Tuesday, 20 May 2025

TUESDAY, 20 MAY 2025

TUESDAY, 20 MAY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Social Justice Aotearoa requesting that the House initiate a select committee inquiry into the performance and structure of the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered four papers for presentation.

CLERK: Government responses to the petition of the Hon Julie Anne Genter, the petition of Maher Nazzal, the petition of Shinichi Yamada, and the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Alison White.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill

reports of the Environment Committee:

First scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the briefing on emergency management

report of the Health Committee First scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, and

First scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:

briefing on accountability settings and outcomes for Māori

First scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Chloe Hatch

petition of Jaeger Sims

petition of NZ Homeopathic Society, and

petition of Te Rito Maioha

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the:

briefing on drench-resistant parasites in farm animals

First scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill, and

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee First scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading, and the briefings and activities reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK:

Regulatory Standards Bill, introduction

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I have seen a lot of reports recently. Some suggest the Government should impose new taxes, ramp up spending, and increase debt. I completely disagree with those suggestions. An economic recovery is now under way, but we cannot take it for granted. More taxes, more spending, and more debt would kill the recovery and take New Zealand backwards. The most important thing for Budget 2025 is to ensure we protect and enhance economic growth. In Thursday’s Budget, we will do just that.

SPEAKER: Good. Well, just for clarity as we continue, answers to questions or supplementary questions should be from a Government perspective.

Cameron Brewer: What happens when the Government spends more than it raises in revenue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When that happens, the Government’s books are in deficit and it is borrowing to bridge the gap. Sometimes, running a deficit makes sense, but the thing to avoid is a structural deficit—when the deficit is not due to one-off events and not due to the current state of the economy. A structural deficit shows a fundamental mismatch between Government spending and revenue that would persist throughout the economic cycle. In 2023, this Government inherited a structural deficit caused by a sharp and unsustainable increase in spending. In Thursday’s Budget, members will see the progress we are making towards correcting that deficit with careful and responsible fiscal management.

Cameron Brewer: What happens if Government debt gets too high?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, higher debt means higher interest costs and, therefore, less money to fund public services. For example, the current interest bill on our debt is around $9 billion. For context, members, that is enough to pay for the entire operations of the New Zealand Police, the New Zealand Defence Force, the justice department, the Customs Service, and the prison service combined. Higher debt also constrains the Government’s ability to respond to a shock like an earthquake or a severe weather event. Treasury’s analysis shows that it’s unwise to have Government debt over 50 percent of GDP. I agree with that ceiling; so did Grant Robertson. Others think debt should go higher, then it shouldn’t, then it should again—it’s hard to keep up. For our part, the Government’s fiscal strategy is to put net core Crown debt on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent of GDP. Thursday’s Budget will show how we intend to achieve that.

SPEAKER: The question needs to be answered with some focus on the question.

Cameron Brewer: How will the Government fund new initiatives in Budget 2025?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Budget 2025 will contain initiatives to support economic growth and invest in the public services Kiwis rely on. The vast bulk of these initiatives will be funded from savings. As in last year’s Budget, existing areas of spending will be—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just stop there—stop. That’s just an unacceptable barrage. It’s not an interjection; it’s just heckling. It’s to stop. The Minister may continue.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As in last year’s Budget, existing areas of spending will be redirected towards higher priorities. Without these savings, new initiatives would have to be funded from yet more borrowing or by yet more taxes. Either would put New Zealand’s economic recovery at risk. Members opposite should consider—

SPEAKER: No—no need to comment on those.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who’s correct: the Prime Minister, who says the Government’s decision to unilaterally extinguish 33 active pay equity claims, covering hundreds of thousands of low-paid Kiwis—mostly women—and saving billions of dollars, was nothing to do with the Budget; or Brooke van Velden, who told the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that the pay equity changes hadn’t been a priority for her, but her Cabinet colleagues had asked her to bring that work forward?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As the Minister has described before, it’s been a focus for the Minister from when we came to Government. It’s been a series of conversations over the course of the last 18 months, and we got to the decision we made last week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government bring forward legislative changes to the pay equity regime—passing them into law immediately before the Budget—if not to save money?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because our primary focus is to fix the mess that we inherited to make it workable and affordable, and so that we don’t have librarians being compared to fisheries officers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit to revealing the impact on the Government’s accounts of scrapping all 33 existing pay equity claims on Budget day; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the first thing I’d say in answer to the member is that all individuals, all unions are encouraged—if they have a pay equity claim—to make a claim under the new laws. But of course, in the course of our Budget, we’ll be talking about our full fiscal situation on Thursday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is buying new military equipment no longer Budget sensitive, but the cost of a law change Parliament has already passed, extinguishing 33 active pay equity claims, is still Budget sensitive?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member will be aware from his time in Government that there is a series of pre-Budget announcements. Not everything is announced in advance of the Budget. Everything will be revealed on Budget day on Thursday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he continue to diminish the value of work being done by low-paid workforces that are dominated by women, arguing that it is somehow wrong to compare the value of their work to work of comparable value undertaken by men?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member: there’s nothing stopping individuals’ unions making a claim under the new pay equity laws. The way that the member and his party has characterised this is scaremongering, disingenuous. This is a Government that backs pay equity and it’s a Government that backs equal pay.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with teacher-aide Jan Monds, who said: “the government have let us know that they really don’t value us nor the work [that] we do.”, and, if so, how can he justify sidelining front-line women workers like Jan to pay for tax breaks for landlords and tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question. As teacher-aides have already had a pay equity settlement, I’d just say to the member the facts of this Government are very clear: this is a Government that’s not getting rid of equal pay. We’re not getting rid of collective bargaining. We’re not getting rid of pay equity. We’re not cutting women’s pay. We’re not reversing settled pay equity claims. We’re making sure we fix up Labour’s unworkable and unaffordable programme—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Listen, there’s going to be no further warnings. If people are going to keep up with that barrage, someone will representatively leave the Chamber.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with aged care worker Marianne Bishop, who warned his decision to cut the active pay equity claims “is going to make it harder to recruit and retain staff.” and asked, “Why would you want to work in aged care when you can get the same amount at a supermarket or McDonalds?”; if so, how does he expect to maintain essential care workers under those kinds of conditions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just encourage—as I keep saying in answer to the previous questions—I encourage any individual, any union to make a pay equity claim under the new legislation. We fully expect, sadly, that there will be pay equity claims. The Government has put money aside to fund those, and we will continue to support that.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3—just a minute. When everyone’s stopped having their little across-the-House natter, we’ll move on.

Question No. 3—Infrastructure

3. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen about New Zealand’s Infrastructure Pipeline?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Today, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission released the March 2025 quarterly update. It shows that there is $206.9 billion worth of projects in the pipeline—an increase of nearly $3 billion since the last quarter. It also shows the value of projects in the pipeline, where the confirmed funding source has increased by $3.7 billion, up to $111.6 billion. The commission tells me that this year there will be at least $16.6 billion spent across all infrastructure sectors, representing 4 percent of GDP.

Catherine Wedd: What does that National Infrastructure Pipeline do?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The pipeline provides a national view of current and future infrastructure projects: transport, energy, three waters, health, courts, schools, data centres, and more. It has information on over 8,000 infrastructure projects that are under way or being planned. There are currently 114 infrastructure providers from central government, local government, and the private sector that contribute to the pipeline. There’s a few recalcitrant councils that are not yet contributing and I encourage them to participate so we get them into the pipeline.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the National Infrastructure Pipeline important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Some of the feedback that I think all members of Parliament receive around the traps is that it is important to have a public pipeline that is credible. It’s good for the sector, including contractors and engineers. It helps people plan for major upcoming projects, ensuring they can hire and retain key staff and invest in equipment. Most importantly, a strong pipeline means a growing and more productive economy, with more jobs and more opportunities that lift living standards for all New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: What has he done to improve the pipeline?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: When we came into Government, just 30 councils contributed to the pipeline. Members will be aware that councils are, of course, a major contributor to infrastructure around the country, particularly through transport spending. Thirty councils is not good enough, so we have encouraged all the councils to participate. And now 64—so that’s over double—are now contributing to the pipeline and, as I say, there are 14, I think, that need to lift their game and contribute. We’ll be following up with them. We will continue to make further improvements to the pipeline so that all New Zealanders, particularly the sector, have a clear and visible view about the great infrastructure work happening around the country.

Question No. 4—Rail

4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Rail: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding rail?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Rail): Budget 2025 allocates $604 million for rail, a sector generating $3.3 billion each year for the economy. This comprises $461 million for the national network and $143 million for Auckland and Wellington metropolitan networks. This is lifeblood economic investment, replacing bridges, culverts, sleepers, rail, and all the things that make the network work. Rail is what keeps our coastal ports moving, enabling more ships, which drives exports, imports, and trade for an export-dependent nation.

Jenny Marcroft: How does the Government’s funding commitment support commuters?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The $143 million announced today continues replenishing the busy Auckland and Wellington metropolitan networks. More than 22 million commuter journeys use the train in Auckland and Wellington, and that figure will rise once the City Rail Link opens—widely supported across the House—and when new trains arrive in Wellington. Reliability is what gets people using public transport, and fixing the network underpins the entire metro system. It’s all good news.

Jenny Marcroft: What rail announcements has the Government made for the South Island?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, last Friday, we officially opened the Hillside Workshops in Dunedin, re-energising mechanical engineering and freeing up land for private industrial development. On the same day, the Hon Shane Jones announced an $8.2 million contribution to Southern Link Logistics. This will build a three-track rail-siding into the venture, and adding road freight to feed the inland hub and rail to take it the distance. This is standard, efficient economics around the world, and we are putting our rail system back together again. And let’s not forget, the entire South Island will remain connected to rail thanks to our decision to keep rail ferries on the Cook Strait.

Jenny Marcroft: Has the Minister seen any reports on light rail?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, alarmingly, I did. Last week, we were stunned to see a proposal to build light rail in three cities for $11 billion.

SPEAKER: I’ll just point out to the member that you can’t use a supplementary to attack Opposition parties in the House. I’m sure he can work his way through that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What suggests I’m attacking anybody at the moment? Are you a mind-reader?

SPEAKER: I know. I most certainly wasn’t. I was just reminding someone, which is not an unreasonable—it’s a very polite thing to do on my part.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I start again? Yes indeed, last week we were stunned to see a proposal to build light rail in three cities—in three cities—for $11 billion, when Auckland alone would have cost $15 billion at the minimum, and some were saying $30 billion. So today we have shown what heavyweight rail looks like, and it contrasts sharply with lightweight railers and wailers. If they want an education, pull into the station.

SPEAKER: Very good.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with Hon Brooke van Velden 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”; if so, how much was set aside in Budget 2024 for the funded sector pay equity claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Minister van Velden’s full quote begins with: “My understanding is that this may have been information provided maybe a year ago”, and I agree that was her understanding when she answered the question. The Government, last year, made a series of decisions, starting with the pay equity reset, and through to recent decisions this year that have removed the assumption that all funded sector claims will always be fully funded by the Government. We do expect pay equity claims will be progressed against private sector employers, including some who rely on Government funding. Cabinet has agreed that any Government contribution towards future costs from funded sector pay equity settlements will no longer come from a specified contingency, but will instead be managed within existing baselines or against future Budget operating allowances. In answer to the second part of the question: a contingency was retained in Budget 2024, but I will not be outlining the size of it today or at the Budget, because I am advised that to do so could compromise future negotiations. I will be making transparent, at the Budget, the overall sum of pay equity savings returned from various contingencies.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has any Minister sought Cabinet approval to increase their operating baselines, due to the change in the pay equity contingency?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, but I would note that pay equity has been noted as a fiscal risk in Treasury documents for some time, and that will remain the case at this Budget.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How is this process fairer when the public has no idea if there is enough money to cover the costs of future claims?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to stress that when the member discusses the funded sector, what she is talking about are private sector employers, some of whom are listed, profitable entities on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. What our Government does not think is wise is to say to those employers, “Go to the bargaining table without us, bargain whatever you like, and we’ll write you a blank cheque.” That was the approach of the last Government, and we do not think it is wise.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does this provide assurance to sectors such as hospice nurses who are looking to make a pay equity claim, when the criteria has been significantly tightened and they have no idea if their claim will be funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would offer any worker in the aged-care sector—in the sector that the member raises—this assurance: if you have a claim based on sex-based discrimination, we encourage you to raise that claim and it will be judged according to the legal framework; where that claim relates to sex-based discrimination, settlements will be reached. When it comes to other issues to do with working conditions and pay, issues that arise for every worker in New Zealand, the normal bargaining process will continue.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said, with respect to the funded sector, “we’ll look at those as they come through case by case.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do agree with the Prime Minister, but I find it interesting that that member doesn’t seem to agree with her leader’s views on debt.

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t comment on that.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How was this process clearer, when the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, just last week, said that the funded sector will not be funded; the Prime Minister says it will be on a case by case basis; and she won’t confirm if there is sufficient money for the funded sector that has been set aside?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I again reiterate the principle I outlined earlier, which is that we do not think it is wise, when the Government is not at the negotiating table, to write a blank cheque for every single private sector employer who may have a pay equity claim raised against them. In fact, what we think would be best is if those employers did pay their workers fairly, and where that doesn’t occur, and where there is sex-based discrimination, those workers raise claims. And if we are required to give funding to help support those providers to meet those settlements, we will consider it on a case by case basis, trading it off against all of the other priorities that every Government faces.

Hon David Seymour: Has she, as the Minister of Finance, encountered any circumstances where huge promises were made to the public and there really wasn’t any money set aside to pay for them?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as it relates to Government activity, that question could be answered. But it cannot be used as an attack on a previous Government, as the member knows.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, those examples were riddled through the set of Government books that this Government inherited. I want to point out, in respect of pay equity, that the last Government never made it transparent that it was allowing to go through to forecasts, the costs of Cabinet decisions that were made to fully fund all private sector claims—that money was never revealed to New Zealand, that decision was not made transparent or clear, and I’m proud that our Government is being far more up front.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She just didn’t bother to read it.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, someone’s going to have a lot of time for reading, very shortly.

Question No. 6—Health

6. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on delivering new and improved urgent and after-hours services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): As part of Budget 2025, Kiwis needing care will benefit from our $164 million funding boost for urgent and after-hours services across the country. Once implemented, our investment will mean that 98 percent of New Zealanders will be able to receive in-person urgent care within one hour’s drive of their homes. We’re taking action so that Kiwis across the country will have better access to the care they need when they need it, because delivering timely, quality healthcare is a key priority for this Government.

Sam Uffindell: How will this announcement improve access to 24/7 urgent care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Good news: Budget 2025 will support five new 24/7 urgent care services identified in Counties Manukau, Whangārei, Tauranga, Palmerston North, and Dunedin. These new services will help ease pressure on hospitals and keep emergency department (ED) wait times down. We know that around 450,000 emergency department attendances each year are considered lower urgency, and many of these patients could be suitable for treatment through urgent care services as an alternative to EDs, helping to reduce pressure on our emergency departments.

Sam Uffindell: What does this announcement mean for other urgent and after-hours services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Around 5,000 New Zealanders visit urgent care clinics every day, but the availability of after-hours services has declined in recent years and access remains variable across the country. That’s why this announcement is so important. Funding through Budget 2025 allows us to maintain existing urgent and after-hours healthcare services across the country whilst also identifying new and extended daytime urgent care services in other provincial towns and cities, benefiting the great people of Lower Hutt, Invercargill, and Timaru, and extending hours in other towns up and down the country.

Sam Uffindell: What is the Government doing to strengthen our primary care workforce?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: To support this announcement, the Government is also focusing on expanding the health workforce in primary care. That’s why this investment builds on our primary care announcements made in March. Through that package was training for GPs and nurses, providing training pathways for overseas doctors, and funding new incentives to attract and retain staff in primary care. We’re delivering 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care, 100 additional doctor training places at our medical schools over the course of this Government, up to 50 graduate doctors training in primary care annually, up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners in primary care annually, accelerated tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses, and recruitment incentives for up to 400 graduate nurses into primary care each and every year.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement 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”; if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I do stand by my full statement, in the context it was made, and also my clarification later in the same line of questioning, where I said that we will still be funding some of these claims. However, I acknowledge that if the member had put that specific question in writing, she would’ve received a more nuanced answer. To clear things up, the pay equity reset that I referred to last week included a decision to remove Cabinet’s agreement in principle to fund claims in the funded sector. Decisions for the Government’s role in funding future funded sector claims will be considered on a case by case basis.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was Cabinet informed about whether the Government would fund pay equity claims in the funded sector or not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I refer to my previous answer that this was a discussion that was made last year, but anything that relates to anything Budget sensitive or to do with funding that could be related to this Budget is not a question that should be for me; it should be directed to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is it the case that pay equity claims in the funded sector will now go through the process of having their claim heard without knowing whether the Government will actually fund it if successful?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Referring to my previous answers, what this Government has done is remove the default setting of the previous Government that when people are negotiating, the Government will fund it. It is true that this decision will be done on a case by case basis now.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Who will pay for potentially successful pay equity claims for hospice workers, Plunket nurses, and early childhood teachers, if not the Government?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It will be for the taxpayer and it will be for the private organisations.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Has the Government been inconsistent and opaque about the funded sector on purpose to discourage future pay equity claims within that sector?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No. There’s a few things to ensure we get across as a Government. The pay equity system remains; people can still bring a pay equity claim. What this Government has done is remove the default setting that the previous Cabinet agreed to, that there would be funding by default for all funded sector claims. That is a decision that was made by this Cabinet, which I referred to last week, which the member would’ve been aware of last year.

Hon Jan Tinetti: When did she first become aware that her statement to the House last week was incorrect?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: It is not incorrect; I’ve simply clarified it for the member.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will his funding boost to urgent care include making services free and publicly delivered to ensure cost is not a barrier to accessing urgent healthcare?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we’re doing—and I thank the member for their question and for raising the investment that the Government is putting in to expand urgent care and after-hours services—is we are making sure that we are targeting our support for children, for young people, and for those on community services cards, and as part of this process we want to see a clearer framework on fees overall.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that urgent-care services can be prohibitively expensive, with one woman in Palmerston North paying $260 just to be seen, and, if so, what action will he take to reduce the cost of these services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Government’s putting in $164 million to make sure that we stabilise the existing services so people have access to services when they need them, and, importantly, as I said in answer to the first question, we are targeting children, young people, and those on community services cards—those that are most vulnerable and those that most need it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept the view of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that there are not enough doctors to staff his urgent-care announcements, and, if so, will he lift the funding cap to maximise the training placements at Otago and Auckland universities to 889 by the year 2027?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just say to the member that there have been a series of announcements over the course of this year, where we have talked about expanding the number of training places for doctors in our medical schools. I think there’ll be something like an extra hundred added into our medical schools just over the term of this Government. We’ve also talked about doctors that may have been qualified in overseas jurisdictions and how we can get them working in our GP and primary-care sector as well, as well as massive investment with our nurses to make sure we can get more nurse prescribers and more nurse practitioners working in primary care. I think if the member took a step back and looked at the series of announcements that we’ve made, she would see that we are doing everything we can to make sure we improve our healthcare system, which is important.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he fund pay parity for the primary care nurses working in urgent care so they are paid the same as Te Whatu Ora nurses, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, our Government’s putting more money into healthcare than any other Government in the history of New Zealand. The Minister of Finance has already foreshadowed that we’ll have more money for healthcare in the Budget, and we are doing everything we can to make sure that we put more money in, that we hire more doctors and nurses, and that we have clarity on the targets of what we expect the healthcare system to deliver, and we need to improve the performance of Health New Zealand big time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, as it’s been claimed, the average New Zealand household is earning $433 billion a year, why has he got problems with social welfare delivery?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m not quite sure how to answer that question, if I’m really honest with you.

SPEAKER: The point is you don’t have to answer it, because it’s not about an action the Government is taking, nor something the Prime Minister is responsible for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: This better be a good one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, there was a claim on the weekend exactly saying that—$433 billion per year for an average New Zealand household. Now, around about then, I thought some of our colleagues have missed what’s going on, and maybe we’ve been far too stringent about social policy delivery in this country.

SPEAKER: Well, let me be clear—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do you want me to table the document?

SPEAKER: You can attempt to table any document at any time, but the Prime Minister cannot make a response to something that is clearly an initiative from another party.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why would nurses want to work in primary or urgent care when they would get paid more working in our hospitals as a result of the pay gap between Te Whatu Ora and primary care nurses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have a lot of work to do in our healthcare system, and this is a Government that is spending more. It is recruiting more nurses. I think there’s been 1,700 more nurses added to our system and 200 more doctors added to our system since we came to power, and, importantly, we’re making sure that actually our nurses are well paid. They are paid on average, I think, $126,000, including allowances, and that is comparable to what they receive in New South Wales, which is, of course, 30 to 35 percent wealthier than New Zealand.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his own statement that “Where we see it, we call it out.”, in response to being asked about the “Māorification” of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just would caution the member that there was a media outlet that interviewed me earlier in the week and has subsequently corrected what it reported on because it was incorrect. But what I’ve said to you was it was particularly on an issue around stop-go signs. We expect stop-go signs to be unambiguous as to what the direction is to motorists because it’s about road safety. That’s a legitimate thing.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: As a Prime Minister, does he have responsibility to “call out divisive rhetoric” such as the term “Māorification”—misunderstood or not—instead of enabling it as it is perceived in the interviews?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s that member’s judgment. I disagree with the characterisation of that question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: As Prime Minister, does he believe it is appropriate to challenge the use of te reo and the promotion of tikanga, rather than taking a position of promoting it and supporting it as part of Te Tiriti obligations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have official languages in this country—te reo, New Zealand Sign Language, and of course English—and we support all languages.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the term “Māorification” mean to the Prime Minister, given he had no issue with answering the questions about it yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I refuse—I don’t know what the member’s actually asking the question about. I mean, that’s not a term that I’ve used.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry—to the Speaker: I wasn’t able to hear that answer.

SPEAKER: No, that can be a problem at times. The Prime Minister may wish to make the answer again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I haven’t used the term.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he give an example of when his Government has proactively sought tikanga Māori advice to guide decision making in his term of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think we’ve had very good advice from iwi leaders around the country. I’m thinking particularly in Tairāwhiti, where last Friday we opened up 149 social homes, which is a great collaboration between iwi, Government, and also business, and that was very good advice—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, you’re going to start again, and the question will be heard in silence. Now that’s the last warning at that barracking. I’m going to turn around, see someone participating, and they’re off for the afternoon.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t dispute that at all. I just note that there have been three warnings to this House in regard to barracking. However, you’ve had to intervene on eight separate occasions to remind Ministers not to use questions to have a pot-shot at the Opposition and I note there have been no warnings given to them.

SPEAKER: Well, if you consider that my raising it so frequently on the first day of the week was not effectively a warning, then you perhaps don’t know how I operate. There is going to be a day where a Minister is going to overstep and that will be the end of their week.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There have been many instances where we take advice from iwi leaders. In particular, I’m thinking of two. One is with respect to our conversations around the Waikato-Tainui Brookfield infrastructure investment, which is an extra billion-dollar investment that’s come together to expand the Ruakura Superhub. The second one that I was alluding to was the outstanding work—the really exciting work—where we’ve seen iwi, Government, and business come together and collaborate in an awesome way to deliver 149 homes to iwi community. To be able to speak with those people who are getting their very first homes because of that collaboration was pretty special for Minister Potaka, myself, and Minister Mitchell last week.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that his Government’s decisions, including repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, removing Treaty clauses, the Regulatory Standards Bill, and the unprecedented suspension of Māori MPs, are being seen by many as an attack on Māori—

SPEAKER: No, sorry. That’s the end of that question. You got that hopelessly wrong. Now, I’ll be very generous and give the member one more shot, but you ask the Government questions about the Government, not about Parliament.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Ka pai. Does he accept that his Government’s decisions, including repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, removing Treaty clauses, introducing the Regulatory Standards Bill, are being seen by many as an attack on Māori visibility and voice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. I think Māori, when they see inflation down from 7.2 to 2.5 percent, when they see interest rates coming down an extra $300 a fortnight on a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, and they see a growing economy, and they see iwi doing deals with international infrastructure firms, they understand this is a Government that’s working hard for Māori and non-Māori, women and men, and all New Zealanders.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait for silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Just in respect of the earlier question that was answered in respect to the “Māorification”, I just need to clarify—sorry to the Speaker; there was a lot of noise—that the Prime Minister has refuted that that interview that has been circulated is incorrect. That’s what we heard, isn’t it?

SPEAKER: No, he said in answer to your question that he didn’t use the term. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Just, sorry—point of order.

SPEAKER: This is not the place to debate that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on, a bit of order. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister: in the question on the issue of “Māorification”, would it be “Māorification” if every Thursday I went down and got myself a suntan?

SPEAKER: No. That is one of those questions where I made the point before to the Hon Kieran McAnulty that at some point, some Minister is going to overstep and take an early afternoon. So I’d suggest that the Rt Hon Winston Peters remove himself from the House now. [Interruption] Well, you didn’t hear what I said earlier, unfortunately. It’s not debatable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll be back—don’t you worry.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s something that everyone’s noticed throughout your career.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Mr Speaker, a new point of order, please.

SPEAKER: It had better be a new point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yeah, I think it is. So what I was getting at is that while I understand that the Prime Minister did not make the comment, he does have a responsibility to the culture of the comment, and the answering of it—

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—no. I’m sorry, you can’t ask me to start interpreting your questions for the Prime Minister. That is not a point of order.

Question No. 10—Education

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

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice from officials on the potential sex-based undervaluation of secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Mr Speaker, I have received some verbal advice.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. I’m terribly sorry, but I don’t think the microphone’s working. We couldn’t hear that.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. There’s obviously a problem with the microphone. Can someone who is in the booth pick that up and try and sort that out? If the member doesn’t mind, we could move to question No. 11 and you start your question again, if you want. Is that OK?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is more responsible: an emissions reduction plan to reduce gross climate-changing emissions, or banking a third of your climate plan on unproven technology—as his Government has—which the private sector, this week, tells us is economically unviable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry—I missed a part of the question. Can you repeat it?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is more responsible—

SPEAKER: No—hang on. It’s not that he couldn’t hear it; it’s just that you are speaking very, very quickly, and perhaps the intention of the question was missed. Just present a little more slowly, if that’s OK—for old people like me.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is more responsible: an emissions reduction plan to reduce gross climate-changing emissions, or banking a third of your climate plan on unproven technology, as his Government has, which the private sector, this week, tells us is economically unviable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member knows, we have an emissions reduction plan 1 and 2. They are on track to deliver our—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, they’re not!

SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, an outburst like that is going to see you join Mr Peters in the lobby. It’s just not acceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That is a horrible threat.

SPEAKER: Punishment can be rough sometimes! Prime Minister, you could start answering that question again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member knows, we are on track to meet our emissions carbon net zero 2050. In fact, under emissions reduction plans 1 and 2—and what we see as the outlook for emissions reduction plan 3—while there’s more work to do, there’s even a possibility we could do it six years earlier.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he is not aware of the fact that the industry—the sector that he is relying on for fully a third of his emissions reduction plan—has come out this past week and said that that technology he is relying on is economically unviable?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m aware of lots of comments about our emissions reduction plan. There are things that are in the plan; there are things that are outside the plan. I’m also aware of things like Fonterra’s programme—which, actually, we haven’t baked fully into the plan—that could be upside. But with respect to carbon storage, we think that’s a very legitimate activity.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell the House exactly how high the carbon price would need to be to make the carbon capture and storage projects commercially viable for the likes of Todd Energy at Kapuni Field?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. I’d ask you to listen very carefully to those questions in the context of Speakers’ ruling 196/2. Questions are expected to be shorn of outlandish claims, descriptions of a reality that is not based in fact. That leads to disorder, and we’ve had far too much of it from that particular element of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry that you feel that way. It clearly did not intend to reflect on my judgment, but that’s the consequence, and that has pretty big downside as well. Chlöe Swarbrick, ask the question again, but with that in mind: don’t make outlandish statements in a question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If I may respond to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, not really, no—just carry on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell the House exactly how high the carbon price would need to be to make the carbon capture and storage technology—the projects mentioned in his emissions reduction plan—commercially viable for the likes of Todd Energy at Kapuni field?

SPEAKER: You can’t expect the Prime Minister to answer the question that is the right domain of Todd Energy. He’s responsible for a lot of things, but not for the management of that company.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister, then, accept the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment’s Climate Implications of Policy Assessment, which stated that “The emissions impact of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is uncertain. It depends on the extent businesses choose to invest to deploy this technology. There are a limited number of businesses within New Zealand where it would be technically and commercially viable to use CCS given the current cost of this technology.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I mean, there’ll be lots of different technologies that come along our way, as there have been in the last 10 years, as there will be in the next 10 years. Each of them will have a different set of cost parameters and economic viability parameters and, you know, we’ve got a plan at the moment—I’d just reassure the member—that is putting us on track to deliver for net zero 2050. That’s a good thing.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that “innovation” can lead to better technology with lower cost, and sometimes people even do this “innovation” because of profit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I agree—I think the profit motive is a good one to drive innovation and, actually, what we need in this country is more innovation to deliver on our climate objectives, not bankruptcy of farmers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister, then, reject the statements that we have heard on the public record from the sector involved in carbon capture and storage this week, which his Government’s emissions reduction plan relies on for fully a third of its reduction; does he reject their statements that this technology is currently economically unfeasible?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can’t talk for an individual company—

SPEAKER: That’s exactly right. Prime Minister, that’s it. You can’t ask a question—it’s like asking him questions about any old thing at all that he’s got no responsibility for. He’s not responsible for what they think; he’s responsible for Government actions. You could have asked that question a different way; perhaps you should try it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Government can act with urgency to cut off 33 active pay equity claims and make it easier to kill our native wildlife—

SPEAKER: No, sorry, you can’t do that either. That question is concluded. Question No. 12, Dana Kirkpatrick. Oh, sorry, we go back to the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Question No. 10—Education

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

SPEAKER: The Hon Erica Stanford—speaking into the mike would be a good idea.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I was! It’s working now. Yes, in the context of which they were made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice from officials on the potential sex-based undervaluation of secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve had a range of verbal advice.

SPEAKER: Now, look—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry, the microphone’s been turned up to maximum. You’re going to have to speak more into the microphone. I couldn’t even hear that.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have had a range of verbal advice from my officials.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What was the advice?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The advice was that, for teachers especially, the situation is somewhat complicated. The unified pay scale makes the situation more complicated, and the advice was that claims may be raised and would be worked through.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice on the cost to settle the now discontinued pay equity claim for secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Has she received any advice on the cost to settle the now discontinued pay equity claim for primary school teachers and support staff in residential schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Was the Minister made aware that secondary school teachers will not be able make a claim under the new rules prior to the changes being made?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I knew because I understand the ratios of female to male employees in secondary and primary, and I knew that when we were discussing raising the rate that that might have an impact for secondary school teachers.

SPEAKER: The member’s used up all the allocation of questions. Can I thank the member for assisting while we fix up that technical issue.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about building social housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): This Government is committed to the delivery of more affordable homes in partnership with local communities, including iwi and Māori providers. Last week, along with the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and the Hon Mark Mitchell, we announced a new partnership with Tairāwhiti iwi collective Toitu Tairawhiti to fund Toitu nearly $50 million to deliver 150 new affordable rentals next to the Gisborne hospital. This marks a significant milestone in the Government’s commitment to partnering to deliver better housing outcomes alongside iwi and Māori. Tino tautoko te Kāwanatanga i ēnei momo mahi. [The Government very much supports these types of endeavours.]

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the Government partnering an iwi-led housing solution?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Projects like this Gisborne development to build in areas with significant housing needs, like Te Tairāwhiti, should be led by credible and competent groups who know their communities best, and that local leadership is what makes these solutions enduring. This partnership mahi with Toitu Tairawhiti demonstrates confidence in iwi capability and experience, and the Government is investing in improving solutions, where Māori are not just at the table; Māori organisations are designing and delivering the homes and manaakitanga support that their people genuinely need, in places where they need it.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What are the outcomes for whānau from this mahi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Affordable, warm, and secure housing is a foundation to improving whānau outcomes, particularly those who are in emergency housing and other difficult circumstances. This project will enable up to 150 whānau, with some focus on single mothers with young tamariki, to access affordable, quality homes, reducing housing stress and addressing overcrowding. The homes will be developed with wraparound manaakitanga in mind. The kaupapa Māori approach of Toitu Tairawhiti ensures that whānau are supported not just with housing but with access to tautoko that improves health—tinana, body; hinengaro, mind—education, and employment outcomes. That’s the value of a credible iwi- and Māori-led solution.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What will this project do to support the local economy?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The project continues support and tautoko for long-term jobs and regional economic resilience. Homes will be constructed in Tūranga, meaning more local jobs across planning, civil works, and construction phases. It will also provide contracting opportunities for Māori tradespersons and small and medium enterprises, helping to grow the regional economy and enhancing construction capacity to support the five East Coast marae who are receiving funding to rebuild their facilities after last week’s additional announcement regarding recovery from cyclones Gabrielle and Hale.

Urgent Debates Declined

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General—Inquiry into Oranga Tamariki Procurement and Contract Management

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from Kahurangi Carter seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the findings in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Oranga Tamariki: Inquiry into procurement and contract management. There is no ministerial responsibility for reports of an Officer of Parliament; the Speaker is deemed responsible for them—Speakers’ ruling 218/1-4. However, where a report from an Officer of Parliament deals with a matter for which the Government is responsible, Speakers have allowed urgent debates. Generally, that has been where the Government has announced a response to the report. No substantive Government action in response to the report has been indicated in the member’s application. While the issue is an important one, it doesn’t reach the standard for urgency required to warrant the setting aside of the business of the House today. The application is declined.

I also received a letter from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime on the same matter, and, for the same reasons, the application is declined.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee

Conduct of Members—Disruption During Vote

SPEAKER: Members, we come to the consideration of the Report of the Privileges Committee, and I refer members to the statement I made on 15 May about this debate, which dealt with the Standing Orders surrounding it, although some media outlets seemed to misunderstand that. The committee’s recommendation to impose penalties would represent a significant development in the practice of the House. A proper opportunity for debate must be provided before the House arrives at a decision.

The debate on this matter should be civil, as should any debate in this House. While members may criticise each other, this should not amount to personal reflection or attacks. Members should constrain their speeches to relevant points, and avoid repetition and discreditable references. Failure to do so will see the termination of members’ speeches. I invite the chairperson of the Privileges Committee to move a motion that reflects the recommendations of the committee.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the House for 7 days for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty;

That Debbie Ngarewa-Packer be severely censured by the House and suspended from the service of the House for 21 days for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty; and

That Rawiri Waititi be severely censured by the House and suspended from the service of the House for 21 days for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty.

These recommendations follow the Speaker’s ruling on 10 December 2024 that a question of privilege arose from the actions of the Hon Peeni Henare, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi following the first reading debate on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on 14 November 2024. At the conclusion of that debate and during the vote, the four members left their seats to perform the haka, and three of the members advanced towards the seats of another party, something the Speaker has ruled cannot be considered anything other than disorderly.

All four MPs were referred to the Privileges Committee and subsequently invited to appear before it. Mr Henare did so, and he accepted he should not have left his seat. The committee recommended he apologise to the House for acting in a disorderly manner that disrupted a vote being taken and impeded the House in its functions, and he unreservedly did so on 25 March 2025.

However, the three other MPs declined to appear before the committee, ostensibly because the committee rejected their request to appear together rather than individually, while clarifying that each member would be able to attend in the public gallery. The committee wanted them to appear individually as it considered that would be of most assistance to it in considering the question of privilege. It especially wanted to clarify whether there was any premeditation behind the actions, given Ms Maipi-Clarke told media Mr Waititi was supposed to rip up the bill and start the haka, but instead handed it to her to do so.

The committee sought to arrange hearings twice more, but the members declined each opportunity. We have therefore had to consider this matter based on observations on 14 November, including video footage. This footage clearly shows Ms Maipi-Clarke casting her party’s vote before proceeding to rip up the bill and start a haka. The Speaker can be heard saying, “No, don’t do that.”, before rising to his feet. However, a number of Opposition party members then rose to their feet and joined Ms Maipi-Clarke in performing the haka, with Ms Maipi-Clarke, Mr Henare, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi leaving their seats.

Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi moved across the Chamber floor to face members of the ACT Party, who were seated at their desks. Ms Ngarewa-Packer approached the front of the ACT Party desks and, while performing the haka, pointed at ACT Party members using a hand gesture similar to a finger gun. At the conclusion of the haka, Ms Ngarewa-Packer repeated the gesture and, simulating a firing motion, said, “E noho.”—or “Sit down.” The Speaker suspended the sitting of the House.

When the House resumed nearly 30 minutes later, the Speaker ruled that Ms Maipi-Clarke’s conduct was “appallingly disrespectful” and “grossly disorderly”. He moved that Ms Maipi-Clarke be suspended from the House and the motion was agreed to.

Based on our review of the video footage, we considered that the facts of the matter are clear and occurred as I have already outlined. We invited Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi to provide written evidence and they jointly responded, saying, in essence, that their actions were an expression of tikanga, upholding the values and obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and their tino rangatiratanga.

One of their arguments was that tikanga Māori and haka were not matters for the Privileges Committee to consider. On this, the committee agrees with them. It is not there to set or debate the rules of Parliament but, rather, to uphold the rules as they are, not as some people may wish them to be. To be clear: the haka is not banned in the House. However, the rules of Parliament—the Standing Orders—under which it operates state that permission has first to be obtained from the Speaker and that any actions must not impede the business of the House. No such permission was sought for the 14 November haka, and it most certainly did impede the business of the House as it was carried out during a vote.

The ensuing chaos led to the Speaker suspending the House for nearly 30 minutes—so here we are at the crux of the matter. It is not about haka. It is not about tikanga. It is not about the Treaty of Waitangi. It is about following the rules of Parliament that we are all obliged to follow and that we all pledged to follow. It does not matter our gender, our ethnicity, or our beliefs; in this House, we are all simply members of Parliament and, like any institution, it has rules. The Standing Orders already include severe penalties for people who break the rules, without the requirement to even go to the Privileges Committee. For example, any member who is suspended under Standing Order 92 that subsequently refuses to obey the Speaker’s direction to leave the Chamber can be suspended from the House for the remainder of the calendar year without further question. I’m quoting from Standing Order 95, for the avoidance of doubt.

In this instance, the Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee, which subsequently carried out a thorough inquiry over six months before coming to a majority decision. Make no mistake: this was a very serious incident, the likes of which I have never before seen in my 23 years in this debating chamber. I am a robust debater, as many of you will know, but I follow the rules of this institution and I am a proud member of it, and I appreciate and accept that my views are not those of all in this House. And that is why we are the House of Representatives. We cannot bring this House into disrepute by ignoring those rules, especially if it results in other members being intimidated, and that is exactly what happened on 14 November 2024. The behaviour of Ms Maipi-Clarke, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, and Mr Waititi was such that it could have the effect of intimidating other members of the House acting in the discharge of their duties.

It is highly disorderly for members to interrupt a vote while it is being conducted. The right to cast one’s vote without impediment goes to the heart of being a member of Parliament. It is not acceptable to physically approach another member on the floor of the debating chamber. It is particularly unacceptable for Ms Ngarewa-Packer to appear to simulate firing a gun at another member of Parliament. We, therefore, by majority, find that all three members have each committed a contempt of the House, and we are recommending the penalties as I have already laid out.

After six months of meetings and hearings, which all committee members participated in in a professional manner and with civility, it is disappointing to now hear personal attacks and allegations of racism. I utterly reject that. We have simply done our job. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That all the words after the first instance of “That” be replaced with “Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and Rawiri Waititi be censured by the House for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty, and that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi be suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours, to take effect on the first sitting day following the conclusion of the Budget debate, and that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke face no further sanction, having already served a period of suspension.”

This is a serious matter. Deliberately disrupting the business of the House is serious, interrupting a vote of Parliament is serious, and I would say to the Māori Party that when you interrupt a vote of the House, you’re not just interrupting the votes of those who are voting in favour; you’re interrupting the votes of those who are voting against something as well. All members of the House deserve to have their votes recorded, and when members deliberately disrupt the House, there should be some sanction for doing so.

It is never OK to intimidate another member of the House. But the sanction being proposed by the Privileges Committee is totally out of line with existing parliamentary practice, and is disproportionate to the allegations that have been posed.

Let’s be clear about what the Māori Party are not being sanctioned for. They are not being sanctioned for doing a haka, because haka have been performed in this House and that is acceptable. They are also not being sanctioned for refusing to appear before the Privileges Committee, because that is completely legitimate, as well. No one is obliged to appear before the Privileges Committee and the Māori Party chose not to, and that is their right and they should not be sanctioned for that.

They are being sanctioned because they broke the rules of the House, they behaved in a disorderly manner, and they interrupted a vote of the Parliament, and there should be a sanction for that. But we have never seen a sanction of this nature in New Zealand’s history before.

We’ve had members undertaking fist fights in the lobbies, and they were not suspended at all. We’ve had members driving tractors and Land Rovers up the front steps of Parliament, and they were not sanctioned. We have had a recent case where a member left their chair, walked to the other side of the House, and stood over a member and thumped the table, and they were not sanctioned by the House. We’ve had a recent instance in this term of Parliament where a member was prevented from leaving a select committee because another member was standing over him, and they were not sanctioned by this House. And yet we seem to have gone from a situation where members were not sanctioned to one where a 21-day sanction—the harshest by a factor of seven—is being applied to these members. It is disproportionate. A sanction is appropriate; this level of sanction simply is not.

I draw on the advice that was provided by the Clerk of the House to the committee. The Clerk’s job is to provide advice to the Parliament on its proceedings in a way that is not political but that upholds the traditions and the conventions of this House, and the Clerk made the advice clear that suspension of members is a rare occurrence and that a long period of suspension would represent a substantial change in the House’s practice. Let’s be clear: the recommendation of the Privileges Committee is exactly that. The Clerk further advised that the committee ought to recommend a long suspension only with the broad support of members, not simply a bare majority. That has not happened in this case. The Clerk also advised that the committee should clearly set out its rationale in arriving at the particular penalty so that a consistent approach could be followed in the future. I’ve read the report several times. There is no rationale. There is no criteria that could be followed in the future. This is an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air. How can that possibly stand in this Parliament?

Why do we choose a 24-hour suspension? It’s quite simple, Mr Speaker: because it’s already in the Standing Orders. Had you, as Speaker, named those members at the time, given this is the first instance in which they had been named, they would have been suspended for 24 hours, as one of the members was. If they did it again, they’d be suspended for seven days, and if they did it again, they’d be suspended for 28 days. Those are the existing rules of the House.

The Privileges Committee is departing from the well-established practice of this House in its recommendations, and the sanction they are proposing is totally disproportionate. It is wrong and against the traditions of our democracy for a Government to use its majority in Parliament to suspend and remove from the service of the people of New Zealand its political opponents. The reason the Clerk advised that the committee should seek near unanimity on this matter is because of exactly that. Other parliaments around the world have seen members of the Opposition suspended by the Government, and we in many cases have criticised them for doing that. What moral authority will we have to do that again in the future if this House engages in exactly the practice we criticise other countries for doing?

I am not defending the Māori Party, and I’m not saying that their actions should be without sanction—they should be. The motion that we have put forward would see them sanctioned in line with the previous practice of this House, and that would be appropriate. Departing from that and imposing the harshest sanction the New Zealand Parliament ever would have imposed would be wrong.

I was absolutely shocked to learn that a member of the Privileges Committee asked about the committee’s supposed power to imprison a member of the House. That happens in tinpot dictatorships and banana republics. No member of this House should be inquiring about whether they can imprison a member of their Opposition. It is undemocratic and it is wrong, and the fact that the question was even asked is a stain on this House.

Respect for democracy means respecting the rights of all members of Parliament, who are elected by their people to represent them in this House. Taking away that right should be only after a very, very high threshold has been met, but the Government haven’t even articulated what that threshold should be.

If they are going to impose the harshest sentence ever recommended by the Privileges Committee, they should be very clear on what the criteria were that they weighed that against, and they have not done that. They should be very clear on what the future criteria for this nature of sentence—if you like—should be, and they have not done that, either. They are accusing one party of breaking the rules of Parliament—which I happen to agree they did—whilst also not following the rules themselves. Any moral authority they want to claim here has been severely diminished by the fact that they themselves are not following the existing rules of the House. The sanctions that this House imposes are set in the Standing Orders—24 hours, seven days, 28 days; in that order—and the Privileges Committee have not followed that.

But the last point I want to make is perhaps the most important of all. Looking around the world—and I say this to all members on all sides of the House—democracy is quite literally hanging by a thread. Days like today hold a razor blade up to that thread. When people around the country look at this House and say, “Why should I have any faith in the institutions of democracy?”, this is a very good example of why. Parliament is spending more time talking about itself than talking about the issues that matter to them.

And before the Government members go “The Opposition have a choice.”, the Government scheduled this debate for today. They had that choice. The Government recommended a penalty that is harsher than any the Parliament has ever imposed before, and that was their choice. The Government chose to impose that penalty by majority rather than seeking consensus, as the Privileges Committee has almost always done in the past, and that was their choice. They have brought this before the House today and they have made that choice, and it should be subject to scrutiny.

What they’re doing today is wrong. Imposing a penalty that removes three members of the House during Budget week—preventing them participating in one of the two occasions the Opposition has in a year to vote no confidence in the Government—is simply wrong. This is not a tinpot dictatorship or a banana republic. We should stand up for the values of democracy, even when they are inconvenient and even when people are saying things that we disagree with. That is not what the Government are doing today.

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop—we go from side to side in the House.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That this debate be now adjourned to Thursday, 5 June 2025.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. This particular debate potentially infringes upon the rights of individual members. I think it’s not unreasonable, when the Government is moving such an adjournment, to ask them why they are doing so. This questions members’ ability to participate in the House.

SPEAKER: You’ve made your point of order. I don’t have to, but I will seek some specificity about the reason for the adjournment motion.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): The Government has come to the view that, given the centrality of the Budget process to Parliament, it would be appropriate for Te Pāti Māori members who may or may not be suspended following the conclusion of the consideration of the substantive motion to participate in the Budget. There is no more important role for Parliament than scrutinising and debating the Budget. It is a confidence motion, by definition, in the Government; the Government cannot govern without the approval of the Parliament. Constitutionally, it is right that they participate. So we are moving to adjourn the debate so that this week can focus, rightfully, on the Budget and the details of it, rather than this issue, which has occupied far too much of Parliament’s time already. So the motion reads that the debate be now adjourned to Thursday, 5 June 2025, which is the next sitting block.

SPEAKER: Right. Before you do that—you may have to do that again; I’ll call you again to do that—I need to make it clear that the question is that the amendment to the motion be agreed to. [Interruption] No, it’s procedural. Mr Hipkins has moved an amendment, I’m just saying that’s what we now debate. You may now move whatever you want to.

Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Speaker, this is an adjournment motion, which is technically—

SPEAKER: That’s right. I’m not talking about your motion.

Hon Chris Bishop: —non-debatable.

Hon Member: This is a Standing Order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know it is. No, hang on a minute. Let’s get a bit of calm here. All I’ve said is that following Mr Hipkins’ speech, I should have said to the Parliament that the question is that the amendment to the motion now be agreed to. You then stood up and said that you move an adjournment, right? So the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those in favour will say aye.

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

SPEAKER: I’m in the middle of a vote.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which vote are you putting?

SPEAKER: I’m putting the motion to adjourn the House. Look, I was clarifying—[Interruption] adjourn the debate, sorry.

Hon Member: But he hasn’t moved it yet.

SPEAKER: He has moved it. He’s moved it twice, actually.

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

SPEAKER: Look, I know this is charged. It’s a little unexpected—it’s certainly not what I expected. I would just suggest don’t trifle with the Chair today, because I’m sick of that.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): That’s fair enough, Mr Speaker. But I just want to point out that this affects members’ ability to participate in the House. The effect of the motion that Chris Bishop has just moved potentially removes the ability of the Māori Party to vote on the Budget, because the Budget will not be voted on until after 5 June. If the motion had passed today for 21 days, it’s possible that by the time the vote for the Budget came up, they would be back in the House and they got a vote.

SPEAKER: OK. Look, I’ve listened enough. The member frequently referenced the Standing Orders through his speech. He will, therefore, know that under Standing Order 134, given that there is a motion of the House to suspend the debate, I have no ability other than to accept it and put it to the House. But the question is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question that this debate be now adjourned. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: You don’t speak, at all, while there is a vote in progress. So anybody who thinks they’re moving, just sit still for a minute and be quiet.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. What a surprise it is to be speaking on this bill right at this particular point in time. I will be doing my best to talk to this very important bill. I will start to talk about this bill in the context of what has been happening via the Government’s agenda and the attacks on workers’ rights.

We had just very recently the cancelling of 33 pay equity claims, just another example of the lack of care, the lack of compassion for workers in our country. For many of us who were actually waiting for the legislation to hit the desks, it showed up just after question time. So we knew something was happening. We knew that there was an urgent bill showing up in the House, but we didn’t actually have the very, very specific details until it hit that desk, despite the Government and the Minister Brooke van Velden going down to the tiles and crowing that they had actually saved this Government’s Budget.

We have a difference of opinion across the Government parties on whether they support pay equity and equal pay—and we all should be doing that. But when we have Ministers of the Crown saying, “Actually, this is what we’re going to do. These are the priorities that this Government has.”, that they will prioritise $12 billion and climbing on defence spending, that they will prioritise tax cuts for landlords over the low-paid women workers—those industries where you have predominantly women workers—it is a shame. This bill is another example of that. This bill is another example of that.

This is the partial strikes bill. For people that are out there who don’t know what partial strikes are, they are those other actions that people have been able to take. So you could be wearing a badge expressing a particular view on your workplace or you could have a T-shirt expressing a particular view on your workplace. This bill will penalise you and take away your right to be able to do that. That will put on scope that the only thing that people will be able to do is actually move towards full strikes, taking away another one of those tools in the tool kit for workers to be able to express themselves.

As we were going through this process, I was waiting for the free speech brigade to get up and to talk about the right of workers to have their say, the right of workers to express themselves in the workplace, the rights of workers to be able to talk about the different issues that they’re impacting. Did we hear from them? No, we did not. We did not hear from the free speech brigade, because often when you hear from that lot all they’re really interested in is the free speech of their rich mates and the privileged. Actually, if we really want to talk about freedom, we need to think about freedom in terms of the right for people to collectivise, the right for unions to work together, the right for people, for communities, for workers to be able to have their say, and the freedom to control the affairs and the immaterial needs within our communities. I would go so far to say that we should be able to support that happening within the workplace.

So the Greens, we oppose this bill. We oppose this bill because it takes away another tool in the tool kit—another tool in the tool kit. I would invite members of the Government to explain very, very clearly what this agenda is all about. When I look across the suite of attacks on workers’ rights, when I look across what’s happening with the reintroduction of 90-day trials, with the cancelling of fair pay agreements, when I look at what’s happening to the health and safety regulations, along with playing around with the Holidays Act and all those other kinds of things, I think one of the biggest losers in terms of the voters in all of this are the National Party voters. What we have here is the tail wagging the dog. We have the ACT Party pushing their agenda through the House.

I would not be surprised if members from the National Party are getting pushback in their communities, particularly after last week when you had those 33 pay equity claims cancelled; when we had those 33 pay equity claims extinguished. It points to that wider agenda, and it is something that needs to be called out. So on behalf of the Greens, we absolutely, categorically oppose this bill

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we’re going to see a bit, this week, of the Opposition not being able to add up the facts. That is what’s happening when they speak on this bill. See, the argument the Opposition want people to believe is that employees will move from giving up a little bit of their pay for taking a small action, to giving up all of their pay for full strikes. That doesn’t add up. All this bill does is say, “If you take a partial strike, you will have part of your pay deducted.” It’s a pretty simple equation, and one that is fair and reasonable.

During the Education and Workforce Committee hearings, we had one member of a particular union acknowledge, during the question and answer session following their submission to the select committee, that even wearing a branded T-shirt would certainly, and I quote, “have detrimental effect on businesses—on a business’s productivity and brand.” It is not for the Opposition to determine what is right for a business’s success—its ability to grow, to sell, to be productive, to be profitable, and, ultimately, employ people. It is the right of businesses to work with their employees and to contract and negotiate and agree to terms of employment. As part of that, we believe it is appropriate that if you don’t want to do part of the work, if you say you’re not going to do part of the work, you don’t get paid for that part of the work you’re unwilling to do. So I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this particular partial strikes legislation and respond to the Education and Workforce Committee report.

New Zealand First has always been about balance in employment relations deliberations and bills, and certainly, in the way that we have viewed this bill and looked at the select committee report, we do believe that there needs to be a rebalancing of the partial strikes legislation. It is a powerful mechanism that can impact on productivity in a workplace, and without some guardrails, it could be used—and is used—with impunity. In fact, just over the weekend, I was talking to a rather large employer in a critical piece of infrastructure, whose vital operation for the movement of freight has been impacted by partial strikes in the past, where the unions will get a key group of workers within the broader network to take out a partial strike, which impacts absolutely everyone and shuts down the whole operation. These are a very, very powerful mechanism that impacts productivity, and they do need some guardrails. This is the view that New Zealand First brings to this debate.

They are a legitimate tool; we absolutely accept that partial strikes are a legitimate tool. This legislation does not take away the ability for workers to take partials. It is just balancing the equation a little bit, so that, if you’re going to impact productivity and you’re going to do less work or impact the operations of your employer, you will take a commensurate—up to 10 percent—discount or deduction from your wages, which is something that can be negotiated through. It is a balancing mechanism, which is the criteria that I outlined at the start, with which New Zealand First has looked at this. We are concerned at the potential for this provision, left unchecked, to be weaponised and for an uneven playing field to ensue in employment relations, which is something we look to avoid at all costs.

We must look to the bigger picture here: dividing up an already too small pie. We’ve got a much bigger focus here on growing our economy, lifting employment opportunities, so that workers are able to be fairly paid, employers are able to fairly reward their workers, and it is a competitive employment advantage. We’ve seen a plateauing of the unemployment that had been going up. We’ve seen growth starting to come back into our economy. We actually have had wages rising faster than inflation for the last four quarters, so we’re starting to win here. Also, we’ve seen New Zealanders looking offshore, to Australia primarily, where wages are higher. This is a serious issue for New Zealand. We do have to get wages up. This is not about suppressing wages. It is a competitive employment environment. Employers do need to be prepared to pay a competitive wage, not just with their domestic competitors but also with their international comparators. We’ve also had, of course, importantly within this, things like interest rates trending down, which, as the Prime Minister outlined in question time, is $300 a month for someone on the average mortgage. That’s a real win. We’ve actually seen the data that came out last week, with rents starting to come off as well. That is also a win for working New Zealanders.

New Zealand First believes very, very firmly that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, but if you’re not doing a fair day’s work—as you’re not doing under a partial strike—you don’t deserve a full day’s pay. This is what this bill looks to do: to tip the balance back in that equation, to give some consequences so that workers, when they do undertake partial strikes, are doing so with some purpose, not just weaponising the mechanism available to them, knowing that the employers have no way of balancing that up. It is a fairness mechanism, it is an equity mechanism, so New Zealand First has no problem in taking the recommendations that came back from the select committee. We thank the select committee and the submitters for their work. New Zealand First continues to support this bill through the House. Thank you.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: This is a split call, so I’ll take Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for five minutes. Then, we’ll revert to 10-minute calls—National, Labour, National, National, Labour, National—until the conclusion of the debate. Sorry to interrupt you, Dr Xu-Nan. You have the floor.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose this bill, but I think, firstly, it is genuinely laughable just how little understanding was in some of the speeches we just heard around what constitutes a partial pay strike or what is a partial strike in the first place. There is this idea, this notion, that when we’re looking at a partial strike, it is “You take an hour off out of your eight-hour day, therefore you are working 12.5 percent less, therefore you should be paid 10 percent less.” but that’s simply not the case when we’re looking at the majority of partial strikes here in Aotearoa.

Let’s give you some examples that we’ve heard at the Education and Workforce Committee during the select committee stage, which I know some of the Government members were a part of. Wearing a badge is considered a partial strike; work to rule is considered a partial strike. These are some of the common forms of a partial strike. When we asked the officials and when we asked some of the submitters who are supporting a partial strike what evidence they have that partial strikes actually affect productivity, there is nothing. There is nothing that suggests partial strikes affect productivity. In fact, when we are looking at this, there is the likelihood that a pay deduction to partial strikes would increase the likelihood of a full-blown strike. Is that what members of the Government actually want to see? Because that’s what is going to happen.

Let’s just take work to rule as an example. Far too many people in Aotearoa are not working to the conditions and the requirements of their contract. We see more and more employers who abuse that contractual relationship and that goodwill from their employee. You think, for employers, the shared lunch is going to make up for the fact that people are working an extra hour a day?

Let’s look at some of the examples that we have: the fact that particularly when we’re looking at marginalised communities in Aotearoa, more and more is demanded of them as well to be able to do things like put together their diversity or put together certain workshops, etc., or partake in certain workshops that are not part of their contract. They ask them to work for longer hours that are not part of their contract. A form of partial strike simply is—even including the ability to work to the rules of their contract.

When we did ask them, “Does this mean that with this legislation, employers are able to penalise employees for working to the terms of their own contract?”, the response was: yes, it is likely. This is what we are dealing with when we are looking at this particular legislation. When we are looking at this legislation, what we are going to be seeing is the fact that there will be more and more power imbalance within our work and within our employment in Aotearoa. We are going to see more employers who abuse this legislation to say that an employee has to meet the unreasonable standards that are beyond their contract, otherwise they are rightfully and legally able to deduct their pay. That’s what we’ve heard during the select committee stage.

More broadly speaking, I know that the Government, and pretty much everyone, is interested in productivity, and they used the excuse that partial strikes would reduce productivity, but that’s simply not what we heard as part of the select committee stage.

The Green Party doesn’t support this bill. In fact, there are a number of concerns with this bill and a number of issues and aspects of this bill that we weren’t able to tease out fully during the select committee stage. I look forward to the opportunity to debate on this further during the committee stage. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. This bill restores balance to the situation that we have in employment relationships. It allows for employers to be able to take partial reductions where employees take partial strikes. I think it’s important for those who are listening to this at home to understand that there are some exemptions to that; so certain exemptions will still apply. For example, nobody can be made to work overtime. Also, if you decline a callout where there would be additional pay, that’s not included. And, also, I think it’s important that if there’s piece-rate work, which is where you’re paid per item or per activity, that can’t be included as well.

The other thing to realise is that the Employment Relations Authority will also retain the ability to review any of the reviewer’s calculations and intervene if necessary. Being on the committee and having heard some of the ends of this argument, it is a balancing—a rebalancing—it is bringing fairness back, it is a common-sense approach, and I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I’m not sure if anyone wants to take a five-minute call. [Interruption] Oh, it’s a 10-minute call. My apologies. I’m having a bad day!

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to take a 10minute call as there’s a lot to unpack in this bill, which was aptly, perhaps, called by the speaker who just resumed her seat the “Employment Relations (Pay Reductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill.” And that is an accurate name because that is, in fact, what it does.

The last Labour Government removed the ability for partial strikes to have an associated wage deduction from these types of actions, and the reason that they did was quite simple: it’s because partial strikes were taking place, or what was considered from employers to be partial strikes, for very minor actions within employment. For example, and other members have reflected on this, people wearing a badge, people wearing a T-shirt, people wearing a particular colour or a slogan, people showing their support for the negotiations that were under way that their union was undertaking in relation to their collective bargaining. This was seen as unfair because often the people who would be engaging in partial strikes would not be reducing their outputs.

Now, we’ve heard lots of rhetoric on this particular bill from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in previous readings, and also from those opposite, that if you reduce your outputs you should reduce the pay that you receive. I would respond to that with: but this is not what this bill does. This bill allows employers to reduce by 10 percent employees’ wages when they have completed all of their tasks in their job, when they have completed all of the duties in their job description and in their employment contract, and they are able to take that 10 percent off their wages without a right for employees being able to challenge that, so long as the rest of the process has been complied with. This is unfair, and that is why those of us on this side of the House have been opposing it.

I was lucky enough to participate in some of the consideration—not all of the consideration of this bill—at the Education and Workforce Committee, and I think that it was a useful select committee process. I was just checking the number of submitters that we did hear, and I’m informed that it is 620. So quite a considerable number; not, obviously, the most that we’ve received on a bill but a considerable number who decided to submit to the House. I don’t have a breakdown of that but my recollection was the vast majority of those who submitted, submitted in opposition to this bill. The reason that they did so was because of what I’ve just outlined: the unfairness of having your wages docked when you have done your job. That is what this bill does. You do your job—

Carl Bates: It does not.

CAMILLA BELICH—and you wear a badge and you get 10 percent—this is what this bill does—you can get 10 percent of your wages docked.

Carl Bates: Well, don’t wear the badge.

CAMILLA BELICH: And those opposite say, “Don’t wear a badge.” Well, sometimes wearing a badge can be an easier way of making a political point than going on doing something that’s more disruptive to an employer, for example withdrawing labour fully or partially. What we heard again and again—no matter the singular example that my colleague was able to pull up to the opposite—at select committee was that this would lead to the full removal of labour or a full strike.

Now, some might say, “What do you do when your employees are partially striking and you’re an employer?” I would say there are tools already that employers can utilise in order to respond to a partial strike. Those include suspension, it includes lockout. These are powerful, powerful abilities that employers already have, and—and I don’t think this should be overlooked—getting back to the negotiating table and actually reaching an agreement with the employer. That is, in fact, what this whole industrial relations landscape is directed towards: being able to negotiate and reach an agreement between employers and employees.

This, in my view—and in the view of many submitters at select committee—will lead to worse relationships between employers and employees because of these arbitrary amounts that can be taken away from employees’ pay packets even if they are still doing the majority of their job. So I would just like to signal that it would be something that we would consider moving at the committee stage, and I’d like the House to consider this: to remove that arbitrary amount. There is another way to calculate this within this bill, which is to look at the proportion of work that someone has completed.

Now, I don’t agree with this bill but I think that’s a more sensible option, and I think most New Zealanders would agree looking at the proportion of work done is a more sensible option than an arbitrary 10 percent. The reason that these other types of partial strikes are allowed is because they are considered breach of contract, and I don’t think—and my colleague opposite suggested—that these do impact the business. Now, I don’t think anyone’s arguing that wearing a badge or protesting may affect the business, but what I am arguing is that it doesn’t affect the job that someone does, necessarily, or the productivity of that person or the fact that they’ve completed their work. I think that’s a really important distinction.

These are acts that are consistent with the strike or, in fact, there may be instances where they’re not. It may be that someone was not as on time as they would like to be to work. They’re in a collective bargaining situation, there is a strike notice out, they haven’t taken the union T-shirt off; they could be considered to be unwittingly a part of a partial strike. That is also a possibility under this bill.

I’ve just got the statistics, now, from my colleague on how many people were supportive of this bill. Apparently, there were four people who were supportive—four submissions in support—606 opposed. So you can see the level of feeling that the submitters had. I don’t see that in the select committee report but I think it’s important to mention, for the record, that there was that level of support as well. There are also additional concerns around this. Now, I note that we don’t appear to have the regulatory impact statement (RIS) on the table at the moment, but, from memory, in that RIS, it did say that there was no robust, evidential basis for this bill.

So this is another action that this Government is taking to remove the rights of workers, with no evidential basis, just because they want to make the situation more difficult for them. It’s very frustrating to be talking, again, on another bill which doesn’t appear to be looking forward towards better employment relationships between employers and employees and trade unions—where there is no evidential basis for it. It is in line with other changes that this Government has brought to the House, like the changes that we saw recently on pay equity—cutting 33 pay equity claims; reintroducing 90-day trials; subsequent and following on from each other, effective cuts to the minimum wage, changes to the health and safety Act; the changes to the Holidays Act to reduce the rights of part-time workers; restrictions on joining collective agreements for those at charter schools; changes to make it easier for people to be considered contractors; fair pay agreements being repealed. I could go on.

This Government has consistently attacked the rights of workers. This bill is an example of that. And again—and I have said this so many times in the House—this bill is potentially, and I think clearly, against our international obligations. We do have free-trade agreements with the EU and with the UK that prohibit making workers’ rights and making labour rights worse under those agreements. So I think the Government would need to report on this as part of those free-trade agreements. Also, additionally, it is likely that this is against our International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, as well.

To what end? Who was calling for this? Why do we need a bill that goes so far that it would prohibit people from actually taking a small action in favour of their collective negotiations, as opposed to the full removal of labour? Why, even if you’re going to introduce this bill, would you not consider the inherent unfairness on the arbitrary percentage that you put in place? So I think that should be removed, and I’ve said before that I think we should introduce an amendment and allow the Government to rectify this, even though we just disagree strongly with this bill, and clarification that things like wearing a badge and a T-shirt shouldn’t be considered a partial strike.

I think this will lead to negative employment relations in New Zealand. It’s another attack following so many that I’ve outlined on workers’ rights. It’s a sad day for industrial relations in this country. I cannot commend this bill to the House. I encourage those on the other side of the House to look to the huge number of submitters who oppose this bill and change their mind about once again reducing the rights of workers in this Parliament.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise with pride to support the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. It is a very simple principle in life: you get paid for the work you do. The work you do is a full day’s work, not a partial day’s work, and that is how it should be. To stand here and say, “Oh, no, businesses don’t get impacted.”—well, I’m proud to stand here on behalf of the businesses and employers of this country who’ve had to put up with partial strikes disrupting their businesses. That causes real disruption. And giving an example, a speaker opposite mentioned the fact that—I couldn’t believe this statement—“partial strikes don’t affect productivity.” Well, I’m just thinking of a situation whereby if you were a dairy farmer, what happens if they don’t milk the last row of cows? That creates a situation. What are they going to do, wait till the morning? That is absolutely one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. So I just want you to remember: a full day’s work equals a full day’s pay. We want to make sure that everyone gets a fair day’s pay. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to draw on the comments of my colleague Camilla Belich and talk about where the context of this legislation lies. In the time of this Government, we’ve seen the end of the idea of fair pay agreements, which were just, after all, industry standards, where people could opt in and they could pay an amount that the whole industry was paying, so that employers who were paying less weren’t actually benefited by that. We have had minimum wage increases that are well below what was delivered under Labour. We have had minimum wages for disabled people abandoned. We are having a look at contractors again, because “Oh no, we can’t possibly look after people in that precarious state.” We are having the median wage for migrant workers, gone. We’ve got personal grievance rights being undermined. We’ve got pay equity absolutely gutted, a whole lot of women missing out. And we have had a zero offer to our teacher-aides.

That’s what this Government exchanged for—what? A promise of 20 bucks a week—maybe, if you’re lucky—if you’re one of those low-paid workers. And I just heard my colleague Grant McCallum, in the Government, say that he was glad to be there on behalf of employers. Well, Grant McCallum, we’re actually here not just for employers. We’re here for all New Zealanders, and—

Carl Bates: You’re never here for employers!

HELEN WHITE: We’re absolutely here for all New Zealanders, and I was an employer, and we are here for all New Zealanders. What I want to talk about is my example, which I raised at one point with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and I’m going to raise it again here, because it demonstrates the issue that we have before us in a very real way. I worked for the bus drivers up in Auckland and they had a really low wage, those bus drivers, because we had a contracting model which meant that the councils were always going to the lowest possible bidder on those contracts, because they had very little option, because there weren’t things like the fair pay agreements. So they had to bid on lower wages for the work.

Who missed out? The workers, every single time. Those wages went down, and down, and down. It got ridiculous. I remember walking into a meeting and these bus drivers had split shifts. Those split shifts meant that they stayed in their bus shelter for four or five hours, unpaid. How many of us would do that on minimum wage or just above? Those workers took action. They decided that they were going to issue a strike notice, because they had to as essential workers. So they issued that strike notice and they said that they would take their toilet breaks. That’s what they said. And you know what that bus company did? It decided to lock them out for that. In fact, public opinion turned at that point, because it was really demonstrated how put upon those workers were, when they couldn’t even take their toilet breaks, and when their boss thought that it was OK to lock them out for that, for taking toilet breaks. What this law does is it means that people who take their toilet breaks now, they could have a proportionate reduction, or they could have 10 percent deducted from their wages for doing so. So there’s an additional tool for an employer in that situation.

We set up a regime of strikes and lockouts that’s regulated with essential industry notices, etc., to provide some balance, to allow strikes in an orderly fashion. We did that a long time ago in this country and I’m proud of it. We made a good set of rules based on the fact that we understood where the power lay in this situation. We know where the power lies. And yet I have my friend across the House saying he’s here on behalf of employers. Well, we are here on behalf of all New Zealanders, and we need to make sure that the rules are right so that people in this country can pay for the price of things like butter and cheese that are going up and up.

This Government said that it was going to address the cost of living crisis, and what’s it doing? It’s making our poorest employees pay. It’s petty. It’s short-sighted. It means we end up in a country with a whole lot of people in the poverty trap, a whole lot of people who can’t pay for their groceries because when they take their toilet breaks, they’re going to have 10 percent taken off their very low wages because this Government prioritises the people who employ them. That’s the case. Prove me wrong. Because that happened to people; they got locked out for that, and now they can have their wages reduced. And what it will end up with is more polarisation. It’s absolutely right. People will go on strike. They will have enough, and fair enough. There will be more polarisation, more loss of productivity, because they cannot even take any action. I haven’t even got on to freedom of speech. Maybe in a future speech. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work: I think that’s what most Kiwis want in their labour market. Actually, that’s what we have in New Zealand’s employment relations framework—ever since the 2000s. Our framework is all about engaging in good faith, having fair processes, and having respect for employers’ and employees’ rights. The Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill is essentially about making sure that there is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. And if you take some time off to strike, well, we’ll deduct your wages—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What about badges? What about work to rule?

DAN BIDOIS: Yeah. I’ve heard from that side about badges and T-shirts. Let me tell you a story: I used to work for $6 an hour in a supermarket, and I’ll tell you what, most supermarkets, like most businesses out there, don’t get involved in politics because they know that their customers don’t always agree with them. So when their employees are going around with their T-shirts, with their own political activisms, they don’t know that, actually, it does offend a lot of customers, and, therefore, customers may choose to shop elsewhere. That affects productivity, and it may mean that you work as hard as you can but if you don’t get the sales generated, then that is actually affecting your productivity.

This is a really good bill. It’s a good bill that is consistent with the framework of employment relationships that I think most New Zealanders want in there. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): This bill, along with all of the other employment relations type bills brought by this Government, is quite simply an attack on the rights of working New Zealanders. But it’s not just an attack on the rights of working Kiwis; it’s doing it during a cost of living crisis that hurts so much. We have a Government that is telling us that they are going for growth; that they are, effectively, putting more money in the pockets of New Zealanders—this is what they’re claiming, on the face of it. But with this legislation, along with a number of others, they are doing the antithesis: they are taking the power away from workers. They are making a power imbalance in our industrial relations, and they are capitalising on that without even thinking through what the win is. There is no evidence, right throughout the regulatory impact statement, that this bill will have one iota of difference on productivity or on working. It is simply designed to be able to intimidate workers so that they work longer hours for less money in a cost of living crisis. That’s the simplicity of it. That’s all it is.

This bill is on top of already scrapping fair pay agreements, where we have industry-wide standards and a bottom floor for bus drivers, for example. It is on top of reinstating 90-day trials. It is on top of a party that voted wage theft was not, in fact, theft. It’s on top of wiping 33 pay equity claims in already underpaid sectors, some of those sectors are impacted again by this bill. Those 33 sectors are still reeling from the impact of the pay equity legislation; the bill itself was only made available in the last few days to actually look at what the bill does. And now we have a second reading of a bill that will, effectively, mean working to rule or wearing a badge or a T-shirt in your workplace enables the employer to deduct 10 percent of that worker’s wages.

Now, the deep irony here, which I hope is not lost, is that we have a party that is behind a lot of this assault on workers’ rights, and that is the ACT Party. The irony is that the ACT Party turned up in this House, wearing their lapel badges with “ACT” on them. In fact, their leader was reprimanded time and time again for continuing to act against a Speaker’s ruling, where party political badges were not allowed to be worn within this House. So, in my view, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why is it appropriate for this bill to prevent workers from wearing a union T-shirt or wearing a badge in terms of their collective bargaining rights, whereas the ACT Party thinks they have the right to wear their own badges in this House?

While we’re on that point, I think it’s important to highlight the deep, I guess, irony—is that the right word?—or maybe contradiction of reasoning here. Because we have a party that’s also very strong on individual freedoms: freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I’d be really interested to know what their mates in the Free Speech Union think that they are voting for a bill that prevents workers from wearing a T-shirt or a badge in their workplace. I would think that goes right against those abilities for individuals to exercise their rights for freedom of expression. That one seems to have been completely overlooked by those who were supporting this bill.

I think that goes to the heart of this bill. It’s not about principle; it’s about undermining workers’ rights, and giving a power advantage to those employers. That is deeply concerning. It is deeply concerning because what will happen in New Zealand as a result of this is that we will see more strikes. We will see workers who are enabled to do partial strikes, like work to rule or wear a T-shirt, take full strike action, and that is where productivity does get hit. When you have an entire sector striking like our doctors or our nurses—or probably soon our teachers, we’ll see—that does impact upon productivity, because we have parents having to take time off work, we have people unable to see a doctor and taking time off work. Those are the real ways that productivity is impacted upon. So by taking away the ability for partial strikes, you are actually having a bigger impact upon productivity. So there’s no thought that has gone through that at all.

The point I’d also like to make is that a lot of these professions impacted by this legislation—for example, nurses. If nurses work to rule, people will quite simply not get medical attention and get ill. Many of the nurses in Hutt Hospital, for example, have to work extra hours every single day just to make sure the hospital keeps running, just to make sure that New Zealanders get the medical attention they need. If you have an ability here to dock their pay by 10 percent if they work to rule, that is unfair. That is unfair to workers who already work incredibly hard to make sure things keep on operating.

I have yet to hear one good reason from those members opposite as to what is the point of this bill. What does it achieve? If this Government stands for productivity, if this Government actually stands for increasing wages for New Zealanders and putting more money in their pocket, why is it that we see bills time after time brought to this House that undermine the rights and the working capacity of New Zealanders? It is those who are already underpaid that are under incessant attack by this Government to find extra money to pay for a Budget that they can’t clearly quite add up in total. This bill is an absolute insult to workers and it will make life harder for working Kiwis. What we will see is it’s not fair.

In fact, I’d like to conclude by looking at that regulatory impact statement. If there was any evidence that this bill is not backed by evidence, it’s right there. I encourage anyone to take a look at it. The regulatory impact statement fails to meet quality assurance standards, it has absolutely no qualitative data, and it relies completely on anecdotal and historical examples. It makes untested assumptions and it completely fails to outline how the Government intends to meet its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. We support that view. That’s not even the Labour Party saying that in a differing view; that is the view of the independent review panel that is assessing the regulatory impact statement. That’s how bad this bill is. In fact, I’d like to quote it, because I have time: “Neither the number of partial strikes and full strikes, [nor the] number of person days lost, show any clear pattern in relation to the ability of employers to make … deductions [during] partial strikes.”

If there is no clear evidence that the previous law caused a problem, why on earth are we now reversing it? It’s because it’s on the tick-list of ACT and it’s been agreed to further undermine the rights of working Kiwis. The gall of it is that they do it in a cost of living crisis. When people are having to pay nine bucks or more for a pound of butter to be able to do some baking at home, they take it upon themselves to say, “You can’t wear a T-shirt or a badge and you need to work to rule, or deduct 10 percent out of your pay.” It’s designed to intimidate and undermine workers’ rights and it is an absolute travesty because there is no evidence here. It is not about evidence; it is about ideology.

In 2018, when Labour amended the Employment Relations Act to remove pay deductions for partial strikes, we did so to restore balance in the workplace. We recognised that industrial action is a fundamental right and we understood that partial strikes are a legitimate and proportionate way for workers to express dissatisfaction without resorting to a full withdrawal of labour. It is a good, healthy, working relationship that this Government takes to undermine and tip the balance in favour of the other side, and they do it in a cost of living crisis. It’s an absolutely sad piece of legislation that does nothing to achieve any type of productivity or good for New Zealand. I’m ashamed to see it brought to this House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise to support the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, because this is about bringing balance back to employment relations. That’s what we’re all about on this side of the House: common sense and practicality.

As the member said, this is about driving productivity. Partial strikes usually involve someone turning up to work and refusing to take part in key parts of the job, and, of course, that’s really disruptive. Under these changes, employers have the ability to respond to partial strikes proportionately. It will encourage fair negotiations and reduce prolonged disruptions. This is fair and balanced.

As has already been stated, if you do a fair day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay. But if you don’t do a full day’s work, proportionate deductions should be balanced. This bill aligns with other jurisdictions—what they’re doing in Australia and the UK. Of course, in the Public Service, healthcare and education are really disrupted when we have partial strikes, and this can lead to delayed treatment, and of course disruptions in the classroom.

Employees, of course, should retain the right to bring meaningful industrial action, but this change is about balance and fairness and returning the law to how it was, which worked—rebalancing rights and consequences and incentivising negotiations and minimising disruptions. So I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House. It can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill, and, at an appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 21 September 2025.

The bill before the House today is significant and involves substantial amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020. The bill contains both new policies and amendments to existing provisions in the Act, and enables relevant secondary legislation. The purpose of this bill is to redesign the vocational education and training system, restoring regional decision-making and increasing industry leadership in vocational education and training.

Today marks a pivotal moment in our efforts to redesign vocational education and training in this country. This amendment bill will disestablish Te Pūkenga - New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, along with workforce development councils, and usher in a return to local decision-making through a network of regional polytechnics and greater industry direction for work-based learning.

I am proud of what the Government is delivering today. This bill marks the beginning of a new era and a more effective, responsive, and fiscally sustainable vocational education and training system for New Zealand. This redesign has been a key priority of our Government, with this legislation underpinning a specific commitment in our 100-day plan to disestablish Te Pūkenga. But it is not change for change’s sake. The previous Government’s mega-merger of polytechnics and industry training organisations was an expensive failure. Its push to centralise and standardise polytechnics and work-based learning was wrong, and it cost this country dearly. Today, all that changes as we introduce a vocational education and training system that is relevant, progressive, and responds directly to the demands for change from industry, business, students, and communities.

This redesign is the catalyst for a strong and sustainable new system, one that provides skills, knowledge, and career pathways for learners into and within industries and professions that are vital to our economic prosperity. This is about delivering to the 250,000 students, apprentices, trainees annually across construction, engineering, energy, creative, IT, primary industries, healthcare, and the service sector who want training options that are easy to access, responsive, and that will lead to future employment or career pathways. It’s for all those apprentices, trainees, and employers involved in work-based learning who’ve struggled to get support from an overly bureaucratic and remote Te Pūkenga head office in Hamilton. This redesign is also for the communities up and down the country who’ve watched on in frustration as their local polytechnics have been stripped of local innovation and control.

Today, I can reassure that we will turn the tide, and this begins the process of setting things right, of securing future sustainability, and of returning vocational education and training back to the regions and to industry, where it is truly needed and where it belongs. It will ensure that vocational education aligns with what industry needs and wants, and it is responsive to current new and emerging industry developments. This Government is serious about growing our economy and increasing exports, and we must have a skill base to support that, and that’s why this redesign has been so cheerfully considered and why industry have been so intrinsically involved in its development. We want vocational education to cater to large and small industries and employers across a wide range of sectors, with different types of providers offering both traditional and innovative delivery options.

This bill reestablishes a network of regional polytechnics to support vocational education and training across the country. From 1 January 2026, programmes, functions, assets, and staff from Te Pūkenga’s on-campus business units will transfer to polytechnics under a transition plan, to be approved by the Tertiary Education Commission.

Te Pūkenga will be referred to as the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology and will remain as a transitional entity for a one-year period before being disestablished by 31 December 2026, if not before. Each polytechnic will be funded independently and will have local governance and management. For most, they will continue operating at their current campuses across the country. Some polytechnics will be established as stand-alone entities; others requiring additional support will be designated members of a federation or merged, with Cabinet considering their options later this year. Significantly, federation polytechnics will retain their institutional autonomy and academic freedom. They will be accountable for their own performance and will determine the core education and training provisions for the regions they serve. They will also work together with the federation committee to support their long-term liability and commission shared services and programme delivery.

To ensure the vocational education and training system is responsive to current new and emerging industry needs, industry skills boards will be established by 1 January next year, replacing the workforce development councils. These boards will be industry-led and tasked with ensuring industry training consistency and quality. What’s more, industry will play an instrumental role in crafting the nation’s vocational qualifications. They will actively endorse programmes and ensure assessments meet the highest standards. They will also have a strategic workforce analysis function and will provide investment advice to the Tertiary Education Commission on funding relevant to their industries.

This bill also amends current provisions in the Act for a training levy. Should the levy be supported by industry, boards will be able to access additional funding to extend the range of their activities. The redesign will introduce an industry-led, independent learning model, which will enable training programmes to be delivered by private providers, polytechnics, or wānanga, as the industry they serve determines.

Industry-driven work-based training is precisely what apprentices, learners, and industry have been calling for—decentralised vocational education with training that is based around the specific needs of industries. There will be a transition period for up to two years where the management of work-based learning will move away from Te Pūkenga to the new industry skills boards. This will provide crucial continuity for those apprentices and trainees currently enrolled, with training and apprenticeship agreements remaining in force to allow time for new work-based programmes to be developed.

Throughout this process, the Government’s priority has been to maintain continuity of training and confidence in vocational education. This bill provides that assurance, with transitional arrangements for both Te Pūkenga and the workforce development councils to ensure a smooth transition of appropriate functions, programmes, staff, and assets to the new organisations. Apprentices or students who finish studying or training in 2026 or later might complete their studies at an organisation with a different name, but otherwise the impact on their learning should be minimal.

This bill also sets out the proposed functions of the new entities, their governance arrangements, the process for their establishment and disestablishment, and the technical elements necessary for them to function. The bill is intended to be passed and enacted towards the end of this year, with the redesigned vocational education and training system commencing on 1 January 2026.

There is no doubt that the redesigning of vocational education and training is critical to the economic growth of our country going forward. Today, we establish the foundations for that growth. I am grateful for the support of those who took part in the public consultation of these reforms, and the key industry stakeholders who engaged in targeted consultation. Your feedback has been invaluable and your substantial support for local and regional polytechnics and industry-driven work-based learning has been heard, with this redesign tailored to your needs. I commend this bill to the House.

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start my contribution today by acknowledging the hundreds and thousands of students studying in our vocational education system in Aotearoa New Zealand. Can I also acknowledge the thousands of staff that work their guts out to create better outcomes for young people in the system, and I also acknowledge the challenges that they have faced while multiple Governments have attempted to get our education system right.

Everyone has been watching and waiting with anticipation for this particular plan. It is well overdue. But this plan is Minister for Vocational Education Penny Simmonds’ personal vendetta—without a plan today or without any pūtea. The Minister told Radio New Zealand in 2023, when discussing Te Pūkenga, that a quick process was needed for staff experiencing a convoluted period of anxiety and uncertainty—that we needed to get certainty very quickly, but we needed to see what was financially viable and we needed to see what is going to meet the needs of their communities.

The Minister, today, through this piece of legislation, has failed—has failed—to give the vocational education and training sector the certainty and the clarity that she promised them when she came to Government. This doesn’t address any of the critical issues that are before the tertiary sector and the vocational sector, and she hasn’t provided that particular detail. After reading 130-odd pages of legislation, I’m still perplexed where that detail is. Where do particular institutions sit? How is the Minister intending to address the chronic funding issues that are in front of her? She has failed. This piece of legislation offers nothing—offers nothing—towards the certainty for staff, students, and the sector overall. She’s offered no solutions to the chronic funding challenges—that is still absent—and no solutions as to how the sector can become financially viable long term. That was the entire reason why the Labour Government redesigned the vocational sector in the first place. But it’s Penny Simmonds’ vendetta again, coming out to take down Te Pūkenga.

And what do we hear today? She’s renaming it. She’s renaming it to the New Zealand skills institute, taking away the Māori name—of course they did.

Despite the hundred-odd pages of legislation, she hasn’t provided those answers. There’s no clarity on how the federation of polytechnics will be funded or whether additional funding will be made available to assist with disestablishment. She may like to answer these questions before the House today in her final contribution.

The Minister is asking the sector to undertake large, wholesale changes without providing them with certainty that adequate funding will be made available for them to complete this. The workforce development councils are a wonderful example. She hasn’t offered to lift and shift workforce development councils into the new programme that she has planned. She’s disestablished and promised to reestablish something new, but she hasn’t offered the costings, the absolute fiscals, to this House today, or to the sector, to validate, actually, what her plan is going to achieve. It is still very unclear how this transition is going to move forward other than, as she said, with baseline spending.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge that under this piece of legislation, she’s given herself more powers—herself more powers—when it comes to the federation of polytechnics, but she’s given less to the sector. And particularly, she’s diluted the representation of Māori within those polytechnics, despite the good work that the sector and iwi do together. I do not support this bill.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call on this bill. We have no philosophical objection to the idea that there could be thriving, independent vocational institutions; however, this legislation does not establish that. Everyone in Aotearoa—students and learners and staff—deserve tertiary institutions, vocational institutions that allow them to get essential skills, that enables regions to thrive, and enables employers of the future to have skilled workforces.

However, this reform has been marred and the legislation has been marred by an unwillingness to engage with the fundamental issues and actually fix what’s broken with the education system. The first thing we need to acknowledge is that education is a public good. However, this disestablishment has been severely disruptive to the hundreds of staff around the country who’ve been let go; to the thousands more that have had to go through job consultations that have rescoped, descoped, and unscoped their roles. We know that there’s been a lack of support. We know that there’s been a lack of support to the institutions as they’ve gone through this quite disruptive process.

We have to question why there’s been such a lack of support from a Government that has claimed—and in the Minister for Vocational Education’s first reading, she claimed that this Government was going for growth. But, sadly, we’ve seen a shrinking of the sector while this reform has been ongoing. We’ve seen that the reforms potentially opened a door—and has already opened a door—to asset sales within the institution itself. We know that some campuses, like the one here in Wellington, have already been sold off. We know that there’s already been consultations for more to be sold off. So how is this creating growth? How is this creating a thriving regional New Zealand when, in fact, hundreds of jobs have been lost and there’s a lot of uncertainty in the sector?

Now, we also have a lot of specific questions and a lot of specific objections to the way that this process has gone on. Now, the first thing we want to see is: will the Minister guarantee that the institutions that entered this reform with debt will either have their debts written off or have some sort of loan forgiveness or loan grant system so that they can stand on their own two feet? Because you cannot create independent, thriving institutions without actually providing the pūtea.

The second is that institutions that went into Te Pūkenga with net assets, that went into Te Pūkenga with a net positive balance on their balance sheet, will be able to walk away with this positive balance sheet intact. Because if we are serious about creating independent, thriving institutions, then we would like to see support for it in the Budget. Now, it’s quite interesting that we’ve not heard any pre-Budget announcements from the Government about Te Pūkenga. We’ve not heard any packages of support being scoped up or offered. Possibly because there’s nothing. There’s no actual support. There’s just thoughts and prayers for an independent, thriving polytech, but no actual backing, no actual reality that underpins the lofty rhetoric that’s emerged from this other side.

We would like to see student representation in these newly independent polytechnics. This legislation doesn’t actually create any specific provisions for it. I echo the words of the previous speaker, Shanan Halbert, that it dilutes Māori representation. Not only does it dilute that but it also doesn’t ensure student representation. So we would like to see that on the table.

We would also like to see guardrails against privatisation, because we’ve heard with concerns some of the Minister’s statements towards the end of last year that the private training institutions might play a role in—

Rachel Boyack: This is privatisation.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, it is. It’s asset sales and privatisation. That’s absolutely what’s going on. So we would like to see guardrails against that.

We would also note that in the proposal for the workforce development councils, one of the previous industry skills boards has fallen off. Now, there’s a lack of creative arts, there’s a lack of business administration, and there’s a lack of information technology in the new proposed councils. So we would like to see that actually made in there.

In conclusion, let’s have some support for thriving, independent polytechnics. Let’s actually put our money where our mouth is by supporting funding for them and not disestablishing them.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill because this is about vocational education and training. When we talk about vocational education and training in cities, it’s quite different from when we talk about vocational education and training in regions, because in regions we know the types of industries are limited and the types of skills that are needed are limited. We want to see that our vocational education and training in regions has that regional engagement, regional understanding, so that they can provide the right skills and also prepare for that right pipeline of skills that are needed in the regions to grow.

What this bill does is it disestablishes Te Pūkenga and it re-establishes polytechnics. This is to make sure that our vocational education training is aligned with local industry and workforce needs. It is also important to note that there has been talk from the other members about financial viability. We fully understand that financial viability is an important factor. Along with financial viability, academic rigour is needed as well as community engagement. The industry engagement is also needed to ensure that our vocational education and training system is able to provide for what is needed for the regional economic growth and the overall economic growth that we want during these times.

About the financial viability, what this bill does is it sets up a polytech federation committee to support a designated federation of polytechnics to operate as viable entities. For the entities that will not be designated to the federation committee, they will have to prove that they are able to stand alone financially and academically.

Along with this, what this does is it also sets up the industry skills board. The industry skills board will replace a workforce development council. Now, these are big changes, disestablishing Te Pūkenga, re-establishing polytechs, and then setting up the industry skills board. That’s why this bill allows for a transition time as well, so that it can be done in a smooth manner.

I have been talking to a lot of people in the tertiary education sector and the vocational education and training sector. The views that I was hearing was that some change is needed. I think this bill—which is a product after talking to various people in the sector after consultation—will provide the opportunity now to people in the sector to come before the select committee and then formally submit to the select committee as well. I’m really looking forward to working on this bill in the select committee process. We support the bill in the first reading. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. It’s in the name of the Hon Penny Simmonds, who gave us a very detailed overview of the bill. Thank you, Minister.

What this bill does is reform New Zealand’s vocational education system by making an amendment to the Education and Training Act. It disestablishes Te Pūkenga, and it re-establishes a network in the regions. New Zealand First is very in favour of doing this, because we feel that, in the regions, they will be able to more effectively address the needs and do it more efficiently and effectively. We also feel that decentralisation is a good thing. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was looking forward to contributions from all parties in the House on this important bill for regional New Zealand, because we’ve heard a lot which essentially is crying wolf from the Opposition. They created this mess, and we said we would fix it. I know and I appreciate that there are people around New Zealand who are challenged at the moment because of some uncertainty created by the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga. Through the Education and Workforce Committee, I commit that we will work as judiciously as possible to get this through the select committee and back to this House, because we need strong vocational education around New Zealand. The money wasted by the previous Government on centralising Te Pūkenga did not deliver that, and we are about to fix it. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. There’s a pattern of behaviour going on here, and I’d just like to highlight the big picture: that we have a Government that has come in and just cancelled stuff without actually having any real plan as to what happens next. Maybe it’s the coalition agreement pressure; I’m not sure what’s going on, but there are a number of different areas that are causing New Zealand uncertainty. They are undermining our ability to get back on our feet economically, and this Government has actually made it worse, when we think of the number of construction projects around the country that have been cancelled by Government, with 13,000 construction workers now leaving New Zealand for other jobs. We think of the housing projects that were going on up and down the country that have been canned, and Kāinga Ora builds that have been put on ice. We can think of their disestablishment of Callaghan in the Hutt Valley with no plan as to what’s going to take its place or how that’s going to take shape, with the uncertainty that goes there. And now we have this bill which disestablishes Te Pūkenga with no plan as to what’s going to happen.

So there is a clear pattern of offending. What is happening with this Government is they come in talking tough, talking big; they’re going to take action. That action is just to cancel things, but they haven’t taken the time to unpack what happens next. We’re at this critical point in the political cycle where all the cancelling, I hope, has happened halfway through but there’s still no plan for what happens after they’ve cancelled it.

They’re getting into some pretty hot water right now, because right now with this bill it’s great that you—well, it’s not great; it’s sad that Te Pūkenga has been disestablished, but what is happening with workforce development councils? There is no provision in this bill about something that was working incredibly well, that was developed for being an interface between industry and training. In the Hutt Valley, we had some great examples where local skills gaps were an interface between the trainers, the skills, and also what’s happening for those workplaces in being able to have that discussion. The whole problem has been lifted and shifted—she should’ve lifted and shifted it into this bill, and what she’s done is just delayed it, kicked the can down the road. So all of those who are on Muka Tangata, who are on those different workforce development councils, that it’s industry as well as union, as well as different voices on there, that are looking at what kind of skills New Zealand needs, what type of workforce planning we are putting in place—all of that has been put on hold for a year with absolutely no certainty.

I get back to the point: that this is a Government that has cancelled a number of significant projects that were under way without having any plan or any blueprint as to what happens next, and they’re hitting the hot water right now because people are expecting some certainty as our economy is still stagnating. Areas such as having certainty in workforce development councils around construction when 13,000 construction workers have left the country—it’s important. They need that level of certainty in training and knowing what is happening.

I attended the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation graduation for those apprentices in the Hutt Valley on Friday, and some of those apprentices had worked for five years. The uptake in apprenticeships has dramatically declined in New Zealand, and that is part of the lack of certainty about what is happening in the sector. It is incredibly concerning that we have someone like Penny Simmonds, who is advocating for her free polytechnic in Invercargill—and that’s great; that’s good for her—but someone who’s come into the sector with the sole purpose of unravelling something is akin to what Nicole McKee has done with firearms reform in New Zealand. You have someone coming in for a singular purpose: to take away a structure that is meant to be an interface between employers and the industry, the training, and the workers to look at what are the skills gaps in New Zealand and how do we future-plan to fill those gaps—because that is a fundamental problem in New Zealand. We need to have the foresight and the ability to do that, and the workforce development councils are something that this bill has completely neglected to look at. That is the role that they should be taking.

The Minister, under this bill, has the ability to establish polytechs with limited consultation or requirements beyond any advice from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and the only specification for the inclusion of Māori to a polytechnics council is “as far as is reasonably practicable”. There are real concerns with how this is going to work. I do not commend it to the House.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill in its first reading. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I look forward to looking at the details of this bill and doing what we can to make sure that it is a judicious process, that it is taken through all the required rigour, and that we see a decent plan as it’s coming forward, because vocational education is vital for our economy. When we see other advanced economies, they highlight the importance and the absolute value of vocational education. I think, in New Zealand, we have overvalued training and education through universities and have not given, essentially, the mana to the vocational programmes that they should have. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I hear Carl Bates has had a lot to say over there, but I wonder if he’s picked up the phone and talked to his local polytechnic about the 74 job losses at Universal College of Learning (UCOL) being proposed at the moment. I bet he hasn’t.

Carl Bates: It’s in Palmerston North.

RACHEL BOYACK: UCOL covers Whanganui—

Carl Bates: But where are the jobs? Do you know the detail?

RACHEL BOYACK: I do—I do have the detail. Would you like me to talk to it? I’ll talk to the detail. The job losses are happening, Mr Bates, in the following programmes: engineering, beauty therapy, construction, applied science, social services, music, entertainment and events technology, photography, early childhood education, and some business programmes as well. Mr Bates isn’t actually standing up for his own polytechnic.

Let me get to the crux of this, having worked in the vocational education sector, in a polytechnic. I studied there as a student, worked as a student president, worked as a member of the council, and worked for the polytechnic itself. What I can say is that what the Government is doing is absolutely taking the guts out of the polytechnic sector. There is no plan and there is no funding. We’ve lost jobs at Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) as well. The feedback I’m getting from people on the ground in Nelson who I talk to—who talk to me a lot, Minister—is that the Government has not been listening to the advice given to them, Minister, and that the guts are being ripped out of our polytechnics. There is no funding, so what the polytechnics are doing, in order to try to be stand-alone, is cutting programmes and cutting staff.

I’m going to come back to some of the other programmes being cut across the country, because I hold the arts portfolio and one of the concerns I have is that, in the disestablishment of the workforce development councils and their replacement with the industry standards boards, there is nothing for the creative sector—nothing for the creative sector. There’s a really good piece of commentary here from the current chair of Toi Mai workforce development council, Dr Claire Robinson, where she talks about the importance of having oversight for the creative sector. Creative tech, screen, game development, music, cyber security, ngā toi Māori, digital entrepreneurship, business skills: these are the kinds of things that are happening in vocational education, for a sector that is actually one of the sectors that is growing in New Zealand—our creative sector.

Furthermore, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, who has published the draft strategy Amplify for the arts, which talks about growing the creative sector, says that the place to do that is in education. So what does this Government do? They cut the workforce development council. They cut programmes in creative education. They cut creatives in schools. They’re saying one thing, on the one hand, and obviously the arts Minister and the vocational education Minister aren’t talking to each other, because Minister Goldsmith says, “Let’s put lots into education”, to do all these great things, and then Minister Simmonds cuts it all. The sector is very, very frustrated.

I’ve also got some more information on a few other programmes around the country, in the arts sector, that are being cut. At Eastern Institute of Technology, this year, the New Zealand Certificate in Ngā Toi is not running. At Southern Institute of Technology, I’ve heard, a really good programme they’re not running this year is the New Zealand Certificate in Foundation Skills strand in Music and Music Technology, or the New Zealand Certificate in Music. At Tai Poutini Polytechnic, they’re not running the New Zealand Diploma in Arts and Design. I’ve already talked about UCOL. And at Whitireia and WelTec—I asked the Minister for Vocational Education if she’d received any advice on the issues there, around their programmes and around their building. She hadn’t sought any advice about that. They aren’t running, this year, the New Zealand Diploma in Screen Production. The Government can talk about, “Hey, let’s put some more money into the sector”, but they’re actually not going to train the people to do the work. This Government is all over the place when it comes to vocational education. We’ve heard about it being a vendetta, and it absolutely is.

The other issue: I visited the construction school at NMIT yesterday and met with some of the students. One of the real concerns, when I was involved in the polytechnic sector, was we had this absolute challenge about the competitiveness between the industry training organisation sector and the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics. It was a competitive model, and when you look at a boom and bust economy, you’d see students being moved from one side of it across to the other. What we did with Te Pūkenga was actually smooth that across and get these two sectors to work together finally. The feedback I’ve had from actual businesses with apprentices in Nelson is that it was working. They said to me—they pleaded with me, Minister—“Don’t change it.” That’s what they said to me, and I stand by those statements. This is a terrible move from a Minister with a vendetta, with no plan, no funding for vocational education, and I do not commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. Te Pūkenga has been a failed experiment—a $300 million failed experiment. That’s what it’s cost the New Zealand taxpayer. But more importantly, it’s cost the students of New Zealand the opportunity in the regions of New Zealand to get a good vocational education.

Being from Northland, I’m very aware of this, and we’re working hard to do what’s best for Northland, and that’s what these adjustments will mean—not being told what’s best for Northland by those that live in other parts of the country. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to the Education and Workforce Committee

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I move, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 21 September 2025.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

House in Committee

House in Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Racing Industry Amendment Bill.

Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

Part 1 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. We come first to the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 5, “Amendments to Crimes Act 1961”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an omnibus bill, so we’ve got a few things that are all trying to focus on making life better for victims of sexual violence—which is always a good thing. This is a piece of work that was started by the Hon Ginny Andersen. She did it as part of the national strategy and action plan to reduce the amount of sexual violence in our country.

We are at Part 1, as I understand it, so we are talking about the first clauses in Part 1, about the issue of the difference in treatment between those under 12 years of age and those above 12. We had a real issue with regard to the difference in treatment under different laws that meant that people were not prepared to charge under a particular, more serious action because they were worried that there would be an issue for children under that section. I’d ask the Minister of Justice if he can explain what the purpose of this part is in his view, and whether he considers that the bill has closed that gap and made it less of an incentive to charge with a lesser offence—how has it protected our children?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two brief questions for the Minister of Justice, regarding Part 1. The first one is regarding clause 5, looking at section 132 amended. I just want to check with the Minister, if I read the regulatory impact statement as well, because what we are seeing is increasing the maximum penalty for section 132(1) from 14 years, to 20 years—but can I just check that this is to do with bringing it up to consistency with what we are seeing in section 128B of the Crimes Act, which has a maximum penalty of 20 years, as well. So, I guess, my first question for the Minister is just for a clarification on that point, and, of course, clarity on section 128B of the Crimes Act on sexual violation.

The second question I have is—I’m just also noting the Minister’s Amendment Paper 289, whereby there are additional clauses that have been added, particularly in terms of clause 4 and clause 5. I think, in this case, while, yes, when we’re looking at that it doesn’t apply to persons under the age of 12, I just wanted to check with the Minister, because I wasn’t part of the Justice Committee: what was the rationale behind including “it cannot be established whether person B was under or over the age of 12 years.”? So, in those situations, under what context would that be? My assumption would be that if something happens, yes, immediately on the surface, you won’t be able to establish if the person is aged 12 or not, but surely that if there is any sort of work has been done, or if police are involved, and etc., that there is going to be some form of investigation and they’ll be able to pick up on the person’s birth report. So I just wanted to check the intention behind new clause 4(b) and also the new clause 5, replacing section 132(6)(a), and particularly new subclause (2)(a)(ii).

Those are my two questions. The first one is whether clause 5 of the bill, increasing the penalty from 14 to 20 years, is to be consistent with the Crimes Act 128B. The second question is: what was the rationale behind adding the Amendment Paper on “it cannot be established whether person B was under or over the age of 12 years.”? Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yeah, just in response to that question from the member, the Amendment Paper 289 is clarifying that where it cannot be established whether the child was under or over the age of 12, then, under replacement section 132(6)(a)(ii), the sexual conduct with a child under 12 is treated as if they are under 12. The member asked, “Well, how would you not know?” Well, there will be some circumstances where the court, for whatever reason, doesn’t know, and so that’s the point of that.

In terms of aligning the penalties: sexual violation has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, whereas sexual connection with a child has a maximum penalty of 14 years. We didn’t think that that distinction was appropriate, so one of the things that the bill does is increase the maximum penalty to 20 years of imprisonment to align with sexual violation. So just in terms of this bill, it’s about ensuring that we’re preventing children from being questioned about consent, which has sometimes been the case. So that’s the purpose of the overall part.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. While I was also not on the Justice Committee when this bill was considered, it is one of the few bills that was introduced to the House in the 53rd Parliament—in a much narrower form—so I am familiar with the issue in regard to children under 12. My question for the Minister of Justice is in regard to whether there was consideration of section 134(1) of the Crimes Act. This was an issue that was raised by some of the submitters at the select committee—it is in the Community Law submission—and it’s in regard to young people who are between the ages 12 and 15—an issue that came up in the case of Christian v R, which involved a teenage girl and a significantly older man, where the similar issue played out in that the higher charge was used, and it had to be demonstrated that, again, the young person didn’t consent. So my question to the Minister is whether there is a policy reason for excluding consideration of that group of young people?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I’d also ask the Minister of Justice just to give a plain-English explanation with regard to the “Automatic suppression of the identity of [the] complainant”, referred to in this legislation. That’s because we’re going to be talking about—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just interrupt the member and check which part you’re referring to?

HELEN WHITE: I think I’m talking about Part 1. Apologies. Maybe I’m not. Maybe I’ve got the wrong part. We can leave it till the next part. Thank you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Sorry, actually, I’m not on Part 2. I withdraw.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 289 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 6 to 8, “Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. As you can see from the report that was done by the Justice Committee, the Labour Party held a different view on this part of the legislation. While the Labour Party brought in the original bill, it was revised by the Minister of Justice, and he added a part to that bill which the Labour Party is not happy with. So we’ll have more to say on this part as a consequence, and, consequently, it’s important that we explain our position.

I also put an amendment on the Table. That amendment goes to the issue of the veto that is given, or the automatic veto—basically, the judge has no discretion if the victim in a case involving a sexual offence says that they don’t want the name of the perpetrator suppressed. There are some very compelling reasons why, given by the New Zealand Law Society when it was consulted when there was a sort of limited submission when this was reopened by the Minister, because there was going to be a substantial amendment. While the Law Society talked about how it was good that the Minister had at least reached out for feedback on it, they were concerned that that feedback was coming from a very narrow group of people that wasn’t as broad as it needed to be. But they also set out a number of things that they were concerned about.

Now, the Law Society’s concerns are quite broad. The amendment that the Labour Party’s put on the Table is not as broad as that. It looks at what the New Zealand Law Society has said and then says, “Well, what are the things, in the list of reasons that they’ve given, that are most attached to the need for victims to be protected?” And you can see that amendment on the Table, Minister. So I would very much like your agreement to it today. That agreement, basically, would need a look at the New Zealand Law Society paper as well—you would get a rich context from that. That would be at page 4 of the New Zealand Law Society’s submission, where it lists it in context of wider submissions.

The two suggestions that the Labour Party selected to put on the Table in an amendment today are that if the victim of the perpetrator says that they would like the name of the perpetrator to be released, but that identification could result in a hardship or danger to the family of the victim, including where the sexual offending has occurred within a family, or—the second suggestion is—the identification could result in hardship or danger to the family of the offender, then, in those two circumstances, the judge would retain an ability to look at those as exceptional circumstances and override the initial indication of the views of one of the complainants.

Now, let’s talk about the reality of this for a minute. The reality is that sexual offenders often have more than one victim, and they are often intergenerational victims in a family, they are often sisters, for example. And it may be that one of those victims has come forward and has prosecuted a claim, but there’s another victim in the wings of this. So what we really pay judges the big bucks for is that kind of discretion so that they can make a humane and safe decision, not just about the person who has come in front of them but the web of people beyond that, in a society.

I’d like to talk for a minute about the wider submission that’s made by the Law Society, because this is an airing that really needs to be had in the committee stage. But I’d like to take another call on that, Madam Chair—Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. That wider context is not—we have not prioritised those things in our own submission. But what the Law Society talks about is that there are issues where “An individual is convicted of a relevant offence and is identified, but charges are pending and under way. Identification may prejudice their fair trial rights, risk the progress of the trial or the security of subsequent convictions, to the detriment of all parties, including victims.”—so it’s not excluding victims. Those also are amendments that the Law Society thought needed to be within that scope of exceptional circumstances, because victims actually fit into that too, but we prioritise the most blatant of those connectors. Then it goes through the other two that I’ve just mentioned: “Identification could result in the hardship or danger to the family of the victim, including where the sexual offending has occurred within a family.”, and the “Identification could result in hardship or danger to the family of the offender.” The last one that they raise is that “There would be a serious risk of physical harm to the offender, due to the circumstances of offending … for example, the nature of the relevant community in which it has occurred.”

Now, I fully take on board—and, obviously, this was a law that was started by a Labour Government—that we absolutely need to prioritise victims in this situation, and that there have been people who have pushed for their suppression and that has been its own trauma to the victims, when they have had their own name suppressed simply because the other person has got the resourcing to continue through our legal process, and others who do not have that kind of resource have not been able to do that, so I’m far from suggesting that law is fair in all cases. But the two exceptional circumstances that I’ve focused on today, and the ones that the Law Society have put as a broader group, are all exceptional circumstances where it may be that they actually tip the scales the other way, if we’re going to have justice in this country, particularly if we are going to be victim-centric. So I would like the Minister’s views and support, actually, for an amendment that is drafted with regard to that matter and has been put on the Table, and I look forward to his answer. I do have other issues, but I’d love an answer to those questions.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): This part of the bill, yes, is something that the current Government has brought an amendment to to deal with the question of permanent name suppression for sexual offending. There are two elements to this, and sometimes people are a bit confused. We’re not changing the law around automatic suppression of identity where the offence is incest or sexual conduct with a dependant, so that remains the case. What we’re talking about is all other cases—not incest or with the dependent—where somebody has been convicted of a sexual offence. Currently, quite a substantial series of people—in 2023, for example, 76 individuals were convicted and achieved permanent name suppression. Year in, year out, we’re having New Zealanders convicted of sexual offences going off and nobody being able to know who they were. We’ve heard a previous speaker saying, “Well, quite often offenders create more than one victim.” A big part of the problem is that those victims aren’t able to warn other people, because they have permanent name suppression.

The concern that’s been raised by many victims is that this permanent name suppression stops them being able to talk about their experience, what happened to them, and who did it. They can’t talk to people for fear of breaching the name suppression. So their ability to heal and to talk about what happened to them and express what happened to them is curtailed, and so their story is suppressed and limited, but then, most fundamentally, also they can’t warn others about what happened to them and about this person, because of the name suppression. And I accept, across the Chamber, that this is a reasonably radical change. It is a significant change to the way that we approach things. We’re reversing the impetus, putting the opportunity in the hands of the victim that permanent name suppression is only granted if they choose to agree, rather than leaving it at the discretion of the judge.

Now, two things are often raised in concern about this: “Well, doesn’t that put enormous pressure on the victim to decide, particularly young victims?” There’s a very simple—and, I think, adequate—answer to that, which is to say, “Nobody’s forced to do anything.” If a victim does not want to make that decision and doesn’t want to engage in the process, then it reverts to the judge making the decision, and we think that’s appropriate. Nobody’s being forced to make any decisions; if they don’t want to, then they don’t have to. So that pressure does not carry on.

Ultimately, we can talk about being victim focused and victim-centric, and we can talk about these things, and it’s an easy thing to say, but this is an instance where we’ve decided, actually, to walk the talk and make it clear that when you’re convicted of a sexual offence, part of your punishment is that society, in a basic principle of open justice, knows about it. We’re not going to have the situation where nobody’s able to warn others about a particular individual going on and creating more victims. That’s what we want to avoid because, ultimately, the primary focus of all our justice approach is to reduce the number of victims of crime, and that’s what we’re going to do here.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that explanation from the Minister of Justice. I think there’s a general agreement that we want to support the rights of victims within our judicial system; however, during not only the select committee process but also in documents released under the Official Information Act on the advice that the Minister received in making this decision, there were a number of questions raised as to the unintended consequences that may impact victims. So I just want to outline some of those risks that have been highlighted in the advice and I’m interested to know if the Minister is satisfied with whether the current version of the bill makes sure that those unintended consequences aren’t still going to occur if this bill proceeds as it is now.

One of those is that victims could be put under more stress and pressure because of the gravity of the decision. It may carry the burden if extreme harm befalls to a third party because of their decision—so if that’s been weighed up. Also that victims could be exposed to influence and negative repercussions from family members. That’s particularly if they are under 18 in those instances. The proposal requires agreement from a layperson who does not necessarily have access to all of the relevant information, including the submissions from counsel and also psychological reports—whether he’s turned his mind to that. This change potentially risks undermining the integrity of the justice system, which is based on having impartial parties making decisions. So that removes that if it’s completely on the shoulders of the victim to make this decision.

The right to appeal name suppression decisions would, effectively, be removed, if I understand it—and please correct me if I’m wrong—as the victim’s power is tied to whether the defendant is convicted or not. There may be more defendants maintaining a not guilty plea or potentially seeking discharges without conviction—whether he’s looked at those consequences with this change going through. Also discharge without conviction applications could potentially be more likely to succeed if the court finds the risk of extreme harm to a defendant or someone connected to them is out of proportion to the offending.

The other one I’d like to highlight is that the defendant’s or the other party’s right could be impacted if the publication would likely have a high risk of suicide—if that’s a case he’s weighed up—or other risk to their physical safety. Again, depending on the age, that would be something that needed to be weighed up as well. The other area is that defendants may start indicating guilty pleas only if victims supported name suppression, which could be kind of, I guess, a tempting option to prevent victims having to give evidence at trial.

Finally, it’s important to point out that there’s no bottom age limit on when victims would be consulted. So this, potentially, would mean that children could be given the decision power, despite not potentially fully understanding the consequences of what they were needing to do to lift name suppression or not, and whether that is fair on those younger victims of crime.

There are a number of concerns that have been outlined by victim advocates throughout the select committee process and also in advice provided to the Minister. I think it’s only right that we can be reassured that he has turned his mind to all of those potential consequential risks that could actually make life more difficult for victims of crime. It will be good to understand from the Minister whether he has considered all of those specific risks that have been outlined throughout the select committee process.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes, I can assure the committee and the member that I have considered those risks, and I acknowledge that they are risks and no system can be designed that is perfect, and the current arrangements, of course, bring an enormous number of risks as well that people who have been convicted of a sexual offence and can’t be named—that of course brings enormous emotional consequence and pressure on the victim, who can’t tell their story and can’t warn others and has their story supressed by the courts. That has to be balanced.

In terms of the pressure on young people, as I said, nobody has to make a decision in this space. They can, if they don’t want to engage—and many younger people might not want to engage—in which case the court process follows as it is. So, yes, I am aware that there are risks in making this change. The only point that I’d make is that there are many risks under the current system and, on balance, we think that this is the best way forward, and it provides the best way for the greater number of victims of sexual offending be able to tell their story and to warn others.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just looking here at new section 200(8)(b), inserted by clause 6A. I think it’s a great day when we can come together and really look at how we protect children, how we protect victims of sexual violence. I’m just really interested to know if the Minister of Justice could talk us through the process of when the court is satisfied that a complainant has been contacted to find out whether they actually want this name suppression lifted or not.

Obviously, any kind of trial of this nature can be very taxing on a person and they may just want to have a bit of a break and to switch off from this or go and do whatever they want to do to help heal. We’re just wanting to really make sure that—it says here “all reasonable efforts, cannot be contacted.” I guess that implies a level of communication—in section 200(8)(a) there “is unable or unwilling” to be contacted.

It would be great if the Minister could just talk us through the process, for example, how much time is considered reasonable? Is it three months? Six months? A year? Three years? What is considered reasonable effort? We know that phone numbers change regularly, particularly mobile phone numbers, email addresses, forgetting passwords, and also the transient nature of renters. Just wondering if the Minister could just elaborate a little bit more on the process around the reasonable efforts to contact the complainant—survivor, victim—about whether they are wanting that name suppression lifted. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Just in answer to that, my advice is that “reasonable efforts” is established in case law. There is not a precise date—you know, you’ve got 15 days or 20 days. Each case can be dealt with on a case by case basis by the courts, but there is sort of a broad precedent around what that refers to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to talk, also, about this name suppression issue. It is a difficult issue and I do want to recognise the intent of empowering victims and giving them agency over this question. I’m interested in what New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis was done around this amendment, because it was a late amendment. Naming an offender publicly is part of the sentencing process, and denunciation is one of the objectives of sentencing, and rightly so. What the courts have said about suppression is—and I’m not saying the suppression law as it currently stands is perfect; it’s far from it—where to name someone would be a disproportionate punishment, that suppression is properly considered. I guess this amendment gives decision-making power over an offender to a victim. One of the real centrepieces of our criminal justice system is that the Crown, or the Government, metes out punishment. It stands between victim and offender so that we don’t have personal vengeance. What we have here is, perhaps, a small but critical erosion of that where a victim becomes a judge in this regard.

There are two strands to that that I would like the Minister of Justice to address. Can he just simply respond to that? Does he think it’s appropriate that a victim becomes a judge? And given that it’s an absolute right of veto of name suppression, regardless of the impact, the gravity of the offending, the nature of the perpetrator, and all of those other things that are relevant in sentencing, did he turn his mind or was he provided advice in respect of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the prohibition on disproportionate punishment?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister of Justice, on clause 6A, new section 200(9)(b)(ii). I think a lot of that does touch on it, and I want to, first, acknowledge Labour’s concern, particularly around the fact that there is no lower or bottom age limit on the victim being consulted and, potentially, we’re placed in a position where children are able to make these sorts of decisions.

I have two scenarios where I want to get clarification from the Minister. The first one is, when it comes to subsection (9)(b)(ii), am I understanding the legislation correctly that the only way, in that case, for a victim or for a complainant to be able to have that decision-making power is if they themselves also waive their name suppression? I see that it only stands if both parties do not have name suppression; so you can’t have a situation where the complainant has said, “I would like name suppression, but I don’t want the offender or the person convicted to have name suppression.” Is that the case, where both have to be on an equal footing? That’s my first question.

The second question is: noting that we have the new subsection (9)(a), which involves more than one complainant—but it’s not stated or explicitly clear, from subsection (9)(b)(ii), in the situation where there is more than one complainant, who then determines, or how do we ensure, that all of the complainants’ suggestions around the convicted person’s name suppression are taken into consideration? Do they have to have consensus, then, if there is more than one complainant, for them to agree that name suppression is lifted, or is it just one of them, or the key person? I think the multiple complainant part is a really important question to answer.

Those are my two questions. The first one is whether they’re on an equal footing—either both sides need to have name suppression or none of them has name suppression. And, second, in the event of multiple complainants, do they have to have consensus when deciding the convicted person’s name suppression?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): This is a really good point, because I just want to extrapolate into another area. I think there’s a difference between complainants and other victims. There are often situations where you will have more than one at the same time, but you will also have other victims of the person. I talked about a situation where you’ve got a family and you might have two sisters. There may be other victims, and that’s not picked up in the language. What the amendment does is talk about those situations which were a bit difficult, and so I’d love to have an answer with regard to those really practical situations, where we’re going to see harm to victims if we don’t have enough wiggle room and enough discretion with the judge.

I’d also like to know about situations where youth is a factor. We’ve talked about it in terms of there’s no age on this and there’s weight. But let’s be specific: we often have, in family law cases, children who are very young or are under extreme pressure being asked for their views, and so, in some situations, you have to really be careful about how those children are approached, or if they’re approached. While there’s a rule about looking at the views of children—and then there are issues over the best interests of children. The best interests of children are always paramount, and that’s a really important piece here that just seems to be missing. What happens if there is a concern that there will be pressure on a child over their view? Isn’t that something where we want, sometimes, to take that away and let a judge make that call? That’s why I proposed an amendment, really, entirely focused on those victims in that situation.

There’s also just the broader issue, beyond the amendments, of what the answer to that is from the Minister of Justice. What happens when you’ve got two people in a family—or, actually, multiple victims, historic victims, etc.—and actually, there’s only one complainant, in that sense of people taking the case at the same time? They’re the only people being asked. They’ve got a decision which others are not being involved in. It’s a very practical question that I’d love an answer from the Minister on.

Finally, it occurred to me that what the Minister is saying is consistent with us throwing the doors open. He says it’s an issue about open justice. I take the point. I have things where I’d like to see things a lot more open in terms of justice—one is non-disclosure agreements. I’d like to see us not do that in situations where there were sexual harassment cases; so people could tell their story, etc. But I think I’ve heard the Minister take a very different point of view on such things, where there is a contractual clause that means you can’t disclose those things, and say, “That’s a contract you’ve entered into.” Surely, the principle has to be extrapolated out here, and we need to look at all situations in the same light. Is he prepared to give me his assurance that he would do that: look at open justice in situations where people are contractually bound not to talk about assaults to victims?

I know it’s a little off point, but it’s actually a logical connection here with the statement that he said—that it’s more important to talk about open justice. That’s more important than, perhaps, the victim who is wanting this to be suppressed or a situation where it is not known. So the person in the family, who is a victim even though they’re not the complainant—that seems to be where he’s tipping the balance. I hope he can take my point in good faith and answer that one as well. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vetting, the Crown Law Office obviously vets Ministry of Justice bills for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and they do that at their discretion and give the advice to the Attorney-General.

In terms of what happens when there are multiple victims, the court will treat each victim individually. Each victim will be asked to provide their decision on name suppression. If the victims’ decisions are the same, then the decision applies; if the victims’ decisions are not the same, the court must consider the victims and the individual charges separately. The offender may be named in relation to some convictions, but not in relation to other convictions.

We’re obviously not talking about complainants; we’re only talking about when the process has been taken through. One member talked about turning the victims into the judges. Obviously, the question of whether somebody is convicted of the crime is not in the hands of the victim; that is very much in the hands of the court and the judiciary, and the jury, if that’s appropriate. We’re not proposing any changes to that. What we’re talking about here is in relation to decisions around name suppression, and many points have been raised. I’m not suggesting for a moment that there is a neat and tidy, perfect solution to this problem, and I think all members are acknowledging that point. Whichever way we arrange things, there are people who are going to suffer some measure of pain and lack of comfort, either because their offending is being exposed publicly—and the consequences that flow from that—or the victims who are not able to talk about their experiences and to warn others. The purpose of this legislation is to change that, and to stand firmly, squarely on the side of the victims, not to have to go through that painful experience, unless they choose to. So that is why we have preserved—absolutely—the ability of victims not to engage in this process if they don’t want to, and that is very important.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I have to say we are very close to a closure motion, people.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to the question of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet because I do think that that is an important issue for us to discuss today. The Minister of Justice made the comment that it is at the discretion of the Attorney-General to conduct that vet. That was the case on the introduction of the bill. What is unique in this case is that we have an amendment to the initial bill which is quite significant. The original bill concerned Part 1, which we’ve discussed and was introduced in the 53rd Parliament. The first and second amendments were introduced in the 54th Parliament and concern the new issues of name suppression that we’re discussing now, which is a significant New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue, but wouldn’t have been conducted in that first vet.

The Law Commission report notes that this is the second time that a significant amendment which, prima facie, touches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been presented, and it raised some concerns about whether due process occurred in terms of a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and I believe that that vet should have been done. It is absolutely within the scope of the Minister’s powers to request advice on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance, and I believe that there is an obligation to do that.

My first question would be in relation to whether the Minister did actively seek advice on consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My second question is whether the Minister actively turned his mind to a section 5 analysis, which is that if rights are being limited, how should they be limited in a way that minimises the impact on that right? That really does bring us back to the amendment that was proposed by my colleague Helen White, which looks at the proposal of a residual discretion. It’s a residual discretion that’s proposed not in the way that the Law Commission have proposed it. It, in my view, is proposed very much on the basis of the sentiment that sexual violence advocates put forward in their submissions to the Justice Committee. I look at the submission of the Auckland sexual abuse HELP foundation, for example, who raised, as colleagues have spoken about, the issue of victims who are children. Their proposal—one of their many proposals—was that automatic name suppression be given to those young people with potentially quite a unique proposal of final name suppression being determined at a later date once they were of age.

So what I would like to know is whether the Minister first requested the vet and whether, secondly, he turned his mind to a section 5 analysis, bearing in mind that the options were on the table in select committee submissions and certainly now on the table with my colleague’s proposed amendment. I’d like to hear his response to that. Thank you.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 289 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 6A replacing new section 200(8) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the final debate, which is clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a very quick question for the Minister of Justice on clause 2, commencement. Now, I’m interested on why the Minister chose four months after Royal assent for this particular bill, noting that in bills that are presumably much more onerous in terms of core administration and raising awareness that this is not the case. To give an example: the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, the commencement date was three months after Royal assent, and other comparable bills were six months. In terms of justice bills, we have seen this term, they move in three-month blocks, as opposed to four months. I guess the question just simply is: is this due to court systems? Is this due to raising awareness? Is this due to backlog of cases? Why four months when we’ve seen other areas being three?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I can give the member the answer that we thought four months was the appropriate length of time.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Racing Industry Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 14—“Amendments to principal Act”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to spend some time in the committee stage on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. In the second reading last week, I made some contributions around the progress of the bill—the nature of the Governance and Administration Committee being very collegial around wanting to support this piece of legislation. I acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Winston Peters, as he has said on a few occasions, and as members will know, this is an important piece of legislation to support a vital industry for New Zealand’s economy.

I do have a number of questions. The first does relate—since we are on Part 1—to clause 5. This relates to the new requirement for not just the Minister but the chief executive of the department—their ability to be able to require information from the TAB. This was a change that was introduced through the select committee process, and I think the rationale for that was to provide for the chief executive, on behalf of the Minister, in some circumstances, to seek the information, alongside the Minister being able to do that directly. My question for the Minister is about whether that is accurate or not.

Secondly, the powers that are, effectively, conferred on the chief executive under clause 5, which would be new section 58A, do relate to an ability for the Minister to seek any relevant information that is specified in the notice that they would put to TAB New Zealand. That’s quite a wide-ranging ambit. The addition in new section 58A(2A) is slightly constrained, in that it relates to the chief executive basically utilising that power for the specific purpose of advising the Minister—yes, got that—but specifically around TAB New Zealand’s performance of its functions.

So my question to the Minister is: is it anticipated that the two powers, whether they’re exercised by the Minister or by the department’s chief executive, are in parallel; not in terms of time but could be exercised by either of them, for the same purpose? Or is it still anticipated that the ministerial request for further information is expected to be much wider than that of the chief executive? I’ll start with that first question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): Look, for the sake of brevity, perhaps if I could deal with that. The answer is if you’re running your department properly and they understand what the Government’s policy is, as explained in the first briefing one ever gets from the ministry, then the answer is it should be in parallel. If you’re running in the opposite direction to your department, then you’re going to be in trouble very, very quickly—or worse still if they’re not following what the Minister’s asking for, he or she having got the approval of the House.

The gist of the matter is that we’ve looked—and I’m very grateful to the Governance and Administration Committee for going through this matter seriously; dare I say, as is best in the select committee stage. Our own forecast of what we wanted to change at this time in the bill’s process: we want to see a series of decisions made now and are prepared for changes when, in the length of time we’ve had to study that, we can see a need for it. But some of the things that I think the select committee was talking about caught even the TAB unawares when they realised what they meant. All we are saying is we don’t have the evidence for that yet. There may come a time yet when we’ll have to, but I don’t think that time is now.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for Racing for the response around that. I think that is important because it is something that did come through the process around allowing the chief executive to basically pursue some of that information.

I’d like to look at clause 8. This does relate to the ability of the TAB to refuse a bet or a number of bets. One of the things that the Governance and Administration Committee heard was the process that the TAB goes through when a decision around whether a bet should be accepted or rejected does take place, but also around some of the criteria, really.

Now, I understand that there is an Amendment Paper in the Minister’s name to seek to change that, and there are some questions around that. I mean, our perspective is that that criteria needs to be in legislation. Ideally, we would like to see it in the primary legislation, but if it’s going to be in the regulations, well, we can certainly live with that. That’s my understanding as to what the Minister’s Amendment Paper seeks to deliver.

The questions around that, though—and there are a number of questions around the criteria—are an ability for the Minister to provide some certainty. I know that can be very difficult. I mean, this is a process of putting the regulations in place, but it would be comforting to hear from the Minister around what perhaps some of those constraints are as to why it cannot be in the primary legislation and needs to be in regulations. I understand that it’s so that some of the policy issues can be worked through. Fundamentally, I think what is good law is making sure that whatever is in place is workable, for a start, but it would be quite comforting to hear from the Minister about some guarantee. The select committee unanimously wanted to head down this particular path, and so it would be good to get an understanding as to how that was going to be achieved.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Racing a very quick question relating to sporting codes. One of the things that did come up during select committee was submissions from sporting bodies around how they are able to access funding and that there was, they felt, some discrepancy there. I do acknowledge that there is, actually, a lot of opportunity for people from those codes to be appointed to the board of the TAB. So it was a particular matter that was raised by submitters during Governance and Administration Committee hearings. One of the things they specifically wanted under the establishment of the TAB New Zealand’s monopoly was for there to actually be a formula written into regulation outlining how different sporting codes would receive the distribution of betting money. They also wanted it actually to be written into regulations about requiring representatives of Sport and Recreation New Zealand or sporting organisations to be represented on the board. This was a particular matter where we received a large number of submissions through that process, so I’m just interested if the Minister did give any consideration to that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): Can I say, experience is a funny thing. I can recall when the sporting organisations wanted to get off the board because they were in a full-scale fight amongst each other, and in the end they decided maybe they’d be better served with none of them on it. That’s the truth.

The second thing is: when I read the Entain contract end to end, I wondered who did the fiscals and who did the legals at the time. But I inherited that; that’s what I got.

The other thing is—if I could answer the first inquiry—yes, you’re right about clause 8, but we have moved the concerns that the Governance and Administration Committee had into the regulation powers and left them open for consideration at the time we acquired the evidence to sustain such a statement as was being made by the select committee at the time.

You can ask me your next question, “Why didn’t the TAB tell us that?” Because they never thought you guys were going to do that; that’s why. At the moment that they did, they panicked, because they could see, when it comes to money-laundering and all their requirements both here and internationally, they would not have the powers to be able to act in the first place. That was our concern.

I’m not saying that it is perfect. I’m saying, though, we need a time to ensure that we have the information to make such decisions. But in the meantime, a critical amount of money is capable of being lost because of the brevity in time that we’ve got available, which will affect not only the TAB but it will affect the sporting bodies as well. That’s why time is of the essence now.

So I’m not trying to obfuscate; quite the converse. I’ve been sitting here waiting for months to get this to where it should have got to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, it is time for us to break for the dinner break, and we will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the sitting is resumed. The House is in committee on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. We are currently considering Part 1, which consists of clauses 4 to 14, and members also can discuss Schedules 1 and 2.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the pleasure of sitting through many of the submissions in the Governance and Administration Committee, and thank you to my colleagues from all parties who asked some useful questions. I do have some questions, in a couple of different areas, for the Minister for Racing. One would be looking at clause 8 and when bets may be refused. We had a number of submissions that actually talked about the assumption—but it’s only an assumption because they weren’t given the reasons—that some bettors were just too successful. I want to be assured that by amending the refusal to accept all or any part of a bet from an individual, any other grounds would not include just being the winning bettor.

I’ve also got some follow-on questions about the visibility of the distribution, the disbursement, of the profits from betting. Now, I realise that TAB contributes over 90 percent of the racing code’s annual income, and that without the TAB—and potentially without this monopoly—racing would not be viable. But I think many people don’t realise what a big contribution it is to a number of different sporting codes—for example, tennis. It’s apparently one-third of their income, but we only know that because tennis chooses to tell us so. I wonder if the Minister might point me to any of the sections that we’re talking about in Part 1 that could potentially lift that veil of secrecy—in that, as I understand it, each of the code’s agreements with TAB is confidential; whether that should remain the case or whether we should see some more transparency? I look forward to the answers.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to be able to ask some questions. Whilst I am a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I only listened to some of the contributions from different submitters—certainly with the racing. I want to draw the attention of the Minister for Racing to clause 9, in terms of the department who will monitor the compliance. I know in the following couple of pages it is outlined with regards to “Regulations relating to harm prevention and minimisation”. When I did have the opportunity to make a contribution to Minister Jones, it was to highlight the issues of online gambling harm, particularly in South Auckland. Specifically, I appreciate that this is the racing bill that will permit, once the bill goes through, the online aspect of it. My concern is that for Māori and Pasifika and young people who are very interested in online gambling, the whole portfolio of racing is a good thing because we are looking at the sustainability of the industry.

I have read the Minister’s legislative statements, and my question is with respect to section 92A, the “Department to monitor compliance”. I wanted to ask—it says, at new subsection (2), “TAB NZ must pay the reasonable costs that the Department incurs in carrying out the monitoring functions”; and, in new subsection (3), “The chief executive of the Department and TAB … must enter into an agreement relating to the recovery of the reasonable costs that the Department incurs in carrying out [those] monitoring functions.”

I wanted to ask, Minister, what progress reports will you receive from the department—what will they look like, and are you able to elaborate further to help me understand those? Because whilst Labour is supporting this bill, it is important to understand the harmful effects—which I have another question about a little bit later—with respect to that relationship. Because I know, under the new bill, the Minister will from time to time have the ability to question the board, but also to get progress reports. And I wanted to understand what they would look like—what kind of information will the department get, and will they specifically focus on the problematic groups such as Māori, Pasifika, and young people? It’s the areas that I come from in South Auckland where class 4 licences are a problem, and I understand the Minister didn’t want to go down that road but it is important, because when I go back to the community, Minister, they will be asking me those questions and why I didn’t ask questions around that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up on the response that the Minister for Racing gave before the dinner break. It is around his new Amendment Paper that he’s tabled that changes section 92. The answer from the Minister which we heard was that shift to the regulation is because the TAB didn’t expect the Governance and Administration Committee to make this change. Well, that is unfortunate because, effectively, we are moving into a monopoly.

One of the things that I’d be quite keen to hear from the Minister around is some certainty to allay concerns that submitters had put before the select committee, which is why the committee made that unanimous change to put it in legislation. I know that the Minister has said that there needs to be policy that’s worked on, but I do think it would be helpful if he was able to give some certainty around what his expectations would be, as racing Minister, around the haste within which the TAB would be expected to undertake—or the Department of Internal Affairs—the policy work to give effect to the intent of the select committee, bearing in mind that there is going to be a change there, which we on face value are certainly happy to support. But I think getting some idea of what his expectations are in terms of how quickly those regulations could be worked upon would be quite helpful.

One of the things, Minister, that the select committee did hear about were those who had placed a bet or sought to place a bet with the TAB and their bet had been refused, but there was no communication with them from the TAB as to why the bet had been refused or rejected. Now, that’s why there is a provision in new section 92(2), inserted by clause 8, that says, “If TAB NZ refuses a bet under this section, it must inform the individual seeking to make the bet of the reason for refusal as soon as practicable after making the decision to refuse the bet.” My question is: given that there is a move to, effectively, transfer across to have some regulatory function there, is the Minister concerned that there is that lack of communication provided from TAB and New Zealand to bettors? I think that is still important.

There is the issue that my colleague Rachel Boyack touched on around those national sporting organisations who do receive an element of funding, and, as Celia Wade-Brown has said, that’s somewhat shrouded in some mystery. The response from my recollection from officials was that there is already—because what the sporting organisations were calling for was, again, a guaranteed seat on the board of the TAB—that power granted to the Minister to consider a full range or suite of matters in making an appointment. So whether he’s prepared to make some response—I know he referred to this in his initial comments, but just to respond to that specific question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): Well, first of all, trying to deal chronologically with the questions raised—bear in mind, as an overarching statement, this is a regime that I inherited. This is a regime that had a contract which, in my view, at the moment I saw it and well after the event, and weeks after the event of my responsibility, I was gravely concerned about, but it was a fait accompli. So I’m trying to deal with that.

The second thing is the Greens asked, sequentially, first of all, about some bettors maybe being too successful. Well, just go back to the fact of the casinos: which industry asks you to go along and say, “Here’s all my money. I hope I might win some of it back.”? Now, this is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about an industry where people can be studious, they can study, they can understand form, get a good tip, make a fortune if they get the right tip, or just sometimes—somebody I knew very well was at the racecourse in Randwick in Australia and he saw a horse that had the name “Mary” on it. Mary was his wife’s name, and it came in 35 to 1—total outsider. Of course, he was a very happy person at the time. People have all these sorts of reasons to be making a punt.

But my point is, some being better than others, well, there’re some who are so much better than others, but usually they bet on a place—not first place. They bet for a place, they take lower odds, and are just so much more successful. I can’t really explain that, because everybody else out there thinks they’re lucky and they’ll have a go. Some people only have a punt maybe once a year—maybe it’s just the Melbourne Cup—and there are some who make it part of their lifestyle.

As for the disbursement of profits, well, you see, the sporting codes originally asked for confidentiality. I find it very confusing, because over the years there’s been such a disparity. First of all, they wanted to all be on the distribution group, then they found they were at loggerheads so often that it wasn’t worth it. They wanted to get off it and leave it to the then established committee, and, as a consequence, aspects of the confidentiality remained. But I might just say this, you know: sometimes—and I’m not making any defence of anything, but this industry used to be supported by tobacco sponsorship, and then one day a certain party said, “That’s out.”, despite the fact that they were giving people a smoke before they got into an aeroplane and were possibly going to die within the next 20 minutes. They then banned it from the Returned and Services’ Association. So there’s a consequence to all that, and we had to find a new way of funding this operation, and differently. No one can go backwards; that’s the way the world is, but as I say, there are always consequences.

As for compliance monitoring, well, certainly we’ll be monitoring compliance, and we rigorously—well, my ministry office does; it watches out for reports all the time. Somehow, we suspected you were going to ask that question, so I got this report ready for you: class 4 gambling has been funding the racing rejuvenation fund for the past two years and the primary funding source of the Racing Integrity Board. The TAB operates 449 machines across 39 venues. That’s only 3 percent of the class 4 market, which the previous Government in its final days said they didn’t want them to engage in, even though it was only 3 percent of the class 4 market. So 97 percent of the problem we’re not going to deal with.

Tangi Utikere: More than 400?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This one’s—see the convenience of that?

Tangi Utikere: More than 400?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, 449, but only 3 percent of the class 4 market. What’s happening with 97 percent? What’s going to happen to the 97 percent, or out of sight, out of mind? Anyway, it’s only a question.

Stand-alone TAB venues where they’ve only been able to operate within don’t sell alcohol, which is a contributing factor to the risk of gambling harm. TAB stores mainly operate moderate hours—that’s 10 to 10 p.m.—compared to other class 4 and casino offerings: all hours of the day and night, as you well know. All stand-alone TAB NZ venue staff receive ongoing training for harm minimisation. Do the rest? Do the other 97 percent? All stand-alone TAB NZ venues have CCTV and facial recognition technology to monitor for the signs of harm and to ensure application of exclusion gallery. TAB NZ contributes both wagering and gaming contributions to the problem gambling levy. So I just thought that might be some information you need to know in the background of that question.

Somebody’s asked about dysfunctionality and the reasonable cost, the industry needed to be studying now. It is an ongoing matter, but I think they’re learning fast in the changing environment. I mean, it wasn’t so many years ago that Minister McAnulty made the change at the Entain deal. As for Labour talking about some certainty around a haste to effect Governance and Administration Committee intent, yes, there is a lot of haste to do that. The TAB was asked, “Do you not foresee that they might go to select committee and then”—what’s the word?—“go rogue and go down their own pathway?” They said no; they thought they would see the common sense of a very balanced, cross-party, bipartisan-generated paper, and if they had an intent they might ask them to come along and make a further submission.

Tangi Utikere: It’s unanimous.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it’s unanimous now, yes, but it wasn’t then. I’m not blaming Labour for this; I’m just talking to the rest of my colleagues on the committee that sometimes if you think that something needs to be done, it may be just to go and ask the number one player in operation of the consideration before the select committee what did they think. It might’ve been a good idea—just suspend it, have it passed in motion, reliant upon further consultation with the number one body. So I don’t think there’s any malignancy here, but I do accept this, and I made it very, very clear: if there are concerns that emerge in the select committee and they are valid, then we want to ensure that going forward there’s agreement across at least three-quarters of this House. Otherwise, it’s here today, gone tomorrow.

Now, this is an industry that should be making $3.5 billion for our economy. Truly, if we were performing like the Irish, we’d make $3.5 billion for our economy and we’d be doing far better in exports, and as the rise of China happens in terms of the racing industry, we’d have far more mares and far more exports. But here’s the good news: we went off to Saudi Arabia recently, and they’re coming to take a good, hard look, because they could be very interested in investing in this industry in this country.

So early days now. We do take your concerns on board and we will be monitoring that over the next year, and we’ll certainly be reporting to you when you have the breakout week where you ask Ministers what’s going on.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your answers. I’ve got a quite specific one about what recourse is there for a bettor who feels they’ve been unjustly refused or restricted? It’s pretty clear, the grounds that TAB will exercise that refusal. But where a bettor thinks they have been unjustly refused, what are their options? I mean, most bettors are not going to be in a position to take the TAB to court or anything. I guess that speaks to the challenge of the creation of this monopoly—which we are supporting and we understand the reasons behind it. But who checks the TAB in the exercise of the power that they will now have to refuse bettors, where those bettors have no other place to go?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted the opportunity to take a brief call on this bill. I wasn’t there for all of the deliberations on it, but I was able to participate as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee when the report was signed off. One of the sections that we were particularly interested in when we scrutinised this piece of legislation was the section around specifying the circumstances in which the TAB may exclude a person from betting. Some of the discussions that we had around that were focusing on the current situation, but also on the situation that we thought was undesirable, which was when someone may be treating TAB staff in a way that is not aligned with the type of behaviour that we would accept in any workplace. So that was quite a bit of the discussion at select committee.

I note that the Minister for Racing has brought in Amendment Paper 287, which replaces new section 98A(1)(b) in clause 12 of the bill, and I just wondered if it would be possible at all to set out his reasoning for that. I’d understood at select committee that we were looking at regulations to perhaps address a situation where someone, if they were putting in a bet in person, might be putting TAB staff in an awkward position. They might be harassing them or annoying them in a way which was inappropriate, and I think that the Minister agrees that that is not a situation where the TAB should be required to continue to service that person as a customer.

I note that in his Amendment Paper, that is borne out in further detail. I just wondered if the Minister might want to reflect on the reasons for that, because I think this is an important part of this piece of legislation because of this fundamental change of having to give reasons, and also specifying the types of workplaces that we expect to have in New Zealand, and the type of behaviour which we think is appropriate for people to have to deal with. That was a particular area that the select committee was interested in, and I just wondered if the Minister might like to comment on that in relation to his Amendment Paper.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is, That the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 287 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendment and revocation

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 15 to 17, “Consequential amendment and revocation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, we came to Part 2 much sooner than many of us were anticipating, but having said that—

Tim Costley: You’ve got to be sharp.

TANGI UTIKERE: What was that? Crickets. In terms of Part 2, I know that the Minister for Racing has talked about inheriting the Entain agreement. I mean, one of the comments we made previously is that the sooner this legislation could make its way through, the sooner money could flow through to the industry. This is, obviously, a bill that will provide—the advice we received is that about $180 million annually is going offshore, in the form of offshore online betting.

Now, when it relates to clause 16A, there is a proposed insertion there that relates to an individual. It is very clear from that that the onus is on the offshore provider, not the individual who is seeking, perhaps, to place a bet. My question to the Minister is a very discrete one, and that is whether he is satisfied that is the case, and that there is not a need for any deterrent for an individual who may be seeking to rort the system and try and place a bet through an online provider offshore.

Certainly, the advice that the Governance and Administration Committee received was that that could be difficult, but, none the less, there are still, I guess, opportunities that might exist out there. This relates to the onus and where it lies. Currently, it sits not with the individual who might be seeking to place a bet—where the Minister thinks the responsibility of an individual in that circumstance should lie.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I think it was in 1994 that a Canterbury university academic produced a paper saying that one out of five dollars in New Zealand was avoided in terms of taxation. Then, not so long after that—at the same time, of course—you’ll recall the other thing called the wine box. I mean, people never stop trying to avoid the system, and the truth of the matter is that the products could be—because of improper or negligently established betting systems—the whole thing could be unprofitable, just like that. Or the anti - money-laundering and countering of the financing of terrorism requirements for this country with international engagements could be immediately impacted with a lack of scrutiny, from us, for the TAB in that sense. Then you have—this is always on people’s minds—match-fixing alongside money-laundering. And there’s enormous temptation for that to happen. And you’ve seen, sadly, a recent allegation—dare I say it—in India, of it happening. Of course, the stakes are huge.

During the time of COVID, of course, there was one sport that went through the roof when other events could not happen. Nevertheless, this very strange sport was going dam busters, or gang busters, so to speak. And the reality is a lot of us are talking here—well, we’re trying to demonstrate a level of expertise. But on this and many of these matters, I’d take some serious international advice, because, like rust, some schemesters and scamsters never stop working at it and they like nothing more than a bunch of innocent politicians who think they’ve lost control of the arena that they’re playing in. So I’ve got no instant answers for you, other than to say that we will be pleased, and so will the TAB, to hear from many of you if you’ve got any concerns going forward. But let’s see how we go over the next year. How about that? Remember, I inherited this system. If I had a chance, I’d have something different.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, and while it is tempting to follow up the issues you raised about tax avoidance, I will stick to Part 2.

Does the Minister for Racing believe that in clause 16A(4), where it says: “An individual may not be convicted of an offence under [the] subsection[s]… for placing a bet with an offshore betting operator … in contravention”—and these sections are getting longer and longer—“of … 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020.”—does he believe that that fails to distinguish between the scamsters and the people who are avoiding using the TAB versus the individual problem gambler who should rightly be protected from conviction so that their gambling addiction isn’t made worse by criminal convictions, given the issues that problem gambling does create for themselves, their whānau, and sadly, potentially, for their employers when money is stolen from their employer?

Just a little extra question that the Minister might like to address, but may not. Given he mentioned India, with which we have some interesting relationships and developing relationships, is he aware that gambling on cricket in India is illegal?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): If I could go carefully through the explanation. Now, this thing is an absolute vowel sandwich, all right. If you read the first paragraph of it—I don’t want to read it out to you because it’s unbelievable—but it says: “As introduced, the amendment to the definition of remote interactive gambling could unintentionally capture individuals under the offence provisions of the Gambling Act. The intent of the bill is not to criminalise individual behaviour or make it illegal for people in New Zealand to make racing or sports bets with offshore operators. Rather, the intent of the bill is to prohibit all other operators but TAB NZ—”

Rachel Boyack: Who wrote that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Who wrote that? Well, I’d love to say it was me, but no—it was written by the department. “—from offering online racing—”. Actually, you’ve ruined the whole flow of it! I’ll start again.

Hon Members: Start again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You know, there was a famous person who used to write for The Times in London, before the Second World War, under the pen name “Cassandra”, which means in Greek “bad tidings” or “ill forebodings”. The day the war broke out, it stopped, and the day the war was over, it began the next day with: “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted.”

“The intent of the bill is not to criminalise individual behaviour or make it illegal for people in New Zealand to make racing or sports bets with offshore operators. Rather, the intent of the bill is to prohibit all other operators but TAB NZ from offering online racing betting and sports betting to people in New Zealand. We consider that clause 16 should better reflect this intent.” It’s all there.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on title, commencement, and principal Act.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to ask the Minister for Racing a question about commencement. So this is one of the changes that the Governance and Administration Committee put into place as it was originally introduced. The Minister will know that the suggestion was that the relevant sections, as they relate to the point of consumption charges being, effectively, repealed, would come into force two years after Royal assent—those point of consumption charges being those overseas operators, basically, being charged a fee as a result of consuming product from New Zealand. What the committee heard was, actually, there’s a possibility that it could be much sooner than that. So what’s provided there is for a regulation or by Order in Council to, basically, bring forward that trigger, I guess, if things were able to be done that way. Now, the Minister has already, in committee stage, talked about the advice that he has received from the TAB and from the department. We understand that that is what has led to his Amendment Paper that’s been received and accepted by the committee.

But has the Minister received any specific advice from either the TAB or, indeed, the department around the plausibility of that early implementation? It’s obviously something that the committee turned its mind to and sought to initiate the change, but how confident is he, again, that things could actually be, effectively, repealed when it comes to that point of consumption charge earlier than the two year, or maybe he hasn’t received any advice around that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): That’s an excellent question, but it’s like night follows day. They can’t begin that work until this legislation gets passed.

Tangi Utikere: But any advice—you received any advice?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, well, that’s the advice—that’s the advice: “We can’t start until you’ve passed the law.” So here we are, waiting with great impatience, trying to help an industry. The whole world’s watching, and we’re waiting upon you to just say, “Yes.”

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I move, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 October 2025.

This bill is all about making it easier for hard-working Kiwis to access the finance they need, when they need it. Over the years, our financial services landscape has become far too complex. This has put a huge regulatory burden on businesses, and consumers are the ones that have paid the price for that.

This bill is part of a package of reforms to address this. It aims to slash the red tape holding the sector back and remove unnecessary compliance costs. It amends the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act of 2003, better known colloquially as the CCCFA. This Act regulates lenders to protect the interests of consumers. There is a question about how well the Act does this, and that’s why this bill is needed.

I’m pleased to present to the House a bill that strives for efficiency and clarity in how consumer credit is regulated. The bill will help streamline financial service regulation, remove unnecessary compliance costs for lenders, and improve outcomes for consumers. This continues the work from last year to remove overly prescriptive requirements that were preventing Kiwis from accessing affordable finance.

The bill has four key features. It is, one, transferring regulatory responsibility for consumer credit from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority; two, better aligning the financial services regulatory model, and this includes bringing consumer credit into the Financial Markets Authority’s licensing regime; thirdly, removing the due diligence duty for lenders, directors, and senior managers, which doesn’t fit well with the new regulatory model; and, fourthly, ensuring more proportionate consequences for breaching certain disclosure requirements.

I’d like now to expand a bit on each of these four components. Firstly, going from two conduct regulators to one by moving the CCCFA to the Financial Markets Authority; it’s about restoring plain common sense. It means that financial service providers answer to one conduct regulator, rather than two.

Secondly, aligning the approach to regulating financial markets means that the bill will better align how consumer credit is regulated. It does this by bringing consumer credit into the Financial Markets Authority’s licensing regime, where other financial services currently sit. The bill will also give the authority other regulatory tools such as direction orders and stop orders. This will not only bring consistency but it also ensures that the right tools are in the right places to protect the interests of consumers.

Thirdly, removing the due diligence duty from directors and senior managers: this means that directors and senior managers currently with a duty to exercise due diligence to ensure the lender’s compliance with the CCCFA obligations may also be personally liable if they breach that duty. This has led to lenders adopting overly conservative approaches to meeting their obligations. The end result is having some consumers being unable to access affordable credit. The regulatory tools I’ve just discussed provide a new layer of accountability, making the due diligence duty unnecessary, and, accordingly, the bill removes it.

Lastly, moderating liability for breaches of disclosure requirements: the bill makes two important changes to a part of the CCCFA that determines consequences for lenders who breach certain disclosure requirements. In 2015, the Act was amended so that a borrower was not liable for the cost of borrowing if the lender had not met these obligations—in other words, borrowers are not liable for interest or fees until the breaches are corrected. Firstly, for breaches that occur under the new arrangements in future, the bill would reverse this starting point. Instead, only when a court is persuaded that the breach caused loss or damage can the lender then be ordered to refund some or all of the costs of borrowing. Lenders will continue to be subject to other consequences for disclosure failures, and these include a fine of up to $200,000 for individuals and $600,000 for a body corporate.

The second change would apply retrospectively, and I want to talk about this part of the bill, which has received some attention. In 2019, changes were made to the CCCFA so that courts could decide what kind of refund, if any, was fair when lenders had breached disclosure requirements, but those changes applied only from 2019 onwards. That leaves a gap for possible breaches that happened between 2015 and 2019.

Right now, the law forces courts to make lenders refund all borrowing costs for that earlier period, even for very small mistakes that may not, in fact, have caused any loss to the borrower at all. In practice, this means that the banks could have to pay large sums for minor issues that caused no harm. Even if the error had no real impact, the bank might still have to issue a full refund. For smaller banks, having to make these large payouts could risk pushing them literally out of business. If that happened, it would reduce banking choices for consumers and harm competition in New Zealand’s banking sector.

This bill addresses that risk by applying the 2019 changes—made by a Labour administration—to past cases as well, protecting smaller lenders from potential collapse over minor immaterial mistakes, but it still allows courts to make fair decisions. If a bank’s breach has caused harm, the court can still require it to compensate affected consumers appropriately. This balanced approach protects competition, supports consumer confidence, and ensures fairness through the courts.

In conclusion, together I expect these changes to support a well-functioning financial services market that ultimately improves outcomes for Kiwi consumers, and it will do this by ensuring consumer credit regulation is proportionate and streamlined and is overseen by a regulator that is effectively equipped to protect the interests of consumers. This bill will simplify the financial services sector so that New Zealanders can get on with their lives, get ahead, and grow the economy. I commend this practical bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Let’s not get distracted: this bill represents the Government rewriting consumer protection laws to let two banks off the hook for money they owe people with loans. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are owed thousands of dollars right now, and they have taken their banks to court. ASB and ANZ are facing this case in court with more than 180,000 of their customers. If you are one of these customers who is affected between 2015 and 2019, you could be owed money by your bank right now and you might not have heard about it because the banks are in fact relying on this Government’s change to retrospectively take away your rights to what you are owed.

Let’s also not forget that this is a change worth thousands of dollars per year to these mortgage holders—to ordinary people who have loans, to people who have large personal loans—and that will be a bigger financial penalty for them than any sort of tax cut this Government has legislated for, any kind of benefit that they have given to ordinary people. This is thousands of dollars at a time when a Government who campaigned on dealing with the cost of living crisis is taking money out of the pockets of people who are owed it legally, and saying to them that they cannot pursue their claim in court.

I heard the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs say that this was a change in 2019 which Labour pursued. Labour pursued a sensible change into the future because retrospective legislation in this way takes away the rights that people have accrued over that time. Consumer protection laws work when the Government of the day ensures that there are big penalties for the big players to be incentivised not to break the rules. And consumers who have to diligently make sure that they are complying with the masses of paperwork that they get when they get it from their banks—they don’t have a legal team to do that. They don’t have the ability to rock along to their Minister and ask politely for a change that they might like. Consumers have to comply, but the consumer protection laws are in place because, where it is onerous for consumers to comply, it also must be onerous for large corporate entities—and in this case banks—if they get something wrong.

If they get the message that a Government will roll over on the penalties that they owe, then what is the incentive for them to follow the rules? Where is the incentive for large corporate entities to have any respect for the rule of law in New Zealand when we will change things behind closed doors and hope that nobody notices when we introduce it a couple of days before the Budget; in a short period of five months where the select committee can consider these views, hopefully, with no one paying too much attention?

This is not how we should make law in New Zealand and it’s not the process that we would expect from this Government, because this Government says that they care about the cost of living. This Government proudly says that it’s going to break up the cozy pillow fight between the banks. But here we have a Minister who wants a pillow fight. He wants to take away the tools that he has to punish banks when they get it wrong. You know who didn’t? The 2015 Key Government. I have the Cabinet paper here that was introduced by the commerce Minister at the time where she said—about these rules that were being written then and this Minister says lack clarity and lack efficiency for consumers—that her Government of the day, at the time it was led by Prime Minister Bill English, was committed to protecting vulnerable consumers. That’s the kind of motivation that is required to write a rule which means that a bank will have to pay out the interest accrued on anything that it gets wrong with its disclosure regime.

Those disclosures are not meaningless disclosures. They are when we require banks and other large organisations to tell the customers what they mean, to tell them how much they have to pay and when they have to pay it back by; simple requirements that if not followed have big impacts on the consumers. I reject this idea that the Minister has introduced—with absolutely no evidence, no official advice in any of the Cabinet documentation and in any of the public documents that he has released—that there will be some sort of massive implication for our banking system and that there is systematic risk here. Name one bank, Minister, who has told you that they will fall over if you don’t change this rule.

I’ll tell you which banks have: the big ones that are well capitalised, that are well prepared for this because they have known about it for four years and are in court now and trying to get out of the debts they owe their customers—with this Government’s backing.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s pretty telling that we’ve got a Government that is campaigning on alleviating the cost of operating a big Australian bank, because so far, we haven’t seen legislation that actually relieves the cost of living pressures for those doing it the toughest. Instead, we have a piece of legislation that consumers didn’t ask for. If anything, it lets ANZ and ASB off the hook by limiting the liability that those big Australian banks face—and the context as well of them facing a class action lawsuit being undertaken by the thousands of consumers affected.

I think this is particularly bad when we also see that when the draft of this bill was in front of us, this wasn’t a retrospective change; it was something that was added later down the line. It really begs the question of: who is this Government working for? It’s really letting down thousands of people who have been underserved by two very wealthy, very powerful banks. The financial consequences for those people are real and material and could manifest in people actually having to make tough decisions in their households about how to live their lives.

It’s also, for me, wild that the Government is pursuing this despite ANZ and ASB both admitting in settlements with the Commerce Commission that they had failed to take the care necessary of a responsible lender. After those statements, they may have paid a tiny fraction—well, ASB borrowers, at least, received a tiny fraction of what they were entitled to under the law. Now, many other consumers are facing the bleak prospect of the carpet being pulled under them at a time that doesn’t happen very often, where consumers actually have the power to hold big banks accountable for their failures and their lack of transparency.

Even the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in the past has acknowledged that it is unusual to intervene in a case before the courts—that the banks potentially broke the law and consumers should have the right to challenge them for it. Yet, the Government is taking this away from consumers by applying this bill retrospectively. I think this talks a lot about the Government’s priorities. As the member to my right, Arena Williams, said in her speech, this is coming off the back of a really, really busy media cycle just before the Budget—key distraction politics and poor lack of engagement on the ground with affected parties as well.

I do hope that in the select committee stage we hear from people and consumers, particularly ANZ and ASB consumers who are being affected by this.

Hon Member: Absolutely.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I hope we can hear from them—I know they said absolutely, but then I also hope that we don’t get the same patronising commentary from members of the Government parties as they did in previous debates when they were saying that, you know, people who work full time don’t have the time to make submissions. I hope that they now change those statements back to encouraging working families to make submissions on this bill on something that deeply, deeply affects them.

This is a Government that is not serving the interests of everyday people and it’s either serving the interests of big landlords who have multiple properties and are making a buck out of the housing crisis, serving the big banks, and then paying lip service by claiming they’ll do something eventually around the big supermarkets, and yet we haven’t really seen anything that substantiates all of the statements that we see in the media.

In the Greens we see one slightly commendable component of this piece of legislation, which is the transfer of regulatory responsibility from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority. While we recognise that the transfer of this power actually makes some sense as the Financial Markets Authority has stronger regulatory tools, we cannot ignore the fact that this has been hidden in a really harmful piece of legislation affecting everyday people.

I find it appalling that the Minister would dare even talk about things like cost of living in a bill that literally strips people from being able to access justice and literal resources that could alleviate that very same cost of living. I can’t believe that we’ve got a Minister who’s able to deliver, with such confidence, such factually incorrect statements when speaking about this bill, because again, this House doesn’t allow us to accuse somebody of lying, but at the very least we can point out that a member is being factually incorrect, no matter how confident they’re being in the delivery of a statement.

We look forward to engaging with officials on a piece of legislation that we can tell they didn’t receive adequate scrutiny and consultation on, and the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill. We hope the Government dumps it and realises the wrong that they’ve done.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill

This bill is about giving confidence to consumers. Definitely, it is about giving confidence to consumers, and this bill is also to ensure that the credit markets are able to operate in a fair market. We need that kind of balance. The consumers are able to take advantage of credit markets only if we have the systems regulations that allow credit markets to work in a fair manner.

What this bill does is it shifts the regulatory responsibility for credit contracts and consumer finance from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority. So it gives that kind of stronger oversight for credit markets, which would give more confidence to consumers, because obviously consumers need to access finance, and we want to see that Kiwis are able to access finance in an affordable manner. At the moment, we know that some of the rules are quite rigid, and people are not able to afford finance, and sometimes they can afford it but they’re just shut out of the market because of the rigid rules. So we want to see that the system is transparent; the system is streamlined, so that people are able to participate as a consumer in the credit market.

We have heard two members from that side, the Labour Party and the Green Party. I would say that, to that comment that there hasn’t been enough consultation on this bill, this bill is going to the select committee, as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has said, the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That will be the opportunity for people to submit and have their say during the select committee process.

There has been a lot of talk from those members about this bill being applied to any errors in documents between 2015 to 2019, and, yes, there is that retrospective element in here, but it is very important to note that it doesn’t take away the responsibility of banks. What it does is it gives the flexibility, it gives the discretion to courts to see that the decision, if there is a mistake—if there is an honest mistake—that the decision is proportionate to that mistake. At the moment, what happens is the penalty is that the whole interest cost and fee is refunded. But if there is an honest mistake and the consumer is not worse off, then the courts will have the discretion to make a decision. That is what this bill does. Of course, we would also like to hear about the retrospective component of this bill in the select committee, see what stakeholders have to say.

Overall, I would say that this bill is a good bill. It goes in the right direction to provide confidence to consumers, and also to provide the environment for players in the credit market to have regulations that work for them as well, because that balance is really important. With that, I would say that we commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill—the CCCFA, as we’ve been hearing. New Zealand First will support this bill to the select committee stage, but we do have some caution around some aspects of it, which I will touch on.

This bill streamlines regulation of the credit market and, in doing so, reduces red tape, something the coalition Government has been committed to doing wherever possible. One thing New Zealand First has always campaigned on—what’s been very important to us as a party; and the changes have been made in the past—is, again, we don’t want to go back to the time when it was very, very difficult to get a credit contract. There was a time when one would be harassed by credit companies, basically, to expose what coffees you were going to drink, what fast food you were going to eat, and what subscriptions you had. I’m not saying at all that this bill is taking us back there, but I think we’ve got to remember where we’ve come from. We must make sure that, for our economy to grow, we make these contracts practical and sensible, as people actually do require them. Interestingly—just trying to do a bit of research—credit contracts, just in our day-to-day lives, around mortgages, getting a credit card, arranged personal loans, hire purchases, and BNPL—buy now, pay later—are all examples of credit contracts in our day-to-day lives.

The one part that New Zealand First does support outright is the oversight of the transfer to the Financial Markets Authority from the Commence Commission, and that brings the credit market regulations in line with the Financial Markets Conduct Act. The caution is around the disclosures, and we’ve heard a number of members speak to that tonight. We will be interested in the process, through submissions through the select committee. Already we’re just hearing through the media—and, obviously, people start lobbying, as we know—but we’ve got to make a system, with the disclosures, that is fair.

We will be looking at that issue closely, around the court stuff that is already in process. We will want to understand more through submissions and find a fair way through that. Yes, the bill is saying lenders won’t be unfairly penalised for small or harmless mistakes, but we’ve got to find the right balance as well. It is important that creditors and borrowers are treated fairly, and we will be watching this legislation so that it strikes the right balance. I commend it to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are again, talking about the “c” word, but this is the triple “c” word that is dimly looked upon by many across the country as well. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), as we know in our walks of life, has caused a number of issues and a lot of frustration across consumers and across the lending sector.

From July last year, this Government scrapped 11 pages of overly prescriptive affordable regulations that are no longer part of the CCCFA, enabling Kiwis to access finance with greater ease and certainly greater confidence. Those were rules that were designed to guard against the loan sharks, but they saw prospective borrowers having to justify—as we remember, Tom Rutherford—gym memberships—

Tom Rutherford: Coffees.

CAMERON BREWER: —coffees, and Netflix accounts. So this is the second tranche, and we’re very pleased to be here for the first reading, and we welcome submissions on the bill as it comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee to assess.

If we look at the legislative statement—just to keep focused on the bill; others have tried to distract us as to the main purpose of this. But this bill is one of three that aims to simplify and streamline the effective regulation of our financial services. This bill contributes to that aim by aligning both the regulator and aspects of the regulatory model for consumer credit under the Financial Markets Conduct Act. It proposes a range of reforms that focus on promoting fairness, efficiency, and transparency in markets for credit, and that support consumer participation.

This has been long overdue. This has been something that’s been frustrating those in the sector, and consumers and lenders, for a long time. This is another tranche of cleaning up the CCCFA—the “c” word that’s agonised a lot of people for a long time. And it’s this Government; that Government tried to fix up the CCCFA and nothing happened. Remember that? They tried to. Mr Twyford said, “Oh, well, we’ve tried to send out some signals to the market.”, and nothing changed. We came in in July last year and got rid of those overly prescriptive loaning regulations, and now this is the second tranche of cleaning up what needs to be done. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve never been so happy to hear the word “credit” in my life.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand to take a call on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. But, unlike the member, Cameron Brewer, who’s thankfully just taken his seat, I’m not standing up to speak in support of this bill. I think this bill should be called the “National Looking After the Bank (Not Everyday Kiwis) Bill”, or for short, it could just be called the “Sharks Are Back Bill”, because it’s probably worth casting our minds back to the problem that this bill was addressing.

I have here, an article: “Loan sharks leave three homeless Auckland mums in almost $150,000 [worth] of debt”. Now, it goes on to detail that “More than half the debts were to South Auckland finance companies charging high interest and a raft of default payment fees on goods, such as cars, fridges, and clothes.” Now, the people in the article, the person who’d been mentoring these three women, said that they did need to take some responsibility for the decision making, but also that “there is always an element of avoidability.”, but, ultimately, that the issue here is “profits over ethical lending”.

I think, here, it’s good to get a snapshot—and the article includes it—of the debt levels that these three mothers had. A 31-year-old mother of six had a total debt of $50,000 from 13 debts, including eight debts to finance companies, three for utilities, and two to Government departments, and the largest single debt of $16,800 to a car-finance company. A 33-year-old single mother of five had a total debt of $19,000 from 10 debts, including five to finance companies, three to other sources such as medical—that’s taking your kids to the doctor—Sky TV, a friend, and two to Government departments, and a largest single debt of $11,000 to a car-finance company for a car she no longer had in her possession. And a 30-year-old single mother of three with a total debt of $75,000 from seven debts, including four to finance companies, one for rent arrears, two to Government departments, and the largest single debt of $41,000 was to a student loan.

Now, you don’t have to look far to find further media reporting instances of a finance company charging 182.5 percent per annum on top of credit and default fees. And, interestingly, that was a prosecution brought under the commission’s first case under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which is exactly what you are trying to undo with this bill.

On the announcement that you were bringing this bill forward, Auckland financial mentor David Verry, who has 30 years of experience in banking, said that “the Government”—that’s the members opposite—“[were] not telling the whole story.” He goes on to say that “Doing away with the need for affordability assessments, that’s going to do away with our ability to challenge loans that basically shouldn’t have been made. Allowing lenders to set their own standards will undoubtedly lead to more people arriving on the doorsteps of budget services.” It’s worth noting that those are the same budget services that this Government has pared back and has cut for our communities.

The solution that we had put in place was to put protections in place to shield Kiwis from predatory lenders. This bill undoes that. This bill gives the banks a free pass. There will be 150,000 mortgage holders who will miss out on millions of dollars of compensation because of this bill. So the sharks are back. The sharks are sitting opposite and are pushing through a bill that does nothing for everyday Kiwis but looks after the big banks. That is shameful.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I just had to wake myself up from that sort of ramble from the previous member, Reuben Davidson. I was trying to link whether there was any relevance to the actual bill at hand, and I was like “Oh, is he on the right bill?”, because I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

But, anyway, this is part one of the holy trilogy of financial services bills. Later on tonight we’re going to be talking about the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill and the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, so they’re all connected. But it’s really important that members opposite stay tuned so that they can keep up with the financial literacy that’s required to understand and dispel these bills.

This amendment bill is really just to tidy up four key things. But, really, if I was just to focus on the main element of it, it’s about proportionality. If a bank, for example, forgets to do a return address on an envelope, they are liable for disproportionate amounts of liability risk. It’s just nuts, because we’re about fairness, and fairness cuts both ways. This bill is a tidy-up, it’s appropriate, it’s proportionate, and therefore I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): The banks currently owe hundreds of millions of dollars to ordinary New Zealanders. They are liable under the law passed by the National Party in 2015 that was in place until 2019. That is the law as it stands. They are in debt to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. They are being sued in court for that debt. ANZ and ASB are being sued in court and this is a very rare bill that actually names the case and says that the case must stop, that those people who have current claims can’t claim it under the law as it stands today, and that we’re going to change the rules under their feet.

As for the ACT Party—who have introduced a bill today that they say upholds the rule of law and upholds property rights and contractual certainty—to have it lie in their mouth to now change the rules under contract retrospectivity, it is bewildering at best. The fact of the matter is—and I’ve been contacted; many of us have been contacted by the banks. The banks are very good lobbyists. They spin a good yarn. I won’t be influenced by their yarn. That party over there has been influenced by the banks to change the law in the banks’ favour and against the interests of consumers. It is absolutely shameful.

This isn’t just some minor tweak. This isn’t just some clarification. This is stripping the rights away from consumers. Under section 99 of the Act, as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs admitted, it says that a bank cannot charge interest where they don’t accurately disclose the terms of the loan. We need clauses like that to keep banks in line.

Now, over time, the rules have been adjusted, but you don’t change rules that confer property rights retrospectively unless you’re the National Party and you want to look after your mates, the banks. You’re influenced by the banks and you’re listening far too carefully to their silver-tongued lobbyists.

The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee has an entire chapter devoted to non-retrospectivity and it makes it very clear that the most vile kind of retrospectivity is where rights have accrued and when litigation is on foot. It is undermining the rule of law. This Government is running a tinpot democracy where it will change the law at the whim of lobbyists and banks. That is not a nation ruled by law; it is a nation ruled by the capriciousness of the Government and the whims of their mates, and it’s shameful.

The fact is that there is no evidence. They talk a big game, but there’s no evidence of any insolvency risk. The two major banks who are currently being sued—and here’s the irony—are very clear that they are not at risk of insolvency by these actions. They’ve said that. So there’s some imaginary smaller player out there who might be at risk. Well, first of all, don’t take away the right to pursue this action in court now. If there’s going to be retrospectivity—and I don’t think there should be—let it be for claims not yet filed.

I just want to say there’s a ray of hope. I heard the New Zealand First Party, a party that does have some record of standing up for the little guy, and they said that they’re supporting this to the select committee with reservations. I’m glad to hear that because I’m very hopeful that when they do examine exactly what’s going on and they listen at select committee to submissions—and I’ll say this now: I hope people who are engaged in that litigation will come to select committee and explain that they’ve got a case that they’d like to be ruled on by judges and not by parliamentarians. I hope that New Zealand First will stick up for the little guy, and I know that, unlike that Government, we will.

NANCY LU (National): I also rise to proudly support the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill. I proudly support this bill because it is a vital step in our National-led Government’s mission to ease cost of living, to cut the red and the green tapes, and to make life more affordable and accessible for hard Kiwi New Zealanders.

Now, this is what we’re delivering tonight. The Government is working relentlessly to restore common sense to the credit market. We are shifting regulations to the Financial Markets Authority to create one single effective regulator and to end the confusion and duplication under the current regime. We are also making alignments between the CCCFA, mentioned many times tonight—the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act—and other financial market legislations to support a more consistent and proportionate regulatory system. This bill also replaces the rigid certification system with a sensible licensing framework, giving lenders the flexibility to make fairer decisions and while keeping consumers protected.

Now, some members have raised questions over the retrospective element of this bill. So let me be clear: there is a method to what we are doing. As New Zealand Herald business editor Jenée Tibshraeny reported, the previous law forced banks to cancel and repay interest and fees for minor administrative errors that caused no harm—underlined. Already, according to the New Zealand Herald, the customers involved in this class action have been reimbursed $43 million after the banks self-reported these mistakes to the Commerce Commission. The commerce and consumer affairs Minister, Scott Simpson, has been very clear: courts must have the power to act fairly and justly. This bill restores that power.

A National Government focuses on solutions, so we are here to remove pointless barriers. We will lower costs and we put Kiwi consumers first. As a proud member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also the last member to speak on this bill, I look forward to hearing public submissions to ensure that we deliver, practical, fair reforms that New Zealanders deserve. So I commend this practical bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

That the

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 83

New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 October 2025.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I move, That the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 October 2025.

I’m pleased to be progressing another bill from the package of financial reforms that I’ve mentioned earlier this evening. A strong financial services sector is crucial for a healthy and growing economy, and it’s crucial to help New Zealanders save, borrow, and invest. It can play a key role in the Government’s going for growth plan, and, as I’ve said previously in this House, successive reforms have made the laws around financial services too complex and this has placed a huge compliance burden on businesses. This bill is another step towards cutting this red tape. It will simplify and streamline conduct requirements for firms, give the Financial Markets Authority greater power, and remove unnecessary compliance costs. By updating the Financial Markets Conduct Act and the Financial Markets Authority Act, the bill will ensure that financial markets conduct regulation is fit for purpose.

The bill has a number of key elements: firstly, adjustments to the conduct of financial institutions—sometimes referred to as CoFI—regime. The bill makes changes to this regime, which came into force earlier this year. CoFI sets out financial institutions’ obligations for treating their customers fairly, otherwise known as fair conduct principles. This involves setting minimum requirements that these firms must meet. Most people agree that the overall intent and framework of CoFI is sound. However, feedback from some corners has made it clear that some requirements are overly prescriptive, are causing unnecessary duplication with other regimes, and are not being flexible enough. This could reduce the products or services available to consumers, or add additional costs being added to them and passed on.

The bill simplifies these minimum requirements to address these concerns, including training and supervising staff, maintaining clear communication and transparent pricing for customers, resolving complaints effectively, and meeting existing requirements under legislation like the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), some of which may be removed. These changes will make it easier for firms to comply with their obligations and reduce compliance costs, while still making sure that they treat customers fairly.

Secondly, the Financial Markets Authority—or the FMA—has a siloed approach to issuing conduct licences to firms. Now, this can result in multiple licences for a single firm. Just as an example, there is a firm that holds four separate licences from the FMA. This means separate application processes and separate, ongoing compliance costs. The bill requires the FMA to issue a single licence to firms. All current licence holders will have their existing licences automatically consolidated into a single one. This will reduce administrative burden as they will not need to apply for this or pay a fee.

Thirdly, more effective monitoring. This Government is committed to ensuring the FMA has the regulatory tools and powers to do its job effectively. The bill will give the FMA the power to inspect a firm’s place of business without notice, to monitor compliance, and to act quickly to reduce potential harm to consumers. These inspections are standard around the world. It isn’t a new power in New Zealand—the FMA’s predecessor, the Securities Commission, had this ability. The FMA also already conducts on-site inspections with the consent of firms. This bill enables the FMA to take a more proactive role to monitor compliance where this may be needed, and only at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. The bill also adds a new rule that licensed firms must get approval from the FMA before major ownership changes. This lets the FMA check how the changes might affect customers.

Lastly, there are some smaller, technical changes that the bill makes aimed at cutting red tape and improving the operation of the legislation.

In conclusion, this bill delivers much-needed reforms to financial service conduct regulation. Most importantly, both businesses and consumers will be better off thanks to these changes. Businesses will see less compliance burden and costs while still being held to account to ensure that they treat consumers fairly. I’m confident these changes will make a real, positive, and excellent difference for Kiwis in their day-to-day lives and in their interactions. As such, I commend this bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, one of three that is designed by the Government to reform some of the rules which protect consumers in our financial system. This bill is one that Labour opposes because it weakens the intent of the conduct of financial institutions regime—that is, CoFI—before it has really had a chance to bed in and take effect.

We are going to consider it very carefully at select committee. But what we’re very aware of is that this is going through in a package of reforms where the Government has made a very big call to tip the balance in favour of the big banks—two of them that are in court now—and to take away those rights that have been accrued by consumers over a period of time.

So we agree with consumer advocates and those who have been commenting on the bill in the public that this sort of regime only works when people buy into it: when the institutions buy into it, when the people operating within it buy into it, and when consumers buy into it and have trust in the Government to play an even hand and be a fair referee in playing off between the rights of consumers and the way that the financial institutions, effectively, use their power to resolve disputes. It’s in that context, where the Government is asking people to look at this regime and say, “Yes, we are taking away some of those rules of fair play that are in consumers’ favour now, but we still want you to believe that this is about improving things for you.”—that deserves a level of scepticism, because this bill is tilted in the interests of financial institutions, ahead of those New Zealanders who deserve a fair deal when they deal with their bank or their insurer.

The CoFI Act was passed to fix real problems. There was a period of time when if you were walking down the main street in Manurewa, there were three loan sharks on the main street—three institutions that were offering loans with rates above 30 percent, which in some cases, effectively, were above 50 percent, related to goods. Those were unreasonable loans. They were loans that people were getting themselves into very easily in New Zealand, and in no country that we like to compare ourselves to was there a comparable market for credit where young people, vulnerable people, and single mothers, as my colleague Reuben Davidson has spoken about—people who already had large debts—were then taking on these sorts of consumer loans that could end only in hardship for them and their families.

It’s on that backdrop that we are very, very careful to tilt the balance away from consumers in this. The New Zealand market is only now recovering from that. I’m really proud that Labour’s interventions in the market meant that those loan sharks are gone. Every electorate MP will know where they were in their electorate. They are not there any more because of this law, and it’s that law that we are tinkering with tonight.

The role in creating CoFI after the financial conduct authority and the Reserve Bank found that those systemic problems in the banking and insurance sectors did exist was about products designed with customer outcomes in mind. It was also about the sales incentives that rewarded volume over value and it was about the weak internal controls for managing risk and conduct within those institutions, and these are the sorts of powers that we need to be very careful of because we change. This bill would change the requirements around staff training, conduct monitoring, and programme reviews, which risks undermining the cultural change that happened in the market at that time and which is still working its way through the system.

We do support efficient regulation, but not at the expense of customer protection. Removing those key guardrails under the guise of simplification puts people at risk of poor advice and exploitative sales practices. The banks and the institutions will come to select committee and they will say, “This is not something that we do.” It’s not something that they do, because it is illegal now. They did it before it was illegal, and this was something that the Labour Government and the National Government at the time, prior to the Labour Government taking office, wanted to focus on and were proud to be on the side of consumers about.

The proposed changes risk turning CoFI into a compliance exercise—a tick box—rather than a framework that ensures people are treated fairly by their financial institutions. Those are the questions Labour will be asking at select committee. We do not support this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I rise to speak on the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill. As others have noted, this is one of three bills that we are potentially debating tonight, which is part of a broader reform package by the Government. It’s a pretty mixed bag of a reform package by the Government. On the one hand, as we saw in the previous debate, they’re basically handing out a gift to ANZ and ASB by nature of retrospective changes, and in this case, it has a series of changes to minimum requirements for fair conduct programmes, which, again, is a mixed bag. We do think this one does deserve further scrutiny in the select committee and we’re comfortable supporting it to select committee, but we do think that necessary changes are needed for us to feel comfortable supporting it at later stages.

This bill does some concerning things, such as reducing the level of prescription for requirements relating to training employees, as well as removing the requirements to regularly review the effectiveness of fair conduct programmes. I think these changes do feel unnecessary, particularly in relation to making sure that the workforce in some of these places are well equipped and trained, but, at the same time, we also do think there is scope to unpack at the select committee the issue around communicating the price of services or products, and this needs to be worked in such a way that there is genuine accountability, as well, and that some of the reforms in this bill do not become a tick-box exercise, as the previous member mentioned.

In the Greens, we do think the Government should consider broader reforms holistically, and it’s not just about serving to big business with one hand and then doing a few reforms here and there for the consumers. We’ve got to look at the environment that the Government is creating when it comes to whether they’re leaving consumers better or worse off as part of those broader reforms.

These three bills should be debated separately and scrutinised separately at the select committee stage, but at the same time I think they all are, one way or another, interconnected, and if we are not able to see that the Government is genuinely working to tilt the balance towards consumers as opposed to some of those big institutions, we would have no option but to oppose this bill as well, as we did with the previous one. It’s really important that the Government does not just give lip service to addressing the cost of living, when some of these bills actually end up doing the very, very exact opposite of that.

We, once again, encourage people to submit, particularly people who have been failed by some of the institutions that these bills are addressing, and particularly in areas where predatory companies are proliferating still and are taking advantage of consumers. Whether you’re working full time or are maybe currently unemployed, your contribution matters equally, despite what other members of the Government have said in previous debates. With that, I’ll end my call, and I look forward to this bill receiving adequate scrutiny in the select committee.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill. Well, the financial services sector is certainly getting a bit of attention tonight, isn’t it? We do actually have, obviously, three bills on the Order Paper. We’ve got through one of them, this is the second one, and there is a third one, as some other members have pointed out.

Actually, all of these bills have been on the Order Paper since they were first introduced on 31 March, so—just to make sure that everyone at home understands—these haven’t just appeared in the last few days. They actually have been on the Order Paper and introduced in the House for some time, and so this really is just a natural part of us finally getting to this business. I’m very pleased that this bill will be coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, a very hard-working committee which I am lucky to be a member of.

This particular bill is really quite simple. It is part of these three bills, and, as the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March rightly identified, they are actually interconnected. I’m sure that by having them all in front of the same select committee, we can make sure that things are brought together as we look through and scrutinise these properly. This is a bill that’s looking just to remove some undue compliance costs, improve outcomes for consumers, and really ensure that consumers and customers remain fairly treated, but we’re also getting rid of some of the heavy-handed regulation and really getting rid of this tick-box exercise and giving more flexibility to firms about how they achieve fair outcomes and provide information to customers about pricing, ensuring they resolve complaints quickly. But we don’t want to be micromanaged by the regulator, so that’s really where this fits in.

Obviously, in ACT we’re very keen about getting away from over-regulation and making sure that there are good outcomes by just having clear rules and strong incentives, but not bureaucratic checklists. I think that this bill ticks those boxes.

It will move towards a single-licence model for financial services, so, rather than firms having to hold multiple licences, they’ll be able to have one overarching licence for all the different financial services they do. We have got some other things around reducing duplication and costs and making sure that the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)—you know, we’re really creating greater clarity. So we do think that this is a common-sense, red tape - busting bill. As you know, in ACT we want to allow business and consumers in New Zealand just to get on with providing services, so we do think that these three bills together are actually going to modernise, really, the financial services industry in New Zealand.

While this is just one bill—and, as I said, it’s a fairly simple bill—it is another step in the right direction to just make sure that the regulatory and legal settings in this very important area are fit for purpose and are actually delivering for people. Really, it does continue to ensure that we support consumer protection by making sure that there are clearer conduct standards. There’s market efficiency by reducing duplication. It’s streamlining licences and regulatory agility, and making sure the FMA has tools and oversight capabilities that are fit for purpose. So I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill. It just seems like a blink of my eye ago that I was up here talking about the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, so—

Hon Member: That’s right.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: —as other speakers—that was right. Other speakers have outlined the purpose of the bill. It is going to be important, through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to examine this bill but also the other two bills that make up the three financial bills that are a part of this package.

This bill is a step in strengthening our financial markets and protecting New Zealand consumers and—most importantly—supporting economic growth, and that’s what this side of the House is all about. The bill is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to ensure that there are fair and transparent financial systems in this country. These changes are all about creating a more stable environment for businesses, and that’s definitely what this side of the House will be supporting.

We’ve heard from previous speakers about the on-site inspections. This will allow the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) to do checks on financial firms around compliance, so that’s a good incentive. This change is also about ensuring a high standard of accountability for our financial institutions.

In summary, by reducing compliance costs, streamlining regulation, and enhancing the FMA’s oversight, this legislation will foster a robust and efficient financial sector. I commend the bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): As Ryan Hamilton so eloquently said earlier, this is part of a “Holy Trinity” of financial reform, with this being the second bill that we have had the first reading on. It will go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for scrutinisation over the next five or so months before it gets reported back, so the work has only just begun.

It’s good to know that some people are tuned in. I just got a text from some friends, Gary and Lesley Monk. They are watching, so we know that at least two people in Takapuna are watching, possibly helped by Lesley having had keyhole knee surgery, so she can’t go anywhere. But I recommend these debates for those that are trying to wind down this this evening.

But back to the bill—as I can see you looking at me, Mr Speaker. This bill amends the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011. The bill, as we’ve said, is part of our financial services reform package. It will simplify and streamline regulation of our financial services, it will remove—

Dan Bidois: Sounds good.

CAMERON BREWER: —Mr Bidois—undue compliance costs for financial market participants, and—Suze Redmayne, you’ll like this—it will improve outcomes, ultimately, for consumers. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What’s pretty apparent, having heard the speeches from the other side of the House, is they don’t actually know what the conduct of financial institutions (CoFI) legislation does. They just know that it’s something to do with the consumer and finance and insurance sector. What CoFI does is it puts the consumer at the centre of the regulatory framework of financial institutions, and, in fact, in the election campaign, Andrew Bayly said that he was going to do away with it. He thought that the whole CoFI regime was just too much. Well, the Government is not quite doing that, but it is certainly watering it down.

It’s worth remembering that CoFI was put in place after the banking inquiry in Australia and the Reserve Bank inquiry in New Zealand found that the finance sector was structurally deficient in that it was designed, in a sense, around the profit margins of financial institutions and not the interests of customers, so the CoFI regime actually requires financial institutions—particularly, when selling financial products—to put the interests of the consumer first. The evil that is being addressed here was things like people being sold insurance products like income insurance when they were unemployed or, on one occasion, even being sold a life insurance policy when they were dead.

Now, when you’ve got commission frameworks that go simply to volume—how much can you sell—that’s what happens. The reason we have a CoFI framework is because not only are the prohibitions on those kind of commissions important, but so is the training around what financial advisers are expected to do, and how they’re expected to take into account and balance the interests of their customers with their own commercial imperatives and also, across the organisation as a whole, how the organisation needs to make sure that from management to sales, they are making sure that they are not providing products which aren’t fit for purpose, which don’t do the job, or which aren’t needed by the consumer.

So it’s all very nice to say that we’re going to lower compliance costs, but the real question is—and we’re not convinced that that’s the case, and that’s why we’re not supporting this bill. The real question is “Will the CoFI regime, as watered down by this Government, still protect consumers from exploitation?”, because that is what was going on.

So whilst it’s all very nice to say “Let’s have a single regulator.”, we want regulators who know what they’re doing, who know their sector, and who have sectorial expertise. Now, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) does do a good job. It has got good expertise in there, but we’re not sure that moving to things like having a single regulator or a single licence is the appropriate thing in a very diverse industry, and we are concerned that the Government has listened very carefully, because—you’re right—the finance industry doesn’t like compliance. They don’t like having to demonstrate that they have good practices and procedures within their organisation which are subject to licensing and oversight by the FMA and others, but taking that away may create much greater problems.

Insurance and financial products are an important part of our economy. They provide long-term income for savers and security against catastrophe, and if we undermine confidence in that market by deregulation, then we have a real problem. Whilst we agree with the purported objective of having an efficient regulatory system, what we are seeing is, in fact, simply a watering-down of the protections of consumers and, again, this Government listening carefully to lobbyists and being influenced by them, and that’s why we won’t be supporting this bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just wish to come back to what my colleagues said, which was that the Financial Markets Authority does have good people in there, but this is actually about making sure they’ve got the right processes and that we’ve got the right processes in the financial sector, so that it runs efficiently for the benefit of consumers and for the businesses, as well. This is part of the “Holy Trinity”, as my colleagues Cameron Brewer and Ryan Hamilton have both aptly put it. This is the second bill out of the “Holy Trinity” that we’ll be discussing tonight, and I commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I expect my contribution will be a little longer than that of the previous member, because whilst he suggested such strong support for the bill, he was barely able to sustain more than 30 seconds to speak to it. I would suggest that that contribution was slightly less bearable than the keyhole knee surgery that another member mentioned was having to be tolerated by someone who then had to tolerate his speech on this, the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill.

Now, I think it’s worth drawing an analogy here. I think it’s like saying to a team that turns up to Saturday sport, “Hey, team, the good news is that the fair play rules are out the window today. What we’ve done is, rather than just having two teams equally matched, instead what we’re going to do is put you up against some much, much bigger players. It’ll be really good. You’ll be fine—I’m sure they’ve got your best interests at heart. Not only that, as well as the players being a whole lot bigger than you, we’ve also decided that we’re just going to change some of the rules today and you’ll figure it out as you go along. We’ll just let you know as we go what rules have changed.”

You can imagine that the smaller team—and those members on the other side will have no trouble imagining what it is like to be part of a smaller team—will think, “Could it get any worse?” The bad news is that it does because there’s also not going to be a ref. So all of a sudden, you’re going to be out on the field, playing against much bigger teams, the rules have changed, and there’s no one there to be the ref, because that’s, ultimately, what the conduct of financial institutions (CoFI) legislation was there to be.

CoFI was there to be the referee, and without time to bed in properly and to be able to really make the most of the role that had been created for CoFI, instead, this team, with their “Holy Trinity” of bills, have ridden in and said that they want to remove administrative burden. Well, “administrative burden” sounds like reasonable guardrails. Administrative burden can be exactly the kinds of rules and regulations you need in place to make sure that smaller players—that’s individual consumers—have a fair chance up against some very big operators, which is some of our bigger banks. The opposite to administrative burden would be consumer protections, and I think that’s what we’re actually talking about.

We also had reference in some people’s speeches to simplifying the requirements, and we’re getting used to this simplification. It’s simply cuts, and we’ve had a lot of them from this team. One of the things I think is really dangerous in this bill is the removal of training and monitoring—so removing the requirements around legal obligations and removing the requirements about regular reviews of fair conduct, which, ultimately, really places consumers at risk.

Ultimately, what is this bill doing? This bill is taking away protections that consumers need. I talked earlier in my contribution on a previous bill about some of the harm that was caused to communities by loan sharks, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are literally stories of people who have taken out a loan who have come home to find a “For Sale” sign in front of their home, and who have been told by loan sharks, in front of their children, that they are going to take their home. This is not someone who has defaulted on their mortgage; this is someone who has taken out the kind of loan you’d take out to make sure that you’ve got the school uniforms that your kids need or that you’re able to buy the car that you need to get to work or to get to study. Ultimately, their homes are on the line as a result, and their children are scared by loan sharks at the gate putting up “For Sale” signs.

So you might want to talk about cutting the red tape and making things easier, but my question is: who are you making it easier for? It is not for consumers; it’s for the big guys. It’s for that team on that field at Saturday sport that already have all the odds stacked in their favour, and this kind of decision—this kind of bill—stacks it even more unevenly.

NANCY LU (National): For far too long, New Zealanders have faced a complex and costly maze of financial regulation. It’s pushed up prices, it’s slowed innovation, and it’s locked up consumers from better financial services, and that is why the National Government is fixing that. As a member of the proud Finance and Expenditure Committee and also as the last speaker to speak on this bill, I look forward to hearing all the public submissions and making sure we create it fair for all New Zealanders. I commend this practical bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 October 2025.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I move, That the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 20 October 2025.

This is the third in a tranche of three bills that have been introduced for consideration at first reading this evening. The financial dispute resolution services are essential in New Zealand to ensure that consumers have an effective pathway for resolving issues with their banks, insurers, and other financial service providers. I know that when people have a complaint or a problem with one of those providers, it’s important that they have somewhere they can go to ensure that they get some assistance.

In order to strengthen and improve these services, the Government has developed the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill. This bill makes up a package of reforms related to aspects of financial services regulation. Along with the other two bills we have read in the House tonight, they relate to consumer credit and financial markets conduct regulation.

This bill seeks to strengthen the financial dispute resolution framework to support better outcomes for New Zealanders when dealing with financial service providers. The bill does it by strengthening the oversight and independent governance of New Zealand’s financial dispute resolution schemes. This ensures that Kiwi consumers have confidence that the financial dispute resolution service available to them will be well run and fair.

The bill has a number of key elements. Firstly, allowing for greater comparison across the financial dispute resolution schemes. This bill will introduce the power for the responsible Minister to decide when and how schemes undertake independent reviews as a check on their performance. Currently, all approved financial dispute resolution schemes must undertake independent reviews once every five years. However, in practice, these happen at different times, with a different reviewer making it difficult to compare across the schemes. Most stakeholders agree that independent reviews carried out by schemes should be more consistent. The new power introduced by this bill aims to better align these reviews and make it easier to compare the performance of schemes and the dispute resolution system as a whole.

Secondly, safeguards for maintaining independent financial dispute resolution boards—the bill will also establish safeguards for maintaining the effectiveness and independence of the financial dispute resolution scheme boards. It provides a new regulation-making power which would allow the Government to set skills, experience, and independence requirements for financial dispute resolution board members. This will ensure that the governance arrangements of the organisations providing these dispute services will be robust and appropriately focused on the needs of consumers, rather than expressly those of the industry.

In conclusion, though not a large bill, these improvements will make a material difference to strengthening our dispute resolution system and make a real difference for New Zealanders. I’m proud to be able to present this bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Labour will support this bill to select committee, but we do so with serious questions that must be answered before we can consider supporting it any further. New Zealanders need to have confidence that when something goes wrong with a financial product—like a loan, their insurance policies—there is a truly independent and accessible and fair way to resolve disputes. This reform does look sensible on the face of it, but it is being done in the context of three bills, which, taken together, substantially weaken consumer protections in our current systems and mean that we’ll be applying a high degree of scrutiny to the way that they will interact together.

These dispute resolution schemes are actually an essential part of the consumer protection framework, especially for those who can’t afford to take their bank or insurer to court. It’s also important to think about these schemes and the role that they play within the financial sector as being quite different from the role of the courts in these sorts of disputes. They are meant to be a cheap and accessible way of moving forward, and so it is right that we have review mechanisms—and probably useful that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has further review mechanisms—to be able to ensure that that is working in the correct way. Because if people have to take their disputes to court, then there is a significant cost that is placed on consumers and a burden that is placed on consumers too.

It’s very unusual in New Zealand for class actions to be taken on behalf of consumers, and it is also extremely unusual, in any jurisdiction we like to compare ourselves to, for the sort of action that we’re seeing the Government taking now in respect of a class action concerning ASB and ANZ, with 180,000 of their consumers that is on foot at the moment, to extinguish the rights of those consumers to pursue a claim.

Given all of that, when we, as a Parliament, are considering how people should bring disputes with their banks or with their insurers, we need to make sure that everything that we agree to is giving effect to the reality that it is hard for consumers to bring those disputes and that everything should be set up in their favour to make that, administratively, as low a burden as possible so that we can get these disputes resolved quickly and efficiently.

It is also important that there is some degree of bipartisanship around those sorts of dispute resolution processes, because, ultimately, although this is in a financial services bill, it is a question of access to justice. The idea that these disputes that consumers have in their lives are something that can be resolved quickly and can be resolved in their favour is really important when you have just such an outsized power of a bank or a financial institution. You know, the big four banks in New Zealand are Australian-owned; they are enormous, even in respect of the size of the Government, let alone one consumer in the New Zealand market. So setting up these sorts of consumer dispute processes is also about maintaining people’s faith in the system: that if something goes wrong for them, that they have some mechanism of seeking justice and seeking access to a fair outcome. Only by a process like this can consumers hope to have that. Only with the Government in their corner can consumers hope to have some kind of semblance of fair rules that protect their interests. That’s what we’ll be asking questions about.

The two things that the bill basically does—the review process changes and the new regulation-making power—do seem sensible, and that’s why we have supported this. I want to talk about the new regulation-making power, particularly here and flag out some interest there. Because when we’re creating the regulation-making power to prescribe skills, experience, and independence requirements for membership of scheme boards, it will be very useful for the committee to turn its mind to where that appropriate power would sit, whether that would be with the Minister or with the chief executive—because it is a technical skill—or whether it is with some other body within the system. Because what we’re asking for there is a regulation of these schemes in terms of the kinds of people who can serve on it.

Again, when we’re creating schemes that are meant to instil faith in the people who use them, meant to show consumers that they do have a way of accessing justice, it’s important that those schemes are representative of the sorts of people who use them and actually do help people have faith in them, and that they’re not just bodies that represent the industry, that they are bodies that take into account the needs of the consumers and the people who do get loans and get insurance and are worried about their cost of living going up.

It’s for that reason that we support this now. But I hope that everyone in the House turns their attention very carefully to the way that rolling back to these key consumer protections may hurt our system in the long run.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support this bill to select committee. Now, in terms of the context of this bill, as both the previous speaker, Arena Williams, and the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs have said, this is part of a package of three related bills reforming the regulations around credit markets to reduce compliance cost and improve outcomes for customers, which is, on the surface, incredibly sensible and the approach that is needed.

But there are two things that we’re looking at over here in terms of the context of this bill. Obviously, one of them is the independent review, or the ability for the Minister to decide how financial dispute resolution schemes undertake independent reviews as far as the performance of the scheme—such as who the reviewer is, what the terms of reference are, and any other directions as to how the review should be carried out. So that makes up the bulk of this bill. The second major element of this bill is also to allow the Minister to set requirements for things like skills, experience, and independence of the scheme’s board members, and the grounds for disqualifying a board member.

But, broadly speaking, one of the reasons why we are supporting this to select committee is the fact that when we are looking at the broader vision in terms of the interactions between the consumer and things like KiwiSaver and the banking system, there is a high degree of trust between the two parties. And particularly, for a lot of people, this is something that they put a lot of their trust and, indeed, a lot of their savings into when it comes to, like I mentioned, either things like KiwiSaver or loans or credit cards, etc. I think having the financial dispute resolution system is a really important ability and important avenue for the people of Aotearoa to be able to use this particular service, which is free and is also, comparatively speaking, less arduous than going through the court system.

I think the previous speaker, Arena Williams, also mentioned that part of the situation we’re in is because, simply, we don’t have a similar mechanism for class action here in Aotearoa, as we see in other places.

But, for example, some of the things that the financial dispute resolution is able to assist people with is things like the management of accounts and products, the provider of activities relating to fraud, the quality of financial investment or mortgage advice given by the provider, management of payments, or incorrect application of fees and charges. So it is quite a broad scope that the financial dispute resolution scheme is able to provide.

So this is something that is incredibly important. However—and I think this is something that the previous speaker, Arena Williams, alluded to as well—what we’re fundamentally looking at in this bill is allowing more executive power and regulatory-making power for the Minister. I think this is something that is going to be really important to flesh out during the select committee stage when we’re looking at this—the scope of such executive power and how it can be used.

I can see we have the chair of the Regulations Review Committee here, as well as various members of the Regulations Review Committee. It would be really important to also hear that particular committee’s analysis on this bill, especially to do with things like—just to flag some of the things that would be really interesting—what some of these criteria are, or the precautions or considerations the Minister must take, when setting requirements for the skills and experience. Also, from my perspective, when we’re looking at the possibility and grounds for disqualifying a board member, what are going to be some of the grounds, and whether that is potentially also going to be open to politicisation.

Again, we have heard that this scheme and the broader scope is going to be really, really important in the broader context, and that what we are trying to do is to provide better confidence and better trust from a consumer perspective in our system, especially when it comes to things like their savings and their livelihood. However, what we don’t want to see is a stage where things like this could be potentially politicised, depending on who the Minister is at the time.

So there are a number of really good things. I think the ultimate outcome, hopefully, if we’re able to do this accurately, is something that is going to be beneficial for consumers in general. But we just want to have the opportunity to flesh out more around the regulatory-making power aspect of it during the select committee stage, but we will support it to select committee.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and speak on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill. It seems like of the three bills we’ve now got some support across the House for this bill, which—I think this has already been outlined—is looking to improve the financial dispute resolution aspects of our financial services sector. I think we should get this off to the select committee as quickly as possible so it can meet up with the other two bills and get the work under way of hearing submissions. I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill. Firstly, this bill is around consumers and making sure that they have a scheme that’s robust and that they can actually trust, and that actually provides for resolution—especially around, instead of using courts, that it’s actually a free way for consumers to have protection, and often that’s with banking, insurance, KiwiSaver providers, or other financial service providers that they may have disputes with.

This bill gives improved oversight of the scheme’s providers, which is going to be very important, and it’s effective in partial governance of those scheme boards that this bill was set up so that it’s efficient. So, on that note, New Zealand First will support this. We look forward to the submissions with the other two bills that make this a tranche of three, actually seeing how they all interconnect and hearing from submitters. So I commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As has been canvassed with the previous two bills, this is the third leg in the trinity of reforms that we are putting through the House and sending off to select committee for extra scrutinisation over the coming months for the House to report back. And so I commend this bill, I encourage submissions, I look forward to the discussion, and we’ll take it from there. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, I’m glad that Mr Brewer is going to send this bill off for some “scrutinisation”—also known as “scrutiny” in some places, but that’ll do! As has been said, of the three bills tonight, this is the one we’re supporting, and one out of three for the other side is pretty bad.

The dispute resolution framework is actually a really good part of our financial services ecosystem. In other spheres, we’ve talked about the problem of timeliness of justice, of cost of justice, and so on, but in the financial services sector—it’s not perfect by any stretch, but it’s pretty good. It’s low cost, it’s speedy, and it gives results which most of the participants consider to be a fair outcome and a fair procedure, and that’s the best you can ask for. We don’t want to see that undermined, so we will come to the select committee with some reservations. Certainly, the independence of these dispute resolution entities is of critical importance, and the Banking Ombudsman Scheme is a good example of a scheme that’s become, over the years, more and more independent and has had its jurisdiction expanded significantly. I think the confidence in that sector has benefited from it. Ministerial oversight is one thing, but ministerial appointment of reviewers we want to have a bit of a think about. Also, ministerial dictation of when the review is to occur may also be problematic.

The other question we have is around rulemaking, in terms of making rules for these reviews. We want to be clear what the bounds of those rules will be, because we know that there are some rules that should be made here in this House and they should be made by the highest lawmaking authority in the land, and we don’t want to delegate too much power to the Minister, in terms of fundamental design questions about what the review might look like and what the rules around the dispute resolution scheme might look like, because we think that that makes it subject to the political vagaries of the time. The Hon Dr David Clark, the Minister at the time, set up this framework—a great MP, a great Minister of commerce—and he did it very well. He brought together existing dispute resolution schemes under this umbrella, and consistency across them is good. Certainly, the schemes themselves have been working hard to make sure there is congruence in terms of jurisdiction, in terms of procedure, timeliness, and what consumers can expect.

We come to this with an open mind but with the usual concerns of the Labour Party—that we want to see the ordinary person put first. We want to make sure that this isn’t just making it easy for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs or the ministry or the industry; we want to make sure that we’re left, at the end of the day, with a better, more effective, fairer, and, ideally, cheaper—most of them are free, so that’d be hard—dispute resolution system. That is how you build trust in a system. As L. D. Nathan said, it’s the putting right that counts—I think it was—and these dispute resolution systems are about putting things right. But, again, we’ve just got to make sure we don’t erode trust in the system by giving the Minister too much say over timing, over the reviewer, over the procedure, or over any other aspect of it. Independence here is absolutely critical. I look forward to it. I commend it to the select committee.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Simplify, remove undue compliance costs, and improve outcomes for consumers—that’s really the purpose of this bill. It’s very simple: an improved oversight of the approved dispute resolution scheme performance, which is fantastic. As my good colleague said, robust scrutinisation is what we’re all about.

Cameron Brewer: Scrutinisation.

RYAN HAMILTON: Scrutinisation. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): You know it’s getting close to 10 o’clock when people start reading dictionary definitions and doing accents. We are now getting into the third bill of the “Holy Trinity”, and it has been a little bit like Groundhog Day. It has been a little bit like Groundhog Day—it has been a little bit like Groundhog Day, because the same people have stood and made more or less the same speeches along the same points from the same part of the House, looking after the same part of financial transacting and transactions and financial services. They’ve been looking after the big guys. They haven’t been looking after everyday consumers and the people who rely on these financial services, sometimes not when everything’s going well and you’ve got, you know, a calm state of mind and the ability to assess the kinds of contracts that you’re signing. I think that’s something that is very easy for colleagues across the House to lose track of in the House.

Now, we do support this bill to select committee, but I wouldn’t want anyone to get the impression that that’s because you’ve worn us down, because it’s definitely not. This requires a lot of scrutiny. After my earlier speech this evening, which was so well received by my colleagues across the House, I’ve actually received email correspondence this evening since that speech from a senior lecturer at Auckland Law School who has provided a very, very well-researched, written, and presented document specifically outlining their concerns about some of the changes that have been pushed through as part of what has been dubbed a “Holy Trinity”. I think that’s what will be so valuable about the select committee process: to actually bring in those perspectives to the conversation so that it can be properly assessed and reviewed. So I look forward to this bill being supported through to select committee. Thank you.

NANCY LU (National): I am in full, strong support of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill, because this bill is about one thing: protecting Kiwi consumers by making our financial dispute resolution schemes more effective, more independent, and more accountable. It introduces three main provisions: first, it empowers the Minister to ensure that dispute resolution schemes are properly reviewed; second, it sets clear standards for the governance of these schemes, makes sure board members have the right skills, experience, and, importantly, independence from the industry’s influence; and, third, annual reports must include information about scheme operations and any independent review reports received in the past financial year.

This is practical, principled, and forward-looking legislation. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 October 2025.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Privacy Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 3 April.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is an interrupted call; this is a Labour call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words on the Privacy Amendment Bill. It’s been quite some time since we last spoke about this bill in this debating chamber. As you quite rightly said, it was interrupted and several contributions had already been made. But it’s one of those bills that went through the Justice Committee, and there were several submitters to the bill. In itself, when you look at it, it seems relatively straightforward but the theme of it was quite nuanced because—as with many pieces of legislation—there were some potential unintended consequences that could arise from some of the more bespoke applications of this particular piece of proposed legislation.

The Privacy Amendment Bill, at its heart, obviously seeks to adhere to and to uphold the fundamental concepts of privacy which, obviously, are incredibly important in a well-functioning democracy that holds those tenets very—well, in high esteem, really, because they’re fundamentally important. So it’s incumbent upon this House to make sure—and this Parliament to make sure—that when amendments go through to the Privacy Amendment Bill that not only is it doing what it says on the tin, but it also doesn’t have those adverse, unintended consequences that could easily arrive.

So the Privacy Amendment Bill, as we said, amends the Privacy Act 2020 to improve the transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information, and to better enable individuals to exercise their privacy rights at the same time. We commend the bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to also speak on the Privacy Amendment Bill. We do support this bill and we did have quite a nice engagement with the Minister of Justice during the committee stage.

I think, again, just to recap in terms of the context of this bill, the Privacy Amendment Bill introduces a new information privacy, and this is particularly under new IPP 3A, which is mainly about agencies and collecting personal information from other sources. So it’s very much something that is for a third party when it comes to information collection. Some of the context when it comes to the collection of the information—we’re looking at how the information has been collected, the name and address, the purpose, the intended recipient, and also the rights of the individuals relating to access, and the correction of that information.

Fundamentally, a lot of this bill, in terms of information, is already something that we see in terms of the Privacy Act refresh in 2020. But one of the things that was addressed and has been picked up on subsequent to that is the fact that IPP 3 doesn’t quite cover the extent that we would like to cover, particularly when it comes to third-party collection of information.

Now, in terms of the committee stage, there were a number of issues that we were kind of exploring. I think the first thing is the fact that when we are looking at this, at that stage when the debate was going through the House—and this was a little while ago, bear in mind—we do see the fact that this particular legislation is coming into force, and particularly Part 1, on 1 June this year, and even though a little while ago, when we thought that this bill was going to go through the House a lot sooner, one of the questions we did ask is whether there is sufficient time to actually implement this bill, because one of the things that the Privacy Commission will have to do is to be able to socialise and communicate the new intent and to be able to draft those kind of things and be able to distribute it, also in multiple languages, to people within the communities.

So now the question is raised again that we have to delay this particular bill and the legislative agenda over the last few weeks—in which case, is there actually sufficient time to introduce this bill as it was first intended when Part 1 was introduced through its first reading? And that concern of the feasibility of the implementation is something that we do kind of consider to be something that everyone should keep an eye on.

In terms of the substantive part of Part 1, some of the things that we discussed—and this is, again, things that we’ve discussed when we were looking at the consumer products and data bill—were around the interaction between how data is kept locally and also how data is kept internationally. Through that debate, one of the things that we did ask the Minister about is around the use of the collection and how our international free-trade agreements (FTAs) and the comprehensive economic partnership agreements may play a role in some of this, both in terms of productive but also counter-productive to our domestic legislation around data protection and also privacy.

Now, one of the things that is really, really important when we’re looking at, for example, the context of the EU FTA and the use of privacy regulations is that the EU FTA has a really stringent and very robust data-protection legislation, which is something that we are mirrored on, something that the refresh of the Privacy Act in 2020 was largely looking into, as well. So we weren’t so concerned in terms of some of them, but the concern fundamentally comes from other trade agreements that we have. For example, in terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, there is no requirement when it comes to local legislation or local authorities to be able to request information from international tech giants, for example, when it comes to a copy of the source code that we do see here in Aotearoa, indeed, partially because of the fact that for some of those source codes, we do not need to have a local domain for it. Therefore, it is hard for us to even find a way to hold them accountable under domestic legislation.

Part of the conversation and discussion that we had with the Minister at the time was around how we, again, see this piece of legislation and our Privacy Act interact with certain trade agreements where we have allowed big tech overseas to be able to sue us for, potentially, competitive measures which—you know, any sort of updates to the Privacy Act or to consumer or data protection can potentially be construed as such, because we have seen some of those tech giants suing other countries and Governments for increasing their regulations around this area as anti-competitive measures. So something like this fundamentally is about what sort of conversations we have had in introducing new bills on data protection, and also on privacy in the context of our international agreements.

When we are looking at some of those, as well, I think, fundamentally, one of the things that was very heartening that we’ve heard from the Minister over and over again, both in terms of this bill and other related bills, is the fact that we, as consumers, or we, as people in Aotearoa, should be able to have control of our own data, and we should be able to know where our data goes and make amendments and adjust that kind of data under the Privacy Act or under consumer data protection. In that sense, with this piece of legislation—and while the Minister’s intention is very heartening for me, both from the position of being the Greens’ justice spokesperson but also the trade spokesperson, in terms of being able to potentially push back on some of the challenges we may potentially see internationally when we are looking at big tech and tech giants being able to hold us to account for some of the anti-competitive measures here. So, in that sense, this is a really, really important thing to address, and we did have quite a robust discussion during the committee stage around this.

Another angle to discuss—and it was one that we did explore during the committee stage—was around the idea of liability when it comes to things like hacking, etc., because, again, when we’re looking at the third-party collection of information, it’s really important to also know what some of the potential risks are that come with that. As we see with some of the latest reports coming out of the Privacy Commissioner and also the Privacy Commission, the way that we collect data and the way that we address it when something doesn’t go well is something that we haven’t quite perfected, even with the latest legislation on the Privacy Act in 2020, and now we’re putting on a new spin in terms of third parties. So what that means when it comes to having that level of liability and having that level of safety when we are now introducing this new legislation—again, this comes back to the fact that although we support this bill, we simply don’t think that some of these will be able to be teased out by 1 June 2025. So those are the bulk of concerns about Part 1.

Now, moving on to some of the discussions we had during the committee stage on Part 2, particularly when we’re looking at clause 13, “Section 49 amended (Protection, etc., of individual as reason for refusing access to personal information)”, some of the disclosures of information that we are considering are around the use of social media, and, again, how social media is able to be held liable for some of the third-party access that we are seeing here. Again, if a company uses social media or online platforms as a form of collecting other people’s data, what are the sorts of precautions we have when it comes to that particular provision?

Overall, the Greens do support the Privacy Amendment Bill, but, at the same time, I think there are a lot of interesting things, and we would like to see how this bill progresses and how the legislation is going to be introduced. But, fundamentally, when we’re looking at the values of the Privacy Act, it is really, really important that we do put the privacy of our people first and foremost, as opposed to, potentially, being consistent with some of our international obligations but not being able to be held accountable to or being challenged by some of the tech companies, particularly when it comes to third-party liability or third-party data collection agencies. With that, we support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Goodnight.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.