Thursday, 15 May 2025
Volume 784
Sitting date: 15 May 2025
THURSDAY, 15 MAY 2025
THURSDAY, 15 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.]
Speaker’s Rulings
Oral Questions—Content of Questions
SPEAKER: Members, yesterday, oral question No. 8 led the House into presenting itself in a less than favourable light. The content of the question led to numerous points of order, each referencing the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, presenting matters that were relevant but, on their own, contestable. I’ve taken time to review the Hansard recording of these proceedings, and I will present to the House a new Speaker’s ruling, which builds upon, although not exhaustively, Speakers’ rulings 55/1, 56/4, 157/5, and 192/5, and Standing Order 390, and specifically, Standing Order 390(1)(c).
In considering all of these points, I’ve reached the conclusion that I should not have allowed question No. 8, although I note that no party raised issues with the question during the pre-publication period. It was reasonable, then, to reach the assumption that the House had accepted the content of the question, as the House is, of course, the architect of its own procedure. Nor should I have allowed the word used in response to the question to go unchecked. The member concerned may wish to think about a belated action to uphold the dignity of the House.
Those who assist members in the preparation of questions need to be more rigid in restricting questions to the confines of all parts of Standing Order 390 and also the provisions around answers. Accordingly, I offer this new ruling to the House, which should bring together all of the matters that were raised yesterday in a fairly concise form.
The ruling is: “Oral or written questions may ask a Minister if they agree with comments made in news or opinion articles or broadcasts, but cannot repeat comment if it is of a discreditable nature to any member of this House. The use of socially unacceptable language or profanity, even if relevant to authentication, in either questions or answers, is not permissible, and that has long been a position in this House.” All other rulings on matters relating to Standing Order 390 are upheld.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much; I’m sure the House will benefit from that clarity. I have one question, just for everybody’s understanding: is the restriction outlined in your new ruling in regards to members personally, not in regards to views or policies that they may hold?
SPEAKER: Well, you raise immediately the need for there to be some discretion in the consideration of these matters, but if you take that situation yesterday, that was an article that very unreasonably attacked certain members in the House and characterised them in a way that is totally unacceptable. Those sorts of comments included in the question are now not going to be permitted. It would have been easy to ask the question simply if they agreed with the article. I hope that makes it clear.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, please. Mr Speaker, can I ask you as to which country the flags currently being flown outside of Parliament represent?
SPEAKER: They’re not being flown at the moment, they—
Shanan Halbert: Outrageous.
SPEAKER: Member, we’re on a point of order; if the member wants to leave the House, he should do so voluntarily before he’s asked to.
They’re not being flown at the present time; they were there for a short recognition ceremony this morning that has been, as I understand it and I have been advised, undertaken for quite some years.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, can I also thank you for your ruling and the clarity around that. I think it will help the House.
In terms of next week, the House will consider the first reading of the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and the second reading of the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day, and, on Thursday, the Minister of Finance will deliver Budget 2025.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the Leader of the House for the update. Could he inform the House if the Government intends to move urgency following the Budget, and, if so, he might like to know that we have cleared our diaries on Friday and all of Saturday.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Yes. As I’ve advised the Business Committee previously, there will be urgency, and I’m looking forward to having a beer with him on Saturday night.
SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’m not sure I’d be willing to join you—but anyway.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You weren’t invited.
SPEAKER: Well, it’s all right. This is my place—you can either go or stay.
Petitions, Papers, and Select Committee Reports
Petitions, Papers, and Select Committee Reports
SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of annual returns as at 31 January 2025. I also present the following report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Oranga Tamariki: Inquiry into procurement and contract management. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Ten select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Economic Development, Science, and Innovation Committee on its first scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament
report of the Education and Workforce Committee on its first scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament
reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:
Controller and Auditor-General, Draft Annual Plan 2025-26, and the
committee’s first scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament
report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee on its first scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament
report of the Governance and Administration Committee on its first scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament
report of the Health Committee on the petition of Chris Gilmore
report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the conduct of four members during proceedings of the House
reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:
petition of Ihorangi Ahi Bay Potiki Reweti Peters, and its
first scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament.
SPEAKER: The scrutiny activities reports and the report on the plan of the Controller and Auditor-General are set down for consideration.
Privilege
Final Report of the Privileges Committee—Question of Privilege on Conduct of Members Causing Disruption During a Vote
SPEAKER: Members, the final report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the conduct of four members during proceedings of the House has been presented. The report is set down for consideration on the next sitting day, which will be Tuesday. I’m highlighting this for the House now because this is an important debate, and one that I’m sure members will want to prepare for.
In this report, the committee’s recommendation is that three members are punished for contempt. In each case, the recommended punishment is that the member be suspended from the service of the House, one for a period of seven days, and the other two for a period of 21 days. It might be interesting for some of the media who have reported to understand that it’s a recommendation at this point as the House hasn’t yet dealt with it.
These punishments recommended by the committee are very severe and are unprecedented in this Parliament. As far as I’m aware, since the House first met in 1854, no member who has been found guilty of contempt has been suspended for more than three days. I’m also conscious that, unlike in previous such cases, suspension from the service of the House now carries a substantial financial penalty. The committee’s recommendation therefore represents a significant development in the practice of the House. A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision.
I also note that the committee’s recommendation was adopted by a narrow majority. That is an important point when the effect of the recommendation would be to deprive members of a minority party of their ability to sit and vote in this House for several days.
As the committee’s report states, the Speaker has a duty to protect the rights of members of all sides of the House. In particular, there’s a longstanding convention for Speakers to safeguard the fair treatment of the minority. I intend to honour that convention by ensuring the House does not take a decision next week without due consideration. In my view, these severe recommended penalties placed before the House for consideration mean it would be unreasonable to accept a closure motion until all perspectives and views had been very fully expressed.
I would next like to set out how I intend to apply Standing Order 255(2), which deals with the consideration of a report of the Privileges Committee. It provides that the chairperson, or a member of the committee, may move a motion that reflects the committee’s recommendation. The motion may be amended, and an amendment is not required to reflect the recommendation, as long as the amendment is relevant and otherwise in order.
As with many other situations when proposals are made to this House, it is not an all-or-nothing decision. I also note Standing Order 129, which provides that when an amendment has been moved, a member who spoke before the amendment was moved may speak again.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. You outlined in your consideration that one of the matters that influenced you was the inability for those members to not be part of the Budget presentation.
SPEAKER: No.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, you did.
SPEAKER: I didn’t mention that. I simply said—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’d be part of the debate.
SPEAKER: Well, just so you’re clear, I said that the recommended penalties, if adopted by the House, would see the members suspended from the service of the House for several days.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But the point is, if you go back to last year, they weren’t in the House for the Budget then.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s not the issue that I’m dealing with. Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, thank you for those remarks. Is it the case that it is your intention that the question that the report be adopted in relation to the Privileges Committee report into this matter will be put on Tuesday, because, just from a timetabling point of view, Wednesday is set down to be a members’ day and, of course, Thursday is Budget day.
SPEAKER: Yes, I’m well aware of that, but the Standing Orders are that the report of a Privileges Committee is dealt with at the first opportunity, which is going to be some time just after 3 p.m. on Tuesday.
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity in terms of the House and those listening and watching, you are expecting a wide-ranging debate, potentially, involving the three people who did not turn up to the Privileges Committee but who may very well be in the House, and you are anticipating that they will put forward their perspectives as to why this punishment is unnecessary or severe?
SPEAKER: Well, we are—
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: No, hang on—just let me just respond to that. Firstly, there is a motion before the House which is debatable, so any member who is legitimately in the House may speak to it. I’m making it clear to the House that it is an amendable motion, and it always has been under the Standing Orders. We’ll go to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I’ll come to the member.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that we’re going to have a debate, and anybody can move an amendment if they wish to, but, at the end, are you going to put the motion?
SPEAKER: Yeah, that always happens.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Good—thank you.
SPEAKER: Well, hang on: whatever the motion is left on the floor of the House.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the point of order from Shane Jones, I just wanted to clarify with you that, when the point was made about the three members not attending the select committee, that was the statement that was made by Shane Jones, and, if that was the case, I didn’t realise that they were required to attend the select committee.
SPEAKER: No, no, they’re not—no one is ever required to attend at the Privileges Committee, but they leave the result of that exercise in the hands of the committee. However, I’ll make the point that no one at this point, despite what the media have been reporting, is suspended from this House, and will not be until there is a vote from the House indicating that that is to happen. So all members in this House can speak in this debate.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. As you’ve pointed out, sir, this is, in terms of the recommendation, unprecedented and the House has not considered a proposal from the Privileges Committee of this ilk before, and, unlike other debates, every member has the right to speak. It is unusual in the sense that we are debating something that has not come from any particular caucus in this House, but from a committee, and it is a split recommendation. Given the significance, in order to get a true reflection of the House’s views, would you consider a personal vote on the question being put, after that debate?
SPEAKER: No.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fạiȧkse’ea, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement about the pay equity changes that “the process that we have set up is fair. It’s robust”; if so, how is cancelling 33 pay equity claims under urgency fair?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, I stand by my statement. We’ve made changes to the pay equity system that make it fairer and return it to its intended purpose: addressing gender-based pay discrimination. Despite what some may have suggested, any claims that have already been settled remain in place and fully funded. Claims that had not yet been settled under the old system have been discontinued because it is not practical to have two different systems operating at once. That would create uncertainty and unfairness.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Was accounting for the fiscal savings in her Budget the reason why urgency was used to cancel 33 active pay equity claims?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does using urgency address the warning she received from Treasury officials on 14 December 2023 that “while it would be possible to legislate to apply any new process to existing claims, such a retrospective action would need to be justified”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Government did think it was justified, which is why the Government legislated.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she justify the cancellation of 180,000 workers’ pay equity claims, when many, like secondary school teachers, will be locked out of lodging a claim under the new rules?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Existing claims have been discontinued but the law has been reset to allow claims to be resubmitted.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with advice from Treasury that “amending the legislation in a way that had the potential to reduce the fiscal cost would be seen as a degradation of the rights of those female-dominated occupations that have not yet raised a claim”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, because pay equity claims continue to exist. In fact, we have set aside money to honour existing claims that have been settled and future claims.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she not take any action to protect the rights of those female-dominated occupations, given the warning from Treasury that those rights could be degraded, or was saving her Budget more important?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I disagree with the characterisation. Pay equity is important, as is the Equal Pay Act 1972, and we are honouring the commitments in that Act.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen about tax and spending in New Zealand?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a number of reports about tax and spending. Some commentators say we should be taxing much more, spending much more, and borrowing much more, but to quote the words of a recent ANZ economist, New Zealand has recently been on a “debt-funded spending spree”. It’s resulted in high inflation, higher mortgage payments, higher petrol prices, and eye-watering prices at the grocery store. Fundamentally, this economy does not need more taxes and irresponsible Government spending; it needs fiscal restraint.
Cameron Brewer: Can he confirm that net core Crown debt will not increase to 53.8 percent of GDP?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Budget is only a week away, but I can confirm that. Under the Government’s plan, debt is forecast to be 45.2 percent of GDP by 2028. It’s interesting, the Treasury has recommended a debt-to-GDP ceiling of 50 percent. This is a ceiling rather than a target. Our fiscal headroom is our insurance policy. We need to be able to respond to future shocks like another pandemic or an earthquake. Sadly, some people do not share this view. I have seen some people suggest we should have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 53.8 percent. This would be irresponsible for New Zealand’s future.
Cameron Brewer: Will he rule out $88.9 billion in new taxes on New Zealanders in Budget 2025?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed, I can rule out increasing taxes by $88.9 billion in new taxes in Budget 2025. At this time of global economic uncertainty, and with New Zealand exiting recession and entering a growth phase, the last thing this economy needs is a massive tax and spend Budget.
Cameron Brewer: Will he rule out a wealth tax and capital gains tax in Budget 2025?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. I’m also happy to rule out an inheritance tax and, indeed, other taxes that other parties are proposing.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What about a fun tax?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, the justice Minister asked me about a fun tax! I can also rule out a tax on fun. In fact, I can rule out all of those dangerous taxes that would put at risk our hard-won economic recovery.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, on the issue of fiscal management, does he consider spending $88 billion and more over four years, yet still running a deficit, to be both tax and spend and “debt and inept”?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes the point very adeptly, as he always does.
Question No. 3—Health
3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he support GP services being free, publicly owned, and adequately resourced to reach underserved communities?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, the member from the Green Party might be surprised to learn that our GP services are private businesses. Our Government is focused on ensuring GPs can deliver timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. Our focus is on providing support to those with the greatest need. This includes maintaining zero fees for children under 14, offering reduced costs for low-income individuals with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme. These initiatives help ensure that those living with the greatest need have access to GP services, and it comes on top of all of the work we’re doing to grow the number of GPs in primary practice, such as increasing the number of—
SPEAKER: Yep. Good.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he concerned that one in six people avoid going to the GP because of cost, and, if so, what is he doing to reduce the cost of accessing care?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Government, as I said, is very focused on making sure that those who have the greatest need have access to primary care. And as I said, the Government does a number of things to support that access: maintaining zero fees for children under 14, offering reduced costs for low-income individuals and families with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme. What I can tell the member, though, is that increasing taxes on general practitioners—
SPEAKER: No—that’s enough. Thank you. That last bit was unnecessary and shouldn’t happen again.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think the current capitation funding model is successful at remedying health inequities, and, if not, what does he plan to do about it?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the capitation funding is designed to ensure that we can increase access for primary practice. Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health have got work under way to look at how it can be improved, to ensure we improve access for all New Zealanders to be able to access primary care.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he committed to ensuring that health inequities are addressed in the capitation funding model review that he has just spoken about?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, look, the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand have work under way which is focused on how we can improve access. But, as I said, there are a number of things the Government does to ensure those who have the greatest need are supported to access their GP—as I said: free access for children under 14, offering reduced costs for low-income families with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme. The Government does a number of things to support people who have the highest need to be able to access their GP.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the Government doing to grow the GP workforce and improve access to primary care?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, our Government is delivering on its commitment to strengthen GP clinics and put patients first. Over this term, medical school placements will increase by 100 places—a major investment in growing our GP workforce and ensuring access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. We’re also funding 50 graduate doctors a year to train directly in GP clinics, helping to get more doctors into communities where they’re needed the most.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Why did he not maximise funding for GP training placements to 889 places by 2027?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we have, as I said, increased spaces by 100 medical training spaces over the course of this term of this Government. That is the biggest increase in many, many years—about increasing medical training places through our universities. This Government is very focused on growing our workforce. We have more doctors at Health New Zealand, more nurses at Health New Zealand. We’re very focused on increasing access to primary care as well so that people can get timely, quality access to healthcare.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Government commit to funding in greater amounts mobile healthcare clinics to access underserved areas such as South Auckland, to ensure people can be reconnected to GP services?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, there’s a number of things the Government is doing to increase access to GP services for those who need it the most. As I said, zero fees for children under 14, reduced fees for those families with a community services card, and ensuring discounted access through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme—which I know serves a number of clinics in South Auckland—so that people in those communities are able to access their GP at a low cost. We’re very focused on targeting the Government’s resources to maximise the benefit, rather than the Opposition’s tactic, which is to tax more, borrow more, and spend more.
SPEAKER: No—hang on. I’ve warned the member once, now twice. There won’t be a third warning.
Question No. 4—Women
4. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Women: Has she sought advice on the impact on closing the gender pay gap from moving the pay equity claim threshold from a 60 percent to a 70 percent female-dominated workforce; if not, why not?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): I receive a range of advice on the gender pay gap, and, indeed, closing the gap does remain a top priority for me. The gender pay gap, as I’m sure the member will know, is a very complicated matter that can be caused by a number of factors, including organisational, sectorial, and indeed national. They can be addressed in a number of ways, not just through resolving pay equity claims. And regarding the threshold, I was advised that the majority of claims do meet the 70 percent threshold to be raised under the amended pay equity legislation.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has she sought advice on the gender pay gap implications of secondary teachers who have a 63.6 percent female-dominated workforce and will not meet the threshold for a pay equity claim under the changes that her Government has made to the legislation?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As I said in my first answer, I have received a range of advice. The great majority of the claims that have been paused can indeed restart because they do meet the 70 percent threshold, and I would encourage them to do so.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: How many workers will be able to proceed with their claims under the changed thresholds her Government has put into place?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: What I would say to that member is that there are, of course, a wide range of people who have been in the process of raising a claim. As, I think, the Minister responsible outlined to the House yesterday, it is estimated about 180,000 members of various unions have been part of previously raised pay equity claims.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. We are all aware that 180,000 workers were covered by claims under the previous legislation. The Minister has been telling the House that very few people will be impacted by moving the threshold from 70 percent to 60 percent. I asked the Minister very specifically what that number now was. If she doesn’t know, she can say that, but she did not address that question.
SPEAKER: But the Minister doesn’t have to accept the position that’s been put in a supplementary question. Well, the reality is there are now no claims. They’re all extinguished. So the question is: until new claims are lodged, how would you know what the numbers are?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Well, she could have said that.
SPEAKER: Well, she could have, but I caught on to it, and I’m sure most of the House did.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: On what date was she made aware the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had notified the Prime Minister that reviewing the approach to pay equity was one of her five priorities?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I would advise the member to put that specific question in writing. What I can confirm to her is that I was first alerted to it in November. I was then, indeed, included in meetings in March, and I was consulted throughout the process.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: On what date was she consulted on the work the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety received in December 2023 on options to change the Government’s approach to pay equity?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The initial conversation I had with the Minister of Finance regarding pay equity occurred on 9 November 2024.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Did she attend the Cabinet strategy committee report back in early 2025, where options for a future approach to pay equity were discussed?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I’d need the member to put in writing the specific date of that. What I can confirm is I was included in a Cabinet strategy meeting on 3 December 2024.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: You’re not a member.
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As the member has acknowledged, I am not a member of that particular committee. I was included in a strategy meeting on 3 December 2024.
Question No. 5—Education
5. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about supporting the Government’s target of raising student achievement?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Our work programme is defined by pace, clarity, and outcomes and is delivering exactly what we said we would. We’re investing nearly $100 million to ensure that extra help with maths is available across all stages of primary and intermediate schooling so that children get the extra help they need, an approach we’re already delivering in reading. We’re embedding financial education into the curriculum so students are taught how to budget, save, invest, and understand things like insurance and loans. Our kids deserve a world-leading education to give them the best possible start in life, and that’s what we’re delivering.
Suze Redmayne: What feedback has she seen about her actions to accelerate maths achievement?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from schools has been very positive. One student from Cambridge Middle School who has been involved in our maths acceleration trial said, “When I started, I couldn’t answer, like, a simple question really, but now I can do division, fractions, percentages all pretty easily.” Having heard the Government will be expanding the programme to reach up to 34,000 years 7 and 8 students, one principal said, “Fantastic support. We needed this all the way.” But what I love to hear from students is what it means to experience success. One student involved in the trial said, “I love maths. It’s probably the best thing I’ve done this year.”, and that’s why this is a Government committed to progress and achievement.
Suze Redmayne: How are her recent announcements supporting teachers?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: This Government recognises teachers’ ongoing commitment to raising student achievement, which is why we’re investing to back our teacher workforce. Twenty-thousand teachers have received high-quality professional development in structured literacy, 15,000 have received structured training in maths, and over 836,000 maths resources have been delivered to students and teachers in primary and intermediate to support the new world-leading maths curriculum. We’ve delivered on our promise to remove the cost of teacher registration and practising certificates, and that is just the start.
Suze Redmayne: How are her recent announcements supporting parents?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Government backs parents to be a key partner in their child’s learning. To support parents, we’ve launched the parent portal, to provide clear guidance in the curriculum each year in English and maths, videos about starting school, the phonics checks, guides to parent interviews, explainers about structured literacy, and all the resources that you need to support learning at home in English and maths. We’ve already had 231,000 visits to the page, making it the Ministry of Education’s most viewed page. Parents want to know these things about their child’s learning. They want to be involved. My message to parents is, “We have your back. That’s why we are supporting you and restoring your place at the heart of your child’s learning. Thank you for everything you do to support your child on their education journey.”
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the subject of raising student achievement, will the Minister set aside funding so that some members can study Economics 101 and History 101 to learn that Marxist, pinko money-wasting never ends well for any country?
SPEAKER: Well, the Minister has no responsibility for the education of members.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t say members; it could be students.
SPEAKER: You did say members, but if you want to—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, it could be a student member—you just assumed that, didn’t you?
SPEAKER: Yeah, I think you can split hairs, but just—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll rephrase it, then.
SPEAKER: Yeah, that would be good.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the subject of raising student achievement, will the Minister set aside funding for some students to study Economics 101 and History 101 to learn that Marxist, pinko money-wasting never ends well for any country?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’ve already invested an hour a day in reading, writing, and maths. We’ve invested multiple tens of millions in professional learning and development along with resources, and we’re updating the curriculum in all of the areas that the Deputy Prime Minister has alluded to today.
Question No. 6—Workplace Relations and Safety
6. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is it accurate that 180,000 workers are affected by the cancelling of 33 pay equity claims?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): First, I would like to give hope to the member and any woman watching who would like to raise a pay equity claim. You can do this. Any woman or union can do this today under the new system this Government has introduced. The work that has been put in to date under previous claims has not been wasted. The material and evidence may be able to be used for the new claim.
SPEAKER: Yeah, just a moment. It is a very straight question. It was on notice. If there’s anything you want to add, that’s fine, but you should answer the question in the first instance.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: In response to the question about the number of workers who were covered by the 33 pay equity claims in progress under the previous system, that is the estimate I was provided by the Public Service Commission. The figure is based on the data they have on claims in the public sector and some of the claims in the funded sector. The figure will not include all workers in the funded sector, as the Government is not the employer and so does not hold all that information.
Hon Jan Tinetti: How many of the 180,000 workers are employed in the funded sector in services such as Plunket nurses, early childhood education teachers, or hospice workers?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: As I’ve said previously, from the figure that has been provided to me by the Public Service Commission, that is based on the data that they have on claims in the public sector and some of the claims in the funded sector. As the member will be aware, the public sector does make up a large majority of that number.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Has Cabinet made a decision on whether it will fund successful pay equity claims in the funded sector such as Plunket nurses, early childhood education teachers, or hospice workers?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My understanding is that this may have been information provided maybe a year ago, that the Government, under Minister Nicola Willis’ pay equity reset, suggested that the funded sector would not be funded by the Government for pay equity.
Hon Jan Tinetti: So why won’t the Government fund successful pay equity claims for core services in the funded sector, given their funding comes from the Government?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That was a decision that is not within my remit. That is a question for the Minister of Finance.
Hon Jan Tinetti: Is the reason why they won’t fund successful pay equity claims, such as for Plunket nurses, early childhood education teachers, and hospice workers, because the Government’s Budget won’t add up?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No. I think some things do need to be made clear. We do still have a pay equity system. We will still be funding some of these claims, but when it comes to things that are in relation to the Budget, the member has been here for quite a while and should know that I’m not the Minister of Finance, I’m not responsible for the Budget, and I can’t give out information that relates to the Budget or anything that may or may not be Budget-sensitive. I’m simply the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, responsible for the legislation that underpins the system. You know, I’m not responsible for everything. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’d just say to the House that there’s been quite an emphasis and focus on the stricter application of the Standing Orders. One of those Standing Orders talks about the barracking and the point where barracking becomes heckling. I can’t quite remember the number, but I’ll research it later. But I’d just suggest that members take that into account when they feel the need to start yelling across the House. Jan Tinetti, is there another question?
Hon Jan Tinetti: No.
Question No. 7—Oceans and Fisheries
7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he believe bottom trawling is damaging; if so, should it be banned?
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): No, I do not consider that bottom trawling should be prohibited or banned, and, yes, it can have effects on the environment. However, with clever management measures, these things are all capable of being mitigated.
Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree that bottom trawling is rapidly losing its social licence due to the destruction it causes to marine habitats and its high emissions profile, and, if not, why not?
Hon SHANE JONES: No. The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless, and I hope the member isn’t following catastrophisation of what may happen in less enlightened nations.
Teanau Tuiono: Why is New Zealand the only country still bottom trawling in the South Pacific despite growing international concern and environmental evidence?
Hon SHANE JONES: We, on this side of the House, are not going to ostracise the men and women working, earning a legitimate living, in an important segment of the economy. The reference to seining and trawling in New Zealand refers to an established practice, and, yes, from time to time, it does happen in the Hauraki Gulf, which shouldn’t bother anyone because the Hauraki Gulf is basically a mud-stained bottom.
Teanau Tuiono: How does the Minister reconcile his decision to scrap plans to restrict bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf with his Government’s commitments to marine biodiversity, especially in light of the 97 percent decline in whales and dolphins, and the functional extinction of species like crayfish and scallops in parts of the gulf?
Hon SHANE JONES: As befits my approach to politics, I deal with science and technology, and I can assure the House that the Tīkapa Moana bill being promoted and brought forward by our colleague the Minister of Conservation already allows for a host of areas to be excluded from bottom trawling. I think it’s important that we remember that our Government is interested in doubling exports, not exiling industries or buying into the weaponisation of legislation designed to de-industrialise New Zealand. That was on display yesterday with the Green alternative budget.
Teanau Tuiono: Has the Minister seen Sir David Attenborough’s new documentary Ocean, which contains some of the most graphic footage of the damage that bottom trawling can do to the seabed?
Hon SHANE JONES: Many generations of New Zealanders have followed, with a great deal of interest, Mr Attenborough. However, Danish seining, trawling in New Zealand, is a vastly different proposition from the graphic images that feature in that particular movie. There are thousands of New Zealanders who rely on this industry for their jobs, generating export. As I said, again, we must not allow emotionalism to overcome science.
Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister intentionally undermining public trust in marine protection laws and weakening New Zealand’s international reputation on ocean conservation, or is that just a byproduct of his unwavering servitude to the seafood industry?
SPEAKER: You can ask the question again, but the last part is to be struck out of the Hansard record.
Teanau Tuiono: OK. What is more important to the Minister: maintaining public trust in marine protection laws and New Zealand’s international reputation on ocean conservation, or maintaining the trust of the seafood industry?
Hon SHANE JONES: Proclamations of international reputation without a chequebook that can actually meet the costs of environmental dues is a pipe dream. The fishing industry and the techniques of the fishing industry are constantly being reviewed by regulators, and New Zealanders can sleep happy tonight knowing they have a pro-industry champion in the matua.
Question No. 8—Justice
8. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) 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 continues to progress its plan to restore law and order with vigour. We’ve given Police the additional powers they need to disrupt the activities of gangs. We stopped taxpayers funding the proliferation of cultural reports. We’ve made sweeping reform to the Sentencing Act to put more serious offenders in prison for longer by restoring three strikes and restricting sentencing discounts by adding additional aggravating factors so that offenders are more appropriately held to account. Our target to reduce the number of victims shows this is working, with more than 28,000 fewer victims recorded in the latest stats. There’s been great progress, but there is still a lot more to do.
Tom Rutherford: What is next on the law and order agenda?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Parliament is currently considering a range of legislation, including the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, which makes changes to ensure that, if convicted, adult sex offenders are publicly named and held to account if that is the wish of their victim. And shortly, the hard-working Justice Committee will report back on legislation to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years—much work to be done there.
Tom Rutherford: Why is it important for the Government to restore law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because it needed restoring in 2023, when we came to Government, and communities across the country didn’t feel safe. People deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities and to have confidence that the justice system will hold those who disregard the laws to account. Every victim that is spared from going through the trauma of crime deserves the attention of the House, and that’s what we’re focused on today.
Tom Rutherford: What other actions is the Government taking to restore law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: As part of our Q2 plan, the Government intends to make decisions on a range of matters, including reforming the Crimes Act to further strengthen consequences, particularly in response to views of the ministerial advisory group on retail crime, led by Sunny Kaushal, relating to low-level offending, and strengthening trespass laws. We also intend to progress law changes to make citizen’s arrest provisions more effective, and I look forward to the other side supporting these sensible changes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the topic of law and order, has the Minister read any reports proposing $88 million in new spending but zero dollars to Police and $770 million in cuts for Corrections?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I have seen those. I’ve seen those reports, and they’re related to the Green Party. It is a state—
SPEAKER: In that case, you don’t have to answer it. We move now to question No. 9.
Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment
9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Was cancelling 33 current pay equity claims consistent with her commitment to reduce persistent disadvantage as outlined in her employment action plan; if not, why not?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Our Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, and this process is open for claims. The Employment Action Plan ensures we are working across Government to provide greater opportunities for more New Zealanders.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the gender pay gap an example of persistent disadvantage?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she advocate for her Employment Action Plan objective to reduce persistent disadvantage when the pay equity changes were discussed at Cabinet?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If the member had read the action plan, she would understand that persistent disadvantage is disadvantage that is ongoing for two years or more over a life course or intergenerationally—which is why we are focused, for example, on reducing the number of young people on benefits, because if they go on to benefit under the age of 25, they will spend 20 future years there. That is persistent disadvantage.
Hon Ginny Andersen: If the gender pay gap is not an example of persistent disadvantage, what is?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I just answered that.
SPEAKER: Just give her the fact again.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Twenty years for a young person under the age of 25 going on to a jobseeker benefit or a main benefit.
Hon Ginny Andersen: How does cancelling the 33 pay equity claims align with her action plan’s concern that there are “persistent and serious gaps in the labour market participation and outcomes for specific population groups, especially women”?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That’s why we have a range of Ministers who work on the labour market issues, including the Minister for Women, including the Minister of Education, the Minister for Vocational Education, and other Ministers as examples. This is a cross-Government piece of work to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, including women.
Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
10. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made about increasing competition in banking?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Recently, I announced the next big step for open banking in New Zealand. Cabinet has now signed off on the regulations for open banking, and we’re now on a clear path to delivering more choice and better service for Kiwi consumers. The major banks will have until December to get ready for open banking, and that means that there will be certainty that open banking will be live by this Christmas.
Nancy Lu: What is open banking and how would it help Kiwi consumers?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Open banking allows New Zealanders to securely share their banking data, like transaction history and account balances, with third parties such as fintechs. It aims to increase competition and innovation in the financial sector by enabling new services like budgeting apps, new payment methods, and loan-comparison tools. And importantly, consumers stay in control. Data is only shared with their consent, and providers must meet strict security standards.
Nancy Lu: What are some examples of open banking in practice?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, there are many great examples overseas of open banking in practice, and I can’t wait to see what New Zealand - based fintech start-up companies will come up for us here in New Zealand. Other countries have seen exciting start-ups flourish under open banking, and examples include one called Revolut, an app that links to other banks for easier budgeting, payments, and multi-currency use; and then there’s UNO Home Loans, a tool that speeds up mortgage comparison using income and spending data from banks; and then, thirdly, Canopy, which verifies rent and income from a streamlined process when moving house.
Nancy Lu: What else is the Government doing to increase banking competition?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: This Government is laser-focused on increasing competition in the banking sector and that is for sure. As members will know, the Government has called for a select committee inquiry into banking competition following the Commerce Commission’s study on personal banking. Now, the hard-working Finance and Expenditure Committee received more than 200 public submissions which showed broad concern about the level of competition. Recently, I also announced a programme run by the Financial Markets Authority to help level the playing field for fintechs challenging the big banks and to further boost competition.
Question No. 11—Disability Issues
11. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement, “That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families and carers”; if so, why?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes. Prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers is a priority for this Government, and that’s why we provided a record $1.1 billion funding boost to Disability Support Services in Budget 2024. The state of affairs left by the last Government needed immediate action to stabilise the disability support system. Just announced today in Budget 2025, the Government has provided $190 million of social investment for vulnerable New Zealanders, including support for Autism New Zealand’s early screening and intervention programme that provides services and support for whānau, caregivers, and professionals. Our Government is focused on improving the lives of the nearly one in six disabled New Zealanders.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How many people included in the care and support workers’ pay equity claim are employed in Disability Support Services?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don’t have that number on me, and I would encourage anyone who has a pay equity claim to continue with their process.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Has Cabinet made a decision on reallocating the funds held in contingency to settle the care and support workers’ pay equity claim?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m not going to comment on comments that may or may not be subject to the Budget.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she agree to change the threshold from 60 percent to 70 percent, making it impossible for Peke Waihanga—the Artificial Limb Service—to lodge a pay equity claim, given their workforce is 65 percent women?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Government made a decision to make a process that was fairer and more transparent, and claims can be made, and I’d encourage women and unions to do so.
Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How will she ensure access to artificial limbs, orthotics, and rehabilitation, given Peke Waihanga is already disadvantaged by previously settled claims that mean they could lose their staff to employers who pay more?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don’t think that’s an issue that is any different from any employment space. I would encourage that organisation to look at supporting their employees.
Question No. 12—Agriculture
12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening regulation to support the welfare of dogs?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Last month, I announced new regulations that will create infringement offences for dog owners who cause their animals harm by leaving them chained up for days on end. Regulations will prohibit chaining vulnerable dogs, like pregnant or young animals, except for very temporary situations, and will give enforcement agencies real teeth to intervene swiftly where there is clearly observable harm associated with the long-term chaining. I want to send a sharp, clear message to dog owners that this poor behaviour towards animals is unacceptable and there will be consequences.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why are the regulations required?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I’d like to acknowledge the work of the SPCA here. They told the Government back in 2021 that the powers available to animal welfare inspectors under the regulations were not remotely adequate to address the almost 1,500 complaints about chaining that they received in 2021. Serious mistreatment of animals is already an offence under the Act, but criminal prosecution takes a lot of money and a lot of time. These infringement offences will allow appropriate action to be taken quickly to address the problem.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will these new regulations focus on the wellbeing of dogs?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The Government took a bit of time to work through a few different options, and we’ve landed on outcome-focused regulations. In some cases, there could be good reasons for a dog to be tied up for periods of time, as long as it’s in a way that preserves the standards of animal welfare. So these regulations will target harm. They will list a series of clearly observable outcomes where welfare is compromised. This will enable inspectors to know straight away whether an infringement fine is justified.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the regulations be implemented?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Look, it’s important to note that these regulations won’t affect most Kiwi dog owners, who treat their dogs exceptionally well; for those that don’t, however, there will be a six-month period after the regulations are made at the end of the year where inspectors will focus on education and working with the community. This will be followed by a common-sense application of the law. I’d also note that even with these regulations in place, the most serious breaches can and will proceed to prosecution where necessary.
SPEAKER: There’ll be members who need to leave the Chamber for duties elsewhere in the precinct. They may do so quietly, as we’ve come to the end of oral questions.
Bills
Valuers Bill
First Reading
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Valuers Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I move, That the Valuers Bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 276(3), the bill’s explanatory note states the committee nominated to consider the bill. The question therefore is, That the Valuers Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Bills
Social Security Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Social Security Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Our Government believes people are better off in work. We have already taken steps to strengthen the welfare system’s focus on supporting people off benefit and into employment, and our approach is working. During the first month of the traffic light system, obligation failures decreased by 9 percent. Between January and March this year, over 23,000 people cancelled their benefit because they found work. This is an 11 percent increase on the same period from 2024.
This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act and the social security regulations to expand and enhance welfare settings to continue supporting people off welfare and into work. The welfare system will always be available to support people when they need it, but as this Government has said from the start: people who can work need to meet their obligations to look for a job and be held accountable when they don’t.
I want to quickly outline the key policy proposals in the bill. Quite simply, this bill introduces non-financial sanctions to expand the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) tool kit. Non-financial sanctions provide an alternative option to reducing someone’s benefit, which is a financial sanction, when responding to a person’s first work-related or social obligation failure. They will only be an option for a person in active case management and/or a person with dependent children. Money management and community work experience are the first two non-financial sanctions implemented from 26 May.
The bill also extends the period over which an obligation failure counts against people from 12 to 24 months, with the exception of youth clients, increasing the likelihood that those who are repeatedly refusing to comply with their obligations will have their benefit cancelled if they remain on the benefit for more than a year.
The bill will require new applicants for certain benefits with work-related obligations to have a completed job seeker profile before their benefit is granted, and this change will encourage work-focused conversations from the earliest possible opportunity and help MSD to better match people to suitable job vacancies.
The bill will also reduce the amount of time someone who is on jobseeker support has before they reapply for the benefit from 52 to 26 weeks. This means that clients will have more frequent engagements with MSD about employment.
As this bill goes through its third reading, I would like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its considered recommendations to improve the bill and, in particular, their recommendation to include two further non-financial sanctions: report job search and upskilling. These additional non-financial sanctions will be available by October. I want to put on record my thanks to the officials who worked hard on this very important piece of legislation and the MSD staff that get up each and every day to support New Zealanders into employment. I also want to thank the members of the public and organisations who provided both written and oral submissions on the bill.
Once more, I want to remind members of this House and the public that the non-financial sanctions proposed in this bill will only affect those who are not complying with their obligations. Most people on benefit are doing the right thing, and these changes will have no effect on them.
The bill represents another step forward in refocusing our welfare system, creating a more transparent, accountable, and work-focused environment for job seekers. MSD front-line staff do an amazing job, actively engaging with job seekers, informing them of their obligations and responsibilities and the consequences when they don’t through the traffic light system. But they also provide incredible support to help New Zealanders find work. This matters because work is more than about money. It also gives people a sense of purpose, independence, and connectedness, leading to a better future and helping families to break out of the cycle of intergenerational welfare dependence.
Simply put, our Government believes that people and families are better off in work, our economy is better off when people are in work, and our Government is committed to making this a reality. I commend this bill to the House.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very sad to hear that type of kōrero from the Minister for Social Development and Employment because the reality is that this bill makes life hard again for beneficiaries, who feel they’re very much under attack from this Government. We’re talking about some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and we would like to think the Government would be working a bit closer with them. We have opposed this bill all the way through. We think it’s grossly unfair and far too punitive—is certainly the position that we, as Opposition, have taken up, certainly the Labour Party position.
It’s grossly unfair to Māori who make up—we’re talking 15 percent of the population, yet Māori account for 36 percent of all main beneficiary recipients. The miserly bill doubles the period—and that’s the problem here; we were certainly tested when we were in Government over this—during which obligation failures are counted against someone, adds non-financial sanctions for first failures, and forces beneficiaries to reapply for their benefits every 26 weeks. That is very, very tough on whānau who are already struggling—already struggling at ground level, already struggling in the community. You’re talking about a devastating effect, perhaps, on families who don’t deserve to be going down that track. So it’s not a bill about supporting people; this is a bill about punishing people, which, sadly, is how this Government is being perceived out there in the communities.
It’s another attempt by the Government to blame beneficiaries instead of taking responsibility for their policy that has spiked unemployment numbers. Why punish the unemployed for an unemployment problem that this Government has surely created? While they’ll say that there is no major increase in terms of unemployment figures, the unemployment figures are still at an unacceptable level. Māori unemployment is up to 10.5 percent, with an increase in terms of 7,000 more people going on to benefits.
We’re particularly disappointed because when we were in Government, and when I was an employment Minister, Māori affairs Minister, Māori development Minister, there was a focus in terms of targeted programmes—targeted programmes in terms of women, targeted programmes in terms of Māori, targeted programmes in terms of Pasifika. These now are programmes that this Government is withdrawing from. They’re not seeing the benefits of a targeted and focused programme. Benefit and jobseeker numbers have risen significantly under this Government as a result of worsening economic conditions—I think we understand that—but this Government needs to take some responsibility for the consequences of their actions instead of blaming the unemployed for being unemployed.
The Government has all but given up trying to get beneficiaries into work and now it’s trying to, essentially, force people away by making accessing the benefits they are entitled to increasingly difficult. This is something that we traversed through the committee stage, the difficulties that some people have in managing this and working with AI and working with computers. You’re talking about sometimes people with multiple problems, difficulties just trying to survive, and then all of a sudden, they have to reapply for a benefit. Doubling the amount of time a failed obligation counts for does nothing but further punish job seekers. It certainly doesn’t help them find employment and it is a disproportionate punishment, especially if they’re caregivers. Again, the Government is not showing enough empathy, sympathy, and aroha in that direction.
Similarly, making job seekers reapply every 26 week is only designed to make being on jobseeker support an increasingly frustrating experience. It’s just to force people off regardless of whether they’re going into employment. Enforcing money management as a non-financial sanction could lead to a variety of issues, especially if beneficiaries spend more than half of their entitlements on rents and bills such as water and power.
This malicious and spiteful legislation is nothing more than whipping the poor and then charging them for the beating. The Government is, essentially, admitting it would rather punch down on our most vulnerable rather than do anything to help them materially improve their lives.
Not only are these suggested changes cruel and counterproductive, they’re also unfeasible. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has admitted—again, we traversed this through the committee stage, and we also had feedback from MSD—during scrutiny week that they’re already under huge pressure as their front-line operational capacity has remained broadly unchanged. But they have had 700 cuts in terms of their backroom staff. So how do you ask an agency already under huge pressure to roll out the Government strategy and programme? It is next to impossible. Don’t get me wrong, there are good people at MSD. They worked with us, and they worked with the Government, but they are not social workers. They are not social workers. But they are also not robots and they’re not machines. They can’t roll out a Government strategy when they’re undermanned and having to do multiple things. So 700 cuts to the backroom staff would make it near impossible to roll out a tight programme that the Government wants.
The rise in main benefit recipients now mean they must serve an additional 30,000 more people. We’ve already seen a decline in accurate assessment with a quarter of beneficiaries not receiving their full entitlements. Now the Government has heaped more pressure on MSD’s operational capacity, essentially doubling the amount of jobseeker applications MSD must process in any given year, notwithstanding the forecast rise in job seeker numbers.
This is on top of other requests that the Government has heaped on them, such as implementing the traffic light system—a very controversial system—and increasing the amount of job seekers eligible for case management, increasing the amount of sanctions imposed on beneficiaries, increasing the amount of meetings the job seekers must attend. It’s not always possible to attend all these meetings. As I said, some of these people are struggling as it is. Miss the meeting, miss their allowance. Miss their allowance, miss their pūtea, the money owing to them, the whānau suffers.
Government has to look at this. The Government has to be more understanding that sometimes it’s not about a second warning and it’s out; sometimes it’s about a third, fourth, or fifth warning. I know that’s hard for some on the other side to understand, but when you give up on them, you have to understand the consequences in terms of that family and in terms of that community. I know that people on the other side do work at the coalface with some of these people, but understand some of the difficulties that they have to go through.
The regulatory impact statement (RIS) alone shows the Government should not have proceeded with these changes. Clear as a bell, the RIS for this bill highlights one of the consequences—and this is what I’m saying—may be that MSD will have to direct more resources towards compliance and, therefore, away from employment initiatives. They will literally have to put less resources into helping beneficiaries to work. Surely, the principle of this is to get them into work, but it’s going to have the opposite and adverse effect. Research cited in the RIS highlights that sanctions may increase mental and physical health problems, including substance abuse and poverty. The RIS highlights that previous work on reapplication showed that cancellations of the benefit as part of the reapplication process often led to a new application, suggesting procedural denials rather than ineligibility. The RIS also highlighted that focusing on those close to return to work via case management was almost certainly to the detriment of long-term beneficiaries.
In summary, this welfare policy will hurt people, not help them. I denounce this policy. We in Labour absolutely denounce this policy. It is the wrong policy. It is too punitive. It’s about punishing people all the time. We need to take another way. We need to look at things a different way, a more embracing way, a more aroha way. That is the view of Labour, and we will stick by that and put that again in place when we’re back in Government. Kia ora.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): The Government has outlined their formula to get us back on track to grow poverty, grow inequality, grow the number of people living in their cars, and this formula includes cutting benefit increases, keeping benefit levels below the poverty line, then increasing unemployment, followed by increasing benefit sanctions. And just watch as more people experience material hardship and food insecurity, and as UNICEF reports that Aotearoa continues to be one of the worst countries for children’s wellbeing in the developed world.
The Minister should be ashamed to even refer to this bill as supporting people into employment, because there’s nothing in this bill that does this—absolutely nothing. She either did not read the bill or is just choosing to omit the bits of this bill, the majority of this bill, that will simply push people further into poverty. The so-called non-financial sanctions—and that is, I think, an inaccurate description of what they do—will push people further into poverty. I think calling them “non-financial sanctions” is simply incorrect, because let’s outline the benefit sanctions that are in this bill, and what they do.
Compulsory money management will put 50 percent of someone’s income in a payment card that then they won’t be able to use to pay their rent, to pay their bills, or for other basic essentials, when we know that most people on the benefit are already paying 50 percent of their income on rent. We know that this benefit sanction, deemed “non-financial”, will literally leave people unable to keep a roof over their head. There’s a financial impact in here.
Then let’s look at community work experience. Most organisations who were consulted reported that they were not so keen to participate in this because it actually destroys the purpose of volunteering and it burdens those volunteer organisations. That benefit sanction will do nothing to adequately support people to engage and to be part of their communities. And what’s worse, people subjected to the sanction as well as others will be unable to access things like hardship grants. For those who don’t know, people on the benefit, many of them, rely on hardship grants on a sometimes regular basis, sometimes even weekly basis, just to survive. How can we call these sanctions “non-financial” when they strip away people’s ability to access the very assistance that allows them to sometimes have food on the table?
Then we also have two benefit sanctions that were added later in the piece—terrible lawmaking process, because the Minister outlined in the Cabinet paper that she intended to do this and didn’t let anyone in the public know until later in the select committee stage, stripping away people’s ability to submit on these two other so-called non-financial sanctions. If the Minister was so confident about the process that she was following in her policies, she would have let people know of her intentions so that these sanctions could be adequately scrutinised.
Let’s talk about the so-called job-search report, which will then force people to apply for three jobs each week, but then those people won’t even be able to access the assistance that then allows them to enter into employment—so, for example, financial assistance that allows them to have access to uniforms, that have access to transport, that have access to a vehicle that allows them to get into that very same job. Literally, what the Government is doing is making it harder to get into employment, and no matter how much evidence we present to the Minister over how benefit sanctions do not work—they simply push people further into poverty—the Minister seems to not care, but I actually think that it’s beyond the Minister not caring.
The Minister always intended to increase poverty in this country, because I cannot see anything in this legislation that does otherwise, and we’ve already seen the impacts of Government policies. For example, there is the stripping away of subsidies that allow people to access basic essentials, such as prescriptions and such as public transport, and that number is growing—the number of children who don’t have the bare essentials. like food at the table, to just be well.
It’s really clear to me that there’s nothing in this bill that will support children to thrive and parents to find employment. It’s also clear to all of us—it doesn’t take anyone doing an economics paper to know this—that there are not enough jobs out there for every unemployed person on the benefit. Those are facts. This means that the Government has not just relied on increasing unemployment—they haven’t created enough jobs to actually ensure that everyone who’s unemployed has an opportunity to get into work—they gutted benefit increases only to then increase financial sanctions.
But I want to also believe that a different future is absolutely within our grasp, because, under the last National Government, I was privileged enough to actually take part in a campaign to get rid of a benefit sanction affecting solo parents. At the time, around 2017, there were 17,000 solo mums who were affected by the sanction for simply not naming the other parent of their child, being stripped away of income support. The National Party then did not care. They did not care about the fact that solo parents were being pushed deeper into poverty as a result of this benefit sanction. They had no evidence of working. They constantly opposed repealing it.
But we changed the Government and we got rid of the sanction, and if it were up to the Greens, we would not only get rid of the sanctions imposed in this piece of legislation but all benefit sanctions, because it’s actually the Government’s responsibility to show us and demonstrate that their policies are working as intended. So far they haven’t. They’ve gone off vibes; they’ve gone off cruelty; lack of empathy. But we should not expect anything else from a Prime Minister that called people on the benefit, during the campaign trail, “bottom trawlers”. This is the kind of attitude that the Government members take when it comes to the people living in poverty—using names, conjuring beneficiaries who they’ve never met to simply try to make ideological points and punch on those that are literally sometimes sleeping in their cars, often many of them receiving income support, working to make ends meet.
What’s worse is that in this piece of legislation, the Government also narrowed the definition of what we call “work gap”, which is the definition that allows people to then apply for a benefit by narrowing who is considered to have a work gap. Effectively, what the Government is doing is limiting who can access income support. This is to get them on track for their target of 50,000 less people on the benefit. It is not about getting those 50,000 people into work; it’s simply to strip 50,000 people of income support. The Government has admitted that they don’t care where those people go when they are not on the benefit. They simply want to get 50,000 people off income support.
For what? To pay for tax cuts for landlords. That’s basically their motive. They’re taking away resources from the poorest people in our country to give money to the landlords. It shows that this Government is reheating their nachos by bringing back policies from the 1980s: having massively increased unemployment and inequality simply to give bucks to the wealthy few.
I want us to commit—and I commit everyone on this side of the House, at least from the Green Party—to fighting back against this piece of legislation. We commit to listening to the voices of people on the benefit, and we bring them with us in our campaigns to change this Government and have an income support that allows people to live with dignity. In fact, I would say that caregivers form a large part of who is on income support. It’s the work that is actually the most under-appreciated by this Government, because if this Government appreciated caregiving, raising children, they would not have income support for those that are raising children, and are focusing on raising children as a primary task, below the poverty line. This Government has decided to treat caregiving obligations as not worthy of livable incomes.
I want to mihi to everyone out there doing their best to access income support under our Government, that is making it harder for them to do so at a time where even Work and Income staffers are telling us that their phone line is “oversubscribed” because of the policies that this Government has introduced. We even have the case managers telling us that they don’t have the capacity to help people and continue with programmes to prevent homelessness because of shameless and terrible, cruel policies that simply increase poverty. We know that something is terribly, terribly wrong. No matter how much the Government members on the other side may try to spin this as a positive thing to help people get into unemployment, the facts speak for themselves: this bill will increase inequality, poverty, homelessness, and will not support people into employment. No matter what the Government member says, it doesn’t actually match the facts that are in all the reports, all the evidence, all the research—because they don’t care. All they’ve cared about, as they’ve indicated to us, is calling beneficiaries “bottom trawlers”, punching down on those who need help the most, and increasing unemployment. This isn’t a Government that is here to serve the many; simply to serve their wealthy few mates.
We will fight for an economy that works for everyone and to repeal this terrible and shameful piece of legislation as soon as we get back into power. Let’s make this a one-term Government.
SPEAKER: It is appropriate for a member in a debate to raise points that are of a debating nature. It’s not appropriate to use language that is attributed as a quote when it is out of context. So it’s an interesting contribution to the House, but a contestable one.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Social Security Amendment Bill. It’s great to see that this bill has come for the third reading and, after the third reading—hopefully, it will be going through the House today—that the changes that this bill intends to bring will be implemented.
On this side, we really want to encourage people to get into employment, but listening to that contribution from the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March, it seemed like people who go out to work are doing something wrong, and that people who are sitting on a benefit are actually doing something right and that they should be supported to stay on a benefit. On this side, we want to see that those who are on a benefit—I know there are some circumstances because of which people end up on the jobseeker benefit—are supported so that they can get back into employment. There are some people who are always actively looking for employment, but there can be a small fraction of people, those who are on the jobseeker benefit, who get demotivated after some time and then become too relaxed, staying on a benefit. We want to make sure that they understand that if they continue to stay on a benefit, it’s not going to help them, it’s not going to help their family, it’s not going to help anybody, and it’s better that they continue to look for employment. For that, we are putting several mechanisms in place in our welfare system.
The existing traffic light system: I don’t understand why the Labour member said that the traffic light system is controversial; it’s actually quite a transparent system. It makes it very, very clear where people sit when it comes to their compliance. The other thing that the Green member has, I think, missed seeing is that these sanctions are only for people who are not complying. If people are complying, there are no sanctions. If they don’t comply with their first obligation, if they miss that, there is this money management sanction, which the ACT Party campaigned on, and we are really happy to see that this is being implemented through this legislation. Fifty percent of their funds will be put on a card. They will be able to use this money for essential goods, so it’s a non-financial sanction. Money is still there, but it’s the form they get money in that is going to be different.
Community work: how could a member criticise the requirement of community work? This is just five hours per week for four weeks. Community work will give these members the opportunity—those who are on the jobseeker benefit—to go out and interact with different organisations, meet with different people, and maybe that is how they will find their new opportunity, their new job: upskilling. Why would people not want to upskill when they are on a benefit? Of course people would like to see that they are being upskilled—they get that opportunity.
Reporting on a job search: if they are on the jobseeker benefit, I don’t think there should be any hesitation reporting on a job search. But somehow the speeches that I’ve heard from the Green member and from the Labour member are kind of stigmatising job-searching. On this side, we want to see that people are actually going out and actively looking for opportunities, because we want to see that everybody is able to flourish. All these changes that this bill brings are actually good changes. We want to see that these changes are actually helping people, motivating people. These changes are to remind people that their circumstances can change, and that’s why the Government is putting these kinds of changes in place: so that we can support people to get back into employment, to do well for themselves, and do well for the community as well.
I would end by saying that the Labour member and the Green member, the contributions that I heard from them, were basically indicating that it’s totally fine to be dependent. On this side, we want to encourage empowerment; on that side, they want to encourage dependency. It’s very clear from their contributions, and it’s very clear from our contributions what we are advocating for. We really want to see people being successful in their lives, and that’s why we support this bill. Thank you.
TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Social Security Amendment Bill. I’ll stick to the facts. I heard a lot in the previous contributions about this not being a caring Government. The facts are we are a caring Government. Anybody who goes into public service has a heart for caring, and sometimes caring has a different look. Our way of caring is encouraging people to get out there and make their lives better, and sometimes that is giving someone a hand up, rather than a handout. That’s what caring looks like. New Zealand First is very much about taking responsibility for our lives. It means helping people who need help, but also helping those who want to get out and make a better life for themselves. We see that the introduction of some of these processes and controls not only makes the system more efficient and effective but it also gives people a reason and an opportunity to step up in their lives. So that is why New Zealand First will support the bill.
I’d also like to make a mention to all of the people who work at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). Whilst they’re not social workers, I hear and have had feedback that many people have had extraordinary service from them. I just want to acknowledge them, because every single person that they help, they never quite know, maybe, where they’ve gone in their lives, but every now and then you’d get a phone call from someone and say, “Do you remember? You helped me once upon a time.” So I just want to acknowledge all of the MSD people out there who are working hard in service to the people of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori this afternoon to express our unequivocal opposition to the Social Security Amendment Bill. When I think about this bill, I think about a whakataukī that we serve by at our marae “Amohia ake te ora o te iwi, ka puta ki te whai ao”
[“Support the health of the people and they will achieve wellbeing”].
The health and wellbeing of our people is paramount, and we must do whatever it takes to ensure our people are well.
Seventy percent of Māori are under the age of 40, one in three Māori is under the age of 25, 30 percent of our people are on the benefit, and 35 percent of our people are the working poor. The unemployment rate is skyrocketing to 10 percent. It’s unacceptable. This legislation is under the guise of promoting employment and reducing welfare dependency, which threatens to exaggerate poverty, undermine human rights, and disproportionately harm Māori communities. We’ve been hearing from both sides of the House this afternoon about what’s not working, what should be working, how it should happen. I want to share my experiences out in the community, front-lining with people.
Hon Member: Urgh.
TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP: Yes, here we go again. You know why? Because I tell you a real story, a real story from people I sit with and have sat with, to hear their stories of struggle. Of course, “Pōhara Street” is alive and kicking.
Whānau talk about how hard it is. Whānau are struggling out there, on the daily. They can’t make ends meet, and these sanctions are taking away, for them, their livelihood, because the benefit, for some families, is the only option. Don’t get me wrong; there are whānau out there who don’t want to be on the benefit and they want to live a better life, but there are just some things that stop them from doing so.
Can I talk about the families who come off the street every day, at the marae. They actually ask for jobs. They want a job. They want help with a job. They can’t get one. Do you know why? Because they have backgrounds and pasts that the system doesn’t allow them to move past—their past. We’ve had whānau that have come off the streets that have come out of jail, they want jobs but they can’t get one; or there is an employer who wants to give them the opportunity to get that start, but when the police vetting comes back, they haven’t met the criteria, so they can’t get the job. So they’re back and they’re needing to be on a benefit. Do you know how that feels for those whānau? They feel shame. They feel whakamā. Therefore, the cycle continues.
There were programmes out there that were able to help these families actually get better employment options. They could put them through training. But those funding opportunities for providers have disappeared. Funding has disappeared, and our people are no longer able to seek opportunities to further benefit themselves. I tell you, being whakamā is one of the most horrible feelings to have as a whānau member, and Māori providers are always out there trying to ensure we do give our people a hand up. They don’t actually want a handout; they want a hand up.
I also want to say that we need solutions. There are solution. Whānau Ora is a solution. The Kaiārahi workforce is a solution. Bringing Ministry of Social Development workers out from behind their desks and into the communities, working alongside providers and partners, is a solution. But the bigger solution is that our whānau need to know how big their voices are, how important they are. A hundred thousand people marched. There were 307,000 submissions. We heard those voices, and we want to continue to listen to the voices of our people. The biggest voice for whānau, though, I can say, is that we need to ensure this Government is a one-term Government. Kia ora.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this bill, not just in principle but with deep disappointment at the process and the policy. At every stage of this bill’s journey, the public, the experts, and the Minister’s own officials have told us clearly and consistently that this is going in the wrong direction. Community groups, disabled advocates, parents, young people—thousands of people took the time to engage with this legislation, and 97.5 percent of them opposed it, yet despite overwhelming evidence and lived experience, this House has chosen to pass this bill that will make life harder for those already doing it tough.
The Government has spoken often about responsibility, but this bill shirks its own by refusing to uphold the most basic responsibility of all to ensure that people can live in dignity. Let’s talk about what this legislation really does. It introduces sanctions that will prevent people from accessing hardship assistance—that is non-financial. That is missed meals, unpaid bills, and eviction notices. It is parents unable to get their children to the doctor. It is families being pushed further to the edge in a cost of living crisis.
We heard from CCS Disability Action that these sanctions would directly harm disabled people and their whānau. We heard from Save the Children about the financial strain of repeat medical assessments for people already fighting to access the correct benefit, and the truth is that many of these people shouldn’t be on the jobseeker benefit at all. Systemic barriers keep them from accessing the supported living payment. That is not a failure of an individual; it is a failure of the system, yet this bill compounds that failure by adding more penalties, more hoops, and more bureaucratic hurdles.
This House was told that 41 percent of benefit entitlements are being mis-assessed—41 percent—that most sanctions are overturned on review, and that front-line discretion is being increasingly inconsistently applied, and instead of fixing these failures, this Government is formulising them.
The Green Party is also deeply concerned about the lack of transparency shown throughout this process. At the select committee, MPs were prevented from asking officials basic questions. That is not just bad process; that is undemocratic. It leaves Parliament to vote on policy without the full picture. That is not how good law is made. If the goal here was employment, where is the investment in what works? Where are the policies for accessible transport, community-based training, or proper childcare support? If the goal was dignity, where is the commitment to raising benefits above the poverty line? Where is the plan to tackle homelessness, not worsen it? This bill answers none of those questions. Instead, it embeds deeper inequality, punishes people already let down by the system, and sets us on a pathway that will only increase social harm in the long term.
The Green Party believes in a welfare system that lifts people up, not locks them out. We believe in evidence-based policy. We stand today with the thousands who raised their voices, with the families who feel the weight of this law, and with the communities who deserve more than performative responsibility. They deserve justice and dignity.
This bill should never have made it this far. We urge the Government to stop, to listen, and to change course. You can still course-correct. We recommend that this bill be discharged and that this House turn its attention to what really matters: ending poverty, not entrenching it.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment Bill. This bill aims to make the welfare system fairer, more effective, with the aim to empower people rather than trap them in dependency. The majority of New Zealanders are in employment; there is a small number who are not. We help them—the taxpayers help pay to support those people. We want to give them a hand up; we don’t want to keep them in dependency, and that’s what this bill is about. For 15 years, the only option has been financial sanctions for people who don’t comply with their obligations. This is introducing non-financial sanctions to help empower those people. We want to lift individuals and families up. Fundamentally, we believe in New Zealanders and how much they are capable of, and that’s what this bill is about. It is a good step forward. We are here to support people, but people need to comply with their obligations—98 percent of beneficiaries do. For the small number who don’t, we will support them to develop the skills they need to get back into employment. I commend this bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this bill. I want to contribute something a little bit different to this debate, but I think it’s absolutely where we should have our eye on the ball. This bill is a cynical distraction from a deliberate decision to create more unemployment in this country. One of the things I was proudest of as a backbencher in the last Government was that our unemployment rate fell to a level it hadn’t been at before, and it was very clear that we were moving people who had been in families where there had been what I would consider systemic, ingrained unemployment into employment for the first time.
We are back to levels of unemployment I am concerned about, and it isn’t by accident. I was in this House when we reversed the law that meant that the Reserve Bank Governor, when they were making decisions about their monetary policy which has a huge impact on employment, had taken away from them that they should be mindful of maximising sustainable employment. We were told that this was because they couldn’t possibly do two things at once.
Well, actually, I would say that maximising sustainable employment is absolutely the core to the same thing that the Minister got up today and said. She said, “We all want people in work”. I agree. We all want people in work. We want to maximise the people in work. But what I’ve heard—and it’s like listening to your drunk uncle. I hear from some of the people in the Chamber things like “People are sitting on the benefit.” Well, there might be people who need to have strong sanctions and obligations, and they were already there. They have always been there. There have always been sanctions for that little group. Most of the people who find themselves unemployed this year who were not unemployed last year, the reason that they are unemployed is because this Government chose to have a policy where it prioritised other parts of the economy.
Maximum sustainable employment means the level of employment where, if you have more, it puts pressure on the economy and inflation goes up. There’s an interesting irony there. It’s, basically, saying that those people who are unemployed are doing everyone else a favour because they’re keeping the pressure on wages down. So it’s one of those ironic things. We actually rely in our conceptual thinking on having a group of people who are unemployed so that wages don’t go up, and when there are less people than maximally sustainably employed—when we have less people employed than that—wages tend to go up. Well, good luck. I’d love them to go up. Yes, our economy might need to be readjusted, and our thinking might need be readjusted in other ways, but we need people in this country employed, because I agree with the Minister that it’s absolutely paramount that we focus on everybody being employed and wages going up in this country.
There is too much of a divide between people. I know that often lots of us will be a part of circles of people where people are earning enormous amounts of money in this country. I’d like to remind the public when they’re thinking about sanctioning those who are unemployed and talking about people who sit around on the couch—first of all, I’d like to remind them just how much those benefits are. It’s about $353, I think, if I became unemployed tomorrow. Now, butter in this country has gone up. It’s gone up about from about $4.50 earlier this year to $7.50, I think, on average. Actually, if you googled this, you’d find that the amount that butter is is something like $11, quite often. So if you find a $7.50 butter, you’re lucky, and we’re talking about $350. Toothpaste would be about $5 for one of the economy brands. So take the $300 that we’re talking about here and think about what happens if you’re suddenly unemployed tomorrow.
We pride ourselves on having a safety net, but it’s not the best safety net in the world. It’s not one, really, that you’d want to sit around for a long time on, waiting or lolling out on the couch, which is the myth that has been proliferated here and is proliferated by this piece of legislation. It’s just not a very nice lifestyle choice, is it?
Most people would rather work, and I am absolutely in favour of that, and I do want to bust the myth that there is no support on this side of the House for having a level of obligation and sanction, if that becomes necessary. But what we’re being asked to do today is focus on and demonise a group of people whose numbers have gone up in the last year because of a deliberate decision by this Government to create more unemployment because it wanted inflation down, and we’re being told, “Focus on them. Don’t look over here—it’s not us; it’s them. They’re just sitting around on the couch. They’re just behaving badly.”
Let’s just talk about one of those groups: the youth. They’re a really problematic group, and it’s really easy if you’re old to think that the youth are lolling around on the couch. You may even be able to find a few in your own family who are capable of such things. But, actually, if we look at the numbers, the youth in this country are facing an unprecedented crisis in terms of unemployment. Between the ages of 15 and 19, we have rates of unemployment that are 24 percent. That’s almost a quarter of people in that age group who have not got a job, and if we visit it on them and we say that it’s all their fault and that we just need to sanction them and kick them a little bit—if we take away their benefits, if we manage their money, and if we take away any level of respect for those people that all those things imply, what are we saying?
I have a lot of faith in that group of people. They have been through really hard times when the rest of us, when we were looking at unemployment due to the possibility of a pandemic—when that happened to us, we created a wage subsidy. The unemployment benefit wasn’t good enough for us. People who came into sudden unemployment were given more than the group we’re talking about now, because that wasn’t good enough for those who were suddenly going to be unemployed because it was a group we identified with and whom we knew had mortgages and obligations—and we didn’t find them at fault.
It is very easy to think about the people in that situation—that 5.1 percent right now. Those workers at Kinleith, that group of youth—it is very easy and tempting to demonise them. But we actually treated ourselves a lot better when, in fact, it was our turn to be suddenly unemployed, and, actually, that was the right thing. To reach out and support people in that situation, to support them more realistically, and to get them through that crisis was something that the Labour Government did proudly.
All the barking on that goes on about all the wastage and the waste of spending and the debt—I remember the National Party clamouring for further subsidies. Further subsidies for their mates who—[Interruption] That’s what was going on. They were actually clamouring for more spending at the time, and now they’re sanctimoniously not doing so.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can we come back to this bill—come back to the bill.
HELEN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will. I am simply responding to the heckling I’m getting because I’ve obviously touched a nerve.
To return to this bill, I think the point of this bill is to distract New Zealanders. I think it is that kind of approach that is so easy in politics. Find yourself an easy victim, an easy enemy, one that makes it attractive to people. Talk about people sitting around on the couch, when in fact it’s not that people have sat around on the couch because they weren’t sitting around on the couch in the Labour Government; there were record amounts of employment and that is something that actually changes the game for people. That’s a game-changer.
So I am proud to be part of a party that thinks about people in a very different way, and values our youth and values our potential. It is time for New Zealand to think very carefully about the next 20 years and what it wants, because, with silly little bills like this that are trivial and petty and cruel and are actually just blaming and distracting, this Government has things to learn.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to correct a statement I made in the House during slot No. 3 of this debate.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. During my speech, I used the term “bottom trawlers” to refer to statements that the Prime Minister has made in the past. I was referring to “bottom feeders”, which was in the context of quotes where he said “bottom feeding” in relation to welfare in 2023, during the election campaign.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Noted.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Social Security Amendment Bill is aimed at enabling beneficiaries to get back on their feet by getting back into work. I commend this bill to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a bill that punishes young people, and I have four points to make about how it does so. But, first, I want to talk about a young woman that I met in my electorate of Manurewa recently. I’ll call her “KJ”—a really cool young person just trying to get ahead, recently enrolled in a course about building and construction, and getting back on her feet. She lives in one of the amazing youth facilities for homeless youth. For the first time this year, she experienced sleeping at a bus shelter. She was 16 at the time. She was living with her nan and a number of her cousins before that. She was working in a warehouse after school, packing groceries. She left her school for that job, which then fell through for her when she moved in with her boyfriend and it, ultimately, wasn’t a safe environment for her.
There are many young people like her who experience homelessness in our communities in South Auckland. These are young people with no adult in their corner, nobody who is looking out for them, and nobody who is making sure that they are going to school fed, clothed, warm, and dry. Nobody in her life who is able to provide her with some guidance and some support to get back into her education—until she was one of the people lucky enough to find her feet with a social housing organisation like the one that she is in now. But that social housing organisation has a waiting list of 300 young people between the ages of 15 and 19, and that has increased 200 percent since last year.
There are more and more young people who are facing not only homelessness but joblessness and a lack of education opportunities. They are the people we are considering today when we pass a piece of legislation like this, which introduces new sanctions that can be novelly and uniquely applied to young people. These are sanctions that other jurisdictions we like to compare ourselves to do not use against young people, because young people are the most vulnerable people when it comes to the burden of meeting the requirements of something like this. Young people who experience a situation like KJ’s deserve our help, our support, and all of the resources of the State to get them back on track. This bill does exactly the opposite of that and will punish people like KJ, who have had a bit of a break.
It’s a real shame to look at this kind of bill, which ignores the reality of youth unemployment, when this is also a Government that is crushing the industries that employ young people—14,000 construction jobs gone since the day this Government took office; a major employer of young men in the electorate of Manurewa, almost one in 10 young men employed in the construction sector. That industry is on its knees because this Government will not invest in a pipeline of public infrastructure builds and housing builds which we desperate need. Youth unemployment is not about sitting at home and languishing away; it is about a lack of opportunities, not a lack of motivation. Young people in New Zealand are hopeful for their futures, but when they don’t have jobs to go to because of the economic choices taken by a Cabinet that ignores their needs, they are being deeply let down by the people who are meant to represent them—many of them too young to even have a say in the democratic process.
It’s young people like KJ who are going into an employment market now where they will be systematically disadvantaged, because it is these years when they need to get their start. The National Government says that they want to get young people into employment opportunities. Well, it’s people like her who are competing against 35-year-olds because those 35-year-olds have been let go. It’s the same experience I had in the global financial crisis, when young people like me were competing for jobs with people who were much older and more experienced than us, because the total size of the number of jobs in our economy drastically shrank. This Government is overseeing a steeper economic decline, and a steeper decline in industries, like building and construction, which generally employ young people.
Punitive sanctions like this also increase the reapplication frequencies and, therefore, punish instability. People, like KJ, who don’t have general access to a car or general access to transport, who face burdens to actually get into the office, let alone the technological burdens of being available online or through the phone, are also then disadvantaged by having extra sanctions placed on them.
This bill also extends periods where one mistake will be recorded on their record. If KJ gets something wrong, it will be on her record for two years. She’s only 17; she will muck this up. Other people will too. This is a bill which actively stops young people getting ahead. This is a Government that has made choices to make it harder for young people. This is a Government that should be ashamed of that record.
NANCY LU (National): People who can work should work. People deserve to be more independent, on their own, and have a life away from welfare. People also deserve to have a Government that is fiscally responsible and that will help those who need help to be on their own two feet and enjoy a better life. So, therefore, I fully commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Glen Bennett.
Hon Member: Oh no, not this guy!
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It’s funny, isn’t it? It’s hilarious. It is really funny, as we stand in this House this afternoon, and as we criticise our most vulnerable, that it is a joke.
So, as I stand here, controlling my anger and my distaste for—as I stand in this place, which is so artificial. This place has no natural light. This place has no natural air flowing through. This place is in many ways a cocoon that protects us from the outside world and from what is reality.
I think this is what this bill actually is about. It’s the disconnection from the grassroots. It’s the disconnection from the light and from the air of humanity that we need to address and talk about this afternoon. There’re laughs and there’re jeers, and I’m fine with that because I don’t expect anything better from the Government side of the House. The last time I spoke on this bill, I was mocked.
Joseph Mooney: Somebody’s in a fantasy world.
GLEN BENNETT: I was accused of being in a fantasy world—and, again, this afternoon—and I do not live in a fantasy world, because I live in the real world. I live in a community. I have been at the grassroots and continue to live in that community where this means something for them tomorrow.
This means something for them tomorrow because the journey they have been on, the experiences they have lived, are the reason many of them unwillingly sit on a benefit, who unwillingly have to go into the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) office, and have to go there not under their own will or choice, not happily or with delight, but with shame, but with embarrassment. I’ve sat in the MSD office in Wellington, I’ve sat in the MSD office in New Plymouth countless times with people who are embarrassed, are ashamed that they can’t pay their own rent, that they can’t fix their own car, that they can’t feed their own family. Yes, we say we need to be punitive: “They can just go out and get a job. It’s all good. Fine with them.” We always have to come back to circumstances. The problem with this artificial room with no natural light is the fact that we actually can’t see because it’s so within the small box of legislation. You have to look out beyond that box and you have to look—
Joseph Mooney: Do you want to speak to the bill a little bit?
GLEN BENNETT: I am talking to this bill. You have to look out of the box of this room, Mr Mooney.
Mr Mooney said that National is about being fairer, National is about being more effective with our money—that’s what he said. He said they’re all about a hand up. We agree that it’s about a hand up, but we don’t think it’s about a boot in the guts. We do not believe in that. We believe in a hand up and we believe and know that our communities are better, our communities are richer, our communities are more prosperous when everyone has a hand up. We are with that, and we are on that kaupapa, and we want to make sure it happens. As I stand in this box that is so sterile, I think we need to reflect on those who we are talking about and we actually need to be talking with them.
This legislation does a number of things. I don’t really need to go into it because it’s been addressed several times already in the third reading, but I think we need to look at, actually, the reality of what it does out there. Does this fix the problem of unemployment? No. Does this lift people’s mana? No. Does this lift our society and our communities of people who aren’t able to find work? It does not. All it is is a kick in the guts, and it’s unfair.
We look at the unemployment numbers for our NEET community—our young people who aren’t in employment, education, and training. In the March quarter, there was just over 12 percent of our young people who are aged 15 to 24—it was almost 13 percent, actually—who are not in education, not in employment. We as a community need to stand up for them and make sure that they have every opportunity they have. I look at the community and the young people I have walked alongside for many years—
Joseph Mooney: I’m hearing nothing about this bill.
GLEN BENNETT: I say to that member who is shouting out at me, if they walked at least a week in their shoes alongside them, they’d understand there are challenges that are there and we need to step up for the sake of a hand up. This is not a hand up; this is a boot in the guts. This will push people down.
The other thing in this legislation I want to address is the capacity of MSD. During scrutiny week last year, MSD admitted that they are pushed beyond capacity. This is just more paperwork, red tape—have we heard of that before? This is more sanctions that MSD staff have to work on and have to deal with. We look at the rise in terms of those on the main benefit. We look at the fact that jobs in the backroom of MSD are going backwards by at least 700, and we wonder how, not only from a practical level but a humane level, we can actually agree to legislation like this in the House this afternoon.
Now, the Social Security Amendment Bill is something that we will never agree on—we will never agree on.
Joseph Mooney: You don’t understand it. You haven’t read.
GLEN BENNETT: Thank you. Do you want to have a chat or a yarn, Mr Mooney?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, no one’s going to have a chat across the House, thanks.
GLEN BENNETT: I just think it is disrespectful and it is rude and it is arrogant—it is arrogant—that this member would just continue to barrage myself in terms of what we’re doing and what we’re standing up for today.
I have a young person who is in my life, and the circumstances of their life I don’t need to even go into in this House. But I remember about two years ago, he came to me and said, “I need to get a job. I’m struggling and I need to get a job.” And I said, “Great. Let’s figure this out. Let’s figure out a CV for you. Let’s put it together.” So we sat down and it was not easy to write a CV for this young person who, through circumstances not of their fault, they had never been in work since dropping out of school—circumstances not of their doing but in terms of family circumstances that caused trauma and serious harm to this young person. Is that an excuse that he sits on the dole? No, it’s not an excuse, but it’s the reality of why he’s there. So I helped with this one-page CV, which was very limited to name, contact details, what they like, their personal statement about who they are as a person. We put that one-page CV together, and then proceeded to go around New Plymouth to every tradie, every small shop, every business we could think of to give him a chance to get a job.
It didn’t work. He had no experience. He had been given no opportunities whatsoever. There was nothing that anyone wanted to touch this young man with because of experiences that had gone through his life which were not of his doing. Then, of course, the fact that there was no proven record. So he had to go back into the Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) office. He had to go back and continue to be on the dole. I remember sitting with him in the WINZ office that afternoon, after we’d spent probably three months just popping CVs in and around. The fact that he was actually so whakamā that I had to talk for him because he’d tried but he gave up—he thought, “Why would I bother?” It’s why would you bother when the door gets closed on you time and time again. I stand with him and I still stand with him, and I hope and I pray that he will get a job one day. But all I can do is stand beside him until that day comes.
This legislation isn’t fair. This legislation doesn’t pick people up, and I am opposed.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): The Opposition can talk all day about the unemployment rate and how people struggle daily, but words are meaningless without action. On this side of the House, we focus on delivery. That’s why, last month, I organised a job fair with the Auckland Business Chamber to help people in Mt Roskill to get back to work, because we believe that employment is the key to break the cycle of poverty. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security 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.
Bills
Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) 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 CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2025.
New Zealand faces a significant infrastructure deficit. This has spanned generations and different Governments. To acknowledge that fact, to admit that fact, is not a politically partisan point; it is, in fact, simply reality. As our population grows and our existing assets continue to age, demand is mounting for us to build smarter, faster, and better, so that we might boost this nation’s productivity and lift living standards for all New Zealanders. This challenge is particularly pressing for our transport networks. We need these routes to operate a 21st century standard, to move goods from Kiwi farms to global markets, to ensure that first responders can reach people in need, and to allow everyday Kiwis to get to work safely and efficiently so that our economy can continue moving.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, the Public Works Act 1981 is the legislative tool that gives central and local government the authority to acquire and manage public land for the new infrastructure that New Zealanders need and deserve. I think it’s fair to acknowledge—again, over a period of time and not a politically partisan point—that aspects of the operation of this legislation are no longer fit for purpose. Inefficient processes are causing costly delays, and too often the only progress on a project is a legal battle dragging on in a courtroom. These hold-ups are escalating costs and slowing the delivery of new roads, schools, housing, renewable energy projects, and hospitals. I should also add that as a matter of fairness to landowners, faster and fewer processes are most certainly needed. Our proposed amendments to the Public Works Act, on which I’m speaking right now, will accelerate the delivery of critical infrastructure which is essential for New Zealand’s economic growth.
Speaking now as to the scope of the bill, it is designed to respond to the current critical infrastructure deficit and, as such, will apply to a finite set of projects. I’ll make this point again at the close of my remarks, but for the clarity of the House now, I point out that other reforms in relation to the Public Works Act will be progressed by the Government separate to this—a bill on what we’re calling “critical infrastructure”. The bill will streamline the Public Works Act’s land acquisition process for critical infrastructure projects that are listed in a schedule to the bill. These are public works projects that are listed on Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and the roads of national significance identified in the Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024. I should also emphasise that only the agencies that already and currently can use the Public Works Act to acquire land or interest in land—these being the Crown, local authorities, and network utility operators, that are what we know as “requiring authorities”—will be able to use the critical infrastructure process. There’s no broadening of the mandate of the legislation in that respect. So just to be very, very clear, private entities cannot acquire land under the Public Works Act, and this is not going to change with the proposed amendments to the legislation.
Talking now about a replacement objection process—the bill introduces a faster, fairer land acquisition process by replacing landowner objections to the Environment Court, with a streamlined submission process. It outlines the new objection process and establishes the criteria that decision makers must use when determining whether land can be compulsorily acquired under the Public Works Act. Importantly, judicial review remains an option, and I’m confident that this process ensures natural justice rights are upheld. Judicial review, as members will likely know, relates to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. It’s the right of a person who is affected by Government decision-making to go to the court and to test whether the authority of the executive branch of Government has been exercised in a way that is reasonable. That much will not change, and goes to the important point around natural justice rights—for example, the right to be heard.
The Public Works Act separates public works into central government and also local works. The decision maker for central government work is the Minister for Land Information. A local authority, on the other hand, is the decision maker for a local work, as you might expect. Most land acquisitions under the Public Works Act are settled by agreement. In other words, a compulsory acquisition does not need to take place in the majority of cases. However, when objections are made and these reach the Environment Court, costs rise hugely for all concerned and project timelines blow out. The bill’s proposed submission process will significantly reduce delays by allowing a decision within approximately 60 working days by the time the whole process is played out at its maximum, compared with the six to 12 months, or even longer, that it can take for the Environment Court and subsequent court hearings to hear objections. So while the bill streamlines the objection process, it will still require agencies to negotiate in good faith with landowners for at least three months before compulsory acquisition is considered.
Addressing now the subject of incentive payments to encourage agreement—of course, noting that whether it’s the streamlined process or the current standard court process, it is better for all concerned if agreement can be reached on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis. To encourage landowners to reach agreement, therefore, on land that is needed for critical infrastructure, the bill introduces an incentive payment of 15 percent of the land’s value for those who negotiate and sell early in the process. To ensure the scheme remains affordable, payments will be capped at $150,000, with a minimum payment of $5,000, notwithstanding the calculation that’s otherwise made on the percentage basis. In addition, there is a recognition payment regime whereby the legislation provides an additional 5 percent recognition to landowners whose land is acquired, whether by agreement or compulsorily, as acknowledgment that their land is being used for critical infrastructure which will serve a significant purpose in improving the lives of their fellow New Zealanders. This payment has no minimum amount and is capped at $92,000. Of course, those who are adept at mathematics—of any gender—will know that the combined total of these is $242,000 where both incentive and recognition payments apply.
I should emphasise again, for the sake of clarity within this House but for anyone also following along closely who may be affected by such moves—in a positive way, I hasten to add—that the recognition payment and, where applicable, the incentive payment that I’ve just outlined will be made on top of the existing compensation provided under the Public Works Act. So the new critical infrastructure incentive payment will replace the limited incentive payment regime currently under the Act, but again I emphasise, it is on top of the 100 percent of the value of the land that is already able to be established. In addition to the point I made earlier about the retention of judicial review avenue, so too will the Land Valuation Tribunal remain available to determine compensation disputes.
I think it’s also important to highlight that protected Māori land will be excluded from this regime in a way that I’ll now point out. The Government acknowledges that the historic confiscation of land, including through the previous versions of the Public Works Act, is a source of pain for many New Zealanders. In contrast to that history, more recently, acquiring Māori land for public works has been, and will remain under this regime, a last resort. Protected Māori land, as defined under the Public Works Act, cannot be acquired through the new critical infrastructure process. Owners of this type of land retain their full right to object through the Environment Court. If land acquisition must occur, such landowners will be eligible for the recognition payment and, where applicable, also the incentive payment to ensure that their role and contribution are properly acknowledged with respect to their unique connection to the land. That’s a matter of legal and moral force, as far as I’m concerned.
Agencies will be able to opt out. In other words, those who are responsible for critical infrastructure projects will have the ability to opt out of the new process on a project-by-project basis. If they choose to opt out, then any landowner objections will continue to be heard by the Environment Court, as under the current system.
Finally, transitional provisions are provided for in the proposed bill. They’ll allow agencies to maintain momentum for critical infrastructure projects where land acquisition processes have commenced before the enactment.
Finally, or my additional final point—my final, final point—is that there will be a review after three years to ensure that the legislation is operating in a faster and fairer way as we intend. As I’ve said earlier, in addition, there is a broader review of the Public Works Act outside this critical infrastructure kaupapa, and we’ll have more to say about that and more in the House in due course. In the meantime, though, I look forward to colleagues’ contributions, and I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): I’m just wondering whether there were any other final points from the Minister.
We hear from Government “and we’re here to help”—it’s often said when officials come knocking on the door. Unfortunately, the Public Works Act is not one of those areas where most people see a huge benefit. Indeed, it’s a piece of legislation that’s been in place for a long time, as the Minister said, and it’s necessary to ensure that we do allow for infrastructural development across our country. In many places and at many times and on many occasions, landowners and the Government are aligned; they still see the value of actually developing a work or a project that often impacts on the private land that someone might have or the interest that they have, and that moves along reasonably smoothly, and has done over decades, really, to give us the infrastructure we have. But, from time to time, conflict arises.
The Labour Party will support this piece of legislation, but we do expect the select committee to scrutinise this very carefully, because there are some serious questions that need to be answered. The Minister has said, and we agree, that there is an infrastructural deficit across our country. It’s been exacerbated at times—take, for example, the previous National Government that brought in “sweat the assets” on the roading infrastructure and then increased the tonnage of the trucks. That actually led to the rapid decline in the roading network that we’re facing across this country, and I’m sure my colleague Tangi Utikere will raise those issues.
The projects in Schedule 2 are, for the most part, transport—there is one big housing project, but they’re transport. What isn’t in here is a list of water projects. The National Party and ACT—and New Zealand First too—criticised and slammed the Labour Government for its water initiatives, called “three waters”, and said it would throw that out and would put other alternative initiatives in place. We’re yet to see them. We’re yet to see any infrastructural proposals around water for this country. We have a couple of discussion documents and a bit of a proposal that tries to rope councils in, but, actually, we’re not seeing much action. So, I do say, while we welcome the list of transport projects in here, and one for housing, there is a deficit in the deficit list that we should be looking at.
Look, the Minister has outlined some of the technical details of the legislation, but I’d like to refer to the issue of property rights, which is where the conflict occurs in the Public Works Act: that is, the property rights of a landowner and then the objective of Government to move through that. The Government has got itself into a bit of a bind, I have to say, because it’s been talking about the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, which will form part of this process down the track, but enhancing property rights, it says—RMA reform and enhancing property rights. Well, I’ll put on the record now that jurisprudence will determine where the balance of that lies into the future. All the learnings, all the experience, and all the judicial advice that comes from the RMA in its cases over many years will be thrown out, and so people who think that they’ve got better protection for their property rights, through the RMA reform, are being misled by this Government once again.
This bill rides over property rights, for good purpose; that is, it moderates them. It doesn’t allow access to the Environment Court; people can choose to go to the Minister for decision making. This, potentially, might streamline the process, but it doesn’t give any guarantees. The incentives through additional payments are a good step forward and probably will incentivise that hurry-up, but there is in section 39AAM an ability for the changes to be made to that compensation. The select committee, in my view, should scrutinise that: why should changes be able to be made when we’re passing this through the legislation?
Labour will support this, but there are many questions that need to be answered by the select committee, and I know that my colleagues will be referring to some of those. Yes, we need good cooperative behaviour between landowners and the Government in infrastructure development, but we need to ensure that the balance is always maintained between property rights and the Government and other fairness through this process.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The country that we live in does need investment in infrastructure. The most pressing need is for infrastructure that rapidly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, that helps us stop the loss of biodiversity, that helps us end child poverty. There are so many things that we need to be investing in and, unfortunately, this Government is not making the right choices, by and large.
This bill seems to be directly linked to the Fast-track Approvals Act, which the Green Party opposed, and it is not the reform of the Public Works Act that we need. We do need to reform the Public Works Act, and I was really sorry that Government MPs did not vote for my colleague Hūhana Lyndon’s member’s bill that would have righted a historical wrong and made sure that Māori land was no longer taken in the same way under the Public Works Act. Of course, that was voted down by this Government—hardly a surprise. This bill is the next stage in the fast-track approvals process, which is all about bulldozing through key critical checks and balances from the compulsory land acquisitions process in order to facilitate projects that, by and large, are taking us in the wrong direction.
It doesn’t even matter whether you don’t believe in climate change. I’m sure there are Government members who don’t believe in climate change and don’t think we should do anything about it. The irony is that the vast majority of the transport projects listed in Schedule 2 don’t even stack up according to the supposed objectives of the Government itself. If we want a transport system that’s reducing cost, that’s improving productivity, that’s helping more people and goods move around the country, the vast majority of the transport projects listed in Schedule 2 do not do that. They certainly don’t make improvements in a cost-effective way, and we know that from initial cost-benefit analysis. Although, if you ask the Government now for any information around cost or benefits related to any of the many highway projects that they are proposing to fast track, they will say, “We don’t know the cost.”
So they’ve made these projects a priority without knowing the cost and without knowing the benefits. We have decades and decades now of evidence about what supports economic productivity and what the opportunities are for countries in terms of reducing the cost of moving people and goods. It turns out that what’s good for the economy or productivity is also what’s good for the climate, is also what’s good for consumers. That is not spending billions of dollars on four-lane highways in cities or in the middle of nowhere, because there are more cost-effective ways to do it. The Government MPs just have absolute blinders on when it comes to this.
They will say over and over again that they care about cost-effectiveness, they care about economic productivity, they care about growth, and yet they will consistently support projects—really, it’s like cargo-cult economics. They’ve been to some richer countries, and they saw some big roads and they think if we build them here, it will facilitate economic development. Go learn something about transport economics. It’s so interesting. It’s so fascinating. There are huge opportunities for New Zealand to reduce the burden of transport costs and it’s not through four-lane highways at any cost anywhere. It’s actually a bit deranged what’s happening. It’s a bit deranged the way they’re so convinced that a four-lane highway is the answer to any problem in the absence of any actual economic analysis.
The Green Party is not going to support this bill. We’ll be looking closely at it at select committee. As has been mentioned by the Hon Damien O’Connor, there are real tensions between the things they say they value—like private property rights—and this sort of bill which, basically, gives more power to the executive to compulsorily acquire land. They make up for it through making it possible for people who have their land taken to get maybe a bit more financial compensation. However, that doesn’t reflect the fact that for many people, whenua doesn’t have that monetary value; it can’t be replaced with money. There is an attachment to the land that must be respected and there’s more than just humans living on the land, and we should respect all life.
We would like to see a reformed Public Works Act. This isn’t it. This is just a Government that is very autocratic and seems to hate the environment and has no concept of the challenges that are actually facing us.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. The Minister in charge has already gone through everything that this bill does, so I won’t take too much of the House’s time. But what I would say is that we all know that we need to deliver a lot more infrastructure and we need to deliver in a timely manner, in an effective and efficient manner, but we also know that, when we are delivering infrastructure, there are a lot of processes, a lot of steps that are involved. Land acquisition is something that is a very important step when we start thinking about any new infrastructure.
We have seen that some of the processes need streamlining. So what this bill does is it streamlines the objections process that is experienced when the step of land acquisition comes, and it also introduces some incentives. So what we want to see is that the process is faster but, at the same time, the process is fairer as well. Of course, we want to hear from the submitters in the select committee process. My colleague Cameron Luxton is on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I’m sure that the contributions that submitters will make in the select committee process will be taken on board.
So we look forward to seeing in what form this bill is reported back from the select committee. The ACT Party supports this bill. Thank you.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I’m delighted to rise to speak to this bill—[Knocks water glass] That’s not a good start!
It’s all about making sure that we improve our economic productivity, and where I wanted to go to—and this is front and centre for New Zealand First—was the Infrastructure Commission. They presented to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which is where this bill is going to go to for consideration. What they said to us was, “We’re investing enough money in infrastructure in this country to do the job that we need to do; the problem is that we’re not getting value out of that money.”, and what is happening there is that the processes, in many cases, whether it’s the consenting process, the Public Works Act processes, etc., are holding the country back. So it is essential that we make sure that the Public Works Act process is efficient, and that is what this Government has been doing a lot of work on.
As we’ve heard already, taking land compulsory is a really, really significant step. It’s important that there are safeguards there. What this bill does, though, is to make sure that the Ministers who will make decisions in this case have to step through the same criteria as the Environment Court would have done previously, and that gives some protections there. It also brings in, as you’ve heard, some incentives to try and reach agreement first, and that’s obviously an important thing that needs to be done.
But I did want to tell you one very, very quick story and it’s the story of Mt Messenger. We’ve already talked about that last week in respect to the Wildlife Act. You have a new road being built up one valley, through a hill, down—OK, you don’t have a new road, Madam Speaker, but there is a new road being built up one valley, through a hill, and down another valley to then make the whole highway system work better. The problem is that somebody at one end of one valley is not willing to sell. The process has got convoluted. The New Zealand Transport Agency have had to do a very, very complex, very ingenious structure to try and make sure that they can actually build the road, but it is going to come at a cost of hundreds and probably hundreds of millions of dollars because of one person holding out in terms of the Public Works Act. If this was made more efficient and more effective, that means all that money could have gone to something else, whether it’s roading, whether it’s public transport, whatever it might have been, somewhere around New Zealand. That is about making New Zealand fly faster, fly higher, go faster, and that is really important.
That is what this bill is all about. I’m looking forward to seeing it in front of the select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Kei konei ahau ki te whakamahara i te Whare ki ngā āhuatanga o te whenua, ngā whenua ka tangohia i te iwi Māori me tēnei pire.
[I am here to remind the House of the features of the land, of the lands that will be taken from the Māori people with this bill.]
Kia ora. I think, given the nature of the earlier debates in the House this morning, it’s really interesting that this Act, the Public Works Act, which has been around since about 1864, I think, is being amended to speed things up. Now, te iwi Māori haven’t had a very good history or relationship with the Public Works Act since its inception in 1864. We talked about the 1863 invasions, this morning, when Tauranga suffered great losses, land losses—all kinds of losses—and a lot of those losses were exacted out of them through the first iteration of this Act. There’s about 66 million acres of land in this country and, before the signing of the Treaty, Māori owned them all. There were a bunch of early land sales which were deemed illegal by the mid-1850s—
Carl Bates: Back to the bill.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Catch up, junior—you’ll learn about this. You obviously weren’t paying any attention this morning. Those land losses were deemed illegal. This would hold out until the 1860s, and, in the 1860s, Māori still retained about 80 percent of the North Island, where Tauranga is an iwi, where the invasions of Grey happened, where a lot of the land loss suffered by te iwi Māori was incurred. But, hey, hey, hey—get back to the bill! These people, I tell you—this is a Whanganui MP.
Māori have suffered loss of land from the Crown through the Public Works Act since 1864, and the scale of that land was probably somewhere in the range of 20 million acres, leading into the 1900s—20 million acres. Today, they want to show up with this piece of paper and tell me that incentive payments are going to build trust in te iwi Māori because it’s going to fix everything!
You want to learn to listen. You want to learn to go and actually speak to the people who suffered land loss on a staggering scale in this country, at the hands of this very legislation—at the hands of this very legislation. The Government, with all these boys from Tauranga who talk so wholeheartedly about their journeys as young men looking at ancient pā sites and battlegrounds—that’s the story in the morning, but in the afternoon it’s “Let’s push the old Public Works Amendment Bill through.”
Hon Casey Costello: Māori want roads, too.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: I’ll tell you about Māori and roads. Māori retained a lot of land into the late 1800s, and do you know what the Public Works Act allowed the Government to do? To put paper roads through that land and carve it up, because the Government was able to then go and take land that was 5 acres either side of that road, even if the road wasn’t built. So don’t throw your things around from that side of the House, because you know absolutely nothing about it.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.
TĀKUTA FERRIS: Don’t let the Government throw their ignorance around the House like it means something when the people in the Government obviously know nothing about the history of the thing. You’re in here pleading “Poor you” and “I’m going to look after Tauranga Moana” in the morning, and you’re here in the afternoon passing an amendment to the same Act that led to a lot of the devastation that the Māori people around the country have had to live with. So ka haere tonu.
[So it continues.]
By the 2000s, the retention of Māori land in Māori hands was down to about 4 million acres—4 million acres, and a large proportion of that was tied up in the Māori Land Court, which isn’t like the title suggests, right? It’s the “Pākehā Control of Māori Land Court”.
Māori suffer the greatest losses, and despite the guarantees or the hopes of the new legislation that perhaps, one day, Māori land will be valued at the same value as general land—why would that not already be the case? That’s another story for another day.
Anyway, here we are. We find ourselves listening to ideas all proposed on the premise of good economic productivity that has never managed to trickle down to te iwi Māori. So we do not support the bill. Tēnā koe.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): We’re in desperate need, as a country, to get on and build infrastructure. If you look at the estimates from the Infrastructure Commission, or independent consultant estimates, the need for infrastructure around this country is running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, so I support this bill. The purpose is simply to look at streamlining the land acquisition process under the Public Works Act for the Fast-track Approvals Act and those projects that are listed in Schedule 2—and, in particular, the roads of national significance, which is a high priority for this Government.
I look forward to the select committee process, as deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, along with my colleagues Andy Foster and Tangi Utikere and other colleagues around the House; we’ve got members from the Green Party here as well. I want to reassure people that you’ll get a fair hearing at the select committee, so I’d like to encourage people to submit on this bill. Particularly, I’m keen to hear from those who have been through the land acquisition process before, whether it’s private individuals, iwi organisations, or also private companies, just to understand what the current fish-hooks are with the Public Works Act and to make sure that we’ve struck the right balance with this bill. Otherwise, I commend the Minister for Land Information for bringing this bill to the House, and I commend this bill to the House.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be able to take a call on this bill at first reading. It’s a very important Act that this bill is seeking to amend, because it is one that when it is utilised, it is overtly empowering. What that means is it basically has the potential to railroad over many people’s rights. My colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor touched on those property rights and landowners’ rights that this has the interface alongside, so it is important that we do take some time to talk through some of the issues that might come up in select committee. As my colleague has said, we will be supporting this bill to select committee.
I look forward, as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, as Mr Bidois has said, to engaging with the submitters over this. I do hope that many people will submit to have their views known, because the need for safeguards in any form of empowering legislation is very important, and so that’s part of the process, so I look forward to that.
The bill has a couple of schedules attached to it. Schedule 2, which basically identifies the list of critical infrastructure projects—and it is a significant list. But when one looks through those projects there, the overwhelming nature of them are transport-related. When we look at the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit project, when we look at the Auckland Level Crossing Removal Programme, when we look at an alternative to the Brynderwyns, these are a whole range of transport-related infrastructure projects that are currently on the Government’s roads of national significance list.
Now, whether they actually come to fruition, of course, is another question, but it is interesting that they are contained here. When one looks at the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—interestingly enough, this is actually a Government bill that does have a RIS associated with it—it does identify that depending on the final decisions that are taken, any roads of national significance that are due for construction over that three-year period will need to acquire around 500 properties. That’s a significant amount, so it’s important that we do engage and hear from the community around this and, in particular, around the list of projects that’s contained in Schedule 2.
When I was having a look through there, there’s not much in the South Island, of course, because this is a Government that doesn’t really care about infrastructure in the South Island, but there is the Lower North Island Integrated Mobility there. And, of course, it’s good to see my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty here, because he is responsible for securing the funding for the Wairarapa line between Wellington and Masterton whilst in Government, and it’s good to see that there’s secured funding as well for the Wellington to Palmerston North line in Schedule 2 on page 26 of the bill. So it would be interesting to hear from communities in those affected areas about what this bill might mean for them to be able to deliver on the infrastructure needs of this particular project.
Mr O’Connor did reference the fact that I may wish to touch on some of the transport needs around infrastructure as they relate to this bill. While I have done that, I do want to pick up on the point that he has made around the real need for increased investment in infrastructure, particularly when it comes to transport. He cites, rightly, the one example—that the former National Government introduced an ability for an increase in tonnage of heavy vehicles to be travelling the rail network. What does that mean? It means an increase in the need for maintenance costs over a shorter period of time. So it’s these decisions that have led to the infrastructure deficit that this country is facing and so it’s important that we do think about this.
One of the concerns that we will be interested to look at, at select committee, is the role that decision makers will have. What has already been said from the Minister is that this will basically move some of that decision-making capacity from the Environment Court across to Ministers. While Mr Foster talked in his contribution about how Ministers will follow the same process, we must have our eyes open to the fact that it is Ministers that will be making these decisions—very different from those of the judiciary. So through the select committee process, we will be looking to tease that out to ensure that there is a level of robustness that is still within the bill to ensure that that is an important factor that is taken up.
So it is important to see this come through select committee. I look forward to working with colleagues around the House to see what we can do to make it a better bill. I commend it to the House.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): We are reforming the Public Works Act to support economic growth and to make it easier and cheaper to build infrastructure. This amendment bill will streamline the land acquisition process under the Public Works Act for critical infrastructure projects, such as the Crosstown Corridor, which involves constructing a railway from Avondale, via Wesley, Mount Roskill, and Onehunga, to KiwiRail Southdown freight hub. People in Mt Roskill will be very happy to have this project fast tracked as it will improve the transport network and benefit people in Mt Roskill. It will be a great day for Mt Roskill. I commend this bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As we listened to the arguments and the debates around the House, I’ve been reading up and trying to understand a bit about what this legislation is about, what it does, but also why it is necessary. I have questions around the need for this legislation. I have questions, but, at the same time, as, I think, our small—we often think of it as small and agile, but often it’s heavy and big and clunky. But we get to take things to select committee, where the public gets to engage, where we’ll get professionals from infrastructure industries, we’ll get people from the public, and we’ll get people from the environment sector to actually have their say and to engage in making the laws—which we present here at first reading—at select committee, hopefully making them better if they need to be, or throwing them out completely if they need to be, and that is a good thing. So I’m glad that the Government is taking this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I’m glad it’s not being rushed through under urgency, because there are questions when it comes to the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill.
I just want to touch on briefly, this afternoon, the role of the Environment Court. As I was looking through the legislation, there’s several references to the Environment Court. Looking at the explanatory note at the start, it talks about the fact that this bill is around “streamlining the objection process, which replaces the right to object to the Environment Court with a natural justice process allowing for written submission to the decision maker[s]:”—written submissions, not an oral hearing, not going to the Environment Court, but written submissions made to the decision maker. Now, that might sound OK on paper. It might sound like something that’s fairly non-offensive or that doesn’t cause any issues, but I believe that there’s something we need to dig into, we need to think about, and we need to understand.
Although legislation, as I said earlier, is done in isolation and we focus just on this bill, we look at what’s gone before: the Fast-track Approvals Act, which is mentioned in here, and what that does in terms of undoing some of our environment protections. We look at what this law does, if it goes through as it is currently written, and what that’s going to mean in terms of our environmental responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Environment Court.
I was reading up on this and I looked at some comments that have been made about this bill. It was Simpson Grierson who made a few thoughtful comments around some concerns they have. I think it’s always good to listen to experts and understand what they say. Like we’ve already said, we’re happy to take this to select committee to develop it more and to understand whether it’s something we will continue to support. But a comment that Simpson Grierson made was that in removing the Environment Court objection process, there are potential concerns regarding the independence of the primary decision-makers—as I said in my earlier comments, the fact that the Environment Court doesn’t participate but the fact you can write a submission to the decision maker. Simpson Grierson put some concerns around that. They put some caveats around the fact that we need to be cautious and we need to be careful.
Yes, I understand what the Government is doing. I understand that they’re moving things through faster. I understand that. But it can’t come at the expense of democracy. It can’t come at the expense of those who have skin in the game, whose land it might be, or who might have connections to that space—that they just get ignored or they just get to write something to the decision maker, because that is a concern.
Simpson Grierson also went on to say that this is a piecemeal and fragmented approach to legislative reform and it runs the risk that we’ll end up with a disjointed and confused Act.
Select committees are one of my favourite parts of being a politician—the fact that we get to thrash things out, the fact that we get to have a contest of ideas across the table, and the fact that we get to listen to submitters, to experts, and to concerned members of the public who want to have their voice heard. So we will vote for this this afternoon. We will take it to select committee. But I caution the fact that, again, there are environmental protections that seem to be loosened and relaxed by this legislation, and I think we need to take that into consideration.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): New Zealanders wanted a Government to get stuff done, and New Zealanders understand that that takes actually doing things. What this bill enables is agreement between parties to acquire land in order to move things along that need to happen in this country. It’s practical, it’s by agreement, it’s what New Zealanders want in terms of being able to get stuff done in this country. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 21
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Instruction to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2025.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Racing Industry Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 14 May.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): We are up to No. 5 and it is a National Party call.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, there were three key issues that came out of the select committee. Firstly, one was from the National Sporting Organisations. In short, they think they generate about 30 percent of the income but get 20 percent of the profits. They’d like a different proportion set in law. We think probably regulation is the place for that. It’s a fair point, but regulation may be better than capturing it in law.
The second was around new products—virtual, fantasy, and even things like in-race betting. Again, there are some valid questions there, particularly I think in the fantasy space. However, this bill is probably too narrow for them to be incorporated into that one.
The third issue was really around the monopoly issues, and, in particular—and we heard some discussion last night—around the fact that some bettors feel like they were banned because they were too good but they don’t get given a reason. At the moment, that’s in clause 8 of this bill. I think it’s a fair point to raise, but I do think there’s an open question about whether that should be captured in this primary legislation or in regulation. That would be worthy of a bit more discussion, perhaps at the committee stage. Other than that, I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, Mr Costley.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill for its second reading. This bill is to safeguard the long-term financial sustainability of New Zealand’s racing industry by extending TAB New Zealand’s existing monopoly on sports and race wagering to include online betting.
As my colleague Tim Costley just outlined, this bill was considered by the Governance and Administration Committee. They’ve poured a lot of time into considering the legislation, listening to the submissions received on it, engaging with the racing Minister as well, in particular. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): So this is the split call at call six, is that correct?
STEVE ABEL: That’s correct, yeah.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): So you realise that that call was missed, so I’m just alerting the members that when it is the call, for the party to take the call at the right time.
STEVE ABEL: Yes, I apologise for that, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t in the Chamber so I’m sorry for my lateness. [Interruption] Pardon me? I missed that. The Green Party is supporting this Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I just wanted to say that we are not dewy-eyed about the insidious character of gambling in our society. I have a now deceased member of my family that was of modest means but who spent a large amount of money on the horses and other forms of gambling. This is not an unfamiliar story in our country. Gambling can be a very destructive practice.
It is all important that if there is gambling that a substantial amount of resources are funnelled towards those who work in the prevention of problem gambling and help people who have gambling issues. Gambling is like an addictive substance. It is something that people get into a habit of and find it very hard to stop. It has similar effects on the brain as addictive substances. It is like a stimulant; the thrill of losing and the thrill of winning have a similar chemical effect. So the Green Party in supporting this bill is not endorsing the scale of a gambling sector that gives a relatively tiny amount of what it makes to dealing with those people who suffer the negative impacts of gambling in their lives that impact their families and impact their children.
Our party policy requires that we prevent new forms of gambling that are associated with harm and regulate all existing forms of gambling to prevent or minimise harm. So we take a harm minimisation approach similar to the approach we take on drugs. This bill does not prohibit online betting services by offshore operators—I mean it does, rather, that’s exactly what it does. It does prohibit online betting services. Online gambling is one of the riskier forms of gambling due to its easy access and easiness to conceal. Offshore operators are also not covered by New Zealand law and the protections provided by regulation and any income that offshore operators garner from New Zealand domestic gamblers do not contribute to those racing code distributions.
We previously have supported legislation in 2019 to introduce offshore betting charges with revenue distributed amongst the racing codes, which we determined was sensible, given the current racing industry provides a service to offshore vendors for no compensation. The same justification applies to prohibiting offshore betting.
The primary point of the bill is to protect the financial sustainability of the racing industry, and my colleague Celia Wade-Brown last night articulated very clearly just how dependent the racing industry is on income from gambling. But not just the racing industry; other sports are dependent. From memory, as much as 40 percent of the income of tennis in New Zealand comes from gambling, which is notable. Given our issue with the impact of racing on animals, for example—and I’m noting the clear and commendable position of this Government to bring greyhound racing to an end with the support of every party in this House—we are concerned at the impact of gambling, and we would like to see more efforts made to minimise it.
One of the obvious things that could be done—as a point of note before I finish—is the prohibition on the advertising by gambling outlets. Advertising has a very marked impact on those who are dependent on things from alcohol to tobacco to gambling, and it would be an easy step to prohibit the advertising of gambling in this country. That is something that I’m sure the Green Party would support. We will be supporting this bill, however. Thank you.
Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand in support of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I note a number of the comments from the submitters about, too often, the slow passage of legislation in the House, whereby, by the time this comes into effect, the sector will have moved on again. Such is the nature of online gambling and the way that people interact with the sporting sector. Noting a significant increase, in particular an interest at the moment, for example—I was checking on some statistics earlier—that betting out of New Zealand on matters such as the NBA finals, which are taking place right now, causes a significant spike in the betting. I don’t have a horse in that race. Sadly, my Los Angeles Lakers got knocked out early in the playoffs.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, what?
Hon PEENI HENARE: Yeah, I know, right? Everyone thought LeBron would take us to the glory land, but, sadly, that didn’t happen.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: But hey, “Up the Wahs!”
Hon PEENI HENARE: It’s always “Up the Wahs!”, but never say that it’s our year. I didn’t say that.
But you notice there is, as the season of sports continues to play out—and in particular in the US, where there’s a significant growth in interest from New Zealand and Australia in betting on sports generally through the US predominantly. I think one of the main reasons for that is simply because of the sports analytics related to the likes of NBA and NFL which far outweigh any kind of sports analytics that we might see here in New Zealand. But I suspect that that’s coming. I don’t think listening to Jeff Wilson, as much as I admired him as a rugby player—I don’t think listening to him as a sports analytic is going to help your betting odds. But certainly, as technology continues to show its impact on, in particular, the racing industry but more broadly speaking the betting industry, it’s important to make sure that legislation like the one we’re supporting here and the regulations that follow this, continue to keep up with the market.
We note that there was a significant number of submitters on this particular bill, predominantly in support. One of the common themes that came through from the submitters was the fact that—and my Green colleague mentioned it and I thought explained it quite well with respect to problem gambling and gambling harm. We know that in the legislation as it currently stands, there’s a view to making sure that those that are working in minimising harm from gambling continue to receive funds to be able to do that important work as we see the growth of this industry. We want to see that continue. We’re encouraged and heartened by the point that it’s in this particular bill to make sure that we continue to have a view towards minimising harm from gambling.
We note too that the provision in the amendment and the bill itself also speaks to giving the TAB the ability to identify problem gamblers, those who they can deny the opportunity to place a bet, which I think is important. However, I’d make the point, though, that the policing of that, I think, I’m not too sure how that might work. If it’s strictly up to the TAB to be able to do that, that’s fine, I get that, because that’s the one portal we’re trying to make here with respect to online gambling and sports betting, in particular on the races. But making sure that we can enforce that, continue to monitor to make sure that TAB are, indeed, fulfilling that particular part of the bill that we are debating here today.
The next part, which I think is quite important and it’s been raised by a number of speakers in the House, is the formula by which they distribute money to the codes here in New Zealand. There were a number of comments about making sure that those codes were well represented on the board. We know that the Minister can already appoint members from certain codes to that particular board. While this bill doesn’t exactly make sure that the Minister does that, because the Minister still has the right to appoint to the board anyway, we would encourage, through the ongoing dialogue with this bill moving forward, that we would be able to make sure that those sports are represented fairly.
On Sunday, I had the good fortune, thanks to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon Mark Mitchell, who helped me get along to the Tall Blacks and the Tall Ferns game in Hamilton on Sunday. Simply looking at the odds and talking to a number of people around me, people were extremely interested in how they might be able to be part of the betting syndicate or the betting fund, if you will, from Sunday. That’s why, with the significant growth and sponsorship that goes into basketball, I think, and we think on this side of the House, that it’s important that those particular emerging and growth sports such as basketball in this country can have a voice at the table when the dividends or the money is divvied out amongst the sports.
I already mentioned how it depends on the season and where people are betting and what sports are going on at the time. So you see those surges and you see it in New Zealand, and making sure that in the community that that support continues to flow.
Just one final point from me, because, as I say, we support this bill. The other point we want to make is around making sure that there’s an amendment in this bill that talks about allowing the Minister to receive information or data from the TAB. I think that’s a great thing. My question for the House and for the Minister, moving forward, is: will that data be transparently afforded to the New Zealand public? Is it data that could be reviewed and analysed by this House? Is it data that can continue to inform this House’s deliberation on the regulations moving forward? Whatever those might look like with respect to this bill. I think we’re already in great agreement across this House that data and information is king. I acknowledge that the Minister can receive and can demand that data from these sources, but we want to make sure that as we deliberate, that that data becomes available to this House and also the public, if that’s able to happen.
But none the less, we’re supportive of this particular bill. For those who, as I said, get into sports betting—I for one keep an eye on sports overseas. I’ve spoken about the NBA. Just finally from me, in the first week of September is the start of the NFL season. My Philadelphia Eagles won the Super Bowl recently and I expect them to repeat next year. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I won’t be taking a very long call, because I believe that my colleagues from right across the Chamber have actually iterated very succinctly what this bill is all about.
Having said that, I just want to go to the genesis of where this bill actually comes through. The background is the Racing Industry Act 2020 that, effectively, created TAB New Zealand as a statutory entity to manage sports and race wagering, actually empowering them to partner with offshore operators and introduce things like betting information news and point-of-consumption charges to generate extra revenue for TAB in order for them to support sporting entities. However, what actually happened is that the offshore operators, effectively, have captured the market, and TAB was not able to continue to fund the racing industry, which relies very heavily on the TAB revenue to operate. I think it’s really important to note that.
The Racing Industry Amendment Bill actually safeguards the long-term financial stability of New Zealand’s racing industry, extending TAB’s ability to give funding to sporting codes, and I think it’s a good thing. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee, who worked really hard, and the clerks and the advisers, who have actually given us expert advice. I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I’m not well known for my support of the racing industry. Having said that, I do enjoy going to the races on occasion, sometimes with my friend Kieran McAnulty; his tips are pretty good. Certainly, I’m pretty sure that he supports the racing industry via the TAB, as do many other New Zealanders.
I actually want to have a bit of a focus in my speech on gambling harm, because I do think whenever we’re talking about gambling and, being a responsible Government around gambling, we do need to think about gambling harm. In fact, one of the most harmful forms of gambling is online gambling, and whilst this bill won’t solve all of those problems, it will at least in respect of the racing industry. By making it illegal for operators—other than the TAB—to offer gambling around racing to New Zealanders, it means that there’s a tighter regulation around that.
It’s not often that we, kind of, support monopolies, but, in the case of sports gambling and gambling on racing, I think it’s appropriate for two reasons: one, so that we can have better oversight over harm minimisation, but also because of the fact that the TAB, in part, funds both sports and racing. So this is a good thing for both those reasons. I was quite gratified to see the good work that the select committee did, both around regulation-making powers, to just flesh out somewhat the expectations, or the ability to make regulations around different kinds of gambling harm and the responses to them.
We know that, in fact—perhaps bizarrely—when you’re gambling online, through an account, the ability to track gambling behaviour is greatly enhanced, so the TAB and anyone else in that space is able to see problem-gambling behaviour, see repeated gambling, and see the time at which people are gambling, and all those kinds of things. The ability to make regulations to do things like place time restrictions on when a person can bet or place restrictions around the amount they can bet, but also—and this is really important—put regulations around how to respond to people who self-identify as problem gamblers. In fact, that’s one of the main things people do—they kind of wake up the next morning and think, “What have I done?” They self-identify and say, “I’ve got a problem, and I need the operator”—here, the TAB—“to help.” It’s absolutely a duty on that operator to respond in a proportionate and appropriate manner, and there have been instances, in respect of some gambling operators, where that hasn’t occurred.
I just did also want to touch on some other aspects of the bill, and in particular the refusal of bets. In one sense, we can see why the TAB should be able to refuse any bet from anyone at any time, but I see now the select committee, in considering it, if you’ve got a monopoly operator—and people do gamble; they like to have a flutter on the horses or whatever—then we have to be a bit more responsible about turning people away. I think the committee actually landed at a pretty good place, which wasn’t actually to constrain the TAB’s ability to refuse bets; I think that it’s actually really important for them to have that ability. But they could make mistakes—it might be a mistake as to identity, might be some other mistake about the amounts they’re betting, or whatever it might be. Now, they have to give reasons for a refusal of a bet, and I think that’s a sensible thing to do. So if they’re like, “Oh, no, I’m not that John Smith” or “No, that wasn’t my bet; I was betting on behalf of someone else”, or whatever it might be, I think that’s a good thing.
Look, great news for the racing industry—good work. Pity about the pokie machines that aren’t going to be banned; that’s a real missed opportunity. I know that we would have done that, and I think that would have reduced gambling harm and been good for the community. But, overall, it’s a worthwhile piece of legislation.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment will extend TAB New Zealand’s exclusive right for sports and racing betting to include online platforms, but it will be a boost for Kiwi sports and racing. It’s expected that that revenue will mean more will be fed back into sporting bodies. I just had a bit of a nosy—in 2023, for example, in the Wairarapa electorate, some of the beneficiaries of the $17.8 million contributed to communities that year were Central and Southern Hawkes Bay Eventing, for cost of medical for an event; Wairarapa Cricket Association; Wairarapa football club; Wairarapa Bush Rugby Referees Association, that was for replacing gear; and Wairarapa Netball Inc. So there is a lot of good that comes from the contributions that they distribute throughout our communities.
I also had a good talk to a mate of mine from one of New Zealand’s premier thoroughbred studs, Sam and Catriona Williams of Little Avondale, and I think they’re still actually celebrating their success at the Australian yearling sale, where they sold a Zoustar colt for a record $1.7 million. The Wairarapa is still incredibly proud of their success, and Sam tells me that they’re absolutely in favour of this bill. So am I. I commend it to the House.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): I’m very pleased to be the final speaker on this side of the House to do with the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. It’s important that I make a contribution for the bill as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee.
Last night, we heard Minister Jones, in terms of the legislative statement to the second reading, and we know that the second reading is about the process on this bill. We understand that protection and long-term sustainability is very important to New Zealand’s racing industry. This amendment bill to the Racing Industry Act 2020 is to extend the TAB’s existing land monopoly for sports and racing betting to include online-provided wagering. Labour, under the last Government, had progressed some of the work in this space, and we are quite disappointed that the Minister has not taken on board those class 4 licences, which cause a lot of harm in our community, and has not factored it in at this time. So we look forward to the committee stage, where we can scrutinise and ask specific questions around online harm minimisation.
My colleague Tangi Utikere acknowledged and highlighted the workforce—the over 13,500 workers in the racing industry. Actually, if you include the volunteers and those who work at racing meets, that figure goes up to 40,000 jobs in the racing industry. That’s a significant amount of workers that contribute in terms of the revenue that is gathered for the racing industry, to the extent of $1.9 billion that is circulated into the industry. We heard also the comments and contributions on the relationship of TAB New Zealand and Entain, which is about 25 years old and counting, and we know that there’s a payment of $100 million secured as a result of that relationship—revenue that is continuing to be generated in Aotearoa.
I wanted to highlight, in my contribution, the online harm minimisation that is prevalent in our community. We’ve heard Dr Webb make some comments, and others in their contributions. It is really important—and for the record—the class 4 licences that are prevalent in our community cause a lot of online harm. Whilst, for the punters, it is their decision how they spend their money and where they go to in terms of the community, I wanted to raise the issues and the focus as to why harm prevention, consumer protection, and harm minimisation are really important issues. Under Labour, we did lobby that, for class 4 licences, there needs to be the understanding, of those in the racing industry, that whilst it brings revenue and the sustainability of the industry is important, there is another factor that the Problem Gambling Foundation and community groups have raised with specific MPs.
As an MP in South Auckland, I understand the importance of online gambling harm. There is a side that punters in our community have that choice; that’s not a problem. But where those that cannot control—they would like to gamble and continue to do that. It is affecting our Māori, our Pasifika, our ethnic community, and what is alarming is our younger population.
So the South Auckland communities—one of the things with the class 4 licences that I understand that was raised with TAB New Zealand, who then chose not to—[Mic static]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was just interference, but if I’m told different, we’ll do something different. Carry on.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: TAB New Zealand were then told not to—oh, I’ve lost my train of thought, but anyway. As we understand throughout Aotearoa, the online world for our younger generation is really prevalent. Some of the decision making that happens around online gambling—I personally believe that there’s not enough emphasis of not enough education. When you have a community who can make choices but they don’t have as much money as other wealthier communities, sometimes those choices for our young people can diminish.
Through the Governance and Administration Committee process, it was interesting to read some of the information and submissions by the national sporting organisations that wanted to say, “Yes, it’s good to have this revenue. Yes, it’s good to have the amendment of the Racing Industry Act.” But there is a big part of that to do with harm minimisation. So one of the things that I will continue to question in the committee process is: have we got the instruments right? Do the Minister and the officials—yes, there’s a big component around the revenue and what that brings into Aotearoa, but there has to be the commitment and there’s got to be the right legislative tools to be able to counteract.
One of the things that I want to raise and put on the record is the balance around online gambling harm, and specifically for Māori, for Pasifika, for ethnic people, and for our young people, particularly around the language of the tools that will provide the policies.
I did a bit of research in terms of the online gambling in New Zealand, and there were public submissions and I have a report here from June 2020 that I wanted to quote from. One of the things with the approach to harm minimisation that was raised by submitters was those experiencing problem gambling behaviours—there needs to be a specific ability to make sure that the tools that this legislation brings are achieving that balance. My concern is around, specifically, young people who don’t fully understand that when they have X amount of dollars only so far, what the harmful effects are for them when they make the choice to gamble online.
The research, in terms of what is provided here in one of the reports, is really important for people of Aotearoa to consider. When we in this House, in this Whare, are going through and making the legislation, it is important that submitters have the opportunity to express their views and provide different perspectives, and it is important that there’s a strong support and focus, in the right temperament, for harm minimisation, specifically for those with problem gambling behaviours. So what the evidence tells us—and what I’ve been talking to just in terms of the South Auckland area, which is one of the highest areas of concentration of the class 4 gambling machines and the proliferation to specific groups in our society, is important.
I have been to race meetings. I have appreciated that whole community. There have been people in my family who have gone to those meetings but actually end up with harm minimisation.
For the record, I wanted to raise those points whilst I have the time, because the thing with online gambling harm is it’s hidden; it’s 24-hour access. So there is a good side to it and then there’s the dark side of it. We who are making the laws in this country have to be cognisant of those features and that we achieve the right balance. We cannot ignore that—not in communities like ours in Māngere and South Auckland.
Just as I finish off, I look forward—whilst we on this side of the House disagree with some of the features that were presented, we will be supporting it through to the next phase. But I really want to stress that whilst we are getting it right for the revenue, the things around online harm minimisation and consumer protection are very important issues to our community. I commend this bill to the House.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be standing to speak on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill in its second reading. Look, I think it’s important to note that the profits from the TAB are directed back into sports and racing here in New Zealand, rather than having profits from betting going offshore; it is good to see that that money would be directed back into New Zealand.
One of the TAB’s goals is to increase participation in the racing industry, and this is an area where I have some experience. I’ve had the opportunity to contribute as part of a syndicate. I think we owned an ear of a racehorse, perhaps. There were 24 of us, I think, in the syndicate. We had three horses—thoroughbreds. The first horse was called Alvera, and, well, it won a few races and got a lot of seconds and a few thirds and provided us with a lot of joy. The second horse we had was Run Forrest Run, which, when it went up a grade, turned into Walk Forrest Walk, but it still gave us a lot of pleasure. The last horse we had was a horse called Lord Snow, who was no good at all, and we haven’t had a horse since.
But I do recommend it, actually. It was a great experience and it was a great way to follow the horses, be involved in the industry, know that you were supporting a trainer, and a lot of fun. So, with that little diversion, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Glen Bennett. This is a split call—it will be half of a split call.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will be half of a split call.
GLEN BENNETT: Half a minute—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, five minutes—half of a split call.
GLEN BENNETT: I’m a whole person but half a call. That’s OK. I rise as a complete novice when it comes to the racing industry. In fact, I have a confession to make that I’ve only—and the Hon Keiran McAnulty is behind me—ever been to one actual race meet, and that wasn’t even a real one; it was a demonstration one. But I’m sure I have some comeback, because it was at the Kentucky Derby. Surely that’s a comeback. So I’ve never actually been to a real, live, racing industry meet, but I’ve been to a demonstration at the Kentucky Derby, so, surely, that gives me some credibility to speak for at least—well, only five minutes, but I will try to keep my comments short and to the point. In fact, I’ve got no idea.
But I live in New Plymouth, and as you drive into the beautiful city of Ngāmotu, we have our wonderful race course that sits on the left-hand side, hovering above our beautiful Tasman Sea. It is a place of life and energy, it is a place that has race meets regularly, but also it is a place that’s under strain and under challenge. I guess, with modern society and as the world moves rapidly, and as previous speakers have said on all sides of the House, the challenge of our online world, the challenge we have of people being able to bet online 24/7. Although I’ve never participated myself, I do see the merit in a good afternoon out when you get to go to the races, you get to put on that beautiful hat and those really impractical heels and boots and whatever you wear, and go to the races on a muddy, soggy Taranaki afternoon.
But we need to consider the fact that with this legislation, we need to look at the harm that can be done, and so I feel confident—I never thought I would stand in this House and speak to a piece of legislation that was around gambling. Being brought up in the Salvation Army, it was something that was forbidden. But I’m glad, as I read through and look at our notes, look at the legislation in front of me, of the fact that something the previous Government began, and then something this Government has continued, is something that we on this side of the House, us in the Labour Party, can support.
But, as my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb did state earlier, there have been a few things removed, and we don’t feel that’s OK in terms of some give and take when it comes to downsizing of pokies around the place. But, unfortunately, that has been ignored when it comes to the legislation in front of us this afternoon.
But as someone who’s been at the Kentucky Derby and seen two demonstration races, I really want to acknowledge the proud history—and to you, Madam Speaker, I’m sorry if I get this wrong. But my honoured and learned colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty does assure me that we should always back a Sharrock in New Plymouth.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I couldn’t possibly comment. I’m neutral while I’m sitting up here, Mr Bennett.
GLEN BENNETT: I hope that’s OK. I hope I haven’t been set up. But we should always back a Sharrock in New Plymouth. For the whānau out there, the Sharrock whānau, who have been deeply involved in the racing industry for years, we acknowledge them and what they do, because it is around our economy. But we also need to work on how we prevent hurt and harm, and this legislation is something that goes some way to do that.
I just want to finally comment on some of the restrictions that some of the submitters talked about during the select committee stage. There were definitely submitters that raised concerns about the prior powers held by the TAB in New Zealand to restrict bettors from placing bets for any reason and without requirement to identify why bets were refused. They also went on to comment about this bill. They were concerned that it amends to provide the specific circumstances where TAB New Zealand can refuse a bet, such as having been identified as a problem gambler, convicted of relevant offences, or engaged in threatening behaviour to TAB staff.
It also specifies that the TAB must now inform the person seeking to make a bet as to the reason for any refusal. I think that is good because often in the past, it was something that was unknown to the better. It is good that the TAB must now inform the person seeking to make the bet and give them a reason for any refusal.
We support this legislation. We look forward to it going to the committee stage and to ironing it out. I know there are a couple of amendments already on the Table in the committee stage that we will be looking into. Labour supports the legislation.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to minimise disruptive impacts on the public, who often lose out, who are caught in the middle, when these partial strikes occur. I believe changes are needed to the strike provisions to help improve collective bargaining settings. The current strike provisions do not appropriately balance the rights and consequences in situations where there is not a total withdrawal of labour.
That is why, to achieve the bill’s purpose and to provide a far more effective and efficient bargaining environment where rights and consequences are better balanced, this coalition Government is restoring employers’ ability to make pay deductions in response to partial strikes, a mechanism that was in place between 2015 and 2018 and worked well.
A partial strike is a type of strike that is less than a full withdrawal of labour. This bill gives employers an additional tool to respond to partial strikes. It will help incentivise parties engaged in industrial action to return sooner to the bargaining table and reach agreement.
The previous Government took this tool away in 2018. This means that if an employee engages in a partial strike, the employer’s main options are to either take no action or accept the partial strike action and the output loss, or to suspend or lock out the employees for the duration of the strike. Doing this would obviously escalate the dispute and, when it falls to the public sector, likely increase the level of service disruption on the public. In this way, employers lack options to respond to partial strike action in a measured and proportionate way.
Since 2018, we have seen partial strikes disrupting services where patients face delays in receiving medical scans and treatments due to prolonged waiting lists, kids missing out on education, parents missing out on work, and train passengers left waiting at platforms.
I want to share some recent examples of how disruptive partial strikes can be. In August 2024, patients faced delays in getting medical scans and treatments because hospital-based MRI and nuclear medicine technologists undertook partial strike action, including limits on the number of scans completed each day. This resulted in a reduction of around 50 percent of scans, delays in early cancer treatment, longer waiting lists, increased outsourcing costs, and required additional front-line staff to cover the striking workers’ radiology work.
In 2023, students’ education was impacted when teachers undertook partial strike action which included refusing to teach certain year groups on particular days, disrupting both the students’ learning and their parents’ ability to work.
In 2024, the New Zealand Defence Force Public Service Association members took work-to-rule action, took coordinated breaks, and stopped working at heights or off site. In response, the Minister of Defence authorised uniformed personnel to cover civilian work in some selected areas.
I fully appreciate that employees can strike in support of their collective bargaining goals, but the disruption to the public and customer services that can often result from partial strikes should not continue without consequence. Restoring an employer’s ability to make pay deductions in response to partial strikes will help promote an early return to bargaining and reduce impact on third parties.
I’d like to take a moment to explain how the current law isn’t working and how my bill will improve it. There are no provisions to allow a more nuanced or proportionate response for employers to respond to a partial strike. Employers can either take no action and accept the partial strike action and the output loss, with a big impact on them and their customers, or suspend or lock out the employees for the duration of the strike, with a disproportionate impact on the workers.
This amendment will enable employers to make a specified pay deduction in response to a partial strike by either reducing employees’ pay by a proportionate amount, by using a specified calculation, or by deducting a fixed percentage of 10 percent of their pay. I believe it is important that the partial strike provisions are workable for employers, especially for those with large workforces.
Employers would be free to decide whether to deduct pay or not. If an employer decides to do so, before any deductions are made and for greater transparency for employees the bill does require that the employer provides written notification about the deduction to employees within specific time frames. I believe it’s important that employees are made aware of the financial impact of the partial strike action reasonably promptly. If an employee or a group of employees consider that the employer has incorrectly applied or calculated a specific pay deduction, the bill allows unions to challenge the application or calculation by requesting information relied on to calculate the pay deduction, and employers must respond to the written request as soon as reasonably practicable.
The Education and Workforce Committee considered a wide range of suggested amendments to the draft bill but concluded most were not needed. This is not surprising, because the legislation, like I said, was working quite well from 2015 to 2018. The committee did decide to express more precisely what different sections of the bill meant. These included, for example, ensuring that the union specifies in their strike notice whether employees will continue to do some work and clarify how to find an employee’s usual hours. I support these suggestions, and I believe the new legislation will be more effective as a result. I want to thank the committee for their work and all the members of the public who took the time to submit. I understand that some of the changes that the select committee took arose from good suggestions from those submitters.
I understand, also, that some submitters argue that the legislation would somehow undermine workers’ right to strike, weakening their collective bargaining power, or entrench poor working conditions. I don’t agree with this. Employees will have the same rights to strike as they do now; there will just be consequences for doing so.
My intention with this bill is very clear. Disruption to public and customer services that has resulted from partial strikes should not continue without consequences. I want to provide for a far more effective and efficient bargaining environment where the rights and consequences are more balanced. Restoring employers’ ability to make pay deductions for partial strikes will help minimise potential disruption to services and incentivise both parties to return to the bargaining table and reach agreement in good faith sooner.
This change to collective bargaining is consistent with the Government’s Going for Growth direction to reduce the compliance burden for employers and ensure settings are proportionate. I’m confident that this bill will promote more harmonious industrial relations across New Zealand. 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 think this is, once again, a piece of legislation that shows that this Government has no regard for workers in this country whatsoever. I’m surprised that the second reading is being held at a time when we have had such an attack over the last couple of weeks on our workers, particularly our women workers in this country.
I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee and heard the submissions. I just want to put on record here how many submitters there were. The committee received 620 written submissions on the bill. In support of the bill, out of those 620, there were four—I’ll just say that again: four in support of this bill.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Four, is that all?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Four, that’s all. Opposing the bill were 606; unclear on whether supporting or opposed was three; and overall view was unclear as submissions focused on potential changes to bill was seven.
The—
Simon Court: The party of victim-waiving narcissists disagrees.
Hon JAN TINETTI: Oh, did I just hear somebody over there talking about victim waiving? Yeah, it just shows what they think about workers in this country—absolutely shows what they think about workers.
Simon Court: What we think about you—what we think about you.
Hon JAN TINETTI: Yeah, Simon Court, that’s right—just for the record, so that we can get that on there too.
The rationale provided for opposing this bill—and there were six main reasons why people actually oppose the bill, and I want to go through those reasons that people gave during the select committee process. The first was that the changes will diminish workers’ rights to strike, or their rights generally. I heard that the Minister said that that is not the case. That is not what the people who were submitting on this bill were telling us throughout the select committee process. They’ve been in these positions before. They know between 2015 and 2018, they’ve had experience of this. They know that these changes will diminish their rights or their right to strike, and their rights in general.
The most common concern raised by submitters was the concern that the ability for employers to make pay deductions in response to partial strikes will have a negative impact on the right of workers to strike. That was from just over half of those submissions. They opposed this part of the bill for that reason.
The one that I really want to talk about, though, is actually the second main reason that was given as to why people were absolutely opposed to this particular bill. That was that deductions in pay in response to partial strikes are unfair, particularly when they are in response to work-to-rule industrial action. So what this could mean, Madam Speaker, is that you or an employer could employ somebody with the conditions of employment laid out so they have their hours of work laid out and they have their tasks laid out in their employment agreement, and then they, out of the goodness of their heart, volunteer to do extra work.
So let’s take the case of a teacher, as an example. In their employment agreement—the collective employment agreement which informs the individual employment agreements as well—hours of work are laid out in that collective agreement. Now, not many people know that but it is laid out in the collective agreement. Many of our teachers go over and above that. We know that. We know that sports teams happen, for example, when teachers spend their after-school time or before-school time coaching sports teams and, often, are really busy either in evening sports events or weekend sports events; arts and culture; rock quest—we had that here in the Legislative Chamber recently. Many teachers go over and above what they are employed to do, to be able to enable those young people to share their creativity with the world. They will go on trips and camps with them. But if they’re in the middle of industrial bargaining and negotiations and they decide to do a work-to-rule, this is what this bill enables to happen: they decide that they’re only going to work the hours that they are employed for, and there can be a pay deduction. Now, those extra hours are not in the collective agreement; they are doing that out of the goodness of their heart. But this bill will enable the employer—who will be, usually, the Ministry of Education in this point, because they are responsible for paying the teachers—to make a partial deduction.
Now, I thought, well, that can’t be true. I thought that maybe—because you’re employed for what you’re employed for, and I thought that can’t be true. So I specifically asked this question of officials at the Education and Workforce Committee, and the select committee said, “Well, yes, it does.” It can do that, and it is case by case, but it absolutely enables that clause, that work-to-rule to overstep the employment agreement and for there to be pay deductions that can be made. It says that in the departmental report, in case anyone wants to check that out and look that up. I have to say, it’s a very good departmental report that has been made on this, because it lays it out very, very clearly, but also all of those objections that were made to it.
Another theme that came through was that people were opposed because the changes will further exacerbate the current imbalance of power between employees and employers, and weaken employees’ positions in the collective bargaining. Now, something that has been noted in this House many, many, many times is the inherent imbalance in the bargaining process. We know that employers have the power of balance—the balance of power, I should say. We absolutely know that that is the case; it is well documented. But, unfortunately, the whole idea—and I’ve got colleagues in the House that can say this really eloquently because they’ve worked in this area for so long; that’s you, Helen White. They know that in any of these negotiations, the employee has only got that right to be able to strike in the industrial bargaining process to restore balance, and this is being minimised and taken away from them in this piece of legislation. That was something that people talked about.
They talked about the changes being inconsistent with New Zealand’s domestic and international obligations. That is a real concern, particularly in the international—well, mostly in the international obligations part of this. You know, we can look at the New Zealand part, and I encourage people to go and read the departmental report, but the international obligations—
Simon Court: The ILO doesn’t care about people who don’t get their scans though, do they?
Hon JAN TINETTI: —and I hear the member over there once again talking about the International Labour Organization. I’m talking about trade agreements, actually, Simon Court. So you should actually, Simon Court, do your homework on this and not just make your ideological judgments around this, because I think that that’s a very ill-informed interjection that you have made from over on that side of the House.
The last area that people talked about was that the changes will increase strike action and incentivise workers to fully withdraw their labour. This is something that is a reality when disincentives like this come in, to those partial strikes. The Minister talked about a specific example where a partial strike had happened. I’ve already had people say, “Well, if that’s going to happen and pay is going to be taken, we may as well go off full time.” That’s what this is trying to stop—to still give people that right to strike, but to ensure that productivity is maintained and not completely withdrawn.
I want to finish up by just quoting a press release that came out from Rachel Mackintosh, who at the time was the acting secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. She says, “Industrial action is supposed to help level the power imbalances in employment relationships that favour employers. This change undermines that and tips the balance of power even further in favour of employers by introducing a punitive response to legitimate industrial action. … The only winners of this Bill will be the lawyers. This legislation will lead to increased litigation, and prolonging bargaining and industrial action at the expense of both workers and employers.” Labour will not be supporting this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 May 2025.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.