permission to kill people? Of course I can’t. But that is the logic—that is the logic of this legislation. I must take all reasonable steps to protect people from harm and from death, and the Wildlife Act is set up to be protective of our wildlife from harm and from death, and the exact same principle applies that I cannot logically get given a permit to kill, a licence to kill, and whilst I’m not in any way suggesting that human life is not more valuable than the life of other species, I’m suggesting that the logic of creating a system where you are licensing someone to break the Wildlife Act, which has a purpose of protecting wildlife, doesn’t stack up.

So my question for the Minister is in new section 53A(1). There’s a very interesting term: “otherwise lawful activity”. It’s an unusual term, and I asked a couple of lawyers how many other pieces of legislation they’d seen this term in—“otherwise lawful activity”—because it seems to be at the crux of the illogic of this legislation. Can the Minister provide examples of otherwise lawful activities where incidental killings might occur and might be permissible and might have to be authorised? How will “not directly intended” be determined, in the language of new section 53A(2): “killing of wildlife is incidental if it is not directly intended.”—how will “not directly intended” be determined?—“but is unavoidable and foreseeable as a consequence of carrying out the lawful activity.” How are unavoidable consequences defined and assessed in practice? In respect of new section 53A(2), does unavoidable mean that it was in the way of a digger? Who is monitoring and assessing this—this goes to a question I asked earlier, which wasn’t answered.

Finally, how are “foreseeable consequences” defined and assessed in practice? These are serious questions because how are you practically going to implement this? How are you practically going to implement this, Minister? You have laws and rules in place that say you have to take every reasonable step to protect wildlife. We know that you’re going to build a road through a certain area, and it’s going to have a consequence of unintended killing. But as the very lawyers who took the case to the court pointed out, who’s going to prosecute somebody for an unintended killing when every reasonable step was taken? I want you to speak, Minister, to the logic of our health and safety law and how it would be ludicrous to suggest—ludicrous to suggest—that any employer would be given a licence to incidentally, inadvertently kill a worker. That would be preposterous and revolting, frankly.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that variety of questions that were posed to me over the last 15 minutes or so. In terms of the overall effect question, it means that the authorisation itself must be consistent with wildlife protection, not the activity itself—e.g., earthworks does not have to be consistent with wildlife protection, but the authority to kill wildlife killed during earthworks does need to be consistent.

There was a question and an observation that this will just open up for carte blanche killing of wildlife: fake news, false reporting; a question that has no logic and an observation that has no logic at all. Because this proposed change will neither increase the bar nor lower the bar in terms of the authorisation of permits. The focus is on making sure that there is an authorised pathway to kill protected wildlife, incidental to the mahi that is being undertaken, whether or not that’s environmental-focused mahi or economic-focused mahi. The focus is on protecting populations and individual wildlife as far as practicable. Now, the Department of Conservation has taken this approach for many, many years. It’s about best practice. It’s about making lawful the strategies we already use to avoid, minimise, and mitigate harm for a protected species through these authorisations and the detailed conditions that they impose.

The practical implementation question—this has been done for decades. And we will ensure that this pragmatic practice will continue by way of the wording set out here.

There were comments about the health and safety law and some of the logic that goes with it. Well, that needs its own review. I won’t be comparing the health and safety laws with what we’re doing here. But just to reinforce that I won’t be curved by illogical questions. This provides an appropriate, safe, authorised pathway for those that have those authorisations and permits to undertake incidental killing. Now, I know that there’s a real effort to complicate this matter in the late hours of the evening, but we’re very clear and I’m happy to answer.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Conservation for his response but also to other members who have spoken on this. Now, again, nothing we’re saying here is trying to be illogical, because of the fact that we would have teased a lot of this out during select committee, but we are still trying to figure out the exact scope of this particular bill and its implications. One of the things that the Minister is referring to and talking about is that this has been done for a number of years. Well, there is no regulatory impact statement, so we have no idea of any of the risks.

What is the risk? That would appear in a regulatory impact statement. I’m looking at the departmental disclosure statement, at page 6. The Minister was like, “This has been done for many years.”, but the Department of Conservation (DOC) themselves said the “information is limited and insufficient to inform a full impact [statement]”. It’s very nice to say that it’s been done for many years, but we actually don’t have any data for it, according to the departmental disclosure statement. My question to the Minister then is: if the Minister is convinced that it’s exactly the same or that the bar has not been raised or lowered, as the Minister put it, can the Minister at least tell this committee how many authorities then has DOC granted so far? If it’s been going on for a while, how many has there been?

Then if we’re looking at a particular case that has been taken here and if we’re looking at the way that we’re reading the current Wildlife Act’s section 68AB—particularly around mens rea and strict liability—that is something that is considered retrospective. But what we’re seeing here in new section 53A is prospective, so I wanted to check with the Minister then about the prospectivity and retrospectivity of this bill. Does that mean that the authority we’re seeing here can only be granted prospectively, as opposed to also being granted retrospectively, which is how section 68AB is interpreted? That’s my second question.

My third question is on the specific terminology that has been used, which is “lawful activity”. Now, we’ve heard examples that the Minister has been using in terms of lawful activities, such as infrastructure and building roads, etc., but surely anything that is within the law would be considered a lawful activity. Now, I did have a look at the Wildlife Act. The term “lawful activity” doesn’t appear once—or at least I couldn’t find it in that particular Act—so this part is the first time we’re seeing this term being used without any clear definition of the term. For me, if I’m thinking broadly in terms of lawful activity, I think of things like fishing being a lawful activity. If that is considered a lawful activity, we know that, for example, under complete protection, there are nine marine fish species, which include manta rays, basking sharks, honu turtles, and spotted black groupers. Would that then mean that any fishing vessels or any fishing companies who are conducting lawful activities within fishing are able to apply for authority for incidental bycatch? Is that a consideration? Although we’ve been trying to lead everyone to think down one track of that lawful activity in terms of infrastructure and construction, I would like to know what the scope of lawful activity is.

Those are my three questions so far, and I know that a lot of people will have other questions as well.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions, and I would like to start on clause 4, looking at this question of “unintended”. I have not yet heard from the Minister of Conservation how, if something is unavoidable and foreseeable, it can possibly not be done with intention, because if a person of sound mind knows what might happen and knows that the consequences are unavoidable, then, surely, they intended that. That’s my first point, and it’s probably a bit of a philosophical question about who determines what “unintended” means. Does it just come down to somebody saying, “Oh, I didn’t mean that to happen.”, or have you got something slightly more robust in mind, for the poor director-general or the person that this is delegated to, to make that critical judgment?

We all understand that generally desirable activities—it might be housing, it might be a transport project, it might be renewable energy; for heaven’s sake, even putting in a cycleway in Evans Bay needed some lizards to be moved, and maybe not every one kept their tails, or worse. But where is the balance struck? For example, is it sufficient to talk about the population that is living in that rohe, or are you saying that if the population in other places is protected, it doesn’t matter what happens in this particular project? Those populations can be the same species but quite genetically distinct. That would particularly be the case where, for some species of gecko, you can only tell which one it is by what location they’re from, because they look so similar.

There was a very good example given of a consent for a roading project that looked at a whole load of protective things and how there had to be a check on the trees as to whether there were bats or not. That is completely separate from the Wildlife Act and the amendments here. That would be done under the Resource Management Act. What assurance could the Minister give me that conditions may not just be imposed but that, surely, conditions should be imposed, that they need to be imposed? If there is an unavoidable issue, maybe you can’t avoid it, but then you’ve created this logical contradiction.

I’d also like to know how the Minister would like to address the suggestion, made earlier, that a previous conservation Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage—I think I heard Grant McCallum assert that she would be supporting this legislation. Well, I don’t think anything is further from the truth. How would the Minister address Eugenie Sage’s point that this amendment creates a much weaker regime?

Finally, how much longer does he think that the delegated Department of Conservation staff will be taking to grant authority under these amendments?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s wonderful to see you this evening. There was a question seeking clarification around the relationship between the protection for populations and species of wildlife. As many of us know, the bill provides provisions to help protect both wildlife populations—e.g., a local population and the species as a whole. The bill provides that “in making decisions to authorise incidental killing, the Director-General is to have regard to—any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on the survival of populations of wildlife and the viability of the species to which that wildlife belongs”. Under new section 53C(1), the director-general may impose conditions “to address [the] potential … effects of the lawful activity on populations of wildlife or the viability of the species to which that wildlife belongs”.

There was another question in relation to the numbers. I anticipate there will be thousands of wildlife authorisations or permits that have been issued over many, many years, both by Te Papa Atawhai - Department of Conservation and also predecessor organisations. Right now, over 500 active permissions have a section 53 component that could be affected by the court’s decisions and about a hundred active authorisations explicitly contain a kill component in the authority that is likely impacted by the court decision. Of course, as you know, we are seeking to reset, by way of this proposed bill, the universal understanding of the authorisation process. Of course, of the over 500 permissions that are active, nearly half of these authorities relate either directly or indirectly to developments in infrastructure. There are nearly 400 applications pending where section 53 may form part or all of the relevant legislation under which the permit authority could be granted to the applicant.

In relation to the lawful activity matter, there was a question around what that actually means. That is the actual activity that gives rise to the need for an authority—for example, pest control or housing development. The authority doesn’t permit that lawful activity; it permits the interactions with wildlife by humans that result from those activities over there and, therefore, sets conditions that ensure wildlife is protected while these are undertaken. There was a comment in relation to retrospectivity by my colleague over in the Green Party, and, certainly, the intention of the proposed bill is to ensure that those permits that were issued prior to the court decision are validated.

Finally, another colleague from the Green Party talked about “unavoidable and foreseeable” and how any of that could be unintended. In some instances, the harming, let’s say, of small animals, like invertebrates, that may be impossible to detect but are, in fact, protected wildlife is supported by way of these authorisations, and the people or the organisations that are undertaking that activity, which could harm in a foreseeable and unavoidable way but an unintended way—those authorisations and those permits are ultimately the focus of this mahi that we’re undertaking this evening.

Finally, there was a comment again by our colleague from the Green Party around conditions; these conditions are generally imposed in Wildlife Act authorisations. What we’re doing in this instance, of course, folks, is ensuring that we make targeted changes to the Act to restore the understanding prior to the court decision, and ensuring that there is a balance in protecting wildlife populations and protecting and enabling the world that our mokopuna will live in.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair, and thank you. This is the first opportunity that I’ve had to make a contribution, by way of questions, as part of urgency, actually. This is a bill that’s more than 70 years old, and one thinks that it often stands the test of time. But what we have in front of us, of course, are some changes. I have to say that, like other members of the House, given that this has been progressed through urgency, I haven’t had a lot of time to actually digest this. Obviously, we would have had a select committee process. That’s why we’ll certainly try and make the most of that.

I have a question for the Minister of Conservation that does relate to new section 53B(4) on page 3 of the bill. As I was reading through this, I was somewhat actually inspired by Mr Abel’s tabled amendment to new section 53C, so I won’t refer to that.

Steve Abel: I don’t mind.

TANGI UTIKERE: I’ll refer to my own. Oh, I’m sure the member doesn’t mind. But I want to just ask the Minister around a potential change to the very first sentence of that clause, and it relates to basically changing the word “may”—which, as we know, has a little bit of looseness to it or flexibility to it—to “must”. This section specifically relates to the ability of the director-general to make a decision based on a number of different facts, but the point of difference with this section is around the reasonable steps that would be taken by the holder of any authority that is granted to, effectively, either “avoid, mitigate, or minimise any adverse effects of the lawful activity”. There’s no issue here with the lawful activity being undertaken.

However, there is a suggestion that if the director-general was required, by way of inserting the phrase “must consider” those—“avoid, minimise, and mitigate the adverse effects of the lawful activity”—it relates specifically to the steps that would be considered reasonable. Now, I accept, and the Minister may agree with me, that “reasonable” in itself might perhaps provide a little bit of broad flexibility around that, but this relates specifically to the holder. Whether or not that was followed through would be another matter and may fall actually within the ambit of new section 53C, but this is about what specifically the director-general is required to be satisfied around and whether or not that needs to be strengthened.

There is a tabled amendment in my name. I apologise; it’s handwritten. Well, actually, no, I don’t apologise, because, under urgency, we have not had an opportunity to digest this. I have tabled a handwritten amendment that basically seeks to amend new section 53B(4) to replace the word “may” with the word “must”. My question for the Minister is—well, first of all, whether he is supportive of that, to give effect to the “avoid, minimise, and mitigate the adverse effects”. But also whether he sees that if he was supportive of that—and I don’t think it is—that it would be inconsistent with other parts of the bill, because that’s certainly not my sort of read on it.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go back to, as Steve Able outlined, the crux of this bill. Sorry, I have asked this question before; I’m asking it one more time because the Minister of Conservation didn’t answer it. He did talk around it, but he didn’t get to the crux of this, and I would like this on the record, in terms of clarification.

Now, the genesis of the problematic position that everyone is in was the High Court ruling in March this year. What the judge specifically ruled on, which I have somewhere here—“Justice McHerron highlighted that section 53 permits can only be issued if their purpose is to protect wildlife. In a previous case, the Court of Appeal suggested one such purpose could be [for example] culling of some individuals to prevent the spread of disease to a wider population.” In that sense, you’re authorising the killing of something, which then has a direct benefit to that species. The direct nexus was at the heart of the High Court ruling, and so the judge in question then said that that particular permit under section 53 was unlawful because, ultimately, there was no protective purpose there. It was the killing of a species for a road, and that was not in line with the principal purpose of the Act. Now, the Minister has said that the whole point of this piece of legislation that we’re debating tonight under urgency is to revert to decisions that were made prior to that March 2025 ruling, which would then allow, for example, for a species—in the Mount Messenger case, 46 species—that was incidentally killed as a result of a road that was being built to be then offset or mitigated by saying that there was an overall benefit or effect that was positive to that species.

What I want to just get—really, yes or no—clarity on, Minister, is in new section 53B, where 53B(1) says, “To avoid doubt, the Director-General may grant an authority referred to in section 53A only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife.” I take the point that the Minister has made—that there is still a protection to wildlife requirement in this legislation—but it’s not the direct nexus, is it? The wording that we’ve been trying to prosecute, on this side of the Chamber—“overall effect”—is directly contradicting the direct nexus requirement of the High Court ruling. Is that the case? That is my primary question for the Minister. Can the Minister just clarify that including “overall effect” removes the requirement for there to be a direct benefit to that species? Essentially, what this legislation is doing is allowing for species that are protected to be killed in order for a road to be built. Let’s just be very clear that that is what this piece of legislation will allow. That is my first question.

My second question that I have for the Minister is the relationship between section 53A and section 71, which I understand is unchanged in the bill. Section 53A, as I mentioned before, was meant to be that direct benefit to a species—the killing of a species can only be authorised if there’s a direct benefit. Section 71 was, basically, where certain things could be—or certain projects could be—allowed. I’m just looking for the legislative statement that I had—here we go—so: “Section 71 provides for authorisations to be issued where activities affecting wildlife are carried out under named legislation specified in Schedule 9 of the Act.” For specific exemptions, Schedule 9 is, basically, an exemptions list—so roading was an exemption. The Mount Messenger case was lawful because of section 71.

My question to the Minister is: does section 53A actually substitute section 71? In effect, if the director-general can then authorise the killing of various species because a road needs to be built, which is, essentially, what section 71 did, what is the difference between the two? Can the Minister clarify what the difference and purpose of these two sections are and how they relate to one another?

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a quite specific and, hopefully, relatively quick question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Specific and quick is probably what we’re looking for at this time of night.

STEVE ABEL: Good, yeah. What would help too, Mr Chair—I think we haven’t had particularly substantive answers from the Minister, and some of the many questions we’ve asked have not really been answered, and they’re often pretty specific.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I assure the members that the Minister’s answers will be taken into account when we’re sitting at closed mics as well.

STEVE ABEL: I appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The universe is balanced.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked a question about where a fisher may catch or capture one of the nine species that are protected in the Wildlife Act. My question is: do those fishers have authority now to incidentally, inadvertently kill any of those protected nine species?

It relates to a broader question. New section 53B, inserted by clause 4, says that authority may be granted. Who must get an authority to incidentally kill wildlife? Does every fisher in New Zealand need to get an authority on the potential that they will incidentally kill—not intentionally; with best endeavours try not to—wildlife? For that to be a legal killing, do they have to have one of these newly stipulated authorities and to what extent does that go?

When Mr Grant McCallum jumps off his cellphone and thinks about growing his hemp crop this year and he goes to plough his field, does he have to get an authority for the foreseeable likelihood that he will kill a few skinks in the process? That may be a minor example, but it’s a serious question. Who has to get an authority?

If I go to mow my lawn in Green Bay with the foreseeable potential that I may impact a protected species, I presume I don’t have to get an authority to do it. But where are the bounds of these authorities meant to be? There you go, Mr Chair—I got it in in under 2½ minutes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. In one of the Minister’s previous answers—not the last one but, I think, the one before—he talked about the phrase “overall effect” and said that it related to the activity. I cannot see how that interpretation can work with this legislation. Going back to my first point, it seems that we have section 53 saying, “Do what you like.” Then we’re saying, without limiting section 53, “We’ve got some quite tight controls here about incidental killings, so you’ve got to be protecting wildlife.” But how we’re interpreting protecting wildlife has to do with an overall effect. One of my questions to the Minister earlier that I haven’t had an answer to is: is that the right interpretation of how these clauses are working? The overall effect is a diminishment of what we might normally think is the protection of wildlife. That’s a very important question.

But then, even if it is a diminishment—if I’m right in my reading that the overall effect is a diminishment—there is still a lot in these clauses that keeps going on about the protection of wildlife for individuals, so how could anybody get an authority to do something that wasn’t the example of culling that we just had from my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan. That question relates to statements—the Minister also needed, he said, best practical options, or what’s most reasonable where pragmatic. These clauses do not read like a rebalancing of the environment that we see everywhere else from this Government. It does look like there are some quite tough steps here to go through. Am I correct that even with the overall effect being a watering down of protection, it will still be difficult to get through these tests and they will, in fact, not enable all of the things that Minister Shane Jones was talking about? There’s a couple of questions in that piece.

Then, we’ve just heard from Steve Abel about mowing his lawn, and he’s worried about whether there will be incidental killings, and so we might say the same with a bird flying into a window. Maybe it’s foreseeable that if you have a window near some trees, a bird will fly into it, so do we need to be looking at this bill in terms of section 63 of the Wildlife Act, which relates to offences. That says, “No person may, without lawful authority … hunt or kill”. That’s another question: has that offences provision been considered when it still looks like it will be difficult to get lawful permission under new sections 53A, B, and C?

Another separate type of question goes to section 71 of the Wildlife Act, and this is how Mt Messenger was made lawful because the two Ministers signed it off under section 71. We’ve talked a lot about that Act; it’s an old Act. Section 71 is actually under “Miscellaneous” provisions, and is the “Saving of other Acts”. It’s a horrible clause to go through, with all of its exceptions. It says, “Except where this Act otherwise provides, nothing in this Act shall derogate from any provision of any of the Acts specified in Schedule 9:”—we know that many of the Acts in Schedule 9 no longer exist, but there is one about roads that does—“provided that, except with the prior consent of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister charged with the administration of the Act under which the act or authority is performed or exercised, and subject to such conditions as those Minister may jointly impose, no person shall be entitled to do any act or exercise any authority under [the] Act in respect of any wildlife”, etc.

That’s a very convoluted clause. It has been, though, an avenue for the Department of Conservation to make some of these permissions and authorities lawful. Has the Minister considered amending section 71, and/or has he considered amending the schedule there with all of those outdated Acts? Would that be another way to fix the problem? Does it need to be done in conjunction with these additions to section 53, and how does existing 53 interact with these new sections 53A, B, and C, and section 71?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Just mindful of some of the questions that we’ve answered that haven’t been heard by the Opposition, I’ll just repeat again that concept of overall effect. What that means, in new section 53B(2), as mentioned earlier, is that the authorisation itself must be consistent with the wildlife protection, not the activity itself. Building earthworks, as an example, does not have to be consistent with wildlife protection, but the authority to kill wildlife during earthworks does need to be consistent.

In relation to the defence, there is a defence set out in the Act around accidental harm where things are unforeseeable and unintended, not when the action is intended. That space—the action is unintended, foreseeable, and unavoidable—is exactly at the heart of what we’re trying to deal with right now. As mentioned earlier, again in response to a question about the High Court ruling, the court, effectively, sent out a decision that signalled that animals may only be killed in the process of trying to protect them. This decision limits the ability to lawfully grant authority to incidentally kill protected wildlife under the Act. Authority holders, as we’ve mentioned, are concerned because they have no assurance that they would not be prosecuted if their projects kill any protected wildlife, despite having an authorisation under section 53 of the Act. That may lead them to stop doing things, including environmental things like some of the mahi around TB-free, which I’ve mentioned several times today, along with infrastructure, power line maintenance, pest control, and other things.

The court has made a decision that’s, effectively, put at risk hundreds of authorisations that are contributing to the environmental and economic wellbeing of the country. We have said no. We do not agree with that. We are going to validate those authorisations. We’re going to make sure that those people who hold the authorisations are assured and have confidence that they can go out and do the mahi that they need to do, and sometimes, incidentally, per some conditions in some permits, we might find that some protected wildlife is killed.

There was a question around how section 53 and section 71 interact. New section 53A does not act as a substitute for section 71. Section 71 still applies to activities undertaken under specific identified Acts set out in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife Act. These Acts are a relatively limited set of enactments covering limited types of activities, and I understand roads might be part of that sometimes. Section 53 is not available when section 71 applies. This was clarified in the Mount Messenger decision.

Finally, in relation to the interaction between new sections 53B(4) and 53B(5)(b)—how they interact—they work independently of each other. New section 53B(4) requires the director-general to be satisfied that the authorisation holder “will take reasonable steps … to avoid, minimise, and mitigate … adverse effects of the lawful activity on individual wildlife.” New section 53B(5)(b)—like Bananas in Pyjamas; B1 and B2—ensures that “In granting the [decision], the Director-General is not required to be satisfied … (b) that each individual act of killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with the protection of wildlife.” Why we’ve done this is that it responds directly to the Environmental Law Initiative decision, the Mount Messenger decision, which stated that, in that case, the authority would be lawful only if each individual active killing, viewed in isolation, would be consistent with that protection.

We’ve been very clear in forming responses—careful and cautious responses—so the bevy of questions has been answered, and we are ready to move forward.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the Minister of Conservation’s answers there—before he directed his backbench to take a closure motion—was that the Minister considers he is being clear when he gives bold political answers and talks about “pyjamas” when, in fact, we are asking about very specific words. He is saying that I should read and listen to him and that the overall effect relates to the activity. He used the example of earthworks, but this phrase is talking about the authority. Surely, when you go back up to new section 53A, inserted by clause 4, the authority is the one that you’re getting that grants the killing of the wildlife. It’s not the overall activity that you might need a whole set of permissions for; it’s this little bit about—well, not little; it might be very big and important—the incidental killing and having a permission to do that. That permission is, in my reading, called “the authority” in these different sections.

The way that that section reads—I’m looking at new section 53B(2)—is: “The authority is to be treated as consistent with the protection of wildlife if… satisfied that its overall effect”. Surely, the overall effect is relating to the authority that says that you can kill some animals.

The Minister might tell me that I’m wrong, but it makes no sense what he is referring to in terms of the activity with how these sentences work. It’s very precise. I don’t want any political answers about this, so can he point to what it is that he appears to be saying is wrong with my question? If I am correct and that “overall effect” relates to the authority, the permission to kill the wildlife, then can he answer my question, which is: is that phrase “overall effect” a diminishment of the preceding test, which is the protection of wildlife?

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am really frustrated, alongside my colleagues, because, despite the Minister of Conservation’s insistence that he’s providing clear responses, there are not clear responses coming out. There are considerable issues with the entirety of this bill that we would like the opportunity to fully examine—because of urgency, because of the inability to go to select committee—so I appreciate getting to actually ask some of them.

What I want to ask the Minister about specifically is the authorisation itself of the director-general. The Minister actually brought up an example himself, where he talked about there being some invertebrates that are present in, say, a development site that are hard to detect.

Now, what we’re really concerned about with this bill is, essentially, the moving of the responsibility from the developer or the person or the company who is actually undertaking the activity and has that obligation in terms of a risk assessment—an assessment of ecological impacts; that kind of thing—on to the Director-General of Conservation. Now, what does this actually look like in practicality? Again, the Minister is saying this is practical. This is impractical—completely impractical—for a department that is already facing a $48 million cut from last Budget; we’re yet to hear what’s coming next for this next Budget. I have complete respect for the work that the Department of Conservation (DOC) does, and I understand the complexity of what is involved with actual ecological assessments which go into developments or any kind of project of magnitude—which, again, is what we’re trying to talk about, although my colleague has raised some very clear questions about the actual scope of this bill, for which we know nothing about. What we’re trying to understand here is: why move this onus on to the director-general, which will actually cause more bureaucracy?

What we’re proposing in one of our tabled amendments—I’m just finding the number here; it’s under my colleague Steve Abel’s name, and it’s regarding new section 53B, inserted by clause 4. We would propose, in section 53B(2), deleting the words “in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that”, and then, under that, deleting subsections 53B(3), 53B(4), and 53B(5). Now, that would actually remove the ability for the director-general to have the responsibility for these discretionary decisions that they would need to make to grant the authority to actually kill the wildlife.

Now, the Minister’s example of invertebrates is a great one, because it’s basically admitting that, suddenly, it’s DOC’s role—not the developer’s, not the individual’s, not the company’s—to understand the entirety of the impact and what species might be impacted, and it’s on them to find those hard-to-find invertebrates, presumably, and actually put those in the granted authority to grant that permission. Now, this seems like a very roundabout and completely unnecessary way to purportedly solve this problem, when, actually, we’ll just be putting more bureaucracy and more demands on the actual ecological assessments which would be required for the director-general to make accurate decisions under this bill. That’s what we want, right? This isn’t for fun. This is about actual development. This is about actual situations with real wildlife that need actual protection. We’re not going to go through the statistics with that, but I’d be really keen to hear from the Minister if he would consider changing this bill and letting it go to select committee so that we can actually nut out, and understand, the implications of this, particularly for our own public agencies.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Just to catch up on a couple of the questions that were asked earlier today—could a fishing vessel apply for a permit for incidentally killing protected species such as through wildlife? This is the fishing question. Incidental bycatch during fishing is not an offence under the Wildlife Act, provided it is reported, so it does not require a wildlife authorisation.

Is a permit needed for every situation where wildlife may be killed? The examples used were lawn mowing and the growing of hemp in Maungaturoto. Now, if you know that protected wildlife is likely to be killed as a result of the activity, yes. Conditions can then be applied to ensure that any impacts of such an activity does not inflict lasting harm on the persistence of species.

There was a suggestion around an amendment that was tabled, in relation to the director-general’s responsibilities; we will not be agreeing to that amendment. We are really focused on targeted changes required in response to the High Court’s decision that would continue to leave authorisation holders uncertain of the validity of their permits, potentially delaying a wide range of activities, including those which deliver improved conservation outcomes. The director-general has been responsible for issuing these authorisations for many, many years.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I do thank the Minister of Conservation for some of the answers that he gave. That was around clarifying that the direct nexus bit was no longer required—I get that—and also that new section 53A does not replace section 71.

I do have a question around that. I know my colleague Rachel Brooking asked whether there was any consideration around then expanding Schedule 9 so that, in effect, if section 71 provides for authorisations that are issued—so, in this case, if a road needs to be built and there is an effect on species there—incidental killing of species there—that can be offset or mitigated by addressing the population effect and so on and so forth? Section 71 already allows for that, but it’s limited by the exemptions or the Acts that are listed in Schedule 9. Was there consideration around expanding the legislation, or the Acts that are named in Schedule 9, so that the specific projects that the Minister is concerned about—I think there were 85 that were previously authorised and about 300 that are currently in train. The Minister has outlined that his worry or his concern is that those will be halted because of the High Court ruling. Now, has he considered expanding Schedule 9 so that the Acts that are related to those 85 or 300 projects could actually be included there and there could be a section 71 authorisation for that, rather than the mess that we’re seeing outlined here?

I just want to get to that as well, because I do have sympathy for what my colleagues have said. Lan Pham, Rachel Brooking, and Rachel Boyack have pointed out that the wording in new sections 53A, 53B, and 53C is unclear. We’ve asked a few times questions around the wording specifically of “overall effect” because it is important. It could relate to the activity, or it could relate to the species. We just want to know which one is the relevant one in this legislation.

I’ll ask it a slightly different way as well, because I had to go to the legislative statement to figure out what that section was referring to and what it actually meant. What new section 53B says as it’s drafted in this legislation is that “Authority under section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally: consistency with protection of wildlife”. It goes on to talk about the fact that, “To avoid doubt, the Director-General may grant an authority referred to in section 53A only if it is consistent with the protection of wildlife.” I think that does relate to the overall population, rather than the direct benefit or the direct nexus that the High Court ruling was talking about. But, in new section 53B(3), “In determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent with the protection of populations of wildlife, the Director-General must have regard to—(a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity on—(b) populations of wildlife that the Director-General is satisfied may be affected by the lawful activity;”. What does that mean? It’s a bunch of words, and it seems incredibly confusing.

If you go to the legislative statement, it says that the point of new section 53B is to restore and clarify—so to restore the allowed activity to what the Department of Conservation was doing before the High Court ruling. It, basically, specifies when an authorisation will be consistent with the protection of wildlife and what the director-general must have regard to—“This includes whether the overall effect of the authorisation and its conditions would address the potential adverse effect of the activity on affected wildlife populations”. This is why we’re confused about the wording in the letter of the law—in the legislation as it’s drafted. Where does it actually say that? So, “adverse effect of the activity on affected wildlife populations and the viability of those species”—whether the species could become more threatened or become extinct as a result of the authorisation or the permit that is being given. Is that what is actually meant? If so and if we had had a select committee process, we could have actually worked through how the wording in this legislation would actually get us to the point of what it’s meant to say.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): There’s a question about why we didn’t change section 71 and Schedule 9. That would be overkill. This would add complexity and increase the risk of unintended consequences because section 71 covers a very specific set of legislation. Section 71 decisions, unlike section 53 decisions, were not put at risk following the High Court decision. As a result, I’ve not proposed changes to section 71, but we are very determined to channel and facilitate changes to section 53. Thank you, Mr Chair.

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of very specific questions for the Minister of Conservation on new sections 53A and 53B, inserted by clause 4. I just have a question around the interaction between the granting of authority and section 68AB of the primary Act, which, the Minister has mentioned, is where the defence currently lies. The defence is currently that the defendant did not intend to commit the offence. I just want to get clarification from the Minister that by granting authority, it then constitutes an automatic defence under section 68AB because of the fact that the authority itself would mean that it is incidental and unavoidable and foreseeable, which would imply that the defendant did not intend to commit an offence. I’m just checking if it is the correct interpretation that the authority constitutes a defence under new section 68AB—section 68AB(3)(a) specifically.

My next question is about new section 53A(2), where the killing is “unavoidable and foreseeable”. I’m assuming “unavoidable and foreseeable” covers both immediate and long term, but clarification would be appreciated.

Now, moving on to new section 53B(4), it would be good if the Minister could respond—I don’t think we have heard from the Minister, and, if we have, I apologise. Would the Minister consider Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment on changing “may” to “must”? I think that is an important clarification, because if the director-general “may” be satisfied, it also implies the director-general doesn’t need to be satisfied at all, because there is no total requirement for that to happen. Clarification around that would be great as well.

My final question—this is question number four—is also on new section 53B(4). It talks about reasonable steps. Can I check with the Minister whether the reasonable steps here are that the holder of authority will take reasonable steps? Is that reasonable on the basis of an objective person or reasonable on the basis of a subjective person or that particular individual? Those are my four questions. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. I just have a quick question going back to this “overall effect” and the Minister saying it has to do with the activity, can the Minister consider the difference between the use of the word “authority” and the use of the phrase “lawful activity”? It seems to me that those two are used quite purposefully throughout these new sections to distinguish between the permission, the authority to do the killing of the animals, of the wildlife, because that’s what it refers to in clause 4, inserting new section 53A—“Authority may be granted”—and section 53 of the Act says “The Director-General may … authorise”, and then we’re talking about the “lawful activity”.

At new section 53A(2), the killing of wildlife is incidental if it’s a consequence of carrying out a lawful activity. The lawful activity is the earthworks or whatever it is that you’re doing, but the authority is this permission to incidentally kill the wildlife. That is why it just makes no sense to me that the Minister is saying that this “overall effect” is linked to the word “authority”. “The authority is to be treated as consistent if, in granting it, the Director-General is satisfied that its overall effect”—“its” being the authority—“would be consistent with the protection of [the wildlife]”, whereas then we look down to new section 53A(3), “In determining whether the overall effect of the authority would be consistent”, we look at “(a) any potential adverse effects of the lawful activity” on populations and viability.” Surely the word “authority” is different to “lawful activity”, and the word “authority” is what is connected to “overall effect”.

Given that, I go back to my question that I’ve asked—I know we’re not supposed to repeat questions—and I would really like the Minister to turn his mind to this and to whether, if I am right, the “overall effect” is related to the “authority” to kill the wildlife, or to whether that “overall effect”—the scheme of this amendment—is that the use of the phrase “overall effect” is a diminishment of what otherwise we would consider to be the protection of wildlife, and the protection of wildlife comes just before that. To avoid doubt, we’ve got to be consistent with the protection of wildlife. Oh, but hang on—hang on. We only treat it as consistent with the protection of wildlife if we’re satisfied that the overall effect is these things.

It does seem to be that we’re setting up a cascade of different words and phrases and tests. Because of that, the answers from the Minister to me make no sense, and I’d like him to reconsider and come back to this point whilst we’re still in the committee stage on Part 1. It may be that he will want to make an amendment if what he thinks he’s saying does not match with my reading of these words.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m going to bang through a few questions about new section 53B, in clause 4. I am anxious, as I look over to the other side of the room, to close Part 1. I’ve got a number of substantive questions still. New section 53B: what analysis has been undertaken on the effects of permitting the killing of wildlife compared to the status quo where all reasonable steps must be taken to avoid wildlife being killed?

What I’m asking here, Minister, is: if we retreat to the simple principle that it is about taking all reasonable steps rather than requiring these authorities to be issued, what analysis has been taken of that? Relating to that is new section 53B, in clause 4, and my question is: why is this discretionary power required when the mens rea test in section 68AB of the principal Act already provides that developers need to take all reasonable steps to ensure wildlife is not killed? Obviously, my colleague has already spoken about the burden of work for the director-general, who will be making these discretionary decisions, and it’s a huge amount of work for the Department of Conservation. So why do we need to have this discretionary power when there’s already that mens rea test of reasonable steps?

I have another question on new section 53B. How will the director-general assess the overall effect on wildlife populations? How will the director-general determine that the overall effect would be consistent with the protection of populations of wildlife and individual wildlife? This question has not been answered, and it is a significant question. New section 53B(3)(a)(ii) mentions the viability of populations. At what level is this considered? Is it the local level, Minister? Is it the national level? Is it the regional level? At what level is that viability to be evaluated, and how will the director-general determine the viability of a species? As my colleague Rachel Brooking pointed out, this is where there’s a lot of layers of complexity in the interpretation and the responsibility put on the director-general.

In anxiety that they may be looking at wrapping this up—and I don’t mean to be jumping ahead prematurely—I want to mention an amendment we have to proposed new section 53C, “Conditions that may be imposed on authority under section 53 to kill wildlife incidentally”, which is in clause 4. We believe that conditions must be imposed. Considering the significant nature of the activity, which is killing wildlife, it requires the setting of conditions. That is critical. This provision would be, essentially, worthless without the requirement being mandatory. Under new section 53C, it must be mandatory for the director-general to put in place conditions, and, what is more, what types of conditions would be included?

Is, for example, the Government aware that, in the Mount Messenger case, there were no condition requirements put on Waka Kotahi to try to avoid killing most of the listed species? It simply permitted the killing. Is the Government aware that those conditions were not put in place? It was just simply a licence to kill, which is why the case was brought. We do not want that circumstance, surely, Minister. If you are genuinely committed to the principle of this being about protecting wildlife and, surely, if you’re going to issue one of these authorities, there must be mandatory conditions put in place.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I just have some brief responses: we’ve discussed the defence for accidental harm from unintentional and unforeseeable harm. If you follow an authority that you have, it’s not an offence.

We’re starting to stray, in my view, into feral space based on speculation and conjecture. We are here to make a targeted change, as a result of a High Court decision that has completely undermined the universally understood position around the issuance and upholding of authorisations under the Wildlife Act. We are neither increasing nor decreasing the bar for the issuing of these authorisations.

The comment that the director-general will not able to, or will be overwhelmed in being able to, consider these matters and the viability of a species—I think the director-general is very competent at determining the viability of a species by using the tools and the knowledge available to her, both within the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai and outside. She looks after, on behalf of the entire country, 30 percent of the land and a little bit of marine space and is well versed in issues around the viability of species in issuing literally hundreds of authorisations under the Wildlife Act.

Finally, on the interaction between authority and lawful activity, the overall effect of the authority is consistent with protecting wildlife when the authority provides for avoiding, minimising, and mitigating harm that is incidental. To know that the authority provides for this, it is relevant to understand the harm that may result from the activity that would cause harm in the first place. I’ve described what “lawful activity” and “overall effect” mean on nearly five occasions now. Thank you.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to clause 4, subsection (2) of new section 53C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clause 4, new section 53B be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 53B, to replace “may” with “must” in subsection (4), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, to replace new section 53A and delete new section 53B, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 53C, to replace “may” with “must” in subsection (1), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m. Good night.

Sitting suspended from midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

TUESDAY, 6 MAY 2025

(continued on 8 May 2025)

Bills

Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Amendments about transitional, savings, and related provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. The committee is resumed. We are on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. When we suspended last night, we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 and 6—“Amendments about transitional, savings, and related provisions”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. I appear to be very eager this morning.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Very keen!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. As you’ve just said, Part 2 relates to two clauses—as Part 1 was just one clause—and we also have the Schedule included. These provisions are transitional, and it’s important that we note that, through the Schedule, there is retrospective effect to this legislation. We know that there has been no regulatory impact statement on this legislation, and so it would be useful for the Minister to comment on the need for it to be retrospective and what advice he’s had on the implications of that retrospectivity, given that it is retrospective and it’s unusual for legislation to be retrospective. I say that as if it’s the constitutional norm, but this is the second piece of legislation that’s going through this House under urgency. We’re still in the Chamber on 6 May. I don’t even know what the real date is in the real world, but we’re here on 6 May, and this is the second bill under all-stages urgency that has a retrospective element to it.

I wanted to say in the previous bill, and I’ll say it for this one as well, that it would be great if the Minister could justify that retrospectivity but also if the Minister would consider some sort of review provisions for this piece of legislation that is going through under all-stages urgency. It could be—and we can come to this in the commencement debates—that the bill doesn’t commence until some sort of review is undertaken, or it might be that the bill goes to something like the Regulations Review Committee, for instance, for a review post-enactment and that there is a trigger for the bill coming back to the House if that Regulations Review Committee—or another review body—thought that there was a need to do that.

Why that is important is because there has been no select committee process on this bill and there has been no opportunity for members of this House who are not part of the executive, but who are part of the Parliament, to ask advisers questions. We’ve heard a number of times in the second reading speeches and first reading speeches that Parliament is sovereign. Indeed, Parliament is sovereign, but at the moment, when we have all this legislation avoiding that select committee process and no opportunity for members on the Opposition side to do their job and ask advisers questions about what the executive is putting in front of them, the executive becomes sovereign. That is what we have at the moment. The executive is pushing through these things.

We had a debate in real life yesterday on Part 1 about some phrases in the Act, and I promise to the rest of the House that my concern was a real interpretation concern. I think what will happen is that this bill will come back to the House, because it just doesn’t make sense to me. That is why I’m asking if the Minister can commit to some amendment that he can make now, in committee stage, that there will be a review of these provisions so that they can be appropriately considered by people who have a little bit more time—they’re not staying up till midnight and then going to select committees at 8 a.m.—and who can actually pursue these questions. That would be a very sensible thing to happen. Please, Minister, will you consider that? I’m helpful to table amendments. I’m sorry; I would—I would—

Grant McCallum: Wake up!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Wake up! I’m very happy to table amendments if the Minister indicates that that would be helpful. I’m sure we can do that now, but I would be interested in both the justification from the Minister for it being retrospective and any comments on review provisions and, potentially, amendments to make sure that there is actually a review.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to just begin by emphasising the need, as Rachel Brooking has pointed out, for a review period. What we see is Schedule 1AA refers to, potentially, a large number of projects—perhaps some that are active authorisations; some that are under way—and it is important, given the retrospectivity of this, that there is a review period.

The second point that I want to make—a question for the Minister—is about the number of those projects. Now, we’ve seen, as I’ve mentioned previously in this debate, that there is no regulatory impact statement. There is no proactively released Cabinet paper. We don’t have a huge amount of detail that, previously or in other situations, were this not being passed through all stages under urgency, we would have had access to. I have seen some media reporting that basically says that, in the past 12 months, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has granted 85 similar permits to project applicants and that, in total, 315 applications are under way where a section 53 permit or authority could be granted. My question would be around whether the Minister can confirm those figures and also around whether new Schedule 1AA in Part 2 would then apply to all of those—the 85 plus the 315—that are in train as well.

The third point that I want to make is that, in lieu of a select committee process, all we have—previously, we would have submitters, many of whom have done a fair bit of work in this space in terms of reviewing the Wildlife Act and making suggestions on what should be changed within the Act. We would have ordinarily heard from them through a select committee process. We, of course, haven’t, given that we are sitting in urgency, and so all we have to go on are some of the press releases that have been put out on this particular piece of legislation. There is one from the Environmental Law Initiative—of course, the lawyers who judicially reviewed the decision have said that, basically, it increases the burden on those who are, I guess, pushing those projects through—the 85 and the 315, if, in fact, those numbers are correct. I would be keen for the Minister’s view, given what’s in Schedule 1AA, on whether he agrees that it actually does increase the administrative burden both for DOC but also in terms of the legal tests that, now, those projects have to be put against.

There was also another comment, and I can’t find it in front of me at the moment, around the fact that, potentially, what DOC should have done—again, it’s just been two months since the High Court ruling. That is a point that has been made before: there hasn’t been a huge amount of time. Had this been either delayed a little bit or had there been a slightly lengthier process or some select committee process, there potentially could have been time for DOC to then go through the cases on a case by case basis. We are here because the High Court ruled that in that particular case, the Mt Messenger Bypass case, the authority that was given under section 53 didn’t actually meet the purpose of the Wildlife Act as it was written back in 1953. Therefore, this carte blanche approach to now changing the law to change, ostensibly, the purpose of this Act so that the permits that were given retrospectively will now be legal does not necessarily mean that those who are shepherding those projects through have taken reasonable steps to protect biodiversity.

There is an argument put forward that what DOC should be doing is looking at those 85 cases, where there is legal uncertainty, and trying to work out whether reasonable steps have been taken to protect biodiversity in each of those cases. I would really like to know what the Minister’s view on that is but also what advice he received on that point. Is that something that DOC could actually have done? Was there consideration around the time period that it would have taken for DOC to be able to go through all of those cases on a case by case basis?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to all. Wakey, wakey. It’s a beautiful day. All right, in response to some of the questions that were made, I’ll just start off with the numbers. I think the member opposite mentioned about 85 that were issued in the year leading up to the court decision. I don’t know the exact number for the 12 months or the seven months leading up to the decision, but under the proposed provisions, all those that were decided and issued—all those authorisations—up to the date of the court decision will be validated.

The numbers I mentioned last night are about right. There are around 500 existing authorities that could be impacted by the decision. Of course, there are a number of permit holders with significant concerns around whether or not they are acting lawfully. That’s not just those in the development or, let’s call it, the economic space, but it’s also those in the environmental space, pest control, and other things. For us, it’s absolutely critical that we restore the universal understanding of the arrangements around the issuance of permits and authorisations for Department of Conversation (DOC) purposes but also the exercise of the permits and authorisations by those who are permit holders.

I acknowledge the concerns about retrospectivity that have been shared by members opposite. There is a low risk of unintended consequences, because everyone who was applying for these authorisations and permits—and also DOC, on the other side, who was authorising these permits and authorisations—had a very shared understanding of the basis on which they were being undertaken and, of course, landing on the conditions that apply to the exercise of the authorisations in the permits.

There was mention of a potential increased admin burden at DOC, and, of course, my concern as the Minister of Conservation is that, now, we’ve got quite a number of applications that are awaiting a DOC decision but DOC is unable to make this decision out of a concern that, actually, that may not be done lawfully, because when the decision was made, of course, it changed the understanding and changed the status quo. DOC wants to be in a space where it can continue to authorise these authorisations and permit these authorisations, issue them, and get on with things.

The comments around the monitoring and whether or not DOC has gone through every single authorisation and made sure that, to the nth degree, conditions are being upheld—that’s an operational matter. I’m confident that DOC is undertaking its role accordingly within its operations and, actually, it’s beyond the scope of the very targeted and narrow changes that have been proposed by way of this bill to restore not only the universal understanding of this permit process but also the ability for us to get on with economic and environmental initiatives.

There was a concern that I think a number of members opposite have raised in relation to retrospectivity. When the announcement was made from Cabinet, by myself, that we would look to ensure that those permit holders had their permits and authorisations validated, we wanted to give absolute certainty to those permit holders today so that they can continue to have the confidence to build the roads that we need to get to far-flung places like New Plymouth—I can see the member for [Interruption]—and other activities like the TBfree programme. Happy to hear further comments.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems, on appearance, like this is a small part of this bill, but there is so much in here that I will really appreciate the opportunity to ask about, particularly because it has been so rushed through and there are some real concerns around every aspect, particularly of new Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 6.

I want to start, firstly, with Schedule 1AA, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”, in Part 1, clause 1, with the “Validation of certain authorities”. The Minister of Conservation has just been saying in his comments right now that the intention here is to provide absolute certainty that it’s this kind of sweep of this legislation going through and that’s what will fix things.

Now, what my colleagues across the side of the House and I have been trying to say is that it’s actually creating the opposite of that, particularly because the burden of proof and the responsibility for the validation of these authorities is now resting with the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the director-general (DG). The reason that that is is because—and this talks about it as well—it talks about the validation of certain authorities. For the DG to be in the position where they can offer that validation, they actually need to know, right? These 300 or 80—it’d be great to get some numbers and clarity about how many authorisations we’re actually talking about here. DOC need to assess these. They need to have some knowledge and understanding of that.

The Minister also just talked earlier about fixing the administrative burden. We were asking about the administrative burden, and then he said, “The operational stuff is for DOC.” This is operational. To actually know and understand what has been going on with these authorisations and what’s been going on with the projects requires operational knowledge and presumably some form of assessment or surveying or something, some kind of methodology, to enable an actual evaluation of what’s taken place and what authorisations would actually be appropriate.

Now, this was something that we didn’t get answers to in the previous part when we were asking about what resources and what methodologies and assessments are actually envisaged to contribute to this process to ensure that DOC is acting in a way that is informed and that it is then acting in a way that provides the so-called certainty. Now, again, we don’t believe that clauses like this are providing that certainty at all. Really, if DOC is put in this burdensome situation where they’re having to assess these things, that is actually a burden that is unnecessary, given that there are already sections in the Wildlife Act that provide for these incidental aspects of killing.

What I’m also interested in—and I’d love to hear the Minister provide us some advice and assurance around this—is the level of consultation that will take place as part of this. Presumably the activity holders or the companies would be involved, but what about other people who were involved in those projects and particularly in the consultative part of those projects? Are they also going to be involved? This might be experts or iwi and hapū. How will that work? We’re not hearing the real realities of what this means for DOC and how they’re actually going to manage it. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I’ll say for the 14th time that there might be up to 500 permits that are implicated by this matter. There’s no burden on the Department of Conservation (DOC) because, under the proposed legislation, those section 53 authorisations that have been issued prior to the court decision are validated. There is a real uncertainty right now that they may be invalid—hence why DOC has, effectively, downed tools until such time as we make these changes. DOC has got enough on its plate trying to look after 30 percent of the entire land of this country and some marine space, and they are absolutely enthusiastic—as you can see—to get on and see this change made.

In terms of the review provisions, there was a question earlier on about whether or not we could include review provisions. Well, in the disclosure statement, we have stated that the Ministry for Regulation and DOC have committed to undertake a post-implementation review within two years of enactment.

Finally, the department, Te Papa Atawhai, has taken on legislative actions to improve the processing of applications, with better guidance for decision making in line with the law. I’ve seen for myself a lot of that hard, diligent, and professional work being undertaken by the officials at DOC to process concessions in a timely manner, and I look forward to further reform in due course that will help enable that much more.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two points for the Minister. Before I begin, I want to pick up on a comment that the Hon Rachel Brooking made about the importance of retrospective legislation having full scrutiny in committee stages when we are under all stages of urgency. We’re in a long period of urgency where the Government is rushing through legislation. It is really important that we understand the retrospective impact of this law, which is a direct retrospective impact. There are some circumstances in which we would give it a lighter touch because the retrospective impact is not direct, it doesn’t impact directly on someone’s rights, and it doesn’t directly impact on a decision that has been made.

In this case, there are 500 permits—as the Minister keeps saying, as if that will help us conclude our efforts to investigate this—that are directly impacted by this and 85 directly by the case law moving through the courts. This is something actively being considered by the judiciary. It is something we need to consider at this level very carefully before we impinge on any of the rights accrued before this legislative change was made. We should not be analysing it, as the Minister has suggested, as if this legislative change has already occurred. The relevant rights and duties for us to consider are the relevant rights and duties that existed before this legislative change and what the legal situation was then and how it was well understood at the time.

Building on the starting point that no legislation should generally have retrospective effect, there are two tests for direct retrospective effect. One is that it applies to an event or action that has already taken place. This is the case here. The second one—and this is something we wish to explore with the Minister—is that it prevents a person from relying on the rights that existed at the time of the conduct. This is something that I will put to the Minister now: how many of the permits that are impacted by this, Minister, are relying on a situation that was in the law as it was prior to this proposal? How many of those permits will be directly impacted and changed, and what is the scope of the change? Help this committee to understand what sort of work was being carried out unlawfully and whether the work that was being carried out unlawfully was because of an error or because of a decision of the court that was unexpected. Those are the two things we really have to grapple with when we decide about how this Parliament makes the decision about how clauses 1, 2, and 3 should apply under Part 1 in new Schedule 1AA.

The next point I wish to make is that we haven’t heard, from the Minister, who the beneficiaries of this change will be and who those who will lose out in this circumstance are. Are there groups that have brought claims or are in negotiations with the Department of Conservation (DOC) who do not agree with the way that the permits have been applied and whose rights would be extinguished by this decision? Simply put: are there people out there who are upset by this change? Are their rights being extinguished? Parliament needs to consider, every time we make retrospective legislation like this, who the losers are. Is it their livelihoods that are on the line?

Andy Foster: No.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Are their rights—

Andy Foster: No.

ARENA WILLIAMS: How will they be impacted? What is the effect for the community? We haven’t had any discussion of that, Mr Andy Foster, in this committee stage. We would welcome a call from New Zealand First about the people who are impacted because of these bills.

We’ve heard from the Minister that it may be roads and it may be infrastructure that are being built here which are beneficial to the community. That is great. That is something that Parliament should take into account about who benefits and what the cost of the retrospectivity is. When you extinguish rights for some people for the benefit of others, you should understand the benefits, but you should also understand who is affected. It’s not just the kiwis. It’s not just the lizards. It’s the people who care. It’s the people who have brought these claims that are then impacted by these kinds of decisions.

I also want to ask the Minister: is this validating matters that are generally understood to be lawful but are, in fact, unlawful because of an error? That error question is—well, what is the error? Was there an error when Parliament passed the initial legislation? I know we’re going back some way, Minister, but when Parliament last considered this, was it generally understood that it would be the case that DOC would ever have these sorts of powers that are now being fixed up here? Is this a fix? We need to understand whether the intention here has been broken.

If I can just finish my second point for the Minister. I want to ask the Minister about his review provisions, which he has helpfully outlined. They are different from those proposed by this side of the House, and I want to make that clear. What is being proposed here is that it is appropriate for retrospective legislation, especially with direct impact, to have a review by Parliament, either by one of its select committees, its Regulations Review Committee, or another body, as determined by the House, through primary legislation. What he has proposed is that there will be a review provision by not only his ministry but also the Ministry for Regulation.

I want him to explain to us, firstly, what the role of the Ministry for Regulation is in that review, given that it has no legislative framework yet for us to understand what its review role will be. Secondly, if the ministry is to review this legislation and the impact of its retrospectivity, how will that be public? How will the people whose rights are impacted know what that review is? How will they feed into that? Will there be consultation with them? Who will be consulted? To give a power of review that is, essentially, a review of the primary legislation through the primary legislation with no mandatory considerations, no design for that review—we need to understand, at this point now, how that review will be conducted. Will the people who care be at the table?

These are simple questions, but it is very clearly the role of Parliament to make sure that these rules, which apply to people and take away peoples’ rights—we can do that, but we need to understand what those rights are and that they will be treated carefully, with respect, in the next period for review. Minister, what is the role of the Ministry for Regulation? What legislation will guide the Ministry for Regulation when considering the effect of the retrospectivity here?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I turn to the Schedule, specifically Part 1, clauses 1 and 2. The Minister has helpfully laid out some of the context around this, which is about the 500 permits that need to be validated. I also think that the crux of the situation is that the court has determined that what the Department of Conservation (DOC) is currently doing is, in effect, illegal, and I can appreciate that the Minister would like to rectify that. Out of the permits available—and the Minister has helpfully given us an answer, and previously the Minister has mentioned that this has been going on for many years—what was the earliest instance of a permit being granted?

Considering DOC has been giving these grants under section 71 and there’s no information available to this committee about how DOC reviews these permits or how DOC ensures that these permits are up to date with the most recent legislation or the latest iteration of any relevant legislation as well as the duration of some of these permits, are some of these authorities enduring as in they will go on for 20 years or for another 50 years to come?

Without that kind of information, I want to know whether, when this bill comes into effect, including the retrospectivity, there is a requirement for DOC to ensure that all of these authorities that are now being given, essentially, legal effect under this bill will be compliant with the relevant legislation as it is or with the relevant legislation at the time that they were granted. I feel that in terms of Schedule 1 and the retrospectivity, it just says that they are, essentially, all, in effect, legal, but it doesn’t mention—and we have no understanding of it—whether the legality at the time of grant is now consistent with the Wildlife Act as we see it now. We don’t have the earliest instance. That is my main question around this for the time being. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I would like to truth test, Minister, is the whole proposition that this legislation is based on, which is that it’s responding to a legal uncertainty that is somehow a perilous threat to these activities that are supposedly authorised. The Minister of Conservation seems to be suggesting that, in the past two months, this whole swathe of projects have been on hold and that nothing has been going on. I just want to clarify if that is what the Minister is saying, that there are perhaps 500 projects that have been doing nothing—or, I presume, a bunch of those are. As my colleague just asked, when was the first unlawful authority issued? How far back are we going? Last night, the Minister talked about it being 20 years ago. Are many of these authorities, which are going to be now validated by this legislation, projects that are long finished or complete, or are we talking about only active projects? Is the Minister suggesting that all of those projects are on hold?

One of the reasons I want to ask that is because the argument for this being so rushed through the House and not scrutinised is that there’s some sort of temporal threat to these things going about their business as they are authorised. In that regard, who would be the prosecuting agency for a breach of the Wildlife Act? Given that this court has deemed that these authorities are unlawful—

Hon Tama Potaka: DOC?

STEVE ABEL: —who is the prosecuting agency? Yes, you’ve just answered the question correctly. I heard you. It’s the Department of Conservation, isn’t it? No?

Grant McCallum: Getting repetitive.

STEVE ABEL: Excuse me—point of order. I’ve been accused of being repetitive. I’m asking this question for the first time.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s not a point of order.

STEVE ABEL: That is the first time I’ve asked who the prosecuting agency is, and I saw the Minister ask the official that very question because they didn’t know the answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It’s not a point of order.

STEVE ABEL: OK. Well, Madam Chair, I would appreciate if the other side could pay some attention. These are serious questions. If the prosecuting agency is the Department of Conservation, then is the Minister suggesting that the Department of Conservation is about to go and prosecute all of these operators with whom they have, no doubt, worked closely to evaluate what the ecological questions are and what the species are that need to be protected? It doesn’t seem plausible. I’d like the Minister to clarify that.

In the interim two months since this court finding, how many court cases have been brought for breaches of the law now that it’s been deemed unlawful? I wonder if the Minister has any answers on that. One of the messages that the Environmental Law Initiative made pretty clear in their communication with Newsroom was that they did not believe it was likely that there would be any cases brought, because the legislation—the Wildlife Act section 68AB—already has a defence of reasonable efforts. Those are those are my core questions.

One thing I want to quickly clarify before my five minutes are up is: clause 1(2) of new Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 6, “Validation of certain authorities”—the wording there—says, “An authority to which this clause applies is validated to the extent that the authority would have been valid had new sections 53A and 53B(5) been in force when the authority was granted or purportedly granted.” Can you just double clarify what that clause exactly means, Minister? Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you for this additional opportunity to be involved in “truth, dare, or command”.

The review will be led by the Department of Conservation (DOC). The Ministry of Regulation will administer the process for this review as it’s linked to the regulatory impact requirements set out in the Cabinet Office circular. What I’ll also add is that last night, in the wee hours, I mentioned that we will accelerate, with acuity, the review of the Wildlife Act. As we recall, the previous Government was very intent on talking the talk, but we will walk our talk.

It’s premature to fully articulate the terms of reference for the review that will be undertaken between the Ministry of Regulation and Te Papa Atawhai - DOC, but there will be a post-implementation review and a full-on comprehensive review. I can’t wait to get into fifth gear for that matter.

In relation to the fuzzy math of the other side, I note, for the fifteenth time, there are around 500 potentially implicated permits. Right now, one of the reasons why we’re so intent on progressing this urgent legislation through the House is that there are about 300 permits awaiting consideration by the Department of Conservation. Now, whilst some members of the House might not think that’s important and think that we can wait weeks or months or years for another review and committee, we’re actually very intent on making sure that important programmes—environmental, economic, and others—get kicked off and started. That’s one of the reasons why we’re so committed to ensuring that this set of amendments is made to the Wildlife Act, so that these programmes that often align with the renewable infrastructure aspirations of all those in the House—

Hon Rachel Brooking: And coal mines?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —are accelerated. And, if required, mahi in the mineral space, which I’m sure matua Minita Jones will be happy with.

Over the past two months—in response to a question from my Green colleague—DOC has stopped issuing these permits. The tools are down. That hasn’t necessarily resulted in an increase of orange cones throughout the country, but it has meant that a lot of folks that want to do good things for the motu have been unable to do that because they haven’t been issued with a permit. Now, when permits are issued, of course, there is a bit of consultation that’s undertaken in good faith prior to the permits being issued. Often that consultation will be with local, on the ground, tangata whenua during the permit processing.

There was a question around when the first unlawful authority was issued. I’m not going to answer that question. What’s more important is that we are going to validate all section 53 authorities that were issued prior to the court decision so people can operate with the right signals, with the right incentives, and with certainty, just like my marriage.

Andy Foster: In the way they thought they were going to do it.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, that’s right, ditto. Now, on that question around the prosecuting agency, I think we’ve received the answer to that. In relation to the retrospectivity of this, as we’ve mentioned many times, the High Court decision introduced quite a degree of uncertainty. This sort of targeted and narrow solution, with a very short, tight, succinct group of amendments, will respond to the various issues that were raised through the Mt Messenger court decision. It provides that certainty that people can operate in line with these section 53 authorities, which, until this time, have been a universal understanding. We’ll restore the status quo, and, as such, it was a justifiable amendment at this time.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not going to take the question, but I do think we need to be looking for new material. This has become quite repetitive.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got three points I want to make. One of them is in response to what the Minister has just said about review clauses—that, within two years of the enactment of this bill, there will be a review and that he wants to walk the talk and review the whole Act. Great. It’s great news that he’s going to get on with that work, but the issue is that this bill is being passed in all-stages urgency, so an immediate review is required.

Helpfully, when I was last speaking, my colleague Arena Williams drafted an amendment to do that immediate review of these words to see if they work. It doesn’t have to be a policy review, just the working of the mechanisms—not a big policy one. It is to insert a new clause 2(5): “This clause does not apply to an authority referred to in clause 2(1) of this part unless the Minister initiates a review, within one month of Royal assent of this Act, of this retrospective provision, to be conducted by Parliament before 5 March 2027.” We could change the dates on that, but that is the sort of mechanism that we’re talking about. There needs to be an immediate review, because this has not had submissions. I have been very unsatisfied with the answers that we’ve been getting from the Minister. That’s one point.

My second point is about the role of section 71. We heard from the Minister—this goes to clause 2 in the Schedule, on page 5, “Lawfulness of certain section 53 authorities when section 71 applicable”—in the Part 1 debate that if section 71 is applicable, you don’t go to section 53. We also heard, in that debate, that section 71 is horribly written and that it only applies to some different pieces of legislation, many of which are now repealed. One of those pieces of legislation relates to roads. If the Minister can engage on this relationship between sections 71 and 53, when the court case was about the road—where section 71 applies, how should it, in the future, interact if somebody gets a section 53 authority?

I note that this, too, is trying to clarify that it doesn’t matter if you got a section 53 authority when you should have got a section 71. That’s OK—it’s lawful. What happens in the future, given that section 71 is such a mess and people, probably, don’t understand when they should be using section 71 as opposed to section 53? I think it would be very useful if you say, for the Hansard, how that relationship between those two clauses is, in your view, supposed to work. Then I think it would also be useful if we go on to clause 4 of this schedule that’s being inserted, on the back page of the bill.

There’s specific mention of the case that we’ve all been talking about tonight. Again, it would be good for the Minister to confirm my interpretation of that. Is that the case, Environmental Law Initiative v The Director-General of the Department of Conservation and others [2025]—well, the Environmental Law Initiative wouldn’t want to appeal it, because they won, but, if the director-general or anybody else who has appeal rights around their case—they are not impacted by these changes, and that is the point of clause 4. That is different to any other proceedings that might already be in train about this. Then, if the Minister has had any advice and if there are any other actions in train at the moment about the Wildlife Act, that would be useful to know as well.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I appreciate the creative suggestions around an immediate review. We will not be undertaking that. It’s a suboptimal and underwhelming idea, and it would just create more uncertainty, but thank you for that interesting and creative idea.

In relation to the Mt Messenger case and the Environmental Law Initiative, the finding, actually was that a section 71 authorisation was valid in that instance. We are concerned about the additional—potentially up to 500—permits that are held by permitholders. One comment was made this morning, and last night, about the rights of people who may be affected. Yeah, the rights and expectations of the people who hold the permits are what we are really concerned about. We are really concerned about their provisions and their authorisations, and any suggestion that there are other people out there who are not involved in the rights and permits that may be affected—the people who those permitholders employ, and the people who are driving on the roads, and the people who are running cows throughout the country and who may be impacted if this decision has an influence on the TBfree programme. All of a sudden, they’ve got issues with their bovine populations and their bovine herds, maybe even in the hemp hurds.

Section 53 is the focus of this targeted, narrow set of amendments that have been proposed, at this moment in this time, to give certainty to many, many permitholders and, indeed, New Zealanders. It’s not section 71, and we won’t be playing “Mickey Rabbit” on an immediate review. Kia ora.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. We have some trouble here in this committee stage now. The Minister of Conservation said, “I’m not going to answer”, on a question about how far the retrospectivity goes back in time and what the nature of the retrospectivity is. The problem is that this committee is being asked to make a decision that could affect the rights and interests of people going back 30 or 50 years, without any understanding of what is being asked of it.

My first question to the Minister is: does Cabinet know how far the retrospectivity—which is being proposed in urgency here today, with no ability for the Parliament to review it—goes back? Does Cabinet know what the nature of the retrospectivity is and whose rights are being extinguished?

Madam Chair, this is not a repetitive point. If the Minister doesn’t answer, Parliament needs to be clear that it is being asked to make retrospective, directly retrospective, legislation about a matter that it does not understand and has not been provided with answers on. This is a serious point, and the gravity of it cannot be stressed enough. We deserve the chance to interrogate what is going on here. The reason why lawyers and some sort of appointed board at the Ministry of Regulation do not make these decisions, and why Parliament does, is because parliamentarians are charged with the duty of understanding how these things affect their communities.

I’ll give you an example, Minister. When I worked in Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, in a role that you yourself have held in iwi organisations, I was responsible for the overseeing of a permit granted by the Department of Conservation that affected the mokomoko—the lizards—in the Woodhill Forest. In that situation, we granted the permits, for a road built in that forest, where it was agreed with the iwi prior to the building of the road that the lizards in the area would be removed by the iwi. This made job schemes for the young men who were employed in the work. They were hunters. They were people who did forestry work in the forest, and, for a long time, they stayed together at the marae and were overseen by a kaumātua as they removed these lizards. Not only did they remove the lizards, but they also learnt about the history and the stories. There is a lizard on the pou of that marae. These are important parts of history and the things that bring these people together. They are local people who share local stories about this wildlife. In that situation, one day, work was being carried out when bulldozers came and removed the trees in an area where this work had not been conducted. That was devastating for the young men working on this project for a such a long time, who had dedicated their time and energy to it.

The reason I am asking the Minister whose rights are being extinguished by this is because people care very deeply about it. Young men who are working out there in forests right now will have problems with the way that it has proceeded over many years. Things go wrong in these situations. Permits are issued wrongly. People take the wrong actions under permits that are granted. They should have the ability for a court, a tribunal, or an MP who represents their interests, to raise these issues, instead of a Minister who comes to this Chamber and says, “I’m not going to answer. I’m not going to tell Parliament what I am extinguishing.” This is something that should be interrogated by this committee. To shut down a debate on this, like the Minister is trying to do, and to say, “I’m not going to answer on the specific examples. I’m not going to make this real.”, makes a mockery of this entire process. Why don’t we let lawyers decide every time we make retrospective decisions? You know why we don’t? Because the real people who are affected by this are represented by us. This is a Minister who has taken an arrogant approach to changing their rights and taking away their ability to have any say in the processes, which affects their jobs, their livelihoods, their families, and their communities. That is a shame.

We should continue to investigate this legislative impact very carefully because this is the only opportunity we have, not only as Parliament but as the New Zealanders who are affected by this. It maybe 10 years back, it may be 20 years back, or it may be 50 years back, so, Minister, tell us how retrospective this is and who is losing.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I appreciate the energy and the passion that all members have for sustaining the environment and mahi out there. That’s one of the challenges out there. Right now, there are hundreds of applications waiting to be authorised by the Department of Conservation, and until they’re authorised, there’s actually not as many jobs in the community. That’s one of the challenges that we have as we try to get this economy moving again.

It’s very plain, as set out in the relevant amendments, that the authorisations that were issued under section 53 before the court decision was validated are valid. There is a real sense of uncertainty and a lack of assurance and confidence amongst many permitholders, and, indeed, there is a lack of certainty for the agency that is responsible for issuing the permits around their ability to issue permits in the manner that was universally understood prior to the court decision. We are very focused on ensuring this targeted set of narrow amendments is enabled so that those very young men that the member just mentioned and just referred to are able to continue doing the important mahi that they are doing in order to look after te taiao, amongst other things.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I still have many questions, and I’m just going to get straight to them. I’ll just make them really clear so that we can, hopefully, elicit some clear responses. The Minister has been saying, even stating, in his last response that this intention is to validate what has happened in the past and what may happen in the future. Now, what we’re still unclear about, and what I’d really appreciate an answer on is: is the intention with this bill that the director-general will validate these without knowing? Is the Minister saying that it will just be validations no matter what? Presumably, there is some form of assessment. What is that assessment? What is the methodology? Will they be validated no matter what?

What if, in opening this huge can of worms and bureaucracy, the Department of Conservation identifies within this process—and it becomes clear, on the odd occasion, with these hundreds and hundreds of authorisations—that, actually, some of these activities have caused something unlawful? They may have actually caused damage that is concerning. Are authorities and the people and companies who have undertaken these activities going to be exempt, no matter what, from prosecution? What is going on with this process in terms of actual assessment of the actual activities and the impact on the environment? Then, what is the assessment that flows through that process into the validation or not? Then, will those authorities actually be exempt, regardless of what actually took place and the impact on the environment? Those are some very clear questions that we are yet to get an answer on. Please elucidate, Minister.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): It’s starting to get to sausage roll time, people. How far back do the previous authorisations go? The earliest active authority that I’m advised of started in 2003. Monitoring of these authorisations actually takes place on a regular basis, and the validation of a permit, as mentioned, before a court decision was made—those permits will be validated. It doesn’t mean that the conditions have changed. The conditions are still within the permit and the authorisation. Department of Conservation (DOC) rangers and others go out to monitor these on a regular basis. Sometimes iwi members do as well. A member in the Labour team just mentioned that before.

The validation of these permits, as proposed by way of the bill, does not mean the permit holders can go and do whatever they like. They have a set of conditions that they have to actually fulfil and deliver on, and they are monitored typically by rangers out in the Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai districts concerned. That might involve site checks and reporting, but it depends on the conditions on the permit. In the Mt Messenger example, that was a couple of times a month with the Mt Messenger Alliance crew, who were constructing the roads. DOC staff members sit on ecological review panels reviewing aspects of the consents and ensuring those relevant outcomes have been met. We’re very adamant, again, that people need confidence, and that’s what we’re here to provide.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As I said before, I am looking for new material.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s new material. I certainly have it, I promise.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not hearing a great deal of that. I will give the call to the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I’m actually seeking a point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry, a point of order.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s all right. It’s quite timely, after saying that. I’m really after some clarity here. I don’t think I can remember a time when a Minister has stood up in committee stage—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): What’s the point of order?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This is the point of order. I don’t remember a time when a Minister in a committee of the whole House stage has stood up and flat out refused: “I will not answer a question.” That has been raised by my colleague Arena Williams. The Minister has responded after a subsequent question and has not addressed that again. Now, you’ve said to the committee that you’re looking for new material. The issue is that when questions are being asked—and quite serious ones—and the Minister’s response is “I will not answer that”, what option have we got if we’re not getting answers? It’s one thing for a Minister to ignore our questions—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand—I understand the question.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Actually, my point of order is yet to come, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, can you get to it, please?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The point is that the committee, I think, is at the point where it needs reassurance from you as Chair that you are taking into account that the Minister is refusing to answer questions, in your consideration of the closure motion.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll refer the member to several rulings that Mr Speaker has made, especially during question time, where the answer may not satisfy the questioner. It’s not my role to instruct the Minister in any particular way to answer questions. That will be judged by the general public.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m not going to get into a debate about it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s not a debate, Madam Chair. Point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): A point of order, Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): This is not question time. This is the committee of the whole House, and the requirements of you as presiding officer are completely different to that of the Speaker during question time. The question was very specific. Presiding officers during committee stages have criteria that need to be met in order for a closure motion to be considered. I asked you to reassure the committee that the Minister’s flat-out refusal to answer questions is being taken into your consideration of the closure motion. It wasn’t anything to do with Speakers’ rulings during question time.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The short answer is yes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister for finally giving us a date, which is that the earliest instance is 2003. Now, since 2003, based on the New Zealand Legislation website, we have seen that the Wildlife Act has been amended no less than 22 times, at a minimum—the New Zealand Legislation website only goes back to 2007, according to what I can find. I’d just like to get reassurance from the Minister, then, that this means that every time there is an amendment, we look at whether those authorisations that have been granted, or any new authorisations being granted, are in line with the updated legislation. That’s my first question.

My second question is to do with clause 2 in new Schedule 1AA, which is to be inserted by clause 6. This is about the lawfulness of the authorities that have been granted under section 71. I think that there is one thing, that hasn’t really been touched on, that stood out to me while I was going through the High Court ruling. I want to point the Minister specifically to paragraph 116 of the High Court ruling, where the judge said, “I observe that I do not see any basis under s 71 for a retrospective consent to be granted. That section expressly requires the ‘prior consent’ of the Minister of Conservation and the Minister charged with the administration of the second Act in question.” This then meant that under section 71, the Department of Conservation (DOC) not only has granted authorities prior to something taking place but also retrospectively after wildlife has been killed.

Now, this is really, really interesting. My understanding of the legislation you have put forward is that DOC is still required to proactively, and prior, grant an authority but that DOC still cannot retrospectively grant an authority. However, the carte blanche nature of this Schedule—particularly clause 2, which says that everything that was granted under section 71 would be validated regardless of whether they are proactive or retrospective in nature—means that this clause actually goes against Part 1 of this bill. Can I just confirm whether that is the correct reading? Again, Part 1 of this bill specifically does state—well, my understanding is that it does state it, because it didn’t say, “Once this animal is killed,”. It talks about the killing of an animal which is prospective. What that would mean is that DOC still does not have the power to give authorities retrospectively, but the validation of those authorities under clause 2 in Part 1 of the Schedule allows for those authorities that have been granted retrospectively, which then would go against the legislation. Am I reading that correctly?

Those are my two questions. The first one is whether, with the update of the Wildlife Act, the authorisations are still in line with each iteration of updating the Wildlife Act, and the second question is whether that would create an inconsistency between Schedule 1AA and Part 1 of this bill, because the validation of any authority that has been granted retrospectively, which goes against this bill but also against the High Court’s ruling, is not going to create inconsistencies.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Just in respect of those two questions, permitholders who hold a permit with conditions need to stick to those conditions. Now, sometimes the law changes, there’s amendments, and they have to follow the law that’s over and above their conditions. They might have conditions that are negated by legal changes along the way, amendments—OK, you’ve got to follow the amendments to the legislation.

The second thing is that there were additional comments about section 71—the proposed amendments are not about section 71; they’re about section 53. That’s what they’re about. The Mt Messenger case and the decision, basically, came to the view that section 53 was not a legitimate basis for that road to be undertaken and for the activity around wildlife control to be managed, but section 71 was a legitimate basis. This set of amendments is about section 53 and making sure, to your final question, that those authorisations that were issued under section 53, before the court decision, are validated.

In the future, here is the understanding—which is Part 1—through which we can be absolutely certain that the universal understanding that everyone had before the court decision is reinforced and we can rebalance and restart this matter.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a further question for the Minister, given that he has not answered the question about how far the retrospectivity extends. I want to ask him why Schedule 1AA does not include a date frame. He must know, surely, even if he’s not going to tell this committee how far back the retrospectivity, which he is asking us to pass in urgency, goes. He must know. Even if Cabinet doesn’t know, he must. Why has he not introduced that time frame in the legislation?

One of the key principles of the legislative drafting guidelines is that if there is retrospectivity in legislation, if that retrospectivity in legislation is direct, and if that retrospective and direct legislation impacts on the accrued rights and duties of people, it’s a really bad one with retrospectivity. If you’re going to do that, be specific about it. “Say it with your full chest” is the way it’s expressed in parliamentary procedure. Where is the authority given by Parliament to extinguish these rights?

I see that National members on the other side of the Chamber are exercised by this point. They know that retrospectivity in this way is sloppy procedure and sloppy legislative drafting. We’re not even sure who is affected by this. It is outrageous, but that is the standard applied by these National Ministers. Just insert a date range, Minister. Would you accept a date range from me in an amendment, based on the date range proposed by Lawrence Xu-Nan, of 2003? Would that at least give this Parliament some semblance of care about the standards that should be applied to retrospective legislation, Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I won’t reach into Hansard so I can read out what I said. I’ll just say it. I’m advised that the active authorities that are in play at the moment are from 2003 onwards. This goes up to the date of the court decision. That’s what we’re dealing with. There may be some—but I’m not advised of that—that are before that, but we’re dealing with active authorities from 2003 up to the time of the court decision. Please, Mr Chair, I do not want to have to repeat that answer for a third time.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that answer—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Really?

STEVE ABEL: To some extent. I was trying to give him some credit. It’s hard because, for clarity, we haven’t had the thoroughness of answers that we should rightly expect in this process of prosecuting such a significant piece of rushed legislation on the primary means by which wildlife is protected in this country, and legislation that, basically, issues licences to kill.

Now, I want to specifically talk to clause 3 in Part 1 of new Schedule 1AA: “Savings relating to commenced proceedings: Clauses 1 and 2 do not affect any proceedings commenced or in progress before 28 March 2025, or any rights of appeal.” Another question of how many, if any, active prosecutions or appeals will be affected by this clause—does the Minister have an answer for that? Does the Cabinet know? How many will be affected by that clause 3, which states clauses 1 and 2 do not affect any proceedings?

Clause 4: “Effect of clauses 1 and 2 relating to High Court judgment: (1) Clauses 1 and 2 do not—(a) apply to the authority—(i) that the Director-General granted or purportedly granted to the New Zealand Transport Agency under section 53 on 22 December 2021; and”—I won’t read the rest of it out; you don’t need to hear that. My question is regarding clause 4(1)(a)(i) and (ii): why is this one case treated differently? The implication is that the outcome of this case challenges the Government’s legal position. Can the Minister clarify why there’s a clause that specifically relates to the Environmental Law Initiative v The Director-General of the Department of Conservation and others. Finally, on that same—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Minister, answer my question on that point.

STEVE ABEL: You asked already—yes, I know.

Hon Rachel Brooking: But it’s not been answered.

STEVE ABEL: It hasn’t been answered. I was trying to ask it in a way that maybe the Minister would realise that he needed to answer it. Part 1—

Hon Shane Jones: Repetition.

STEVE ABEL: The Minister needs to answer questions, and we have a right to ask questions to be answered. If the Minister is going to continue to take the position that he was called to point of order on by Kieran McAnulty, where he’s refusing to answer questions, then we should keep asking them and say, “Why will you not answer this question?” It’s an explicit clause in this legislation—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): If I can ask members to direct their conversation my way and not to each other across the Chamber. I would just also note that what we’re looking for is the Minister addressing questions. I understand that members might not appreciate or support the answers given, but having Ministers address questions is important.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, Mr Chair—the Minister has not addressed that question, to be clear. Part 1 of new Schedule 1AA, clause 4(2): “However, clauses 1 and 2 are to be treated as applying to that authority for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence against section 53(7)”—I won’t read all the numbers to you; I’ll spare you that—“that are commenced on or after 28 March 2025.” In terms of clause 4(2), the intention of the clause is unclear, Minister. Can the Minister elaborate on the intended effect of this, because so much of this legislation is unclear? That’s my question.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I want to go back to the point about section 71. The Minister tells us, “Section 71 is not relevant.”—yes, it might be a mess; the whole Act is a mess—“We’re just fixing 53.” Fine, I’m not disputing that, and I’m not making a political point about section 71. What I want to know is how they interact, because we have here, in clause 2 of new Schedule 1AA, a specific clause on the interaction.

Now, section 71 is a miscellaneous, strange provision, and it only applies to things that are in Schedule 9. The Minister, in the Part 1 debate—I think I heard, and he can correct me if I’m wrong—said, “If section 71 applies to the type of project you’re doing”—so a road; we know that section 71 applies to roads—“If you are doing a road, then you must use section 71, and section 71 requires the signoff of two Ministers. That is an arduous task, so I would presume that most people would not want to go to the section 71 route if the section 53 route is available, because the section 53 route is by the director-general or a delegated person. The question here is about what the Minister said in Part 1. If you have to use section 71 and if section 71 is applicable, then you can’t use section 53. That question has not been answered.

I think the interpretation that the Minister said in the first reading is relevant to this clause 2, because it says, at subclause (2), “An authority to which this clause applies is not unlawful merely because the person to whom the authority was granted … required consent under section 71”. I presume this transitional piece in the Schedule is to make lawful anything that was granted under section 53 but should have been granted under section 71. That’s for the retrospective nature of these consents—fine—but can the Minister confirm that? He keeps talking about section 71 and saying it’s not relevant. Section 71 is relevant, otherwise we wouldn’t have this clause about section 71.

What happens, then, with future applications for a road? We know the relevant legislation for a big road, a national road, is in Schedule 9. What happens in the future? I know I’m slightly wavering off these transitional provisions, but it goes to the wider point that the Minister has said about section 71: with a new application that is for something that section 71 provides for—e.g., a road—does that application have to go through section 71, or can it avoid section 71 and go through section 53? If that is the case—logic would say it is the case—then we need clause 2 to rectify past mistakes where people thought they got a permission under section 53 but, because of the court case, those were invalidated, not just because section 53 consents can’t be given but because they should have got one under section 71.

See, it’s not a political question I’m asking. I’m just asking for clarity so that—on the Hansard—people who are making roads can know what sort of permission they are needing to get. Is it from the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Transport? Or is it a simpler process by the director-general?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): There are a couple of questions that have been asked. We’ll start with the immediately previous speaker, Rachel Brooking. For clarity about interaction between section 71 and section 53, in the future, all applications that should be considered under section 71 will be considered and granted if suitable under that section. However, as I said previously, some permits that should be granted under section 71 have mistakenly been granted under section 53. These will be validated by way of the amendments so that people can rely on the permit that they hold.

Why is new clause 4(1) in Schedule 1AA, inserted by clause 6, calling out the relevant litigation? Our aim is not to affect the existing judgment in that case or to rewrite the words but to acknowledge the decision of the High Court, noting that the permit in that regard under section 71 was validated.

Finally, in relation to cases, I’ll note that to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place and to avoid affecting jurisdiction of the court or tribunal in line with section 53 of the legislation, the bill will apply from enactment of the provisions relating to the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025—assuming it’s passed—and will not affect any proceedings commenced, or in progress, before 28 March 2025, the date of the relevant announcement by Cabinet, or any rights of appeal. As at the finalisation date of the materials herein, the Department of Conservation is not aware of any proceedings challenging additional authorities. The risk of additional proceedings being filed ahead of enactment is considered low. As soon as this bill is enacted, it will lower the risk of additional litigation during this period, and we can get in, get on, and get this country back on track.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I really want to pick up on the Minister claiming that these activities will be validated. There are a number of questions that have been asked that have not been addressed in any way. The questions about these validations are: how will they be validated? What is the process? What do they need to meet to actually ensure that they are assessing these before the validation? What kind of assessment will take place? What is the methodology? These are questions that have not been addressed in any way, shape, or form. What does it mean for the actual legal status and standing of these activities that have taken place? Is it that, across the board, they will be validated no matter what? What if there are instances that are picked up where there may have been something unlawful or some unfortunate situation that actually does need some form of prosecution, enforcement order, or something like that? What does this bill envisage the process will actually be with the director-general? These are questions we don’t have answers to, and what is absolutely clear is that we need them. For example, if I just take the Mt Messenger example because it’s the one that’s most prominent with this bill, do the changes outlined in Schedule 1AA, when it comes to clause 4 and the effects of clauses 1 and 2 relating to the High Court judgment, give Waka Kotahi immunity from prosecution from any Wildlife Act offences committed at Mt Messenger?

Now, these are really clear questions. They have not been addressed. I don’t see how, without a select committee process and with this literally being the start and finish of this bill, we can proceed without these questions. I’m really looking forward to the Minister addressing them. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): This reminds me of a Supergroove song that goes something like this: “Sitting inside my head, laughing at what I said.”

For the fifth time, I will repeat: those permits that—

Hon Willie Jackson: Don’t sing it!

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I might get a contract off their production company!

Those permits that were issued before the court decision are deemed valid. That’s what it is. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has already gone through all of these permits. It’s consulted with the right people. It’s issued conditions, as part of these permits, and they were operating validly until such time some serious uncertainty was created by the Mt Messenger case. If you have the chance to read that and correlate it with the materials on new Schedule 1AA, page 6, we’ll leave that judgment by itself because, actually, there is a section 71 authorisation that was considered in order by the court. The bill deems authorities granted in the past to be valid, as those permitholders had fairly assumed that to be the case. All authorities are issued on the basis of what is required as reasonable steps to protect wildlife. DOC will not be reassessing these decisions. Active permits will be monitored in line with the specific conditions in the permit, as they have done for many, many years. Kia ora tātou.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. I will just acknowledge that the Minister has addressed the question. Some members might not like that particular answer, but it has been addressed. We are getting into repetitive behaviour. I just want to note that, on this tracking sheet, we are tracking, exactly, all the questions being asked. I do want brand new material. We might make the Minister sing Supergroove songs!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Mr Chair, thank you. This is going back to the Minister of Conservation’s earlier answer. I do want to acknowledge the Supergroove quote, and that may be the most sensible thing I’ve heard the Minister say during this debate—more of it is welcome, particularly in New Zealand Music Month.

This is a very quick contribution from me. I’m back on this interaction with section 71. I appreciate the Minister did actually answer some of my question on that interaction. I would just like him to say for the Hansard—my question was coming, and there were some heckles when he was answering—that if section 71 applies to a road and there needs to be an approval under the Wildlife Act for a road where section 71 applies, that application can only use section 71, and it can’t use section 53. That’s the question. Can they use section 53 or not use section 53 if section 71 is applicable?

I don’t know very many Supergroove quotes that I can say in interim, but I “Can’t get enough” of the answers from the Minister! They had a great concert in Dunedin on Easter Sunday.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): The answer is yes. For roads, the channel is section 71 as mentioned in the Schedule. However, that provision in Schedule 1AA, Part 1, clause 2(2), applies for those permits that are old. They’re not new permits.

Hon Rachel Brooking: But they can’t use section 53.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, the pathway today is section 71, but with the comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act, it may be a different number.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am hoping to get the Minister’s view on the review period. There is an amendment in my name, supported by the Hon Rachel Brooking, introducing a review by Parliament. He said that he doesn’t support that full review, but can we seek to understand the role of the Ministry for Regulation in the review that he has given this committee some perspective on? Particularly, will that ministry be responsible for reviewing what is the primary legislation here, which grants the retrospective powers, or will it be responsible for reviewing the application of those decisions and, effectively, the decisions and guidelines or secondary legislation that is issued underneath it?

I ask because this committee does not have any view yet but anticipates a piece of legislation that will set out how that may work, but we don’t have that now. I’m asking the Minister to give us some clarity on what the scope of that review will be. I’m not asking for terms of reference. I’m not asking for all of the questions that it will ask to determine whether that retrospectivity has worked well. I’m asking him really whether that review is about the retrospectivity at all. We on this side of the Chamber have asked him to review the retrospectivity and whether that was necessary. He has said that he will be launching a review, but that review might not have anything to do with the fact that past rights that have been accrued are being extinguished by this. What I’m trying to understand is whether there is any way for the House to interrogate the effect of that in the coming months and years.

My next question for him is about the role of the Department of Conservation (DOC) in the review. Will that be alongside the ministry? Is it his view that the two ministries will work together? How will they share that? This is a new and novel thing for the committee to consider, so I think it’s fair enough for him to give a view on which part of the review DOC will be responsible for and which part of the review this new Ministry for Regulation will be responsible for.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I think we’ve just got to make sure that we’re talking about the same reviews. One is a comprehensive review of the Wildlife Act, which has been discussed by previous Governments. It’s timely given—as some mentioned, I think—that there might only be one member of the committee that was born before the Wildlife Act was enacted. That has to be accelerated at pace because we’ve spent many years talking about it. I do want to get through the conservation reform matter, which many of the members are aware of, and there’ll be some adjacency with the Wildlife Act matter in reviewing that comprehensively.

The post-implementation review is to commence immediately, but it will take some time to determine the effectiveness of the changes that are being channelled by way of this set of amendments. A report will be prepared within two years—sooner, if possible. The Department of Conservation will be responsible for the post-implementation review, as they are for the Wildlife Act review, and there’ll be a number of agencies that will be consulted and engaged along the way.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Brand new material. Supergroove lyrics are appreciated—Steve Abel.

STEVE ABEL (Green): It is new material, Mr Chair, that hasn’t been answered. It’s a very specific question. I’ll get it out in one minute—it hasn’t been addressed. I’m looking at Part 1, clause 4, in Schedule 1AA. Why is this case treated differently, Minister? Why is the Environmental Law Initiative case being treated differently, and do these changes give Waka Kotahi immunity from prosecution for any Wildlife Act offences committed at Mt Messenger? This wasn’t addressed, I believe. According to our tracker, it hasn’t been addressed.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Motion agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Minister’s tabled amendments to the Schedule, new Schedule 1AA, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Amendments agreed to.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to the Schedule deleting clause 2(2) of Schedule 1AA be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to the Schedule inserting new clause 2(5) into Schedule 1AA be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Schedule as amended agreed to.

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

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1, 2, and 3—“Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): This is a strange way to characterise this bill in the title, because it is amending an Act that is primarily about the protection of wildlife and is, in fact, widening the powers of the killing of wildlife in what is not only proactive legislation but is retrospective legislation.

It is incumbent on all Ministers to exercise their powers on behalf of the Crown, not of their political party. In this case, it is the Minister of Conservation that is making that change—a Minister who is charged with the conservation not only of our natural flora but also our natural fauna in New Zealand, a Minister who is the only Minister who can make many decisions under this Act for the preservation of those species that we as a country decide are important to preserve.

Unlike the title of this bill, which is pretty bland and pretty standard, these amendments actually make long-reaching decisions about what kind of activity can occur and provide a carte blanche licence to destroy natural species that we say are important, not only to those communities who have important relationships with them but also to all New Zealanders who value that wildlife—species like the mokomoko I spoke of in the committee stage earlier, species like the kiwi and the takahē, which feature very prominently in New Zealand in stories not only of ourselves on the world stage but also of prominent businesses like Air New Zealand, which refers directly to Mt Messenger and its takahē species there in the first greetings that it has for any international visitors here.

These are important species, and they are species that only the Minister of Conservation is charged with the duty of protecting around the Cabinet table. It is unusual that this kind of bill, which provides licences to kill for the purposes of building infrastructure or roads, would be brought by a Minister of Conservation who appears to have discharged himself of that duty to New Zealanders and the people who care about these species.

This bill should be called the “Wildlife (Authorisation to Kill) Amendment Bill”. That would be a clearer way of recognising, on the parliamentary record, what use this Minister is making of his duty to conservation.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you. I would like to speak directly to an amendment proposed. Look, I think the key thing with any legislation is that—it’s been made very clear by the Minister of Conservation today—we want to provide certainty and clarity. As my colleague Arena Williams has pointed out, the authorisations part of this bill, the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, does not actually provide that. The tabled amendment in the name of my colleague Steve Abel proposes that we change clause 1: “replace ‘Wildlife (Authorisations Amendment) Bill’ with ‘Wildlife (Authorisation to Kill Wildlife) Amendment Bill’.”

Now, we suggest this not to dramatise this. Literally, the authorisations are in every clause of this. Part 1, clause 4, inserting new sections 53A to 53C—53A, has “killing of wildlife”; new section 53B is about the authority to kill wildlife; and new section 53C authorises the killing of wildlife. Then Part 2 is about the transitional, savings, and related provisions when it comes to validating those certain authorities when it comes to killing wildlife. There is actually nothing in this bill, when it comes to authorisations, that is outside the killing of wildlife.

What we would really like to see here is just a very accurate representation of what the bill really does. I would invite the Minister to consider—particularly when it comes to his intention, which we’ve heard over and over, about providing certainty and clarity—whether this would be an accurate representation of what this bill purports to do. Now, that’s aside from the fact that we believe that this bill is still unnecessary and it’s actually going to cause more confusion and uncertainty for the Department of Conservation, which is, again, as the Minister said, something none of us wants.

I would be really interested in the Minister’s views about, and his acceptance of, these authorisations and the fact that they are simply limited to the killing of wildlife. There is nothing in this bill outside of that. That’s my concern, and that’s our amendment that we’ve put forward today, which we’d like the Minister’s views on. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with the commencement: “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” This would be a good place to make an amendment and say, “This Act comes into force after a review from the Regulations Review Committee on scrutiny.”, and we could have a time period around that. We keep hearing that this is urgent. People are worried that they might be breaching the law because they were reliant on section 53 approval. I get that. I don’t agree that we need all-stages urgency for that point. The way to remedy an all-stages urgency is to do some quick scrutiny, not on the policy settings but on the workability of what the legislation is doing. That is why I think that this should not commence until that workability review has happened. That’s one point.

I would like the Minister of Conservation to comment on that. He said before, in one of my contributions on Part 2, that I was being creative. Unfortunately, I’m not being creative. It would be lovely, when we’re here talking about New Zealand Music Month, to be creative, but, no. I’m actually talking about the types of processes that were used for real emergencies in cyclones, when legislation was passed and it had to have some sort of scrutiny from another body because it was made so fast. That’s not creative; that’s just some good process for when things are being done under urgency. I do not accept that this needs to be done under all-stages urgency at all, but that is a compromised position around the commencement.

Now, looking back to the title, we’ve heard a number of contributions now saying that it should be something about killing. I might differ with my colleagues here, because all I have heard from the Minister is confusion. Maybe it is an authorisation; maybe it’s not an authorisation. Who knows? We’ve got no idea, because these new provisions in new sections 53A, 53B, and 53C, inserted by clause 4, are so convoluted and cannot really be read together. The Minister has given us no insight into what it is that he intends them to do. Maybe nobody’s going to get an authority under section 53.

Another suggestion is that this bill is the “Wildlife (Authorisations but not for Roads) Amendment Bill”. We heard that just before in the Part 2 debate that this is not for roads. I’m sure I heard, in first and second reading speeches, a number of members talking about how this is going to fix the problem with roads. But it’s not, because we heard from the Minister that section 71 still applies to roads. I looked at a press release (PR) from the Beehive website on 28 March, and they said—

Hon Tama Potaka: Great PR.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The Minister says it’s a great PR. It’s an incorrect PR, because it says, “[This] Government intends to promptly change the law to enable these important activities to go ahead lawfully, including the building of houses and roads for example”. The Minister has just told us that new roads do not apply to these changes, because new roads have to go through section 71. These weird amendments to section 53 that are all in conflict with each other don’t apply to roads, is what he told us. That is why we should be amending it to the “Wildlife (Authorisations but not for Roads) Amendment Bill”.

I think, though, the better title is the “Who Knows?” or the “Maybe”, because we don’t know what we’ll be able to get through this new section 53. If it is to be consistent with the protection of wildlife and individual wildlife, how will anything be able to get through it? Who knows? The Minister hasn’t helped so far. Maybe he’s going to help us now.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): As mentioned earlier on—and this is just in passing—section 71 in Schedule 9 of the principal Act intersects with the Government Roading Powers Act. Building a little street, a surfaced road, outside a house is slightly different. In terms of the title matter, it’s not just in relation to the killing of animals. There are also conditions around protecting, translocating, and relocating—there’s a whole range of things. The title of the Act reflects that it’s not just solely about killing wildlife. The purpose of the Act is actually protecting wildlife. We think something simple, such as the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act, is very apt, very relevant, and very suitable in this particular circumstance. How many bills are like this? Not any.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. The first one is around the commencement date. Now, we have seen that the commencement date is the day after Royal assent. I want to see if the Minister would consider pushing it back at least three months so that there is some clarity that is able to be granted to the people who are applying or who have an existing consent on some of the issues that we have heard the previous speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking, mention. There is confusion around a lot of this because of the fact that we didn’t get sufficient clarity.

Now, the reason I’m suggesting pushing it back by at least three months—just three months; I think that’s sufficient—is that the Minister, throughout this debate, talked about the fact that this is required under urgency, etc. However, what started a lot of this was the High Court ruling, the judgment that was made on 5 March, and it was two months ago. If Cabinet and if the Minister were really serious about the urgency of this situation, this bill would have been brought to the House a lot earlier. It did not need to be brought into the House two months after that particular ruling. Clearly, the backlog that the Minister was referring to is not urgent enough for this bill to be brought to the House earlier. I think another three months is not outside the realm of possibility and probability, over here.

In terms of the title of this bill, I really like the suggestion that the Hon Rachel Brooking has made in terms of “Who Knows”. What about if the Minister considered the “Wildlife [shrug emoji] Amendment Bill”. That is, essentially, what we’ve got out of this entire debate. This has felt like pulling teeth from the Minister to try to get any ounce of any information out of him that we could have gotten quite succinctly and clearly from the officials during the select committee stage. Over here, what we have largely heard throughout the debate is “politicisation” and “back on track”.

In terms of other potential titles, I would actually propose an alternative pathway when we are looking at the title for this, because what we are seeing with this—and this is fundamental to democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand—is a distortion of the separation of powers and the overstepping of that, where the executive has decided to overstep into the judiciary and affect the rulings of the judiciary, and also the principle of comity.

I ask if the Minister would consider the “Wildlife (Distortion of the Separation of Powers) Amendment Bill”. Further on from that, despite the fact that we have been doing this under urgency, we are being criticised for doing our job as the legislature to scrutinise the executive. We have no opportunity, and the New Zealand public has no opportunity, to contribute to this. I would say that this is not actually even about parliamentary supremacy, because we have not been granted the privilege of that supremacy as the legislature, so I would recommend, finally, for the Minister to consider the title “Wildlife (Forget about Parliamentary Supremacy, the Executive Rules Supreme) Amendment Bill.”

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Listen, reflecting on this and the span of this term of Parliament, there is a very clear agenda set out by this Government: they were going to prioritise extraction—the 19th century mindset of mining—over the protection of wildlife. We had, at the beginning of this bill, Minister Shane Jones, the proudest advocate for prioritising extraction over nature, explicitly sitting here in the room and making it clear that this bill was a necessity for facilitating his mining agenda.

I just want to remind the committee, because it seems so familiar to us, at the beginning of the term of this Government, of the Minister’s famous words of “Bye, bye, Freddy”—a reference to him being willing to send to extinction those rare and unique frogs that we have in this country, those amphibians: the Archey’s and the Hochstetter’s frogs. This legislation is a specific mechanism, a pathway, by which that vision of Minister Jones—to send species to extinction—can be fulfilled. This is the “(‘Bye, bye, Freddy’) Amendment Bill”. This is the bill that says that the Wildlife Act—the legislation put in place to actually protect our precious and unique indigenous species—is going to be distorted to being a means to permitting and licensing the killing of wildlife. I propose another title for this bill: the “(‘Bye, bye, Freddy’) Amendment Bill”. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just note the Minister’s reply to my suggestion about this Act being the “Wildlife (Authorisations but not Roads) Amendment Bill”. He said, “Aha! Little roads aren’t included in Schedule 9. Therefore, section 71 doesn’t apply to them.” I am happy to amend my suggestion to the “Wildlife (Authorisations for Large Government Roads but not Little Roads) Amendment Bill”, or perhaps we should just call it the “Wildlife (Authorisations Really Rushed) Amendment Bill”, because that is what it is. It appears that Ministers have not realised that this whole amendment bill doesn’t apply to those big roads—to the roads that aren’t little roads, as the Minister just called them. That is what all their speeches have been about: these big roads—not little roads; big roads—that they want to do.

It means that we should be looking, at Schedule 9, at the other things where a section 71 authority must be required. That’s the Coal Mines Act. I don’t even know if that’s been repealed or not, but maybe the amendment to the title should be the “Wildlife (Authorisations but not for Big Roads and Coal Mines)”. There’s also the Fisheries Act 1908, then the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, and the Government Railways Act 1949. I have not looked up whether these have been repealed or not, but the Minister keeps saying that this is going to put things back on track. Well, it’s not going to make any difference to railways as well as those big roads if that Act is still in force. It’s not at all about “back on track”. We’ll be seeing the Minister back here, perhaps next week with another bill under all-stages urgency, to get things back on track and to build his big roads without needing the concurrence of two Ministers.

Then we’ve got the Mining Act 1971, the National Parks Act 1980, the Peel Forest Act 1926, the Petroleum Act 1937—that might be one that Minister Shane Jones is interested in—the Public Works Act 1928, and the Rabbits Act 1955. We’ve already talked about rats and mustelids during this all-stages urgency, but now we’ve got rabbits in there as well, so this is the “Wildlife (Authorisations but Nothing to do with Rabbits) Amendment Bill”. The Reserves Act 1977—that is an Act that I happen to know quite a bit about—is not repealed. It’s still on the books.

Hon Tama Potaka: It needs review.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I don’t know what the Minister’s saying to me. It is an old bill. It is younger than both the Minister and I but, substantially—[Minister gasps] Ha, ha! And I am older than the Minister. I appreciate that it has some outdated language in it as well, but, again, this Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill will not apply to anything where the Reserves Act applies, because that has to go through, according to the Minister, section 71. There is also the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941, the Tramways Act—talking, again, about being back on track—the Waitangi Endowment Act, and the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932.

What the Minister has told us is that any activity relying on one of those Acts cannot get an authorisation made under this little amendment bill that we are doing under all-stages urgency. The title is wrong, and he should change that title. My last suggestion is the “Wildlife (Authorisations for this Week; I’ll be Coming Back Next Week) Amendment Bill”.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, this is just my brief and very small contribution, but I’m drawn to make a contribution, particularly in terms of the title for this particular piece of nonsense. This is why. Nō Te Aupōuri ko tētahi kōrero mai i a Te Meri Ngāroto: “He aha te mea nui o te ao?” [From Te Aupōuri is a statement from Te Meri Ngāroto: “What is the greatest thing of the world?”] I want to add this into all of the contributions, particularly from this side of the Chamber.

What might we call this bill? My suggestion to the Minister of Conservation—and, please, me ’hakarongo mai koe [you should listen]—is the “(He Aha te Mea Nui o te Ao? Ko te Money me te Mining) Bill” [“(What is the Greatest Thing in the World? It is Money and Mining) Bill”]. Ehara ko te tangata.

[It is not people.]

With all seriousness, this particular bill—well, I don’t know if it’s this particular bill; it’s many bills—disconnects, dismantles, and causes great harm to our people, to our whānau, and to all the things that fly and crawl and swim. Minister, it’s going very badly for us, it’s going very poor for us, and, unfortunately, you’re leading that, Minister.

From Te Aupōuri, who, of course, were raised last night—you all know because Shane Jones and I share that wonderful whakapapa—I am drawn to stand and speak to this new title, which I really want you to consider seriously. He aha te mea nui o te ao?

[What is the greatest thing in the world?]

Money and mining. Kia ora tātou.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Motion agreed to.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1, to change the title to “Authorisation to Kill Wildlife Amendment Bill”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ amendment to clause 1, inserting the words “to kill” after “authorisations” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Clause 2 agreed to.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

Clause 3 agreed to.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will report this bill with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I had a very favoured group when I was about 11 years old. The name of that group was Crowded House. They had a great song that started like this:

Everywhere you go,

You always take the weather with you.

Across that side of the House, it’s very blustery, dank, and dark. On this side, we’re going for growth.

New Zealand’s wildlife is unique and precious to New Zealanders. This country is literally a “Slice of Heaven”. Projects that provide essential benefits to the lives of New Zealanders should be able to proceed without compromising our indigenous species. The balance is key in the protection and the conservation of wildlife populations and key to protecting the world that our mokopuna deserve.

The Wildlife Act is an important piece of legislation, but it’s old and creaking. It’s asking for the “Nature [to] enter me”. The Act provides for the protection of wildlife throughout Aotearoa New Zealand, including some of New Zealand’s most endangered species. It protects our precious wildlife—those frogs that were mentioned before, bats, reptiles, and other things. It also recognises the need to regulate human interactions with them so that our actions do not negatively affect protected species in the long run. This bill makes specific targeted changes to respond to a High Court decision ruling in March this year that deemed the authorisation of incidental killing of protected wildlife under section 53 of the Act to be unlawful. With these changes, we will restore people’s confidence that they can carry out activities lawfully when they’re granted a permit and are meeting the condition it sets. They will no longer feel like a group of “Pacific lambs to the [judicial] slaughter”, enabling the Department of Conservation (DOC) to regulate incidental harm so that these activities do not cause permanent harm to the viability of protected wildlife species.

This bill does not make fundamental changes to the Wildlife Act; it addresses the issue at hand following the court decision while maintaining the existing foundations of this Act. Essentially, it restores what is understood to be the status quo and enables DOC to get on with a practical, pragmatic approach to how it regulates harm to protected species, consistent with previous practice and the Act’s protective purpose. A number of members have raised concerns that this bill will water down protections for wildlife and make it easier to kill wildlife. It does not lower the bar. This is not the case. The protective purpose of the Act remains.

People have said that it is essential that DOC regulates and manages harm to wildlife to minimise its impacts and ensure our precious species are protected. This is exactly what this bill does. As I said: “How many [bills] flow like this? Not many, if any.” It does not reduce DOC’s ability to protect wildlife. It does not change DOC’s approach. Rather, this bill restores the regulatory approach that was universally understood and that had been taken by the Department of Conservation before the High Court’s recent judgment. It will still be unlawful for developers and infrastructure providers to harm wildlife without getting proper authority from DOC. The overall effect of that authority must be consistent with protecting the affected wildlife population and species. I understand that some members are concerned about this bill proceeding so quickly without public consultation or scrutiny—[The Hon Shane Jones walks past Minister Potaka]—Minister Jones—by a select committee.

As has been previously mentioned, the recent High Court decision on the Mt Messenger case means that DOC can no longer authorise and manage incidental harm to wildlife under section 53, as has been done in the past. We need to be very mindful of that well-known Tim Finn song, where he says:

When you want to see where to sing the song of Parihaka,

You’ve got to get over a road.

That road is Mt Messenger. Existing authority holders are concerned that they could now be prosecuted if their projects kill any protected wildlife, despite having a permit and applying relevant conditions to protect them. This could lead to delay, stop projects and a wide range of activities—subdivision, construction, solar and wind farms, power-line maintenance, pest control. DOC has also pushed pause on deciding applications that involve incidental harm until this matter is resolved. It reminds me of that Opshop song, actually:

Lately I’ve found myself wondering out loud

—wondering what some of the MPs from the Opposition parties were actually saying. We urgently need to enable these applications to be processed so that activities can go ahead with appropriate safeguards to protect wildlife. In this situation, urgency is warranted. The bill, effectively, restores DOC’s interpretation of the status quo before the court’s decision. I’ve got to say, like that famous Herbs song, since early March, it’s always been “On My Mind”.

Some members have suggested that these amendments would not be necessary if the wider review of the Wildlife Act had already been completed. This review began under the previous Government and is still going. Actually, we’re going to put the foot down. It remains a priority for me. I’ve been given the encouragement by the matua, now you’ve got the Tama, and the consensus this afternoon, hopefully, shall be the Wairua Tapu. As I mentioned earlier, the Wildlife Act is over 70 years old. It’s old. It’s creaky. The many amendments over the last 70 years have led it to lose legislative coherence. It’s been described as difficult, convoluted, and confused. This Act needs mahi. The section 53 amendments that we’re focusing on today are part of that larger Act. There are many more issues that need to be addressed as part of the review. We need to take the proper time to complete that review. I welcome the feedback and the engagement of many members of this House when we really get under way to ensure it’s workable and to test these changes with stakeholders and the public. In the meantime, we can’t wait until that review has been completed. We won’t be left just turning pages; we’ve got to make this urgent fix to the problem at hand with these targeted amendments.

Benefits of the bill: it’s going to restore certainty. It’s going to restore confidence. We need to make certain that people can rely on those authorisations that have been granted in the past and that enable important developments and infrastructure activities—pest control and other things—and important conservation work, including the TB programme. I wish Minister Hoggard was here. He’s got a lot of biosecurity questions to answer. This bill will ensure that this is possible. It delivers a pragmatic, practical fix to a problem that might otherwise stymie important mahi to get our economy moving again. It continues to ensure that our precious wildlife is protected.

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s not on trains or Government roads—it doesn’t help there, does it, Minister?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Members of the Opposition have been vocal. They’ve expressed concern. In my ears ring the words of the Herbs in that fabulous song that was on my marriage CD:

You say to me let’s rock on.

That night out stirs my mind.

I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You would think that when a bill is rushed through all stages under urgency and when we’ve had a reasonably fulsome committee of the whole House, we’d have something at the third reading to report back in terms of the detail of the bill. I’m almost more confused about this bill, having gone through the committee stage, than I was at the start. We didn’t get any fulsome responses or any detail, really, clarifying what is quite a convoluted bill, and I don’t blame the officials who drafted it. They would have had to draft it under immense pressure.

That is why, throughout the course of the various stages of this bill in this House, members on this side of the House have asked and called upon the Minister of Conservation to introduce perhaps even a one-week select committee process so that we could have finessed the detail of the bill, because it is confusing. The Minister himself stood in this House at the third reading and said that this isn’t a bill that will dilute the purpose of the Wildlife Act, and yet it’s going to allow all these things to go through. He can’t really argue it both ways—

Hon Rachel Brooking: We think.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: —and he hasn’t—yes, we think; we’re not even sure. It came out at the committee stage that perhaps roads aren’t actually part of the changes and we won’t actually be able to build quicker and better as a result of this bill, and so we’re still none the wiser on this side of the House.

What I am clear about, though, is that this bill didn’t need to be rushed through at the level of urgency that it’s been through yesterday and today. There was no regulatory impact statement and no released Cabinet paper. It absolutely does dilute the purpose of the Wildlife Act, and, ultimately, it is a knee-jerk, ad hoc reaction to a High Court ruling. There was a much better way that this could have been done.

What’s led to this? That High Court ruling, which was just in March this year. Now, we’ve known that, since a Supreme Court ruling in 2019—and the Minister couldn’t even answer this in the committee stage—the approach of the Department of Conservation (DOC) to applications under section 53 changed. At that point, wildlife permits under section 53 were granted by looking at the project as a whole and assessing whether the viability of the population was maintained or improved through the action or some unrelated action through the authorisation. Now, the ruling, basically, said that you cannot kill protected wildlife if the primary purpose of the killing doesn’t have a direct positive benefit—the direct nexus argument—to the purpose of the Act. The nexus requirement is key, and that’s really the crux of why we’re here today. This bill ostensibly responds to that.

What the judge said was that the killing for the purpose of building a road was not directly connected to the protective purpose of the Act, so killing for the purpose of any other economic development project is not directly connected to the purpose of this Act, which is to protect wildlife, and so that’s the main issue. At that point, any Government, regardless of stripe, would have had a choice to make. Either you’d strengthen the legislation and you’d strengthen the Wildlife Act so that the permits for the authorisations are in keeping with the primary purpose of the Act, or you’d dilute it, and you’d just change the law in the sloppy way that we’ve seen yesterday and today to just tweak an already complicated, convoluted, potentially becoming slightly irrelevant Wildlife Act to then revert the processes and then retrospectively make what the Minister now tells us is 500 permits lawful, although they still don’t meet the primary purpose of the Act. That is what we’ve seen take place under urgency, through all stages, today.

As the Environment Law Initiative themselves have said—and I quote—“this was not a question of whether development projects could go ahead or not. It was about making sure all reasonable steps are taken to protect what we have left of our wildlife.” Let me put to bed the accusations from that side of the House that members on this side are anti-development. We’re not. There was never any question that these developments would go ahead. It’s how they go ahead that was in question and whether reasonable steps would be taken to protect the wildlife that we have left. That is an important point as well. Aotearoa New Zealand has the highest species extinction rate in the world. More than 4,000 of our native species are at risk of, or threatened with, extinction.

Now, the Minister has on various occasions waxed lyrical about the fact that one of his key motivations as conservation Minister is to increase tourism to New Zealand. What do most of our tourists come here to see? Our wildlife. Our biodiversity is a huge drawcard, so even if it’s just from that point of view, what this Minister should be focusing on is improving biodiversity, whereas this amendment bill goes against that. It flies in the face of that.

As I’ve said previously—and I’ve said it repeatedly in this House over the last I don’t know how many hours that we’ve been debating this bill in urgency—this is the antithesis of good lawmaking. It is sloppy. There was no need for it to be rushed through all stages in urgency. We have made the case very clearly, on this side of the House, that we could have had one week or two weeks of a select committee process where we could have teased out the wording in the bill, and we do have an issue with the wording of the bill. We believe that, very soon, this Minister will be back in this House to tidy up this piece of legislation, because not even the Minister in charge of the bill could effectively convince any of us on this side of the House that the wording in the bill actually makes sense. I had to read the legislative statement to understand what this Minister was trying to do, because the wording in the bill was so confusing. We have no doubt that we’re going to be back debating this legislation, because something would be wrong.

There was no select committee process. All we had was a couple of press releases from organisations that have invested time and energy over years into looking at the Wildlife Act. I feel that it’s pretty disgraceful that we’ve locked out all of their voices when there was no real need for that to happen. That’s not the way that laws should be made or amended in this Parliament. In fact, as the Environmental Law Initiative has said, quite clearly, it further complicates the Act. The Minister of Conservation has said, “Yes, at some point, perhaps, we’ll look at reviewing the Wildlife Act.”—perhaps. We have heard from Minister Jones that he wants to get rid of the Act, so which is it, Minister?

We have started to review the Wildlife Act. There was a report back from DOC. There’s a whole piece of work that the Environmental Defence Society has done on this. All the Minister needed to do was to pick that up and get that done in the last 1½ years. We wouldn’t be here discussing this sloppy piece of legislation if the Minister had just done that.

Instead, what is this Government’s track record on the environment? It is, as many have said, to wage a war on nature. The proof is in the pudding: the reduction of DOC funding to the tune of $130 million since this Government has taken office, the stopping of work that we had done on having no new mines on conservation land, the plan for the Kermadecs—well, there’s still the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, which we shepherded right through to the point that it’s at now. Of course, at the eleventh hour, that too will be diluted because of Minister Jones, and that is what gives me no confidence that this Minister is actually going to review the Wildlife Act. Minister Jones has been very clear that he doesn’t want that to happen, and we’ve seen what’s happened to the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill.

In addition, we know—we know—that our biodiversity crisis in this country and climate change are the two biggest threats to the environment in New Zealand, and yet what have we seen this Government do? Repeals and deferrals on regulating to protect fresh water and native species, the proposed repeal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and the setting of climate targets so low that we are now at risk of violating our commitments under the Paris Agreement, not to mention the 30 by 30 target for marine protection. This Minister says that it is just aspirational and that there’s no legal requirement to do that.

What is his vision for conservation in his Cabinet paper? It is having more visits by tourists than New Zealanders to our iconic landscapes and activating more commercial opportunities. Enhancing biodiversity comes last in that. I would have thought that, as the Minister of Conservation, that would be his top priority.

The only progress this Minister has made in conservation has been to make it easier for protected wildlife to be killed. I hope that he’s proud of that. We’re not, and we don’t commend this bill to the House.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s quite perplexing in 2025 why it is so hard seemingly for us to just protect wildlife, particularly when it comes to our threatened native species and taonga species. We know that the statistics are really bad, and there are some really clear basic measures that we could take to ensure their protection.

We heard really clearly from the Minister of Conservation some really lovely things about creating a world that our mokopuna deserve, but we also heard “growth, growth, growth, growth, growth” while protecting the environment. What is absolutely crystal clear for this Government is that simply saying “protecting the environment” means that it is protected. There are so many unresolved questions, and so much uncertainty, that this bill brings to this whole landscape of even attempting to protect the environment and that have been unanswered. A particular one, a critical one, that is still a mystery to me is about how possibly this bill can be put through where the Director-General of Conservation needs to be satisfied that through the killing of wildlife, populations of wildlife and individual wildlife will still be protected. It’s nonsensical. It’s adding this absolute cloud and uncertainty to the Wildlife Act, which was our key Act that offered that protection for our wildlife.

This law is a deep betrayal of the Government’s duty of care not only to the environment but to the people of New Zealand who care about the environment and want to see it protected. We are absolutely appalled about this Government’s use of urgency in rewriting this Wildlife Act without a regulatory impact statement, without Cabinet papers being released, and without any expert advice or voice of iwi/hapū or voice of the public in actually resolving this very. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, but not like this. This rushing through of this legislation to enable the authorisation of the killing of wildlife is unnecessary, and it’s going to make things more complicated.

We feel that the fact that the conservation Minister comes out just days ago and says things like nature is “part of our national identity, economy, and way of life” and then insists that this kind of bill is still about wildlife protection continually shows that this Government is bulldozing this kind of thinking through the House. It’s a disgrace. You simply can’t claim to value our biodiversity while forcing through law changes, like this, that make it easier to destroy it. This isn’t about protecting biodiversity. It’s about protecting profit and corporate greed.

The one thing that this Government do not seem to understand is that when nature is only valued for its economic benefit, the outcome is inevitable. We’re seeing it today in our statistics across the entirety of our environmental domains, but particularly with biodiversity. We see destruction, we see exploitation, and we see a decline in our environment and its health and, therefore, a decline in the health of ourselves.

Now, what is particularly concerning about this bill is that it’s part of a trend of unprecedented changes within our environmental legislation, where the whole thrust and purpose of the legislation that has been put in place is to protect the environment. Now, we’re seeing this in the amendment to the Resource Management Act, where the whole purpose of it is to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects. Instead, the Government are allowing significant adverse effects where there are already severely adversely affected or polluted waterways. We’re seeing it with fast track, where all of the Government’s decisions under fast track relegate what we considered to be environmental protections to simply be considerations that are now decided in the context of economic growth. Now, we have these Wildlife Act changes that change the entire focus of the Wildlife Act to no longer be so clearly about protection. It’s about the director-general now being authorised to allow these killings, and it’s unnecessary.

What is really concerning as well in this bill is that we are still unclear about the actual resources that the Department of Conservation (DOC) will have to put in to enable this process to occur. We know that DOC are under huge strain—particularly when it comes to the budget cuts, particularly the $48 million or even more since this Government have come in—and they are struggling. This bill risks tying up their very limited resources and perversely allowing this killing of wildlife.

Now, I think what is really concerning with this—sorry, I’ve just lost my notes here; thank you—is the point that my colleague made earlier in the debate in the committee of the whole House. It was an analogy for us humans in our own work environment. When we humans work in risky or dangerous workplaces, we don’t actually authorise workplaces in anticipation of deaths. We don’t authorise those deaths. We take every practical step to ensure risk mitigation and to ensure protection of life. That is exactly the approach which we can and should be taking with the Wildlife Act in this instance.

We’ve heard various comments from the Minister that the Wildlife Act, for example, is wavering or creaking with its age, and it is. I do welcome the acceleration of the review of the Wildlife Act, because it is so badly needed, but it’s not the Act that is wavering in this case. What is wavering is this Government’s duty of care to actually protect our endangered and threatened native species, which we know are so dear and so integral to New Zealanders and our way of life—taonga species for iwi and hapū. That’s exactly what we want to remain the focus of the Wildlife Act.

Muddying the waters and transferring this burden of proof and evidence in the actual circumstances of the killing of wildlife from the individuals and companies and entities to the director-general to hold that is completely unnecessary and completely counter to what New Zealanders expect from their Wildlife Act and to what New Zealanders expect from the duty of care of this Government. They are showing, time and time again, that not only do they not understand but that, under the guise of this so-called protection of the environment, they are weakening, removing, or completely abolishing protections that we so desperately need.

These are the concerns that Te Pāti Kākāriki have with this bill. We absolutely do not support it. We think that, at the very least, it could be going to select committees so we could actually get some public voice, actually get some expert voice, and actually get iwi and hapū to help us resolve this actual problem, rather than ramming this through under urgency. It’s an absolute disgrace, and the Green Party do not commend this to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you. ACT will be supporting this bill. It’s a fantastic technical amendment to what is an outdated wildlife management Act. It’s really, really important that we do this at this time. It is minor. It is technical in nature. It is not a catastrophe, as the Opposition has suggested.

I just want to point out that every professional person involved in delivering infrastructure relies on professional ecologists and environmental scientists to tell them how to best mitigate the risks to New Zealand’s little creatures when they go and build a road, when they go and build a pipeline, and when they go and build a piece of electricity infrastructure. Professional ecologists and environmental scientists don’t turn up to work every day to kill kiwi, skinks, geckos, and bats. They come to work every day to deliver on the commitments that these projects have made to identify and protect these creatures. When we think about what infrastructure designers do, we think about the eco-viaducts that have been built over pristine areas of indigenous vegetation, like the Northern Gateway in Auckland, a fantastic four-lane toll road. We think about the—

Hon Members: It doesn’t apply to that road.

SIMON COURT: Well, clearly these people don’t want it to apply to roads, but I think it should. The Manawatū Tararua Highway is an eco-viaduct across an area of pristine indigenous biodiversity. I want to come back to the Mt Messenger bypass, which is a road and which was the basis for the court case brought by the Environmental Law Initiative, which has led to the need for this amendment. Now, it might be amusing to the members on the other side of the House, but to professional people involved in managing the impacts on wildlife, they want to know there is some certainty. I will give you an example. In the Mt Messenger bypass bat management plan, it recognises that bats are vagrants, because when bats make a nest or roost, they’re only there for a short amount of time. After the bats have left, which we can find out through listening devices and through visual observation, it turns out you can safely clear the vegetation without any harm to the bats. That is one of the ways that we manage risk to indigenous biodiversity under the Wildlife Act.

What’s important about this piece of legislation? It provides certainty to infrastructure development—roads or no roads. It provides certainty for ecology professionals doing their best to identify and protect New Zealand’s threatened species. Then we’ll think about, well, what more could we do. Well, this Government is also looking into biodiversity credits and offsetting regimes. It turns out that, sometimes, when you need to build things, you do need to clear vegetation, and there may be risks to indigenous species, and that’s why it’s important to have lawful outlets where we can actually invest in biodiversity separately rather than saying we can’t do anything anywhere ever simply because we might harm something. That is a practical example of what this Government is doing to address risks to indigenous biodiversity. It’s quite different to what the Opposition is suggesting, which is to do nothing—nowhere, never. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today is “validation day”. Today is the Crown demonstrating through democracy, when the executive holds a majority in the House, that Parliament is sovereign. This is simply the executive that has a solemn duty to ensure that those mammals in the animal kingdom, otherwise known as human beings, don’t play second fiddle to Freddy—we’re not having that. This is also an opportunity for this side of the House to remind Kiwis that when the High Court makes a random decision, it is not unreasonable for the mining industry, the transport industry, the infrastructure industry, and property developers to ensure that the weaponisation of random skinks, hitherto unknown insects, and various other geckos, and those things that cackle beyond the other side of the House will not trump the need for communities to enjoy access to reliable infrastructure.

The virtue of this piece of legislation is that it is retrospective. It corrects a flight of jurisprudential development, which is a threat to the place in which we develop the country. Let us contemplate how we have arrived at this situation. We are fixing up a problem that Labour left. Labour and the Greens had three unfettered years of power—three unfettered years where they could have used their authority liberally fix up this problem. No. They decided to hold policy seances. They decided to have an endless set of meetings in windowless and sunless rooms—not unlike the character they bring to their politics.

It’s fallen upon my colleague the Hon Tama Potaka to seize this issue and rescue the development of New Zealand’s infrastructure from a narrow, vested, and, I have to say, very shadowy group that has brought this litigation. Their thinking is spawned in murk. Apparently, the funder comes from somewhere in the South Island. I’m encouraging the media to look into the background of the funder of this subversive, guerilla-like organisation called the Environmental Law Initiative. They must be subject to the disinfectant-like qualities of sunlight, because they are wandering around, interfering in the ambitions of communities to grow, finding obscure, pettifogging-orientated references in the law, and they’re weaponising them. I look forward to the Resource Management Act, the reform of the Fisheries Act, and further reform of the Wildlife Act and, indeed, the Conservation Act to ensure there is balance.

It’s actually a pleasure in this third reading speech to remind all the men and women out there today, digging coal, looking for gold, generating wealth in the quarries, looking for new critical minerals that their interests have not been subjugated by a small, unelected cast of intellectuals known as ecologists who keep looking for bats until the number twos of a bat are discovered. I could have quickly directed their attention to number twos in the House; however, that’s another matter.

We do look forward to further work on the Wildlife Act, but in the short term, let’s celebrate the fact that this is a Government who’s going to stand up for investment certainty, jobs, and growth. As I said last night, in the past I talked about getting the nephs off the couch. With investment in jobs, I’ll get the nephs off the meth. Kia ora tātou katoa.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā hoki tātou. E ara ake nei au ki te whakapuaki i ētahi kupu whakakōpani i te kaupapa nei, whakawherawhera hoki i te kaupapa nei hei whakaarotanga mā te Minita, mā Tama Pōtaka.

Nō reira i roto i te iwi Māori e mea ana te kōrero “Toitū te whenua, whatungarongaro te tangata”. Ko te tātai whakapapa he mea nui.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to us all. I rise to express a few words to summarise this topic, to also interrogate this topic for consideration by the Minister, by Tama Pōtaka.

And so, among the Māori people, there is a saying: “The land remains, as people disappear”. Lines of genealogical descent are important.]

This bill will overturn the judgment of the High Court. As I spoke to last night, it seems that this Government is quite fine with overturning rulings of courts, leaving not much confidence, within the public, for the longevity of or even the presence of democracy.

We oppose this bill in the name of mana motuhake, because mana motuhake is the thing that hapū and iwi possess, and in mana motuhake, relationships that include whakapapa include te taiao—the natural environment—and those people. Those two things are inseparable. They are part of the knowledge system, the being system of te iwi Māori. I know Tama understands that, but, miraculously, he seems to have forgotten it in his current state.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both names please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: I know Tama Potaka understands it, but he seems to have—“He taonga te wareware”. Tēnā anō tētahi kōrero [“Forgetfulness is omnipresent”. That is another saying].

Where does it leave us, really? Where does it leave us? Well, it leaves us with probably more problems to solve than answers. All of the recommendations of chapter four of the Wai 262 claim, where taonga species are clearly defined and recommendations are clearly set forward—this action by the conservation Minister just drives a bulldozer straight over that. The Wai 262 claim is one of the longest-standing claims that Tama Potaka’s own grandparents would have fought for, as did mine.

Here we are. We have te Minita o Te Papa Atawhai, hamumu nei tōna reo, tōna waha me te kī nei koia rā te kaitiaki o aku taonga; koia te kaiwhakaae ki te oranga, te matenga rānei o aku taonga, ngā taonga o tōku whenua. Kāore mātou e paku whakaae ki tērā whakaaro o tētahi Kāwanatanga ahakoa ko wai. Nō reira, kei te Minita, e kī, e kī. E kī, e kī.

[We have the Minister of the Department of Conservation, his voice ringing out, his mouth saying that he is the custodian of my treasures; he is the one to authorise the life or death of my treasures, the treasures of my land. We do not at all agree with that concept of a Government, regardless of who it is. And so, to the Minister, how dare you. How dare you.]

It’s highly unlikely that the provisions contained in this bill will uphold many of the other commitments that the Crown has already made in conservation in other areas, particularly in iwi settlements, like partnership and shared decision-making between departments and kaitiaki—i.e., the hapū and iwi; partnerships between the Department of Conservation and the iwi; Treaty principles in general; policies in national parks; co-management and customary use; no ownership of protected wildlife; Māori ownership of taonga, taonga species in particular, completely related to the whakapapa kōrero that I just gave. These things all sustain culture. They are part of culture. They are not decompartmentalised, from a Māori point of view, yet here we are, passing a bill under urgency that does that for us. Tēnā koe e te Minita. Āe, āe, me mihi kia ora atu ki ō iwi.

[Thank you, Minister. Yes, yes, you should say thank you to your people.]

Here we are, e te iwi Māori: first, the attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi—besides all of the attacks on everything else we’ve had to endure over the last 18 months—and here we are down to a plain-out attack on te taiao and all of the whakapapa connections and meaning that that has to te iwi Māori. We do not agree.

I want to give you a statement. I want to read you something from Ngāi Tahu: “Conservation Minister Tama Potaka mentioned, in a recent interview, that it will cost too much to save every single species and that we need to target only those of high value.” Who determines high value? “However, the whakapapa of te taiao relies on a collective of species to thrive, not individuals. Whakapapa stores key information, a reminder of where things come from, where to find them, when to use them and for what purpose. Māori can recite whakapapa from the beginning of creation, from the stars to the oceans, from the trees to the birds to the birth of the first human. This knowledge system connects us to our natural environment and everything in it, living as part of a system, not dominating or changing it.”

Those are the words of Ngāi Tahu, and they quite eloquently describe the natural relationship of Māori—the principal sovereign in this country, the partner that this House is obligated to listen to and work with—completely out of the picture. Nō reira e te Minita Take Taiao, māu anō ēnei kōrero e kawe ki te motu. Māu anō e hiki, e hāpai, e whakatika hei tōna wā. Kāore mātou mō te whakaae.

[So to the Minister for the Environment, it is up to you to convey this discourse to the nation. It is up to you to upraise, to promote, and to correct in time. We are not about to agree.]

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is not simply a disgraceful bill but a convoluted bill. We have seen, as we went through the committee stage, nothing other than grandstanding and politicisation from the Minister to try and justify this bill when all we are trying to do is to get some sense out of the bill, which we would have if this bill had gone through a select committee stage as per the normal parliamentary practice. Here we are, and here we are in Aotearoa, where the people of Aotearoa have not been granted their right to participate in our democratic system once again, and we have seen a troubling amount of that happening under this Government.

There are a couple of things I want to address specifically around this bill. We have put a number of questions to the Minister during the committee stage around the retrospectivity of this bill and the fact that what we are seeing is a knee-jerk response to what is a standard process, and the rightful process, under the separation of powers and under the constitutional arrangements of Aotearoa New Zealand to allow the judiciary to interpret the law as required. What we are seeing here is the executive overstepping the judiciary’s decision, and we have specific clauses in here that refer to that specific ruling.

This is really, really concerning. The part of the retrospectivity here that is the concerning part is that we haven’t yet had clarification on the extent of the authorities that will be granted and that will be affected, and also on the effect that it will have on our taonga, on our natural species. We would have got all of this if we had proper public consultation and were able to talk to and speak to, and ask questions of, the officials. Again, we have not been granted that very basic right as parliamentarians.

We have heard from people in the House saying, “We are looking at your average New Zealander who just wants to build infrastructure for Aotearoa and be able to do the work, and they care about the species and all of the outdoors.” Let’s be clear. This bill and the authorities have nothing to do with the New Zealanders who build our infrastructure but everything to do with the companies who may potentially just want to cut corners on squeezing every dime out of nature and out of New Zealand.

There are so many contradictions within this bill. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of the Wildlife Act, which is to protect. As much as we hear the Ministers and the governing parties trying to gaslight the New Zealand public by saying that “by killing, we are actually protecting”—how? Where? This is actually in the explanatory note on the first page. If the governing parties read the bill and did their job once in a while, maybe they would actually understand what was happening here.

We have heard before, from the previous speaker, that we operate within an ecosystem and we simply do not know the impact of this bill. I go back to what the Attorney-General said last year. The fact that we’re using urgency and are rushing through laws means that we’re making bad laws, and we will come back for this. What we are seeing is a Government that panders to the greed of international overseas companies at the expense of the taonga of Aotearoa and of our future generations. The debt that this Government refuses to acknowledge and refuses to take on is the debt against our future generations and our mokopuna. What this Government has done through this bill is give people licences to kill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. While we have just heard great theatrics and also some great scaremongering from the other side, the hyperbole is unbelievable. You’d think they’d been listening to the Counting Crows on repeat about paving paradise. Let’s be clear, that is just hyperbole and scare tactics. What we are doing is reinstating a system that has worked for many years.

The Department of Conservation only authorises projects when there’s incidental harm and only when it is minimised, and the permits are granted with very strict conditions to protect that wildlife population and its long-term viability. We’re not debating that. It is a good aim, and that is what we’re continuing to do. If you listen to the other side, you’d think that it was completely the opposite. This isn’t about allowing unchecked development. It covers things like pest control, which is actually an essential part of preserving our biodiversity. Unfortunately, in pest control, some things can have incidental harm. This piece of legislation is about restoring certainty, not about removing protections. Engineers and pest control specialists will still need to minimise harm, still seek to relocate animals wherever possible, and look after our environment. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what an interesting time we’ve had during all stages under urgency on this bill. I did not expect to be called creative for suggesting that it is normal good practice for a bill that is going through all stages under urgency to have a review. Apparently, that’s creative. No, no, no. This is what the Labour Government did after the cyclones—a proper emergency. There is no proper emergency here. There is no need for the complete absence of a select committee process. It could be a short one. I take the point that the court case has resulted in the need for a fix.

We’re not debating the need for a fix and that general policy intent, but we don’t know what that fix is, because this bill is so badly drafted and the Minister refused to answer my drafting questions about clause 4 of the bill. It still makes no sense. We found out that, in fact, it seems like most of the Government bench speeches that have involved roads are entirely wrong. This bill doesn’t do anything about new road projects for Government roads, because all of those projects still need a section 71 permission or authority and that requires the concurrence of two Ministers, which is a much more arduous administrative thing to do than getting an authority from a director-general or delegate.

Government Ministers have crowed about how this bill that requires all stages under urgency is going to get us back on track. I don’t think it’s going to apply to railways, and it’s certainly not going to apply to Government roads. Yet I haven’t heard any acknowledgment of that from the Government members in their third reading speeches. All I heard is from the ACT member whose whole contribution was about Government roads and how this amendment bill would fix his problem. It does no such thing.

That is why I think the Government will be back here next week. We will be back in urgency next week. I do not think that this Government is good at learning lessons, and there is a very basic lesson here to learn, and that is that if you are drafting law under speed, not using the Parliamentary Counsel Office, I presume, and bringing a bill to a House under two months after a court decision, and not sending it to select committee, it will be muddled. There will be mistakes.

One way to get around that would be for a Minister to act in an engaged way with questions in the committee stage and take a little bit of time to go through some of the key sentences. That did not happen. The Minister could have kept us in committee stage and stopped at that point and not gone to third reading. I’m advising the Minister that he will regret not asking the Leader of the House to come down here late last night, just before midnight, when we were still in the committee stage, still on Part 1, to say “Actually, I’m ending urgency now so that this Government has some time to consider what this bill does.” At the moment, it makes no sense. It does not do what the Ministers say it’s going to do. That is a problem for them.

Another solution, which again I don’t think this Government is likely to learn from, is one of those so-called creative review clauses where this bill could be sent, before it commences, to the Regulations Review Committee or another select committee to review not the policy intent but the actual logistics of how the bill is supposed to work, and then come back. The Minister has disregarded all of these suggestions and quoted a lot of music at us. I note that he hasn’t quoted “Scorpio Girls”, because, of course, scorpios are not included under the protection of the Wildlife Act.

I do note that the wording of “Can’t Get Enough”—well, I was kind of wondering whether you can help me out with a problem that will kind of make you “Scream & Shout”. Whenever they’re coming, they’re “Bringing It Back”. Now, that, I think, is pertinent to how I have been feeling during these debates. There is a little bit of making me want to “Scream & Shout”, because I have tried over and over again to try and engage with the Minister about how it is that the words in his bill make sense and how it is that they don’t contradict each other. There is clearly confusion in the Government because we heard in question time, in real time, yesterday but still on 6 May in this House, that Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters at his first go at answering a question said, “No, no. This is just about culling.” But then we hear all these other speeches: “No, this is about housing.” “Oh, this is about Government roads.” Then we find out that, no, it’s definitely not about Government roads, because section 71 applies to those, not section 53. That is what the Minister said. It doesn’t apply to new Government roads.

Hon Tama Potaka: New roads.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The Minister’s interjecting here, I think. His head is down, but he is saying “new roads”. That’s right; new roads. They have to go through section 71, which is quite different from the rhetoric that we heard in the speeches from Government members. This bill is a hot mess. I mean, it just shows the craziness of using urgency for all stages, particularly when the policy problem has only arisen recently, so there’s clearly not been much time to develop that.

That is me being positive rather than cynical about why this bill is in fact in front of us in urgency for all stages. A cynical version could be “Well, we know that the Minister for Resources doesn’t like wildlife protections of any sort.” He thinks that the only mammals we should be concerned about are humans. “Goodbye, pekapeka. Goodbye, Freddy the frog.”, he says. We know that he has already passed the terrible fast-track legislation that overrides environmental protections. One aspect of the fast track, which I don’t disagree with, is that you can be a one-stop shop. You can look at different permissions that you would need.

Often a big project, such as a large road, will require some sort of resource consent and also an authority under the Wildlife Act, so you can have the decision makers consider both of those decisions together. We know that there are projects on that fast-track list that get a private benefit by not having to abide by the normal environmental protections that other consent applicants would have to do. We know that some of those are in areas where there is wildlife. We keep hearing the Minister for Resources talk about Freddy the frog.

Is this bill really here under urgency for all stages because of Freddy the frog? We don’t know. We haven’t had a regulatory impact statement. We don’t even know if the applications under the Fast-track Approvals Act that might be in national parks might involve some ancient legislation that is mentioned in Schedule 9 of the Wildlife Act—whether this bill in front of us will apply or not; we don’t know that. We do know that this Government has cut funding to conservation, has cut funding to anything environmental, and has a total disregard for the importance of our economy being based on our environment. It seems that all you need are roads. You don’t need to worry about the air that we breathe if you listen to the ACT contributions on this bill.

That is why we are opposing this bill. It is a dreadful process. The Government doesn’t know what it’s doing, and shame on them.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s been a lot of reference to New Zealand music, it being New Zealand Music Month, and I’m pleased to say that Homegrown, New Zealand’s largest music festival, will be held in the city of the future—Hamilton—in March 2026, so I’m looking forward to that. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Boyack—a five-minute call.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to just indulge the House quickly, if I might, because the Brook Waimārama Sanctuary has, yesterday, reintroduced kiwi into Nelson Whakatū, and I’d like to congratulate them. I’ve got Kāpiti Kiwi here with me just to celebrate the immense achievement for the team at the Brook. I think it’s appropriate, when we’re talking about this bill, that I congratulate the team and acknowledge and bring Kāpiti Kiwi into the House. This is to the team at the Brook: thank you for all of your mahi over so many years to get us here.

Now to the bill, which is not something to celebrate. I might just start by focusing on the process that we’ve followed so far. My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has traversed this very, very well, but there are some really significant process reasons why we are not supporting this bill today. There was no regulatory impact statement, there are no Cabinet papers available, and there was no select committee. Now, we’ll get to, in a little bit, the impact of that, but the lack of a select committee has led to us having a situation where this bill is just not in a workable state. The Minister’s going to have to come back to progress further legislation, or there’s going to be stuff in the courts that’s going to come up as a result of it.

The other thing is that, last night in the committee stage, I must say it would have been really helpful if the Minister could have been more concise in his answers. One thing he said, I think, was a good example. He said, about the discussion in committee stage, that “We’re starting to stray … into feral space based on speculation and conjecture.” What does that even mean? The Minister could have spent some time answering questions properly—some really legitimate legal questions that we had yesterday.

As the Hon Rachel Brooking has said, there are a couple of matters that are quite critical to this. We don’t disagree that there’s actually an issue that has been raised by the courts that needs to be addressed. The Minister could have reached across the House and talked to us, and we would have been able to come up with some shared solutions.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Did that happen?

RACHEL BOYACK: It didn’t happen. I’d say to him, next time, to come and talk to us in advance because I agree, as the animal welfare spokesperson, that there’s an issue to be resolved. I’m quite happy to engage about what is the pragmatic solution, because this isn’t it.

The Minister finally admitted that section 53 doesn’t apply to Government transport projects, which was actually the court case. The court case involved a Government roading project, and it doesn’t actually address that specific issue. Why are they doing this? Why are we doing this under urgency? Why? I mean, what else could be going on here? We’ve got fast-track projects coming through. What is that going to mean for our wildlife if the Government, it appears, is seeking to make a more permissible approach to killing wildlife, potentially to get some of their little pet projects through, when it doesn’t actually address the very, very issue that came to the House via the courts?

The Minister also could have sent this to a select committee. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee a couple of years ago where we had two bills related to Cyclone Gabrielle come through. On both occasions, we had short select committees—two or three days. We reached out to potential stakeholders and submitters. We heard from submitters, and that helped ensure that there was robustness around the select committee process. We got better law as a result.

There is a reason why Parliament has select committees. That’s what they’re there for. They’re actually there to directly engage with officials and with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The Wildlife Act itself is well overdue for a rewrite. If you read through section 53, it’s challenging to interpret anyway. Now, you’ve added new section 53A, inserted by clause 4, which is written in gobbledegook, in my view, and the two combined together make it even more challenging. There’s going to be a huge job for lawyers and a huge job for the courts to actually try to get their head around understanding this bill. I predict the Minister is going to be back, because I think others, probably the Minister of Transport, might be a bit concerned to hear that it doesn’t actually apply to his Government transport projects. He might have a yarn to the Minister and ask for them to come back. I don’t commend this bill to the House.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill just validates existing permits, ensuring the holders of those authorisations can actually continue their activities without legal risk, provided they comply with conditions. It applies to a wide range of activities, such as infrastructure and environmental programmes like TBfree, which may cause incidental harm. It’s not about allowing unchecked development; it’s about protecting people who’ve followed the rules. We’re validating those authorisations granted before 5 March 2025 and restoring the ability to process new applications responsibly. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the first opportunity that I’ve had to take a call on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill. To be quite honest, I just wanted to make a few comments around the process of this bill. This is the second bill that we have seen go through this House through all stages in urgency with no regulatory impact statement and with retrospective effect. Now, this is very similar to the last bill that we saw go through urgency, which had no regulatory impact statement and had retrospective effect. What kind of Government is this that puts forward these types of bills? These are not minor issues. These are not cleaning up tiny things. These are things like bringing in laws that would get rid of the pay in women’s pockets and allow, and most likely cause, further deaths for our wildlife and make it easier for those to occur in this type of legislation. This is absolutely shocking behaviour by this Government, and it’s something that everyone on the other side of the House should be ashamed of.

I haven’t been involved in this bill—there hasn’t been much opportunity, I have to say, to be involved in this bill. Normally, we’d say, “I wasn’t able to be at select committee.”, but, unfortunately, there was no select committee for this particular bill. This bill was really the result of a decision by the courts, which, as my colleague Rachel Brooking—and then my colleague Rachel Boyack added in a later contribution—explained, was a court case where there was a very particular finding that the Government is overtly reacting to with this particular legislation, bringing in retrospective law without any thought as to what it could be.

This is an area that I know is very important to a lot of New Zealanders. A lot of New Zealanders care very much about the natural environment. A value that many New Zealanders share is that we should protect our natural environment. In New Zealand, we have a very, very important natural environment with a lot of different animals that are there and that should be protected. We do have a lot of endangered species, and we have a lot of bird life and marine fish species. We’ve got a lot of native reptiles and frogs, and I know my colleague Rachel Brooking is very passionate about the fact that we should protect our bats.

We need to take pragmatic decisions as adults, sensible decisions, to make sure that, when we are implementing law change, we are not putting these species at risk. These species are obviously not in a position to advocate. It’s up to us to look at our biodiversity and make sensible decisions around the laws that we bring in. I’ve had a look through this particular law, and I have to say there are a number of aspects of it that are incredibly concerning. I don’t think it would take many New Zealanders very long to reach that same conclusion if they were looking at this particular bill. Essentially, it makes it easier and more permissible, as far as I understand—and I’m not the major expert here, but you’ve heard from some of my colleagues who are—and more likely that important wildlife will be killed, and I don’t think that’s acceptable. I don’t think it would be acceptable to most New Zealanders. I don’t think the legislative process is acceptable. I think this is bad law. I think the other side of the House should be ashamed not only at the content of this law but at the process that it has gone through.

The Labour Party will not be supporting this particular bill, and I would like the Government to really reflect on why it continues to take these reactionary steps when there have been well-thought-out decisions made by our courts and when these are important decisions to be made that have implications on our natural world, and to reflect on why they need to bring these through urgency.

Hon Rachel Brooking: All stages.

CAMILLA BELICH: All-stages urgency. It is absolutely shocking. I feel that, as my colleague Rachel Brooking said, this bill will be back in the House, so it will waste further time. This is the deep irony of urgency. When you bring a bill that isn’t fully thought through, that hasn’t had the opportunity of submissions from the select committee, and where there hasn’t been the opportunity to scrutinise all of the nature of the bill, often it needs to come back to the House as an amendment bill, and that wastes time. If the Government is trying to save time, actually, they will waste more time in the long run, and they will waste New Zealanders’ money, because there will be court cases and there will be aspects of this bill that are unclear. This is not how we should make good law. We saw that yesterday when the pay equity changes were rushed through under urgency, and we’re seeing it again today. Unfortunately, we do have other bills on the urgency agenda here.

The Labour Party will not be supporting this bill, and I, again, would ask colleagues on the other side of the House to really reflect on how they have determined to make law, what that says about them as a Government, and the future implications for New Zealand and our wildlife as a result of this terrible bill.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take the final call in support of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill at its third reading. All we’re doing here is just getting things back on track so that we can go out there, we can do the pest control, we can control the possums in the bush, and we can build the roads, including the one over the Brynderwyns. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill be now read a third 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 third time.