Wednesday, 4 June 2025

WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 2025

WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 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.

Business of the House

Business of the House

SPEAKER: Members, before we progress, tomorrow afternoon is a time where there’s a number of events happening that MPs have to be at. I seek leave of the House for me as Speaker, in consultation with party whips, to appoint a temporary Speaker for the afternoon of 5 June 2025. I’ll put that leave. Any objections? Thank you.

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

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

SPEAKER: Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Ross Hoole requesting that the House resolve to require an independent review of decisions of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to take “no further action” and “dismiss” complaints against judges.

petition of Mehnaaz Ali requesting that the House urge the Associate Minister of Immigration to allow Rayyan Azeem Ali to remain in New Zealand.

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

CLERK: Corrected Government responses to petitions of Morteza Sharifi to expel the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran and recall the New Zealand Ambassador to Iran.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular our record investment into health services and infrastructure. This Government is investing an extra $7 billion in healthcare so that Kiwis can get better access to elective surgeries, GP appointments, and other critical services that they rely on. We’ve increased prescription repeats to 12 months, which means that people don’t need to go to the doctor with the frequency that they need to, reducing costs for households. We’ve also expanded access to urgent and advanced hours at GP clinics, as well as making cancer drugs freely available to New Zealanders. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing to give better access to higher quality healthcare in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement “This is a Government that’s incredibly proud of its housing record.” given that homelessness is rising, rough sleeping is increasing, new State house builds have ground to a halt, consents to build new houses are down, and his Government’s cutting support to first-home buyers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. I’m incredibly proud of our record on housing, when I think about the abject failure of the previous Government. If you think about the four components of housing and the outcomes that are achieved, house prices are stable, rents for the first time are actually stable rather than having increased $180 per week. Importantly, the social housing wait-list is down from 27,000 to 19,000 people, and we have moved from over 5,000 households in motels and emergency accommodation down to 400, and that means 2,100 kids out of motels and into proper homes. I’m proud of that record. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, that is the last barrage of the day. There are a number of people who participated in that—not that anything they said was at all audibly understandable, but certainly a loud voice. It’s not acceptable.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is he proud of the fact that taking people off the social housing register has coincided with a 58 percent rise in homelessness in Auckland and a 40 percent rise in homelessness in Wellington?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because either way you look at it, on all four dimensions of housing, this Government has done something about it in 18 months and improved outcomes. House prices are stable, rents are stable, the social housing wait-list is down, and we’ve got people out of emergency accommodation and into proper homes. The member should be thankful to the Government for fixing his mess. Just “Thank you.” would be enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Christchurch—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, from this hitherto unknown perch, we can’t hear a thing the Prime Minister is saying. You really need to enforce your ruling to have some order and a better sense of decorum from that side of the House—very hard to hear down here.

SPEAKER: That’s right. Well, thank you for that, Mr Jones. I had made it very clear to the House that there was not to be that level of barrage. In this case, there was a significant amount of support noise coming from the Prime Minister’s own side, which also should be contained.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Christchurch Methodist Mission that most of the people the mission helps have been turned away from emergency housing without even being given a reason?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to that member the record of his Government was abysmal on all aspects of housing—talked a big game; did not deliver. We—

SPEAKER: No, hang on, hang on—wait on. You can’t start an answer to a question by referring to a previous Government. You can answer for yourself, but if there is a fact about the previous Government relating to the current Government decisions, then that comes into order, but not at the start.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have moved people in emergency housing from 5,000 households sitting in motels for years, raising families in damp motel rooms—we’ve taken them out of there and we’ve put 2,100 kids, prioritised them on the social housing wait-list, and got them into good houses. Importantly, our services remain available to help anyone who wants any help with accommodation supplements.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that homelessness in New Zealand is increasing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that we have taken people out of emergency housing and motel life—which was the plan of the previous Government; just to consign people off to motels. We have got the social housing wait-list down, which is fantastic, we’ve got families in State houses finally, and we’ve got rents stable and we’ve got housing costs stable. Importantly, interest rates are down, and that means if you’ve got a home, you’ve actually got $300 a fortnight back in your pocket, because we’re managing the economy well on this side of the House.

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

SPEAKER: Before I call your point of order, I have to say this is the third warning, and it will be the last. I don’t have too much of a concern how many people end up leaving the Chamber for a period of time. We are going to stop that sort of onslaught of—well, not even intelligible banter.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, the question I asked the Prime Minister was very simple: does he accept that homelessness in New Zealand is increasing? He hasn’t even come close to addressing the question.

SPEAKER: He did start by saying, “What I do accept”, which sort of indicates he wasn’t going to accept what you’d said. But, without losing one of your allocations, ask a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We go for three first.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that homelessness in New Zealand is increasing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I accept is that we’ve got more people into housing, and I think that’s a really good thing. When I think about those people and families who have moved out of motel accommodation into proper homes, we know that 80 percent of those who have come out of emergency housing have actually found houses. The other 20 percent are available to access any of our accommodation support and services, as they wish and as they need to. But isn’t it fantastic: kids are out of motel rooms, the housing wait-list is down, rents are stable, and house prices are stable as well. That’s a good thing. And interest rates are coming down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister how the Government is handling an inherited 100,000 homes target but a 99 percent failure rate?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re actually fixing it, as the member well knows. He’s a critical part of this Government. We are actually making sure we manage things well, we get value for money, we make sure the assets are well managed, and we make sure the State houses, when they get turned over, get turned over faster. We’re doing all the right things to make sure we get people into homes. We don’t just talk about it with bumper stickers; we get things done on this side of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are women and children fleeing domestic violence no longer eligible for emergency accommodation, on the basis that his Government has decided they contributed to their own homelessness, because they had a home and they left it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, that’s that member being a little—you know, that’s a mischaracterisation through that question. That is not happening. Those services are available, and that support is available.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that between the period 2017 and 2023 the social housing wait-list, an objective measure of those in housing need, roughly quadrupled—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Hon Nicola Willis: —and how does that compare to what has happened to the social housing waiting list since he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to thank the member for their question, because, under the previous administration, the number of people on the wait-list went from 6,500 to 27,000, a fourfold increase, and under our Government, in the space of 18 months, we’ve moved that from 27,000 down to 19,000. I think that’s something that all members of this House who really care about getting people into houses, who actually say they care, would be very pleased with that result.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of that reduction in the wait-list is because people were housed, and how many of it was simply because they were taken off the wait-list?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, for the benefit of the member, there are four components to housing: if you can’t buy a house, you rent one; if you can’t rent one, you actually go on a social housing wait-list; and if you can’t get one of those, you go into emergency housing. All four aspects are linked together, and that’s what this Government is doing exceptionally well—is dealing with all four components. As a result, we have more flexibility in the homeownership market, we have more flexibility in the rental market, we have more spaces being turned over and available through State housing and community housing providers, and we also have got people out of motels, because we prioritised families with kids from 1 April last year and we put them on to the social housing wait-list, which is fantastic.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very simple question. The Prime Minister was boasting about the reduction in the number of people on the social house waiting list. I asked him how many of those were housed, and how many of them were simply removed from the waiting list. It was a very straight question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The answer is thousands.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, of the people on the social housing wait-list, 60 percent of them need a one-bedroom home, while only 12 percent of Kāinga Ora stock are one-bedroom houses, and the Government has changed the funding settings to make sure that Kāinga Ora is now building what the social housing register needs.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, and I want to thank the Minister for his great work alongside Tama Potaka in making sure that we can actually get people into housing. I think this is something that all members of this House should be proud that we’re making progress on. We’re making progress on it. We had six years of a debacle—failed policy—from the previous administration. We’re fixing it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister come to Auckland Central to meet and to talk to the people, including the children, that his Government policies have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I appreciate the member for their invitation. I get lots of invitations all the time. If and when I can, I will consider that in the context of my diary.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that lower interest rates—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—no talking, at all, while someone else is asking a question.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that lower interest rates can assist New Zealanders to find their mortgages more affordable and assist people on to the housing ladder, and, if so, does he agree with the reported view of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins that Government policy does not influence interest rates?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think all people would understand both fiscal—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, the last part of the Minister’s question was completely wrong, but second of all, how on earth is either the person asking the question or the person answering the question responsible for what I think?

SPEAKER: That is quite right and I was actually contemplating that as you were about to take your point of order. So we’ll move on to a question from the Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the House that State housing is a lot safer now, given the robust approach taken to gang members and other miscreants who abuse the privilege of having a State house?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am absolutely proud of our unruly tenant policy which has been applied: we’ve had 63 people who have been ejected from State house tenancies—it was two under the previous Government in their last year—and we have about 1,400 people on first notices. The deal’s pretty simple: if a taxpayer’s going to pay for your State house, you’ve got a basic responsibility to actually look after the house and look after your neighbours. That’s why I’m proud of that policy, I’m proud of the obligations we have under welfare, and the message to parents to get your kids to school.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yesterday, the OECD released its latest economic outlook publication. This notes that the global outlook is becoming increasingly challenging, with substantial increases in barriers to trade, tighter financial conditions, weaker business and consumer confidence, and heightened policy uncertainty all having adverse effects on growth prospects. It says that the key policy priorities for OECD countries are to ensure a lasting decline in trade tensions, policy uncertainty, and inflation; to establish a credible fiscal path to debt sustainability; and to implement ambitious reforms to strengthen growth prospects and improve competitiveness.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the OECD say about fiscal policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD, in its latest report, says that restoring fiscal discipline is key for countries to avoid fiscal sustainability problems and build buffers for future shocks. It says that “Given high debt levels and … spending pressures, countries should ensure that public debt is … on a sustainable path”. It goes on to say that “Clear and credible medium-term fiscal plans are needed to show how countries intend to address pressures on public finances.” and specifically recommends countries undertake periodic spending reviews and target their policies. Members should note that these are all features of Budget 2025.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the OECD say about policies for investment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The OECD’s report says that “Sluggish investment has lowered growth, productivity, and living standards.” It says that “Weak growth in the capital stock has been an important factor behind the slowdown in potential output per capita growth in many countries”. In its policy prescription, the OECD recommends minimising regulatory barriers to foreign direct investment. It also recommends adopting tax policies that promote stronger business investment, including expanding capital allowances—that is, allowing greater deductions for capital expenditure. Members should note, again, that this was a feature of Budget 2025 with the introduction of Investment Boost.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the OECD say specifically about New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The New Zealand chapter of the report says that Budget 2025 “continues the programme of reducing expenditure as a share of GDP” and recommends the Government fully pursues this programme. It notes that the Government “took an important step to address the economy’s low capital intensity by introducing … ‘Investment Boost’, which allows firms to immediately deduct 20% of the value of a new asset from their taxable income on top of normal depreciation.” The Government’s fiscal strategy and the policies in the Budget to target assistance, review spending, restore fiscal discipline, and ensure public debt is on a sustainable path are good, sensible economic policies as recommended by external experts such as those in the OECD.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the OECD say that we should load the economy up with another $88 billion of costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. I think the OECD recognises that for New Zealanders enduring a cost of living crisis, stealing $88 billion of their money through additional taxes would be very harmful indeed.

SPEAKER: That’s probably not a reasonable way to describe that.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our nearly $7 billion investment in infrastructure, which will go towards upgrading and building new hospitals, mental health facilities, classrooms, rail, and roads across the country. And our infrastructure investments will make it easier for Kiwis to get on with their daily lives, create jobs and opportunities, and ultimately contribute to a growing and productive economy.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he support his Deputy Prime Minister’s claim that 99.5 percent of the submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill were fake and driven by bots, and, if so, can he provide evidence for this?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the Minister has clarified his comments and said he also meant that that was about form submissions. But what I’d say is the purpose of this legislation is to make sure we make better quality rules and regulation so that it’s not a drag on productivity, so that we can grow the economy faster.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he support his Deputy Prime Minister’s statement regarding the Crown’s failure to consult with Māori on the Regulatory Standards Bill that “meaningful consultation effectively requires you to be racist”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say is that there has been good pre-consultation from the Ministry for Regulation around this bill over the summer period and there’s a four-week select committee process. I’d just say to all people who want to contribute to that bill to make it better legislation: feel free to contribute through the select committee process.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Ministry of Justice that “the omission of the Treaty” from the Regulatory Standards Bill “does not recognise the constitutional significance of the Treaty … nor the Crown’s duty to acknowledge the rights and interests of Māori in the development of [policy]”, or does he agree with the man who wrote the bill that there is “absolutely no reason” to consider the Treaty when making law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said before, I would encourage Māori, non-Māori, anybody who wants to strengthen this bill to contribute through the select committee process.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he accept the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that excluding Te Tiriti from the Regulatory Standards Bill and its principles risks erasing pre-existing Māori rights in the same way the Treaty principles did?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member: we’ve had a pre-consultation period, we’ve had a first reading, we’ve got a select committee process before a bill comes back to this House. It’s important in that select committee process, given the devil will be in the detail of the implementation of this bill, that people have their say and make a contribution through the select committee process.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he explain why he said he was “comfortable” with a senior Cabinet Minister publicly calling a performance celebrating te ao Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi “a load of crap”, as Chris Bishop did during the Aotearoa Music Awards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the Minister has said that he probably, in hindsight, should have kept his opinions to himself. But, as that member will know, there are lots of different tastes in music. As I’ve said publicly, I quite like country music, but a lot of people give me grief for that too and use similar language that Chris Bishop has used.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fa‘afetai lava lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does her statement of valuing the work of care and support workers like Rosie Thompson align with her actions of cancelling their active pay equity claim and requiring care and support workers to start their claim again?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because we have ensured that there is a workable, sustainable pay equity regime in law that will allow claims with merit to be raised and, where appropriate, settled.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Can she assure working women that collective bargaining will remedy pay inequities based on gender, given some sectors such as secondary school teachers can no longer apply for a pay equity claim under the new legislation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As per the law, where claims are able to be made under the pay equity regime which demonstrate that workers have been undervalued and underpaid as a result of sex-based discrimination, they are able to raise and progress pay equity claims.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What does she say to Connie Buchanan, a care and support worker, who says, “We don’t have a chance trying to do it ourselves and negotiating with them. We’re women, we’re Māori and Pacific women, women from our migrant communities, Indians and Filipinas. And it’s like they don’t value us.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would say, quite simply: we value you and we value the work of all New Zealanders.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How do her statements of valuing the work of women care and support workers, midwives, nurses, and teachers align with her actions of cancelling 33 active claims, stripping $12.8 billion contingency for pay equity for her Budget, and making it impossible for some sectors like secondary school teachers to make a pay equity claim?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I point out that nurses have received a pay equity settlement, which we are upholding and continuing to fund. I’d also point out that the $12.8 billion figure that the member refers to is explained in Budget documents, and she might like to point that out to her leader, who today said that it’s an awfully big number that he doesn’t understand.

Question No. 5—Education

5. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding school property as part of Budget 2025?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Budget 2025 invests in delivering classrooms and schools that our students need to flourish. This Government has invested over $460 million to deliver new schools and classrooms, creating over 8,000 additional student places. We’ve also dramatically increased the efficiency with which we deliver the school property, so we get more bang for our buck. When you remove bespoke legacy projects from the most recent quarter, I’m delighted that we have nearly halved the cost of delivering a classroom from $1.2 million down to $626,000. Standardised and repeatable designs are efficient, effective, and mean more students get what they need to succeed.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made for school property in Selwyn?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Population data shows that Selwyn is one of the fastest growing areas in New Zealand with a 23 percent increase in student numbers between 2020 and 2024. In response, the Selwyn growth plan is delivering a new primary school in Prebbleton, purchase of land for a new primary school in Lincoln, and an additional 52 classrooms across five existing schools. As a Government we are delivering for the people of Selwyn and can I congratulate the member for her advocacy for the area.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What announcements has she made for school property in the wider Canterbury region?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, to meet growing student population in the wider Christchurch region, we’ve also committed to delivering a new primary school in Halswell, an additional 51 classrooms to existing schools. This investment will deliver 2,500 student places in the region’s school network. Our children deserve a world-leading education that starts with a warm, safe, dry classroom. Through Budget 2025, we are delivering more classrooms more efficiently at a lower cost. This is a Government of delivery and we are delivering for the people of Christchurch.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else has she announced regarding school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Budget 2025 ring-fences $90 million for around 25 satellite learning support classrooms and over 300 property modifications to ensure our schools are accessible and inclusive of students with additional needs. We’re also funding 50 new classrooms for Māori medium and kura kaupapa Māori education, increasing access to Māori immersion schooling for approximately 1,100 children. Budget 2025 delivers more classrooms at a far more affordable rate. This is what delivery looks like.

Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK. Leave is sought to correct an answer. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When I answered a question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds, I paraphrased a quote attributed to Chris Hipkins. Out of an abundance of caution and wishing not to have misled the House, I would like to read out the actual quote which I paraphrased, and which is different from what I paraphrased.

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, you don’t get to do that. The correction would be simply asking that it be—well, I’m not sure how you’d do it. You’re asking for something that I haven’t struck before, and I don’t think it’s quite appropriate to use the forum of the House’s leave to correct an answer by giving an extended answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s not an extended answer; it’s simply to make clear the actual statement that was made, rather than my paraphrase of it.

SPEAKER: It’s not how the process works. If you’ve said something that’s wrong, apologise for saying it’s wrong, and move on.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think that the way that I paraphrased the quote should be corrected. Am I able to correct the paraphrasing of the quote?

SPEAKER: Well, you can, as long as you don’t go into other debate.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, that is not my intention. It is simply to correct the paraphrasing.

SPEAKER: OK. We’ll try it.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What Mr Hipkins actually said that I should have paraphrased correctly is that he asked that “National should … release to the New Zealand public how they arrived at that figure because it is a very big number.”

SPEAKER: Well, that’s good.

Question No. 6—Education

6. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to pay equity in the education sector?

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

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What advice, if any, did she seek from the Ministry of Education on the impact of the changes to the pay equity regime on the education workforce?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve answered this in a previous question time where I told the member that I received some advice in May around the effect that this would have on the teaching workforce.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was—

SPEAKER: No, wait on—let’s do everything right. Point of order, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question was what advice did she ask for, not what had the ministry given her. What advice did she seek from the ministry, was my question.

SPEAKER: Well, OK. Look, can the Minister expand on that, please.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Without putting the question on notice, I don’t have it in front of me, so all I can say is that I know that I received some information in May regarding the impact on teachers of the pay equity decision.

SPEAKER: It’s not unreasonable.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn’t she advocate on behalf of secondary school teachers when she became aware that they would not be able to make a pay equity claim under the new rules?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, we have Cabinet meetings, and, as the member well knows, we don’t discuss what happened in Cabinet meetings.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When was she first made aware of proposed changes to the Ministry of Education’s pay equity team?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I haven’t been made aware of any changes to their pay equity team.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the second question asked by the questioner, has the Minister already provided that question with the information under the Official Information Act?

SPEAKER: That’s a question. Supplementary question.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Sorry, if I understand correctly, I think the answer is that the member is free to make a request under the Official Information Act for anything that I’ve received.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It takes 30 days.

SPEAKER: A supplementary question is asked with the House listening.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when she is getting rid of the Ministry of Education’s pay equity team, didn’t even think to ask about the impact of the pay equity changes on the education workforce, and stood by and did nothing as secondary school teachers lost their right to make a pay equity claim?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that is not a question—it’s not in order.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that advice. The member might like to try and bring her question more into a form that’s accepted. Rather than making statements in the way of a question, simply ask a question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when the Ministry of Education’s pay equity team is being changed, she did not seek advice from the ministry—

SPEAKER: No, no, no, you can’t say that. You cannot say that. So get the question in order.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when the ministry is getting rid of the pay equity team and there was no advocacy for secondary school teachers—

SPEAKER: No, no, you can’t say that either.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: OK. Yep. Sorry.

SPEAKER: Sorry, you’ve had three goes; we’re getting close to cutting the question off.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can she claim to be committed to pay equity when there are changes to the pay equity team and secondary school teachers cannot make a pay equity claim?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, in answer to the first part of the question around the pay equity team—as I’ve already told the member in other questions, and again today—I’m not aware of any changes and it would be entirely operational and not a matter for the Minister but a matter for the Secretary of Education.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Several weeks ago, you directed our attention to a particular Standing Order and it led to a new ruling. That questioner is consistently violating Standing Order 390 and getting away with it scot-free.

SPEAKER: Well, yes, thank you very much for that observation. What I would say is that it’s Speakers’ rulings 196/1-3 that would be worth the member looking at to understand why today was something of a little bit of a difficulty for her. But I do appreciate the Hon Shane Jones’ deep knowledge of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and his willingness to share that with me.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has he seen about tools to reduce retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): This morning, the Privacy Commission released its report into—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, the other side of the House, let him give some answer before you start paraphrasing what you think he should say.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, the Privacy Commission released its report into the Foodstuffs North Island facial recognition technology trial. The report found that not only was the trial compliant with the Privacy Act but was also effective in reducing harmful behaviour and serious violent incidents in stores. We welcome the report and its acknowledgement of the need to use new technology to support our retailers.

Tom Rutherford: Why do we need new tools to deal with retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Between 2019 and 2023, retail crime increased by 85 percent, including a 91 percent increase in the victimisations relating to theft. The men and women working in retail need to feel safe in their workplace, and New Zealanders want to see law and order in our communities. We’re making good progress on that, such as seeing ram raids drop by more than 60 percent in 2024, but we need to go further. This Government is on the side of the retailers and their customers, not on the side of the criminals.

Tom Rutherford: What feedback has he seen from retailers on the Privacy Commission report?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Foodstuffs North Island have welcomed the report, stating, “Our people continue to be assaulted, threatened, and verbally abused, and we’re committed to doing all we can to create safer retail environments.” Our Government supports the findings of the report and the use of facial recognition technology, but we still need to go further. I’ll be tasking the ministerial advisory group on retail crime to consider the report and see what else we can do in the area. We want to give the retailers the tools that they need to keep their customers and their workers safe.

Tom Rutherford: What other tools is the Government considering to reduce retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government is serious about reducing retail crime. The ministerial advisory group on retail crimes made recommendations to strengthen and clarify the rules in relation to the citizen’s arrest, with more recommendations to strengthen trespass legislation. We’ve tightened up the sentencing laws to make sure offenders face consequences for crimes, and we’re committed to exploring further measures to support retailers and victims.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly our Budget 2025 investment into improving our justice system and keeping New Zealanders safe, because this Government understands that we can’t have a prosperous, functional society unless criminals face real consequences for wreaking havoc on communities. That’s why we’ve invested $472 million in corrections and $246 million into our court system to clear the backlog of cases. We’re cracking down on gangs, we’re tackling youth offending and retail crime, and we’re getting more officers out there on the beat.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister rule out his Government pursuing a “no additional warming” approach to agricultural climate-changing gases, as 26 world-renowned scientists implored in an open letter to him just this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the last part of the question, I’d just say to the people that kindly wrote the letter to me that they should write it to 194 other countries before they send me a letter, and then I might read it. I just want that member to understand that New Zealand’s farmers are the very best in the world. They are the number one most carbon-efficient in the world. If you want to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, you would do more farming in New Zealand and less in other countries, and I think our farmers deserve tremendous praise because they are the bedrock of this economy. They’re doing an exceptionally good job of hauling us out of recession, and we ain’t going to shut down farming and send production overseas. We’re backing our farmers. They’re the best in the world. They’re the most carbon-efficient, and if they’d sent it to 194 other leaders before they’d sent it to me, then I might read it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that adopting a “no additional warming” approach for agricultural gases would mean either requiring every other sector of the economy to carry a far higher burden to reduce emissions, or reducing our climate ambition and, therefore, breaching international trade and climate agreements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to the member—and I want everybody in this country to understand this—New Zealand farmers are the best in the world and they are the most carbon-efficient. So if you shut down farming in New Zealand and you move it to any other country on earth—any of the 194 other countries—global greenhouse gas emissions get worse. We have outstanding farmers. We have outstanding science and technology and innovation coming our way. We can be more productive. We can actually deliver our lower domestic and global emissions by embracing technology and actually increasing production.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, we can debate till we’re blue in the face about the efficiency of our farmers, but that was not my question. My question was about our climate targets, and this is a really important distinction because the efficiency of our farmers is one entirely separate thing from the targets.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and that really probably answers your own question because you raised it as an either/or, and I think that the Prime Minister, therefore, can easily bring in some other aspects that might sit outside the tight confines of the answer you were expecting.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry, my first question was explicitly about whether he would heed the call from international—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No—I said no.

Chlöe Swarbrick: —renowned climate scientists. OK, he’s said no. To my next supplementary, will the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He didn’t say no.

Chlöe Swarbrick: He just did, just now. OK. Will he commit to following the recommendation—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Quickly—spit it out.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve made the point many times that we’re not to be heckled while asking a primary or supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Yes, but you need to understand that you stood up to take a point of order, and then decided to move straight into a question. So you should have waited until I had some opportunity to respond to you. But questions are to be heard in silence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister commit, then, to following the recommendation of the independent, expert Climate Change Commission that—and I quote—there is “no evidence to support weakening the [2050] target, and enough to consider strengthening [it].”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member—and I think it’s well understood—we have had advice from the climate commission and we’ve had advice independently from our own independent work on methane targets. We’ll have more to say about that shortly, but I want to be very clear: we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. You know, if you wanted to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, you would produce more in New Zealand and less in less carbon-efficient countries—it’s that simple. We ain’t shutting down farming in New Zealand. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions will be heard in silence. If people don’t observe that, then they don’t need to be here.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister sought any assurances from his climate or finance Ministers that we are still on track to meet our next emissions budget, given that a third of it relies on carbon-capture technology that the industry says is economically unfeasible, and another third on waste minimisation that his recent Budget cut funding to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, we remain on track. We are back on track.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that the previous pay parity regime for early childhood education was “putting enormous funding pressure on the centres”; if so, does he view increasing pay for ECE teachers to be a funding pressure?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: On behalf of the Associate Minister, in response to the first part of the question: yes, in the context that they were made. In response to the second part of the question: increasing costs are often considered to be funding pressures.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How will ensuring new teachers to the sector will be paid less help early childhood education centres attract new teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: ECE providers are free to pay new teachers on a higher starting salary if they choose to. Almost every other sector operates in this exact way, paying job applicants based on how they value their skills, qualifications, and experience. Speaking for the Associate Minister, I am confident that if new teachers have valuable skills and experience, they will be recognised accordingly.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How does a 0.5 percent cost adjustment for early childhood education subsidies, far below inflation, help relieve cost pressures for ECE centres?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, the Government allocated the ECE sector an uplift of $51 million over four years. We are in extremely challenging fiscal circumstances, and New Zealanders are having to make difficult choices at the moment. What I would say also is that on top of this, there has been a number of things done by myself—as the Associate Minister, speaking on behalf of him—to reduce the regulatory burden on centres to help reduce their cost, as well as the initiative that the member has been asking about.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he agree with Early Childhood New Zealand - Te Rito Maioha, who said that “experience and education no longer matter, that quality early childhood education can be sacrificed in the name of Government cost-cutting.”

Hon ERICA STANFORD: On behalf of the Associate Minister, I completely disagree. As I’ve already mentioned, centres are free to pay new teachers to the sector as per what they are worth. One thing that I have said publicly is that those centres will pay based on the quality and the experience of the person who is applying for the job. It doesn’t necessarily mean, just because someone has a doctorate in philosophy, that they should be paid at the top of the scale, because they may not actually have the skills and experience that they need to be paid at that level of the pay scale. Just because they have some higher qualification in something, that’s completely irrelevant to ECE.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Are these changes just “a way of keeping the cost of ECE centre funding down for the Government, while also not affecting service providers’ bottom lines”, as pointed out by the Office of Early Childhood Education?

Hon Erica Stanford: Speaking on behalf of the Associate Minister: no, and I would like to point out that the previous Government were the ones that abandoned pay parity for the ECE sector in their final dying days of our previous Government, by making sure that when the Kindergarten Teachers’ Collective Agreement, the kindergarten teachers pay went up, that ECE wouldn’t also go up. So if that member wants to have a go at us about pay parity, she should look to her own Government.

Question No. 10—Tourism and Hospitality

10. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcement has she made about regional events funding?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): This Government is driving economic growth in the regions by investing $2.6 million in over 150 regional events. I’m thrilled with the variety of exciting events on offer, encouraging more New Zealanders to enjoy and explore our beautiful country beyond the main centres. Events are excellent drawcards to get more visitors into our regions, particularly in quieter parts of the year, for the tourism and hospitality sector. This funding comes from the $5 million Regional Events Promotion Fund. Over the two rounds, the fund has invested in 284 regional events.

Carl Bates: How does this support regional tourism in the Whanganui region?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This funding boost will support a wide range of events across Whanganui. The member will be particularly interested in the funding to the Whanganui Vintage Weekend, the Whanganui Suzuki Series, and the Cooks Classic athletic event. It’s great to continue to support this event and encourage many more visitors to that region. It will boost Whanganui’s local economy to create and support employment across the region.

Catherine Wedd: How does this support regional tourism in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I thank the member for her question. As part of the Regional Events Promotion Fund, I was pleased to see that the Hawke’s Bay will have a number of events supported through this round of funding. These events include the Hawke’s Bay Wine and Food Festival, Art Deco in Napier, Horse of the Year, and the Outfield Music, Food and Arts Festival. These events are hugely beneficial to the Hawke’s Bay economy and are a great drawcard for New Zealanders to head to the Bay. This Government is committed to backing the regions and, of course, boosting economic growth.

Maureen Pugh: How does this support regional tourism across the West Coast?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The West Coast’s iconic and unique events have received support from this funding round. The funding will help promote the True West Adventure Race, the fantastic Hokitika Wildfoods Festival, and the Greymouth Motorcycle Street Race. These events are a great initiative to get visitors from New Zealand travelling to the West Coast, spending in its local towns, helping local businesses, and supporting local jobs year-round. New Zealand is open for business and we encourage all Kiwis to explore and enjoy our own backyard.

Question No. 11—Social Development and Employment

11. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Will the 13,200 low-income households who will have their housing assistance reduced due to the Government’s changes to the calculation of housing subsidies be better or worse off as a result?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There has been no change to the accommodation supplement or public housing subsidy payments. The recent changes to boarders and income-related rent are based on common sense and fairness when accessing the appropriate accommodation support. Most people who receive housing subsidies will not be impacted by these changes. The system must be fair to taxpayers as well as those who are receiving housing assistance. The recent changes ensure that all housing income is taken into account when calculating housing assistance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she concerned that her ministry warned her that the changes to the eligibility in the accommodation supplement will risk “increased hardship”, “further cost pressures for vulnerable households” and “increasing need for other hardship assistance”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because Budget 2024 was all about reducing the cost of living crisis, and what we do know is that those households who have the lowest incomes are the most harshly affected by the cost of living crisis, which is why we needed to make changes to this regime, to ensure that we alleviated pressure for low-income households.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How does leaving 13,200 low-income households worse off as a result of the changes to the accommodation supplement eligibility by up to hundreds of dollars a week help with the cost of living?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I said, Budget 2024 was about addressing the cost of living pressures. Job number one was to reduce Government spending, and this initiative addressed an area that most New Zealanders would have expected wasn’t happening. If you were a boarder paying board in a household, you could get the accommodation supplement. In the same household, if you were collecting board from multiple people, you would also get the accommodation supplement. That is double-dipping. That is exactly the kind of Government spending that we need to reduce.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that, for someone living in poverty, losing $100 a week as a result of these changes could mean they can’t put food on the table?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m not sure if I can say it any more plainly, but where we have accommodation assistance, it must take into account all housing income. That is fair and equitable to taxpayers as well as making common sense to those who are receiving housing assistance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How is it fair to leave thousands of people potentially in hardship, as identified by her own ministry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because, as I said, the changes that have been made as a result of Budget 2024 reduced a couple of anomalies. Most New Zealanders would expect that housing assistance would be calculated based on all housing income. It wasn’t; we’ve changed it. It’s fairer, as it should be.

Question No. 12—Immigration

12. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Immigration: How many people were informed in error following Immigration New Zealand’s online ballot in May that they had won the right to apply for a parent residence visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): Immigration New Zealand’s parent resident visa expressions of interest online tool allows people to see if their expression of interest was successful in the ballot. The tool should show an exact match of the customer’s ballot number once they’ve inputted it. However, when the tool was recently rebuilt for the new website, an ICT error meant that in some instances it also showed ballot numbers that were close but not an exact match. I’m advised that it’s not possible to track how many people this happened to. However, Immigration New Zealand has only been contacted by three people.

Hon Phil Twyford: Why won’t she, as Minister, personally apologise to Alison Renwick and any others who were wrongly told that they had won the right to sponsor for a parent residence visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I understand that immigration officials have already spoken to the lady that the member mentions and have apologised. If they have details for other people, they will be doing the same.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will applicants who were wrongly told that they had won the right to sponsor for a parent residence visa be granted a fee waiver the next time they want to go into the ballot?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because we have no idea of how many people this has affected, it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to do that.

Hon Phil Twyford: How much revenue has been generated for the Government over the last year by the $450 fee that people pay to go into the ballot for only three months?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t have that information to hand so I can’t answer it. But if the member wants to put it in writing, then we’ll be able to answer it.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will she admit that many thousands of Kiwi families are frustrated and desperately waiting for the parent boost visa that she promised and 19 months later is still nowhere to be seen?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, as I had indicated in January this year via social media video that went quite well, I indicated that we had started work on the visa. And we will be announcing the visa imminently with a date that people will be able to apply for it, which will be months earlier than we had originally intended.

SITTINGS of the House

SITTINGS of the House

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stage of the Invest New Zealand Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Patents Amendment Bill and the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill; and the third reading of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and the Privacy Amendment Bill.

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 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 3 June on the .

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It’s been nearly a fortnight since Budget 2025 was delivered by the Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis, and what a wonderful, fantastic Budget it was. It was a Budget built on the clear strategy of going for growth and getting New Zealand’s economy growing and thriving again.

That has been the cornerstone of this coalition Government’s attempts to get New Zealand back on track. It’s a Government that is determined to encourage investors, entrepreneurs, business people, tradies, farmers, and anyone that wants to have a go to grow our economy and get it going, to employ people, to have a thriving and growing economy. It was a responsible Budget, responsible management of money, of taxpayers’ dollars, and a focus on the areas that matter to New Zealand. And it was a Budget that is designed specifically to unlock opportunities for more business growth, for communities, and for families—a relentless approach and a focus on that growth.

I could spend a very long period of time talking about aspects of the Budget that are so good, but I just want to focus on one matter in particular that I think is going to have a dramatic positive impact on the economy of New Zealand and that is going to have huge beneficial help and assistance to farmers, to tradies, and to business people up and down the countryside.

What am I referring to? I’m referring to the Investment Boost scheme. It’s a great programme and it’s a policy that is designed to make it easier for business people, whether they be farmers, tradies, small-business people in the beautiful Coromandel, for instance, who want to deduct immediately a 20 percent tax deduction on the investment and purchase of new capital equipment for their businesses. It’ll allow those tradespeople, those business people, to make that decision. And, boy, haven’t they been making those decisions quickly.

Now, in the week following the Budget, I had an opportunity to visit the nearly as beautiful as Coromandel electorate of the Wairarapa with the very hard-working local member of Parliament, Mike Butterick. We were literally a couple of days after the Budget and we went to see a number of local business people, and heard some great stories about how the local economy in those parts of the Wairarapa that the member worked so hard to represent in this Parliament are doing. For instance, we spoke to one business person. It was a local Mitre 10 franchise actually, a relatively young new owner of this franchise—keen, enthusiastic, growing the business—and he told us spontaneously that as a direct result of Investment Boost he was going to go out and buy a new van for his business, a new delivery van as a direct result of Investment Boost.

We spoke also to a local restauranteur who told us that actually the hospitality business had been a bit tough at Masterton, but she was struggling through and she was able to tell us another example of how Investment Boost was helping her business. Now, it turns out that in her restaurant, she’s got a series of refrigerators out the back, as restaurants often do—of course they do—and she told us that there had been a couple of condensers in these refrigerators that needed replacement, and she’d been nursing them along by just gassing them up for the last year or so. But Investment Boost had given her the confidence to go out and buy three new refrigeration condensers, and that’s an obvious benefit of Investment Boost.

So there you go—just a couple of examples of how good a scheme that was. Now, those examples will be reflected and replicated up and down the countryside, and certainly there will be cases happening in the Coromandel electorate that I have the pleasure and the privilege of representing in this House, because in the Coromandel electorate, just like Wairarapa, there are small-business people, large businesses, farmers, tradies who will be benefiting from that. So I’m really looking forward to seeing the impacts and the results that Investment Boost will have across the country.

But it will be ultimately real people—individuals, families, local communities—that benefit most from Budget 2025. And, of course, the underlying theme of Budget 2025 is economic growth. That’s not only the theme of this Budget this year but it’s the theme that this Government, this coalition Government, has been pushing right since its establishment exactly halfway through the parliamentary term that we are now at.

I want to spend just a minute or two talking about some efforts that are happening in my portfolio area of commerce and consumer affairs in terms of growing our economy, because the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio is part of the broader mosaic of Government portfolios that are designed to focus on economic growth. Recently, a package of three pieces of legislation in my name came before the House, and I’m pleased to report that all three received a positive first reading and have now gone for consideration to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The three bills are the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill. Now, that might sound to many people as being quite a lot of words, but those three bills in collaboration work together to create a more open, encouraging, and positive economic environment.

I talked about these bills at length when they were introduced, but they are in their essence about getting the delivery in terms of a growing economy that our country so desperately needs. For instance, they’ll make it easier for ordinary Kiwis just to get finance when they need it, to borrow some money. That could be to grow their business or maybe it’s some finance they need in their personal life to fund a renovation of a home or something like that. Or just the kind of money that sometimes people need to borrow for a personal loan as well. It will mean that these pieces of legislation will assist New Zealanders just to get things done—just to get things done—because that’s what this Government is all about. And, of course, much of the red tape that currently binds and inhibits so much of what happens in New Zealand will be further eased by the passing and the passage of these three pieces of legislation.

So, just to recap, the main changes from these pieces of legislation are pretty simple really, but one of the things we’re going to do is beef up the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and it will be the FMA that is given the tools and power it needs to effectively ensure compliance and to protect consumers. It’s a good common-sense change that New Zealanders will benefit from. And then we’re going to remove unnecessary personal liability because senior managers and directors will, when these bills are passed, no longer face personal liability for compliance failures. What’s going to happen is that the responsibility is going to sit with the businesses where it firmly and squarely should sit in the first place.

Then we’re going to streamline a range of licensing requirements. Financial service providers won’t need to any longer hold multiple overlapping conduct licences, and that’s going to reduce duplication, it’s going to reduce fees, it’s going to reduce compliance costs, and ultimately, it’s another step forward in removing some of the red tape that binds our economy unnecessarily. We’re going to improve the dispute resolution services. We’re strengthening the financial dispute resolution scheme so that Kiwis can have confidence in a fair and effective and supportive resolution service when and if they should need it. And then, of course, we’re going to have a fairer, more proportionate approach to non-disclosures.

Financial regulation—it might sound like a dry subject to many people, but I can assure people listening at home that it is exciting and that it is helpful to us. Budget 2025 is going to help New Zealanders in a way that many are yet to firmly discover. But these pieces of legislation help form that mosaic that is going to provide growth in our economy, stability in the future of New Zealand, not just for us but for future generations.

As we continue this debate, I know that colleagues on my side of the House are going to continue to proclaim and acknowledge the great work that Nicola Willis, our finance Minister, has done in bringing together a Budget in what are very challenging economic times. She’s done a great job. She’s done a great job and I and my colleagues across the coalition Government support her. We think she’s doing an excellent job and we commend this Budget to the House.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Megan Woods.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Spare a thought for Scott Simpson. He was the first speaker putting up after the polling came back that the National Party’s obsession with Labour wasn’t playing out for them. The memo went out: “Don’t create excitement.”, and he executed it beautifully. Well done, Scott Simpson.

Budgets are about choices. Budgets are about the time where Governments lay out, clearly for the voting public of New Zealand, their values and their vision, and this is exactly what happened in Budget 2025 from this Government. This is where Governments have a choice: do they build our future or do they cut? We know what happened in this Budget. This was not a Budget that looked to build our future. This was not a Budget that put out values that showed that New Zealanders’ jobs, New Zealand’s security of housing, New Zealanders’ health was at the forefront of a Government. Instead, we had a Government that showed it wanted to slash spending, hollow out our public sector, and not have regard for how New Zealanders are faring out there.

This will go down in history as a Budget that was paid for by the women of New Zealand. So let’s not make a mistake. Rather than Plunket nurses, hospice nurses, care and support workers, midwives—rather than these women and men employed in these traditionally female-dominated industries cracking on with their pay equity claims, this Government has shifted the goalposts. It has changed the criteria and it has made it harder. But what this Budget did was take away the money put aside for these hospice workers, for these Plunket nurses, for these midwives, for these care and support workers. These are people that are doing it tough, and this Government has used money that was set aside to pay them fairly to finance the Budget that they presented two weeks ago.

And for what? The Government tell us that this is the Government of growth, that this is the Budget of growth, and that their set piece, their centrepiece of this, was Investment Boost. Now, we’ve been very clear on this side of the House: Investment Boost is not something that we don’t think is a good idea, but we have some concerns about the policy in the Government. One is that it is untargeted. The second is that it is uncapped. And our fear is that it is unsustainable—that the Government has not done any modelling about what this could cost. The Government was so surprised that a Minister had to come down to the House during the committee of the whole House to find out if it really was true that multinational oil and gas companies would qualify under Investment Boost. And he was told, yes; the answer is yes.

The growth that is projected by Treasury from Investment Boost is 1 percent over 20 years. So let’s keep this in perspective. This is a Government that thinks it is the Government of growth, and the best they can do—their centrepiece policy—is 1 percent over 20 years. What’s more, wage growth out of that policy: 1.5 percent over 20 years. The changes to KiwiSaver: the advice that Government got was that, actually, there is going to be a suppression in wage growth because of those changes. So this is a Government that is happy to present a Budget that actually stalls the growth in New Zealanders’ wages. It is not creating jobs. In fact, what we are seeing is, actually, that unemployment is projected to grow under policies put forward by this Government. There’ll be fewer jobs; we won’t see wage growth.

So New Zealanders are rightly asking, “Where are the jobs? Where is the training? Where are the apprenticeships?” But, fundamentally, what New Zealanders are asking this Government is, “What is the plan for the future? What is your vision for our future?” Because they are not seeing it. There is a reason why this is the least popular Budget in 30 years, and it’s because it is a Government that is not putting New Zealanders at the centre of its decision making. It’s desperately trying to cling on to power, to keep its coalition of chaos together, and instead it is presenting a visionless Budget that does not take New Zealand forward and does not put the best interests of New Zealanders first.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is a Budget that is built on the backs of working women. It’s a Budget that only works because that Government has taken away the pay equity claims of thousands and thousands and thousands of workers. They did it under urgency, without notice, taking away pay equity claims. That all happened a few weeks before the Budget, but David Seymour let the cat out of the box when he said of his Minister who introduced the legislation that took away women’s pay equity claims, “I actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions. She’s saved the Budget for the Government.” That’s the words from David Seymour on the day that the pay equity legislation was introduced to this House.

They have taken billions away from women, and then they’ve had the temerity to claim that this side of the House is spreading misinformation about pay equity. So let’s get the story straight. First up, they took away the existing pay equity system. There was a system, it was in place, it was working, there were claims working their way through it, people had spent years and years and years working on pay equity claims, and they took that system away and said, “Never mind. You can apply again.” That’s the first thing they did.

Then they scotched 33 existing pay equity claims, took away 33 sets of claims that people had been working on already—claims for 180,000 women. If you think I’m taking this personally, I am. My own two daughters are affected by that. People on that side of the House talked about their daughters in glowing terms. Well, I’m going to talk about my two girls and the girls of working women throughout this country who have lost their pay equity claims, the girls whose mums work in low-paid jobs and who could have gotten a little bit of extra income from a pay equity claim, and that’s gone too.

They took away 33 claims, and then they claimed that, even though they’ve taken away the pay equity system, they’ve put a new system in place and claim that it’s fairer. Well, their new system does not work. An excellent analysis from lawyers in the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has shown that it’s probably going to be impossible to get a claim through the new system when you apply the new thresholds. And we can tell it’s going to be a lot different because they’ve saved $12 billion. That doesn’t come out of nowhere.

This affects so many women. Here’s the problem with it: under the new system—and it’s shown by teachers in particular—putting a claim forward means you’ve got to compare yourself to someone in a similar industry, so the obvious comparative for, say, primary school teachers is secondary school teachers. The obvious comparative for secondary school teachers is primary school teachers. But secondary school teachers are blocked from taking a pay equity claim—they don’t reach the threshold. Primary school teachers will then compare themselves to secondary school teachers, and no one gets the pay rise.

They also dismissed and treated as ridiculous the claims that people are making, saying that it was ridiculous to compare a librarian to a fisheries worker. No, it is not ridiculous. They both require skills of analysis. They both require skills of seeking information. They both have to deal with difficult people in difficult situations. Let’s talk about social workers versus aircraft controllers. Social workers require degrees. They have to work in complex situations. Aircraft controllers do not. When the skills are compared, those jobs stack up together. That Government has ridiculed the claims made by women, and it has taken away those pay equity claims. So when they talk about misinformation, it is their misinformation—their misinformation that everything is just the same. The reality of the situation is that if there is a $12 billion saving in this Budget, money that has been deployed elsewhere, that money has come in from the backs of working women who just want to be paid fairly.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): It’s a great pleasure to rise today to speak about our growth Budget—the amazing work of our finance Minister, Nicola Willis, who, let’s be honest, was dealing with an absolute mess after that side of the House sent us into astronomical debt, a whole lot of wasteful spending, and record inflation. Well, we are getting fiscal management back on this side of the House. We are getting our economy back on track, and that’s why this growth Budget is amazing. It is investing in things that matter, deliver value for New Zealanders, and lift incomes. It is investing in education, health, police, and defence. It is investing in our hard-working families; investing in regional and provincial New Zealand and our rural sector.

There are many areas I could talk about today, but I’m also excited to talk about Investment Boost, because Investment Boost is going to grow our economy. It will encourage businesses to invest in productive assets like machinery, tools, and equipment, and it will encourage growth. Businesses can deduct 20 percent of new assets’ value from their year’s taxable income, on top of normal depreciation. Last week, I was out, in our recess week, in the mighty Hawke’s Bay, in the fruit bowl of New Zealand, visiting many of our incredible businesses. Many of our businesses are so happy to see Investment Boost. They’re so happy that we are backing business once again, so that they can create more jobs and opportunity.

Let’s take our Hawke’s Bay apple industry, for example. After everything that our growers have been through after Cyclone Gabrielle, they have bounced back. They have shown resilience, and, for the first time ever, the apple industry is going to surpass $1 billion. For six years, under the Labour Government, they never ever got there, because of the infliction of red tape and the restriction of growth. Well, we are saying now, “Let’s grow the apple industry, let’s grow the jobs, and let’s grow the opportunity with our growth Budget.” And it’s not just apples; it’s kiwifruit—up to $5 billion. The red meat sector, our dairy industry—record pay-outs over $10, because we’re backing primary industries and the backbone of our economy, which is what drives our economy here in New Zealand.

Look, it’s not just about our primary sector and our apple industry. I was also out at a cafe in Hawke’s Bay last week, getting a coffee, and the cafe owner said to me, “Thanks for Investment Boost. It is just such a fantastic policy. I was thinking about opening another cafe, but I was in doubt. This has given me incentive and motivation.” He said that Investment Boost would now help with the purchase of the assets that will result in him employing 10 more people. He will pay rent, he will buy products, he will buy food, and he will support many businesses and many families across Hawke’s Bay. This is why we need to encourage investment. It’s good for growth, and it’s good for Kiwi families.

Cyclone recovery is another fantastic area of this Budget. I’d like to touch on the funding boost that has been given to the cyclone recovery and the rebuild in Hawke’s Bay, because 2½ years after Cyclone Gabrielle, we’re still rebuilding in Hawke’s Bay. Just a few months ago, I was actually out at the Kererū Gorge. This community had been cut off for over two years, so having that road and that bridge reopened just meant so much to that community. That is why we need to invest in resilient infrastructure that is going to build communities once again. We’re seeing a $7 billion infrastructure investment in this Budget. Last year’s Budget invested $1 billion into recovery and resilience projects across Hawke’s Bay, to those areas that were hit by Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend floods. We remain committed to rebuilding lives and neighbourhoods, so this Budget provides $219 million in additional funding to get the local roads across Hawke’s Bay repaired and moving again.

We understand that resilient infrastructure is what drives our economy forward, and just while I’m touching on that, I will also touch on our four-lane Hawke’s Bay Expressway, which is the first road of national significance to start. In fact, we just had our amazing Minister of Transport in Hawke’s Bay the other day, announcing the second phase of the four-lane expressway—the funding to start the enabling work. We’ve got diggers on the ground, shovels in the ground, and we’re getting going on that four-lane expressway, which is going to get our export products to the port faster, our apples to the port, our wine to the port, our red meat to the port and off to the market, so we can optimise the value out of those products. This is really, really good. We are not just dreaming about hard hats and shovels; we’ve actually got them in the ground and we’re off, we’re doing it. We’re a Government of delivery.

Look, the other area I just wanted to touch on, in the Budget, which I’m extremely passionate about, as a mother of four young children going through our education system at the moment, is the commitment and laser focus that we have on education. Education creates equality, and it’s not about lowering kids; it’s about lifting them up, and lifting them up over that bar. That is why we are targeting and focusing on lifting performance in education. That is why this Budget has the largest boost to learning support in a generation. The Government is delivering on the most significant investment in learning support in a generation, and that is significant for our kids out there who have learning challenges, learning difficulties. We’re investing $646 million to support kids with additional learning needs. That’s a substantial annual increase in teacher-aide hours, building up to over 200 million additional teacher-aide hours per year.

There are learning support coordinators for all schools with years 1 to 8 students, and we’re expanding early intervention services, from early learning through to end of year 1, and there’s an historic overhaul of the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) funding model to ensure that demand for the service is met with guaranteed funding so that all students with high and complex needs who are verified for the ORS receive the support they need. Early intervention is so important. We must identify this early, so that we can give those kids the support they need—kids with dyslexia, ADHD, autism. They have superpowers in so many ways, but sometimes it’s just not realised. Well, we want to realise their potential so that they can reach their full potential and get the full education they deserve.

Health is another area that I’d also like to touch on in my contribution today. We’re making record investments in health—$5.5 billion for hospitals and specialist services, primary care, community, and public health; $1 billion for health infrastructure. And I’d like to acknowledge our Hawke’s Bay healthcare investment: $94.8 million for an upgrade to our radiology department, which lost accreditation, I might add, under the previous Government; a new cancer linear accelerator machine, which is going to mean so much for so many families who currently have to travel to Palmerston North—they can get that treatment now in Hawke’s Bay—and a 28-bed in-patient unit, which, of course, is going to take pressure off our emergency department and reduce wait times. We are absolutely committed to healthcare in Hawke’s Bay and getting better outcomes for New Zealanders. Also, the 12-month prescription that we added in this Budget is, of course, going to mean a lot. I was actually out at a retirement village on Friday, and that was certainly acknowledged as being a very practical, common-sense measure.

This is what this Budget is about—making some very practical initiatives—and it is growing our economy so that we can get New Zealand back on track.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m proud to stand and support a Budget designed to grow the economy instead of growing Government spending, and this Budget is just that. It’s about savings, investment, and enabling growth. It’s not quite as far as ACT would have gone alone, but it’s further than anyone else would go without us. So once again, ACT has saved current and future taxpayers money. But with all respect, there has been a great deal of work across this coalition Government to make sure that New Zealand is put on a direction that will ensure that this country remains a great place to live, going on into the future. Because when the Government reduces spending, there is more for businesses, firms, families, and farms to spend for themselves. It ensures that generations aren’t irresponsibly saddled with debt.

We have done things like Brooke van Velden laying the way with pay equity reforms that have saved the Crown billions. Now, if anyone is interested in going and seeing where pay equity can get you, I suggest you look at what has happened to the Birmingham City Council with UK’s version of those equity claims.

KiwiSaver changes have halved the Government’s contribution and ended subsidies for the wealthiest savers while ensuring that people will still be on track to retirement by having businesses make a higher contribution to their employees.

Additional savings have been found in all parts of the Government, but I think a long overdue reduction in the funding for RNZ is something that we really needed to see because businesses in the free market must be able to respond to and deal with incentives. When your listenership goes down and the trust goes down, perhaps your funding should go down too if you’re not sourcing it from a market and, instead, from the taxpayer.

We have done things that have invested in front-line services in health, education, justice, and defence. They are in the Budget and they are made possible with savings: $164 million has gone to urgent and after-hours care for health, which means less waiting times at A & E. Like my colleague the member for Tukituki Catherine Wedd has just outlined, $140 million has gone to schools for attendance services, and we’re also going in and funding to make sure that special-needs children can be uplifted, as she put it, to make the best for their lives and for their family so they can contribute to New Zealand with a good solid education.

We are making sure that there will be timely justice for victims, with $246 million for courts, from the Minister for Courts, the Hon Nicole McKee, working extremely hard in that space; $103 million for better youth justice facilities and initiatives to break the cycles of crime to get New Zealand children on a path to being helpful, contributing citizens that lift our country up instead of dragging us down. We’ve upgraded Oranga Tamariki facilities and this is what is helping contribute with this. The Hon Karen Chhour is leading some good, solid, heartfelt work in that space. Speeding up the courts is something that is going to lead to better justice.

The shift to 12-month medicine prescriptions is one of those obvious wins. It’s one of those things that’s just sitting on the floor; you just have to pick it up. It’s such an obvious thing to do. New Zealanders don’t need to go and get their prescription renewed all the time, clogging up our healthcare system by having to go in there every three months and have a yarn about your asthma so you can get your new inhaler. That doesn’t help anybody. We’re making sure that this is going to be sorted out.

We’re investing in defence to show that we’re a worthwhile ally in this changing world that is leading to countries with our value system feeling threatened. It’s time New Zealand played its part. ACT’s been campaigning on this for a long time. This coalition Government is delivering, and the Minister of Defence, the Hon Judith Collins, has been doing a great job in that space.

This spending is only possible because we understand that we need to have growth in our economy, and that’s what it’s going towards. We know that growth does not come from increasing the bureaucracy. It comes from getting the bureaucracy out of the way, getting regulation that doesn’t make any sense—otherwise known as red tape—cut, so that New Zealanders can go about producing for themselves and their communities without being tied up in what has always been colloquially called red tape. This is what the Regulatory Standards Bill is going to be doing. As part of the Budget measures, we’re going to be passing a bill that will identify problems, find cost-benefit analysis on the solution—will it actually solve the problem?—and then pass the bill, or at least let New Zealanders know if their politicians are ignoring that advice. This will get things out of the way that currently are sitting in our way. So if you’re trying to build a house and you have mountains of red tape sitting in front of you trying to just get the materials into the country, trying to get the right people with the right skills on the site to complete the work, to go through the anti-money laundering issues and all of those other issues that have built up in New Zealanders’ way over all this time because bad regulation has not been held to account, this is what the Regulatory Standards Bill will do.

Dr Duncan Webb, speaking against this bill, made his objection clear. He warned, “It entrenches property rights as essentially the centrepiece of that Government.” Yes, good; it absolutely should. That’s what all Governments should be doing: entrenching property rights. As Willie Jackson suggested, property rights are some “fringe libertarian perspective”. They are not a fringe libertarian perspective; they are the cornerstone of a liberal society. This country is proudly a liberal society. Liberal societies are how we provide the basis for a free productive country, a free productive society, and a better world. The fact that the Labour Party, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori have hostility to private property explains a lot. It explains why this Government has had to cut back so hard on red tape and regulation and it explains why we need the Regulatory Standards Bill. This draws a line in the sand: no more holding Kiwis back simply because the Government can, instead of good law being done properly.

A 20 percent capital expensing policy, otherwise known as Investment Boost, will let businesses immediately deduct 20 percent for the cost of new equipment, machinery, tools, and anything else like tech that you need in that year of business to get a bit of a fire in the belly of New Zealand business—getting out there and making jobs and making this country a better place.

We’re doing other things. Minister Chris Bishop, with the very notable hard work of Simon Court, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, is getting the Resource Management Act out of the way, unlocking the future for housing so that New Zealanders can own a piece of this property-owning democracy.

We’re working in places like conservation. This Government has started on the track of working with hunter-led organisations such as the Wapiti Foundation so that we can have hunter-led conservation—it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a dime and gets better results. That’s the sort of thing that we need to be prioritising as a country: coming together, finding a way to pull things out of the Government bucket and put it in the community bucket, put it in the family bucket, put it in the business bucket. We’re cutting waste and prioritising growth, but we need to go much further. This is a positive step, but we need to go further to get away from a woke State and into a working State.

Other things that we could do in the future—I’ll throw them out as a couple of ideas for anyone to pick up if they’re interested. We need to further condense the size of Government, perhaps some less Ministers and departments and more accountability to the Ministers, therefore, for making the decisions. We can ask more questions about what the Government owns and why. It doesn’t really make sense that the Government should only ever buy stuff; perhaps we should look at the things we no longer need to own. We need to get smarter on health. ACT has floated some ideas about allowing people to take their taxpayer funding to any provider, public or private, that could provide an efficient and better service to them. This is something we should look at.

It’s a lot of positivity coming from this Government. I heard some amazing stuff yesterday. Yesterday, I think a Labour member was heard to say—and I couldn’t quite believe what I heard. She said, “Labour is interested in productivity.” Well, you might say that Labour has begun to swipe right on productivity, but I don’t think you’re going to find a match. Labour has tried putting numbers out in Opposition; I remember 100,000 houses being one of these. So perhaps it’s not a surprise that Labour doesn’t want to put out a fully costed alternative Budget. The former party of the working class wouldn’t want to have its vision put—

Camilla Belich: Where’s your alternative Budget?

CAMERON LUXTON: We’re getting to that, thank you, Helen White.

Helen White: Not me.

CAMERON LUXTON: It wouldn’t want to put out a vision for the country to see because it might shock them. But following the example set by the ACT Party in Opposition, the Greens have put out an alternative Budget. They have put it out and the country has been well served by seeing it because it laid bare the fantasy that the Green Party has as a vision for New Zealand. It’s a balanced Budget, but if you can sleep at night with filling an $88 billion hole by taking from future generations and fuelling the tall poppy dark shadow that’s a yoke that has been strung around this country’s neck for far too long, I hope you can sleep well. It shows Te Pāti Kākāriki are green, they’re just green with envy all the way through. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It is extraordinary on the back of this Government’s Budget that there’s one word that they have not used. They’ve talked about the Opposition for most of their speeches. They’ve touched on a couple of initiatives. No one has talked about what this Budget does for housing. There is a very simple reason for that—because this Budget completely ignores housing. It cuts $1 billion that would have otherwise gone to ensure people that are sleeping on the street get into emergency housing.

It says a lot about this Government that they would use those that are most desperate and most vulnerable as a way to balance their books. We all know about the $12.8 billion that this Government has taken away from future pay equity claims for women workers. But one thing that hasn’t had that much attention is that this Government deliberately changed the criteria for emergency housing to save money, and they’ve been crowing about it—a billion dollars they have saved. The Prime Minister stood up in the House today and said essentially that they had fixed emergency housing, that they had solved the social housing waiting list. But that doesn’t tell the full story. In fact, it doesn’t tell the story at all. Homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels: more than 50 percent in Auckland, more than 40 percent in Wellington, and double figure increases around the country.

I was in Rotorua last week. I spoke to front-line providers there alongside my friends and colleagues Jan Tinetti and Willie Jackson. Jan Tinetti and I took a 10-minute walk around the block, and we counted eight homeless people—eight—in the tourist jewel in our crown. This is what we are presenting to the world. This is how we treat our vulnerable people.

What concerns me the most is when front-line providers come to us and they give us examples such as women and children fleeing domestic violence being denied emergency housing. The Prime Minister stood up in the House today and denied that that was happening. So to New Zealanders watching or taking an interest in this, they have a very clear choice. They can believe the Prime Minister who needed numerous Ministers to stand up today in question time and try and deflect from the issue, or front-line providers across the country in Auckland, Rotorua, Wairarapa, Wellington, Canterbury, and many other places who all are saying the exact same thing. This Government is denying people in genuine need access to the emergency housing that they need so that they can fill the hole in their Budget.

Those changes—the new criteria that they brought in—essentially mean that it is impossible for people to meet them, and it means more people on the street, in cars, in tents, and in garages. When their drive to save money goes so far to deny women and children fleeing domestic violence a safe place to sleep, that is disgraceful. It is on each and every single one of them because they voted for this Budget and that Budget is dependent on the savings that they have extracted from denying women workers future pay equity claims and keeping people on the street.

Emergency housing is never the solution to the housing problem, but it is the solution to people sleeping on the street. When we have women and children sleeping on the street we have—in another example in Christchurch, a man was discharged from hospital, denied emergency housing, and readmitted to hospital after complications from sleeping in his car. This is the legacy of this Budget. These are the lengths that this Government has gone to to make it add up because everybody told them that their tax cuts are unaffordable. We’re now in a situation where there are unprecedented increases in homelessness, to the extent where the Wellington City Missioner says it is the worst they have ever seen.

They have room in their Budget—both of them—for tax cuts. They have room to give money to overseas tech giants like Google and Facebook. They have room in their Budget to give money to tobacco companies, and they have money to give landlords a tax cut, but they don’t have money to keep kids off the street. What is the most egregious of all is they’re denying it when everybody else knows that that’s not the case.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): This is supposed to be a growth Budget. I ask people in this House and people watching to think about who will see that growth, who will prosper under this Budget. I want to talk specifically about a portfolio I have, which is family and domestic and sexual violence, because it’s a pretty harsh lens to look at anything.

We have a Budget that has decided that it will stand on women’s wages. We had a systemic issue where we knew that women had been discriminated against, and we were trying to put that right as a society. So we had made a deal with them: don’t sue for discrimination that has happened for many years; instead, we’ll do this deal with you where we’ll negotiate claims so that you can have your wages increase over time. Many of us have got mothers who went through that experience, and grandmothers. My grandmother was a librarian. Her husband was pretty violent. My mother saw stars as a kid because she was hit that many times. And she was a librarian—she would have been on something like 70 percent, I think, of the wage of a man at that time, by law. We’ve moved a long way from that, but we’re going back now. The same trap exists for women on low wages. I absolutely believe in high wages as a fundamental of our society. It gives people freedom. It takes them out of violent situations. What this Government did was compromise a movement towards that kind of freedom to pay for tax cuts for landlords. That’s what it did this year.

Now, I want to talk about another couple of changes I’ve seen. One really disturbed me when we were in urgency, and that was a decision that people who got the accommodation supplement should have to account for anyone who was a boarder. So they would lose $98 a week when they had a boarder. If I have a boarder, I’m allowed—and the tax department accepts this—to have that money because it helps me make ends meet. This Government came in in a cost of living crisis and it said “We’re gonna help you.” In fact, what it’s done is our lowest paid workers lose 98 bucks a week as they attempt to help themselves out of a poverty trap. That’s what it’s done. That’s a lot of money to families. Now, when Carmel Sepuloni asked in the committee stage about what happens if you’ve got somebody in who’s got a violent relationship and you’re charging them a pittance to come and live with you, they’re your boarder—what happens there? There wasn’t even an answer. That’s the kind of help, as a community, we give people, that actually is about a sense of community and a value. And there was no room in that legislation for a human act of kindness. There was no room for what actually happens in many parts of New Zealand—acts of generosity by one family to another. And that shows the priorities of this Government.

So I ask you: who will prosper when we actually entrench these situations? My colleague has just talked about his alarm about people now sleeping in cars or staying in violent relationships, because they can’t get out, because the gateway to emergency accommodation has closed. The Government congratulates itself that, in fact, there are less people in emergency accommodation. There are less people there because women in violent relationships are seen as having contributed to their situation and they are not able to get in the gateway. That is inhumane. That is a dreadful place to start, and I ask you: who will prosper, who will grow, what will grow? Because violence will grow. Violence will grow under this Budget and that blood will be on the hands of this Government.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thanks, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on our Budget. We have just heard from the Opposition, who, frankly, are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders. They underestimate the intelligence of constituents throughout the country, and I wonder if it’s because they don’t have constituents, because they no longer have a bunch of electorate MPs to get out around this country on a daily basis and actually engage with New Zealanders.

I believe in the intelligence of New Zealanders. I believe in the intelligence of people to understand that budgeting is not about a lolly scramble and that budgeting is not an aim to spend as much of their money as we possibly can. I believe that New Zealanders understand that budgeting is a process of looking at what you have and determining how you are going to spend it well, and New Zealanders know that that side of the House have no idea how to spend money well.

It’s all well and good for them to get up and question the decisions that are being made, quite frankly, by this side of the House with thought and consideration to ensure the betterment of this country. It’s all well and good for them to stand up and pontificate about how they would spend money, but let’s remember that in this Budget, we are spending more on interest than on justice, police, and corrections combined because that side of the House increased debt in this country by $100 billion in six years.

I wouldn’t want to take a math lesson from that side of the House, let alone try and understand anything to do with what budgeting actually means. We heard the worrying words from our friend who’s worried in Wigram, and I understand why she’d be worried in Wigram, because New Zealanders understand that budgeting is a process. It’s about making decisions and determining how we spend money well, how we spend money to get results, and how we spend New Zealanders’ money—taxpayers’ hard-earned money—to ensure that this country is a better place. Labour’s legacy—and for a long time, we’re going to be able to talk about this because it’s going to take a long time to pay off the debt that they created. That will be their legacy, and for Budgets—hopefully, not forevermore, but certainly for a decade, several decades, or more—we will have to speak about their view of their underestimation of the intelligence of New Zealanders.

Before I go on to speak about two policies that I particularly want to touch on today, I just want to speak about two things that Labour is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders on. First of all, it is pay equity, and, again, this afternoon we’ve heard this confusion between equal pay and pay equity. Literally, the member was talking about how one of their forebears earned 70 percent of what a male in the same role would have earned. That is something we call equal pay, and that is something that the National Government sorted out in 1972. Pay equity is about ensuring that men and women in comparable industries earn the same, and the system that that party put in place while we told them that they were getting it wrong had created something that wasn’t just about pay equity; it was about a system to enable negotiation on a whole range of issues, which was creating an unmanageable cost for this country. Let’s get it back to focus on what we are happy to support, and that is pay equity.

Secondly, they’re trying to tell us that if you’ve got a boarder, you should just be able to pocket the money and not be accountable to the taxpayer for that money. New Zealanders understand that budgeting means looking at what you get and working out how you spend it. The Government must be accountable for how we spend taxpayers’ money, and New Zealanders—they don’t want us just throwing money down the drain. They don’t want us throwing it around without accountability and certainly, from what I’ve been told by my constituents as I’ve gone around the electorate post-Budget, they are comfortable with us ensuring that every dollar is accounted for.

One of the keys that came out of the Budget was Investment Boost, and I’ve had the opportunity over the course of the last couple of weeks to speak with a whole range of businesses and business people who are clear that they are going to leverage the value that this policy creates for New Zealand. Surprisingly enough for, probably, my colleagues on the other side of the House, the first business that I’m going to speak about is an early childhood business. The owner of that business said to me, “Carl, do you know what? We are going to use this to bring forward the upgrading of the technology in our centre.” It’s not just farmers and it’s not just manufacturers that are going to benefit from Investment Boost; it is the likes of that early childhood business, and it’s the likes of the landscaper who said that they’re going to buy a digger. They’re not going to hire it any more. They’re going to buy it, and they’re going to be more productive as a result. It’s about farmers upgrading their tractors. It’s about firms like the one that said to me that they’re buying a new crane in order to ensure their building activity is happening faster.

Last Thursday night, I went to an event in Palmerston North: the chartered accountants annual awards. I was introduced as the local member of Parliament in Palmerston North because they don’t know who their member of Parliament is because that individual is probably never there, and they said to me on Thursday night in Palmerston North that the phone was going off the hook with clients wanting to understand how they could use this to ensure the spending of money. I want to acknowledge my friend who became a fellow that evening, as well: Luke McCleay, a chartered accountant in Palmerston North. I just want to acknowledge his fellowship and his becoming a Fellow of the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand on Thursday night, when, as I say, I was introduced as the local member of Parliament.

I received this text that afternoon, as well. It said, “Afternoon, Carl. The Budget looks great. The depreciation bonus will be a game-changer. There is potential for about half a million dollars of capital investment in our business alone, so this will definitely incentivise the spending for growth nationwide.”, and, at the end of the text, it had a thumbs-up emoji. New Zealanders understand the value of Investment Boost.

Lastly, I want to take an opportunity to speak about the impact of the significant increase in spending in education. For six years, the members on that side of the House talked about learning support, the challenges in learning support, and the problems in learning support, but did they do anything about it? No. Did they understand how to solve the problem? No, they did not. It took a Minister on this side of the House to get the Ministry of Education to go through 26,000 lines of spending—the first time that the Ministry of Education has been asked to do that. Surprise, surprise, it took a Government that was looking at taxpayers’ money and ensuring that outcomes were achieved for every dollar to go through 26,000 lines of Government spending on education and ensure that money would be spent in a way that achieved outcomes for our kids.

We have now had the single largest increase in learning support in a generation. It’s a fundamental change in how we care for students and for kids at school in the learning journey they are going on, because we are making sure that budgeting is what budgeting is about—looking at where the money is coming from and spending it in a wise way to get an outcome.

New Zealanders are sick of having the wool pulled over their eyes by that side of the House, who are trying to convince them that they know more about budgeting than New Zealanders do. I have trust in New Zealanders. I commend this Budget to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on this. Anyone who’s ever run a household knows that you need to run a budget, and to run a budget, you need to make decisions about how you’re going to spend your money, and this is a very good Budget, as it balances the New Zealand taxpayers’ funds in a very considered and careful way in a challenging domestic and geopolitical environment.

This Government inherited a structural deficit from the last Government, and the debt that the last Government had racked up had tripled in their time in power to the point that the payments on the interest alone were more than what New Zealand’s paying for police, for corrections, for the Ministry of Justice, and for customs. That is the picture of what this Government walked into, and this Budget is focused on two things, primarily.

One is growing the economy. Why is it growing the economy? It is growing the economy so we can pay for the public services that New Zealanders need—for education, for health, for the Defence Force, for corrections, for the Ministry of Justice, and much more—all of the things that New Zealanders want to see in their country. But we need to have our economy growing in order to do that.

A key part of this is Investment Boost, which is a tax incentive that’s all about getting businesses to be ambitious, to invest in growth, and to invest for growth. It’s already in force now. It lets companies write off 20 percent of the cost of new machinery, tools, and equipment. This is because the Government wants to encourage upgrades that drive productivity. We want—and this is whether you’re a farmer, whether you’re a hairdresser, whether you’re a restauranteur, whatever business you’re involved in—businesses to invest. We want to have more haircuts and less paper cuts. We want to drive economic productivity and less regulatory overload, and that is what this Government is all about.

But it’s not just that. In addition to focusing on growing the economy, this Government has also looked at some of the structural issues across New Zealand and has made significant investments. For example, there’s $447 million of new funding to support increased access to primary care, including urgent care and after-hours services across New Zealand, including in my electorate and surrounds. For example, there’s new daytime urgent care services in provincial cities and towns, including Invercargill, Gore, and Alexandra. Over the next two years, improved services will be rolled out to rural communities in places like Balclutha, Lumsden, Roxburgh, and more. And that’s not all. There’s a $5.5 billion boost for hospitals and specialist services, which is another significant investment in health, and that’s an example of what New Zealanders want to see.

But it’s not just health but also education. This is a Government that is making a historic focus on education, unlike that last Government that had a Prime Minister who before that was an education Minister and, frankly, allowed our education system to slide.

Sam Uffindell: Abysmal. Appalling.

JOSEPH MOONEY: And it was, as Mr Uffindell, my colleague says, “appalling”. But this Government has taken an absolute laser lens on fixing this and making sure that the future for New Zealand kids is going to be a bright one, because they will understand how to read, they will understand mathematics, and they will understand how to engage in the society that is changing rapidly. Education is a big focus.

In addition to all the work that the Government’s already done on embedding structured literacy, structured mathematics, and more in schools around New Zealand to ensure that all kids can read and all kids can understand functional mathematics, education got a historic lift in this Budget with a $646 million boost for learning support. That is the biggest in a generation. I just want to pause there for a moment—a $640 million boost for learning support, the biggest investment in a generation.

Now, I know this is incredibly important. Having visited many of the schools in my electorate and talked to many principals and many teachers and many parents and many students across schools in my community—and mine is one of many reflected across New Zealand—that learning support will make a huge difference to the children who need that support, but not just to them; it will make a huge difference to the teachers who need to deliver that support and need to manage those classroom environments for other kids who can be disrupted by children who aren’t engaged and don’t fully understand how to express themselves properly or how to engage with the learning properly and, therefore, become disengaged from the process and disrupt that process.

I say this: for example, a few years ago, I visited one school in a place that was a more deprived community in my electorate. It was at the end of a long day, and there had been one student who had disrupted their classroom, and they disrupted it to such an extent that the entire school had been disrupted. I remember talking to the principal and teachers, who were in tears. They really cared about that student who had caused the disruption but also about all the other students who had been disrupted. This learning support will make a really big difference to a lot of people’s lives, and it’s something that I think we can be really proud of, and I would like to hear the Opposition actually recognise the incredible work this Government is doing in that space, but I’ll leave that to them.

It’s not just that, though; this Budget is leaning into efforts to help other vulnerable Kiwis. For example, there’s a $700 million investment to bolster Disability Support Services. I’ll say it again: a $716 million investment to bolster Disability Support Services. In addition, there’s a $275 million allocation for social-investment initiatives to improve the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders, including the creation of the Social Investment Fund. Not just that, there was a $774 million fund in response to the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care—something that has been in train for a very long time and that this Government is taking real steps to address. That’s to address the needs of vulnerable New Zealanders. There’s also money that’s been distributed to women’s refuges, including ones in my electorate and close by in Invercargill and Gore. That funding will provide advocates with mental health and addiction training and advisory support from clinical specialists so that local clients can access services more efficiently. And there’s more than that. There’s also the $480 million to support police on the front line, because we need security in our communities, and police perform an incredibly important role in providing it.

I’ll just touch on the education sector—just two more points. There’s also $100 million of new funding for extra maths support for those who need it in schools. So there’s $100 million of extra new funding. And not only that; this Government’s also supporting teachers, recognising the important role they play, and has put aside $53.3 million of funding to cover the fees and levies for teachers for the next three financial years, so that’s one less thing they have to focus on. We want them to focus on our kids and getting the best future for our children, so the Government is covering those fees for teachers.

It’s not just that; in terms of that broader security picture, we are in a changing geopolitical world, and it’s a very challenging one, and we’re fortunate to have the Hon Judith Collins as the Minister of Defence in a big moment in our history and a big moment in global history. There’s a number of investments that have been made in defence, a historic investment into defence in New Zealand, which has been long needed. It’s fantastic to see this happening, including a $660 million investment to improve core Defence Force capabilities across air, sea, land, and cyberspace, which is enormously important.

I just want to encourage everyone to really lean into this. I’m fortunate to represent a region which is a big contributor to the economy of New Zealand. Southland alone produces almost 12 percent of pastoral exports in the country, and if people lean into this Government’s approach around Investment Boost, there is an opportunity to grow that even further. It’s also hugely important in the tourism sector. One in three tourists visit Queenstown alone. We’ve just had an announcement today as well about the Government investment into Milford Sound / Piopiotahi, which is one of the iconic places in the world that people around the world think about when they come to New Zealand and wish to come here, and much, much more.

I’m going to take the opportunity to, in this debate, just say a couple more things. We often focus on what’s not working well, but I want to take an opportunity to mention what is working well. While the Minister for Space is also in the House, I will just mention that, last night, we heard from Sir Peter Beck, just pointing out that Māhia, in New Zealand, is the third most frequent launcher of all the satellites on the planet now, behind only the United States and China and ahead of everyone else. That’s quite an extraordinary thing, and that’s the man from Southland who had a wild dream and made it happen in a country that did not have a space sector. I think that’s an opportunity for all of us to lift our sights high, aim for the stars, and we can make it happen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Lan Pham. Sorry, Mr Jackson, I understand from the previous Speaker that there’s just been a bit of reorganisation.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Budget 2025 and what we’ve heard today makes it crystal clear that this Government simply have no interest in protecting our environment or securing a basic livable future for our kids. It’s a Budget where they simply forgot to invest in the environment. And if economic terms are the only language that this Government understands, it’s that $133 billion in natural assets that deliver an estimated $11 billion in environmental services to us humans every year. And they actually protect the places, the plants, and the critters that Kiwis know and love. It’s that one thing that literally everything else depends on.

And it makes me reflect that we humans are really a truly bizarre bunch. We’re supposedly this intelligent species with unlimited access to all the knowledge, all the information, the mātauranga, and, dare I say it, if we actually listened to it, the wisdom, and yet here we have this Government blundering on, making all their decisions not based on evidence and knowledge but based on this false economy where short-term profit and trickle-down economics is some kind of Holy Grail. We hear: “Growth, growth, growth, growth, growth” and “Back on track” in ways that are totally blind to the genuine, real human needs in some of our most vulnerable communities; totally blind to the pollutants that we pour into our scarce and precious fresh waterways and our oceans, the microplastics in our bodies, the carcinogens that we put in our food. We’re totally blind to the increasing fossil fuels that we continue to release into the atmosphere, and this is the atmosphere we know is the only one capable of sustaining our very own lives.

The part that I find completely heartbreaking and really infuriating with this Government’s Budget is that they’re choosing to prioritise this ridiculous sugar fix of greed for fossil fuel and tobacco companies and mega-landlords over our kids, over the needs of our women, our grandkids, future generations. And they’re making these decisions right here in Aotearoa in our home, which could be such an incredible place.

This Government is so stunted in their aspirations and vision for an economy for our country that they can’t yet grasp that our only option for sustainable economic growth is actually through a nature-based economy. Just to provide a snapshot of what that could actually look like, accounting firm Ernst & Young did some research into this and they found investing in nature would provide a net benefit to Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy of $270 billion by 2050. Unfortunately, this Government hasn’t heard that at all. We’re not seeing it in any of their decision making.

They didn’t hear it in the science that’s determined that our major climate systems are actually on the verge of collapse. They didn’t hear it when the scientists have been saying that New Zealand’s ocean is warming three times faster than the global average. And they’re too busy just trying to resuscitate our dying fossil fuel industries with $200 million worth of subsidies. They respond to the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) own assessments that they need $2.3 billion to actually protect nature and do their job by cutting the Nature Heritage Fund, cutting Predator Free 2050, saddling DOC with even more responsibilities. And they’re even raiding the waste levy projects which were designed to provide some basic level of protection for te taiao.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Our Green Budget with our green jobs guarantee and expanded Jobs for Nature package was a clear, costed plan for a better world. It was about protecting our oceans, regenerating our forests, investing in our future—a better path was possible.

STEVE ABEL (Green): I just want to carry on the theme of my colleague Lan Pham, because what we have in this Budget is the Government expressing its profound disdain for the progress that has been made in this nation in terms of us upholding the principle of the environment being something valuable to us, of the climate being something that we treat seriously, our commitment to climate science, and of the relationship on which our founding agreement is premised: being vital to the wellbeing of our country.

This is a Budget that has cut, fundamentally, the support for Māori housing, for example, by a full $92 million. It has cut the environment budget left, right, and centre, and it does not take into account—and I speak in regard to the agriculture portfolio—the impact of wilding pines on our primary sector. A measly $2 million to deal with a problem that needs about $100 million, if it was taken seriously, for the good of conservation and for the good of our primary sector.

One of the things we learn when we do the Treaty settlements is that one of the negative consequences of colonialism is the destruction of nature. We see that the loss of land and the vast clearance of forest, the draining of wetlands, was a means by which Māori had their means of sustaining their economy destroyed by colonialism. Not only was the land stolen but the ecosystems of that land were destroyed, the rivers polluted. I live in a place in West Auckland and the Whau River was a frequent place where Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua would go to collect seafood, where the kuaka would fly in such abundance from the Manukau Harbour to the Waitematā Harbour that you could climb to the top of a tree in the middle of winter and literally bat them out of the sky. Such was the abundance of bird life in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. Such was the abundance of sea life in the Whau River. The leatherworks down there killed all that, in the Whau River, and that is the consequence—that this side of the House seems to be denying—of colonisation.

Now, another thing that has commonly been spoken of in this House—even today—is this suggestion that if we are to take climate change seriously, we are somehow denying the fact that New Zealand farmers are the most efficient in the world. Now, let’s just speak to this a bit, because at the same time as undermining the environment and undermining Māori and undermining everybody else—and, you know, declaring war on women as well as nature—this Government has—[Interruption] Excuse me, how did you save the Budget by cutting billions of dollars out of the Treasury books if it didn’t come from somewhere? I’ll tell you where it came from: it came from the future wages and salaries of women, and that is the fact of the matter. Learn how to read a spreadsheet.

Now, one of the consequences of this Government’s actions is to invest $200 million in fossil fuels, a direct subsidy to the very industry that is destroying our planet, that is driving the extreme weather events and climate extremities—storms, floods and droughts—that most impact indigenous people, women, children, and farmers.

I just want to clarify a point that was made by the Prime Minister today, because it might be of use to the House. It is this constant myth we hear told, that “New Zealand farmers are the most efficient carbon farmers in the world.” Now, this is not a criticism of farmers—I’m very fond of farmers in New Zealand. But we cannot address the facts of the challenges that we face in terms of climate change if we’re not honest about that situation. New Zealand is a less efficient carbon farmer in terms of per dollar earned from greenhouse gas emissions than Australia. We are a less efficient farmer—it gets worse—than Canada in terms of per dollar earned for agricultural production. We are a less efficient farmer than the United States of America, than every one of the 27 European Union countries. We are a less carbon efficient agricultural producer per dollar earned. It gets worse and worse and worse. We are worse than South Africa, Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Mexico. These—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Abel, you’ve run out of time.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to be able to speak in this Budget debate. On this side of the House, we’re really excited about Investment Boost, and getting out and speaking to businesses in my electorate of Banks Peninsula has been particularly great in this last couple of weeks, just hearing about some of the opportunities from these great businesses that are in Banks Peninsula.

Investment Boost brings forward the depreciation, and that is absolutely vital, and it will change decision making about investing and capital for businesses. What that means is that businesses will be able to grow and grow their workforce, pay their workers more. It will ultimately lead to a more productive economy. I will mention a couple of the businesses that I know will find innovative ways to deal with this opportunity—one is Argus Group. And I just want to quickly shout out, if I may, to Nathan Hay, who won the leadership award at the inaugural Minister for Manufacturing Awards.

Hon Judith Collins: Very good; excellent.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yes. So it was excellent to see that. Argus have been incredibly innovative in the way that they have changed their manufacturing business. They’ve created a lot of robotics that change the way that their production lines work. That’s the kind of thing that speeds up productivity.

Another incredible business in Banks Peninsula is Chiptech. Now, some of you may not have heard of this business. It’s incredible. They make all of the medical alarms that you may have seen—like yourself, Mr Brewer; you may need one of those sooner than the rest of us. But they allow you to be able to—if you have a fall or have a medical event—contact emergency services. It’s incredible the way that that works, and they have been evolving their business, reinvesting over many years, and now employ 70 people out in Ferrymead in the Banks Peninsula. An incredible business. They are dominant here in New Zealand but also in Australia and the UK. They have sold their products really well, and constantly reinvesting in the productivity of their manufacturing facility has meant that they are able to meet that demand and be really consistent about the quality of their product.

One of the things that they invested in, which was a really cool machine, was a packaging machine and a box folder. So they used to be able to do that with a person manually folding the boxes and they could do a few hundred. But when they got a robot that could take that job, suddenly they could do pallet loads and pallet loads in a day. So there are incredible kinds of opportunities that those businesses, fantastic businesses, in Banks Peninsula will take up.

Another thing that is great about going around and meeting people in the electorate is going to schools, particularly the last week, and hearing a consistent message that I’ve heard, which is that this will be a game-changer. Investment Boost was a game-changer. But when I’m talking to principals and they’re saying this is a game-changer, they’re talking about the record investment in learning support and what that will mean in their schools.

Some of the schools have had no learning support coordinators at all. And even the smallest school, which in my electorate is in Okains Bay, will have a day’s worth of a learning support coordinator to be able to help their young children to be able to develop.

Tom Rutherford: Make meaningful contributions.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Absolutely, make meaningful contributions to their development.

The thing that we’ve heard over and over—all of us that are going around the schools—over the last year and a half is about how hard it is for teachers to be able to manage behavioural problems or neurodiverse children that have got challenges in their learning. As Catherine Wedd pointed out earlier, those children have got amazing brains, incredible potential. They think in ways that are different to other people, so they have an incredible contribution that they can make to our economy as well eventually, but they need to have the support.

One of my best friends is a teacher and one of her children was clearly quite autistic and he could not concentrate. He could not get himself together to get to school, couldn’t participate, but through an incredible amount of her own effort but also wraparound services at school he was able to go on and is now doing a mechanic’s apprenticeship. But I know that other children who don’t have that same support don’t have the opportunities that he had. And unfortunately many people will know that in our prison system, it is overrepresented by people who suffer with ADHD and also have never learnt and have lost any opportunity to have literacy.

So these changes that we will be making through learning support, through more than doubling the number of hours for teacher-aides—an incredible number; up to 900,000 hours a year—will be incredible to support those schools.

Tim Costley: $2 million.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yeah, eventually up to $2 million. It’s almost hard to believe that it’s going to be such a huge investment that I think the principals that I’ve been speaking to this last week hadn’t all grasped what it was truly meaning, because it was so significant. So it was wonderful to be able to explain to them the opportunity that that’s going to mean. One of the principals said, “Well, that means that I’ll have a half-day that I’ll be able to dedicate to growing and changing and working on our school.” So these investments will have far-reaching consequences that will ripple for not just this generation but for generations to come.

Another investment that is really an example of us listening to people—and our amazing Minister of Defence has listened to our Defence Force—is that we have made an incredible undertaking to go and really contribute with our partners. So it means that we are able to make those capital investments into the right sort of equipment which will enable our Defence Force—land, air, and sea—to have the capability to contribute. And I know what that’s like, being a veteran, as my colleague Tim Costley is as well. We’ve both been on deployments. We know how incredibly impactful those deployments are. It’s not just for the country that we’re working with; it’s the allies that are alongside us, it’s the other partners. And anyone who’s worked in defence knows that defence ultimately is about trade, because you cannot have stable economic conditions if you do not have a stable security situation. So that’s why we are going to be gradually increasing up to 2 percent of GDP.

Another area that I think is absolutely exciting—

Hon Willie Jackson: Is this ever going to end?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Some of my Opposition colleagues are not so excited, but I’m very excited to see that we are increasing the default contributions of KiwiSaver. Now, that is incredibly important. That means that someone who goes through and contributes throughout their life, potentially that will go up to about an extra $100,000. On the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we heard from the Retirement Commissioner that the most valuable thing we could do as a Government would be to increase the default rate, which we’ve done. We are absolutely making that commitment and it will make an absolute difference over time.

These are the sorts of changes that don’t sound exciting, but for those of us who see behind the scenes and understand that these are actually fundamental changes—as we’re getting out and talking in our electorates—it’s a very easy sell. When we talk about Investment Boost, we’ve been hearing for a long time that people need a little bit of an economic boost to be able to make those decisions to invest. When they’ve made those decisions, ultimately, we know that it will come back and the most benefit will flow to ordinary New Zealanders because of the rise in wages, because general economic conditions are improving and there are more opportunities for everyone. This is a Budget that has been carefully worked out. It’s the right Budget for the right times, and I commend this Budget to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. The Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, that’s not what the people are saying. In fact, Talbot Mills, that great company that does polling, said that 33 percent of New Zealanders hate this Budget—hate this Budget. I want to follow up on what my mate over here the Hon Kieran McAnulty said. We went to Rotorua. We were ashamed of this Government. We walked the streets. We saw homeless on the streets. Why? Because they’re taking millions of dollars out of the housing pūtea—$1 billion; $1 billion disappearing out of emergency housing. And all we get is the stupid Minister, “Tick this, tick that, tick this”—and where are the people going? Out on the streets. It is a total disgrace—$1 billion. That side should hang their heads in shame.

Even more—and it hasn’t come out enough, because David Seymour has been dominating the media and it hasn’t come out—$1 billion has gone from Māori; $1 billion of targeted funding. The Minister for Māori Development has let us down. But there has been one winner—one—and that is the de facto Minister for Māori Development, David Seymour. No doubt about it, he has done so well. He has ripped the guts out of Māori funding. Over two years now, $1 billion out of the Māori targeted pūtea. And why? Because this miserable lot in ACT think it’s racist funding—racist funding. But I tell you what, the good old Jim Bolger—he’s a good Nat; he’s a great Nat, isn’t he? What does Jim Bolger say? He says to the Prime Minister to tell David Seymour to shut up. That’s what old Jim said. Oh, I like that Jim Bolger.

Hon Member: Comrade Jim.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Comrade Jim—that’s right. He says, “Shut up, because ACT are encouraging racism in this country.” Wise words from a 90-year-old—

Cameron Luxton: Point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Jim Bolger said it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order from Cameron Luxton.

Cameron Luxton: Considering the speech that’s just been given, I don’t think it’s appropriate for Mr Willie Jackson to accuse ACT of promoting racism in this country.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Madam Speaker, speaking to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I don’t need any speaking to the point of order. What we have said in the past, as Speakers, is that we don’t want personal attacks. But it’s OK to call a Government racist, and—[Interruption] I also have a question about the Jim Bolger—was that a quote, Mr Jackson?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, that’s fine. It’s always good to make that clear.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. The Standing Orders are quite clear that it is not appropriate for any member, party, or Government to be called racist. It’s entirely unparliamentary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There have been precedents in the House. I will follow up. Mr Jackson, carry on. Just take care with that word, and I’ll give a ruling on that shortly.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. I’ll give Jim a call, Madam Speaker. They’re Jim Bolger’s words—one of the best National Party people around. He’s just said to David Seymour: “Shut your mouth. You’re encouraging racism. We want to work with Māori.” The great Jim Bolger said that, and the National Party know this. Why? Because Jim believes in targeted Māori funding, and so did the old National Party Government. What did this lot do? They got rid of Māori housing—$650 million—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: They got rid of Jim.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They got rid of Jim, too. We picked him up, me and Jim Anderton. Six hundred and fifty million dollars out of the Māori housing pūtea. They got rid of Māori trades training, got rid of Māori economic funding. Our people out there think you just want to get rid of Māori. I know that’s not true—I know that’s not true—because the Hon Judith Collins supported Māori targeted funding. She was a supporter. She’s ashamed of this ACT lot too. I know that. She lives in Papakura. She works with the people. The old National Party believe in targeted Māori funding. This lot have got rid of important funding that was so dear to myself and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel over here. We saw firsthand what Māori housing does on the East Coast, what it does in Taranaki, what it does in the North—what it does everywhere. And this useless lot, this National Party lot—because of the de facto Minister for Māori Development, David Seymour—buckled to the de facto Minister because the Prime Minister was so weak.

And where are the ACT Party today? You’re seeing the polls. They’re going nowhere—they’re going nowhere. Have you seen the polls? Seymour is going nowhere in the polls. ACT is going nowhere in the polls. All the media in the world and most of the country hates them. That’s just an undeniable fact. Seymour: 3 percent in the polls. ACT—Winston’s got their number. Ha, ha! He’s taken their votes—he’s taken their votes. They’re going nowhere, despite having the most septic, horrible, ugly strategy I’ve ever seen. They’re going nowhere. Aotearoa hates them. It’s a shame, because those two in the corner there are not too bad. But the leader is off to Oxford; he’s had enough. He’s going to Oxford University. We all know what’s going to happen over there, don’t we? He’s going to get smashed in the Oxford debate. That’s what is going to happen. Well, so much for your rotten strategy. You’re going nowhere. New Zealand hates you. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Jackson. Just before I call the next speaker—

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, point of order, the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon Judith Collins: : Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to wait until Mr Jackson had resumed his seat. If I look at Speaker’s ruling 47/3—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got them right in front of me, Ms Collins. I’m just about to read them out and make—

Hon Judith Collins: Are you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Right, thank you. I’ll hold it there just in case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I just did want to read Speaker’s ruling 47/2: “There is a difference between calling an individual a racist and criticising either a policy or a view as being racist. This will leave the freedom of speech, but it will stop people saying that individuals are racist, which I think most members would find offensive.” And 47/3: “If the word ‘racist’ is used in an insulting or demeaning way to any [member] or party, it is out of order. If it is used in a conversational way to describe something, the presiding officer must make a judgment.” So I think, following that, we’ll just be very careful to talk about policies rather than pointing that comment at individual people. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I, like other members on this side of the House, have been following this Budget debate, and what’s really interesting is that Government members seem to use their time talking about us. They seem to use their time talking about us, and you know what? I’m not surprised that that is the case, because they are embarrassed. They are ashamed of what is in this Budget.

Carl Bates was saying earlier that he spent some time in Palmerston North. This was his Budget contribution. Now, I can understand why many people would spend time in Palmerston North, but I certainly can understand why Mr Bates wants to spend time in Palmerston North, because he cannot face his own constituents in his own electorate telling them what this Budget will deliver for them, because it delivers absolutely nothing.

Mr Bates talks about how I wasn’t there at the various meetings of the accountants that he was out at on Thursday night. So I had a look at the diary. Where was I? I was at a citizenship ceremony welcoming many, many families to Palmerston North. Nothing in the Budget for them when it comes to housing or homes. Nothing when it comes to job opportunities. Later in the evening I was at Centrepoint, a wonderful provincial theatre, to see Cringeworthy Boppin’ in the ‘50s! I suggest to many members, actually, go to have a look. Why? Because they need your support, because nothing is in this Budget for arts or cultural heritage when it comes to Palmerston North. So while Mr Bates might be avoiding his own electorate, I suggest he thinks about what his own constituents would be saying were he in his own electorate facing them at a time when people are spending time out and about around the Budget.

This is a Budget that has no focus on jobs, and this really is the modus operandi of this Government. They have demonstrated that through their own Budget at a time where building and construction is doing it tough, where the number of job losses are in the thousands, there is nothing in this Budget that would seek to reverse the change that this Government wants to deliver.

When it comes to health, there is little to no new investment when it comes to facilities in health. We can talk about Nelson and we can talk about Dunedin, but the fact of the matter is that they are an insufficient proposal from the Government as to what was considered and proposed. Since this Government has taken office, the number one issue in my electorate office is health—the number one issue is health. There is little to no investment in this particular Budget that will create and deliver immediate focus on the issues that matter to Palmerstonians. Absolutely nothing.

They have announced a 24/7 urgent care operation. No further details around that except to say that it will be coming from 2027. That is far too late for the people of my community who front up to an emergency department because they cannot access primary healthcare and can’t afford to go and see a doctor when that opportunity does present itself. Health is the number one issue in my community of Palmerston North and there is nothing being delivered in that space for my constituents.

Now, I talked about homes. This is a Budget that does essentially gut investment when it comes to housing, and that is an ongoing basis for this particular Budget—well, it banks on previous Budgets, but that is the way in which things are heading. Previously in this House, I have talked about the observations that many will have when it comes to bollards that are being erected in Palmerston North. Add to that list the deconstruction of homes in areas in my community. There is no faith, no hope for the people in my community, let alone any other communities around Aotearoa New Zealand when it comes to housing opportunities as a result of the Government’s Budget.

Let’s remember who is paying for this Budget. Who are the people who are paying for this Budget? They are taxpayers, yes, but they are also actually hard-working women—women who form the workforce when it comes to Plunket, when it comes to hospice nurses, when it comes to care and support workers, when it comes to librarians, when it comes to those who work so hard. Also, it’s our Pasifika women, women who are often at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to pay, who are being sent a very clear message from this Government that they do not matter. I challenge the Government to think about that. They actually don’t have any Pacific voice in their caucus. There is no Pacific voice in any of the Government caucuses around this. Their demonstration in terms of what they have delivered is a huge way in which it shows that they have a vacant voice—actually, no voice when it comes to that.

This is a Budget that is not delivering for communities. It is not delivering jobs, it is not delivering homes, it is not delivering houses, or health opportunities. This is a particular Budget that has been tagged as one around growth. It is growth in all the negative areas. We’ve seen that over the last week and a bit when we’ve been out in our communities, and I certainly do not support this Budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next few calls have been signalled to me as split calls. I won’t explicitly say that at the start of each call, but they’re all five-minute calls.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. Budget 2025: I want to talk to you about some of the recent Budget announcements and about the investment that this Government is making, and the positive impact that this Budget is already having and will continue to have in the Waitaki electorate. I’m talking about announcements like Investment Boost, learner support, rural wellbeing funding, an increase in Working for Families, rates relief for SuperGold card holders, infrastructure investment, and investment in healthcare have all been met with positivity in our electorate. The saying “Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.” is something that this Government understands—unlike the previous Government. They spent not only the pennies but the pounds, and then they went and borrowed so they could keep on spending. This Budget is about being fiscally responsible. It’s not about nice-to-dos or throwing away money and hoping like hell that that money sticks to something. This Budget’s about targeted funding when it can make a real difference. This is about reviewing and reprioritising, where necessary, to get better outcomes.

The CEO of Business South recently wrote to its members saying Budget 2025 can be seen as a measured and responsible response—responsible—to the current economic environment, delivered in context of a Government debt-to-GDP ratio sitting above 45 percent, and that it strikes a balance between fiscal restraint and targeted investment, with several initiatives that are likely to support business confidence with long-term productivity. In the Waitaki electorate, we’re already seeing uptake with Investment Boost, which is a significant move to support businesses to reinvest and grow, with no cap on business size or asset value. I spoke this morning to the team at Barker’s of Geraldine—and those of you who have had the opportunity to try some of their goods, I highly recommend them.

Tim Costley: Great little place. Sweet chili sauce.

Hon Member: Yep. Sweet chili is my favourite.

MILES ANDERSON: Yep. Now, they supply jams, preserves, and pickles to supermarkets across the country. They are currently in the process of expanding their business, and with this expansion comes significant investment in assets. They see Investment Boost as a really positive move.

Other local businesses are also having an increase in asset investment. Te Pari industries tell me that they have seen an increase in interest for their products, and that farmers are making decisions much more quickly with both sheep and dairy systems. Drummond & Etheridge in Oamaru, local farm machinery retailers, saw an immediate increase in sales and a significant increase in buyer inquiry. The National Fieldays at Mystery Creek will be in Hamilton next week, and word on the street is that Investment Boost will be the difference between farmers and tradies keeping their hands in their pockets or taking them out and spending the money on investment and assets, which will increase productivity and returns.

Tom Rutherford: Labour have a stand this year?

MILES ANDERSON: Ha! Who knows? Yesterday, I had the pleasure to meet a group of year 7 students from Five Forks School in North Otago, and a big shout-out to Five Forks School. I was able to bring them into the gallery, where they could witness firsthand what actually happens in the House. While they were here, a colleague of mine, from this side, was talking about the virtues of the recent Budget investment in education, specifically learner support and what that means to students, teachers, and parents. I saw firsthand the positive reactions from the teachers. They nodded in agreement—nodded in agreement, Tim—with every point of benefit that was made on what this investment will actually mean on the ground.

This action, and their visible agreement with what was being said, spoke louder than words. When we talk about on-the-ground investment, this is about making sure that people who need the benefit actually receive it. And Budget 2025 doesn’t stop there. There’s more investment in better health outcomes. Oamaru and Ranfurly will see improved after-hours services as a result of this Budget. In addition, we will soon receive 12-month prescriptions for medications, which will see patients on long-term medications save on extra doctors visits and prescription fees. To wrap things up, the Government’s Budget 2025 investments in things like infrastructure, education, healthcare, and the environment will make for a better life for everybody. It will create jobs, help our communities grow, and just make New Zealand an even better place to live in. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Geez, what a change of pace that was, the last five minutes, because wasn’t it a woeful contribution before that, from Willie Jackson, who’s made an art form out of just throwing stones around his glass house, to Tangi Utikere, who said there’s nothing—he went to a citizenship ceremony and said there is nothing here for these new citizens, and lamented the state of the hospital. Now, we know why Palmy hospital was in such a poor state, after six years of Labour looking after it, and the woeful condition that our—you know, when you think about these hospitals, wind the clock back to 2017, 2016 and there were less than a thousand people waiting for their first specialist assessment. When Labour left Government, that figure was 59,818. So it’s gone from not even a thousand to, basically, 60,000 people waiting under Labour. Elective surgeries went from a thousand to 27,500.

This is the state of it, and for Tangi Utikere to stand there and say, “Oh, there’s nothing for my community in it.”, clearly he hasn’t read the book. If he just picked it up—and he could just read the simple one with, you know, big words and a few pictures if that’s easier. It covers some basic things, like $5.5 billion—$5.5 billion—in new funding for hospital and specialist services in primary care. In Palmerston North alone, that means a new 24/7 after-hours facility. For Levin, in my electorate, that means a new after-hours facility that’s going to go 8 till 8 during weekdays and 9 till 5 on the weekend. That makes a huge difference.

I think of when my daughter broke her arm in Levin and we had to go up to Palmerston North to get help because it was on a weekend. Now, potentially, because of this new funding—thanks to our Government—it means people in Horowhenua can go to Levin from 8 till 8 on a weekday and 9 till 5 on the weekends. That’s huge—that saves an hour of driving each way. It means you’ve got support, you’re close to home. That is fantastic.

There’s also funding for a health shuttle trial in Kāpiti to get you to Kenepuru or Wellington hospital, because sometimes you do have to get to the hospital, and we need the support to make those transport links earlier. I’m really proud that we’re actually delivering things that make a difference.

And do you know what? We were in the House after the Budget; we were here till midnight on Saturday night. The next morning, I was straight up the road and I went to the launch of the new Coastguard shed, the new Coastguard facility at Waikanae Beach. I was talking across the car park in the Waikanae Boating Club—great club; great dinners on a Thursday or a Friday night—and they are setting up a new commercial kitchen. I said, “Did you see the news about Investment Boost?”, and they had, and they were about to buy all the new plant, all the new equipment, for a commercial kitchen, and immediately 20 percent of that value they get off their tax bill at the end of the year and then they still get to depreciate it every single year. This literally is transformational for businesses like this.

I was just talking this afternoon to a company that sells farm equipment, and they’ve got bookings all week for people to go out and demonstrate new four-by-fours and other equipment, because farmers now have the confidence to go and do it. That’s the difference that this Budget makes.

But we also, I think, have to move away from this culture that it all has to be about big spending and “why isn’t there another $5 billion for this and $2 billion for that?” We can’t go down the pathway that we were on for the last six years. We can’t just keep spending money; we have to prioritise it and put it into the right areas.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, wage subsidies? A lot of spent money on wage subsidies.

TIM COSTLEY: And listen, the lady doth protest too much! Here they are all complaining over the other side because they know where this is going. They know what six years of spending and racking up the bills and taking on more debt and more spending with nothing to show for it—they know what that led to. That led to inflation, that led to higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher rents—rents that went up by $185 a week on average. It saw people in emergency hotels, not in homes. It saw people struggling to pay the bills. That’s the pathway that we were on. We have to prioritise our spending.

I would much rather that our policies were targeted on getting young people under the age of 24 off the benefit and into work. I think of programmes that are getting support through Budgets like this, through Ministry of Social Development funding in Kāpiti, training people for the construction sector, that are taking on every six weeks another 12 people into the construction sector, getting them into work. These are people that were on a benefit, now into work. That’s where we want to put our resources, because that’s what leads to the productive economy, that’s what brings growth, that’s what brings opportunity for Kiwis. They don’t want to sit at home. They don’t want to be just left and have debt racked up on their behalf. That debt is real, because it meant that what we were spending on debt was more than we were spending on defence, on justice, on police, on corrections.

This is the kind of plan we need to bring growth to our country, to bring opportunity for Kiwi families. This is a great Budget, Madam Speaker.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, Budget 2025 is always going to be known as the Budget that threw women under a bus—threw women under a bus—because they had their pay equity absolutely ripped away from them and that was used to offset the rest of the Budget. It is poor economic management from the other side of the House, poor economic management from this Government, who used women to offset their Budget—women who had been waiting a long, long time for their pay corrections, women who had worked really, really hard to work in this area.

This Government, that Government, just ripped it away from them. And what did they rip it away for? They made a choice. They made a choice that women aren’t worth as much as giving tax breaks to tobacco companies, to landlords, to fossil fuel companies, and to tax cuts. Even when they got told that all of those things should not be done and we did not have the economic capacity to do it, they did it anyway, and they used women to make that choice so that they could put in what they wanted in this Budget. Women were just expected to sit down and be quiet.

When I hear that side of the House saying, “Oh, isn’t it great that we’ve got this and that farmers can do this and buy this?” Well, what about at the expense of women? Do they feel proud at the expense of women? That is shameful, absolutely shameful. We have absolutely got a Government in this country at the moment who are absolutely willing to throw women under a bus.

What have we heard since then? We’ve heard them blaming, we’ve heard them make excuses, and we’ve heard them denying. We’ve even heard the finance Minister say that she was really shocked at the size of the blow-out in this. What she was shocked about was the size of the contingency that was there to correct women’s pay. These are for workforces that are dominated by women. She was shocked. But this is what she was really shocked about: she was shocked at the size of the extent of inequality in this country.

Camilla Belich: Discrimination.

Hon JAN TINETTI: It is absolute discrimination and inequality that women have had to be in workforces that have been underpaid for so long. That is what she was shocked at. And to rectify that inequality, it does cost. It costs money, but that was something that both sides of the House had always agreed on. In fact, it was that Government back in 2017 who agreed with the pay equity working group’s recommendations to correct pay with the bill that they were then going to put through at that time. That was that side of the House that did that, and now they’ve reneged on that. They have gone back to way back in history. It’s like we’ve almost gone back to the 1950s.

The Minister does not want to fix those inequalities, because we have, as I’ve said, poor fiscal management from that side of the House. To fix those inequalities would mean she wouldn’t have that money to offset her bad economic management. She made choices that mean women, once again, in this country have to wait.

But when those choices are made to fix the inequality, we know that there are both social and economic benefits. So their short-term thinking—their short-term thinking—is actually going to have long-term pain for them. And this will come back. It is already coming back to hurt them. We are seeing it from the people as we’re going around, and I can tell that side of the House that many of us last week were out every single day talking to groups who have been hurt by them in this Budget, and they were saying how much they are absolutely opposed to what this Government is doing and will work really hard.

Not only are we seeing women thrown under the bus in the Budget, we are now seeing further decisions being made by this Government because they have not gone far enough. If people want to have a look at that, have a look at the early childhood education decisions that were made this week. They are disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. Once again, they are throwing a sector that’s dominated by women completely under the bus by breaking the pay parity conditions. I am shocked, I am disappointed, and I am ashamed to be in this country, where this Government is putting women second.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thought it was worthwhile having a think about what New Zealanders want from a Budget. And it was time that we did a bit of an analysis on jobs, health, and homes, and how this Budget has a look at each of those.

So let’s take a first look at jobs, because that was front and centre, as we’ve just heard from my colleague Jan Tinetti. Pay equity was what funded the guts of this Budget. So women in lower-paid jobs were having their future opportunity of wages ripped out of their hands by simply wiping clean 33 active pay equity claims. We know that’s a fact. So this Budget has made it harder for those working women, and also other people in those professions.

There is absolutely nothing in this Budget for training or skills or helping young people to get on the right path. In fact, it actually does the opposite. It takes away from 18- and 19-year-olds the ability to get the jobseeker benefit. That is absolutely shocking, considering there is no investment in digital skills, in training, in apprenticeships. In fact, it even stripped money away from Māori trades training. That was cut in this Budget. So if this Government is so focused on jobs and productivity, where in this Budget—please highlight it for me, because I missed it—was the part that provided jobs, training, and opportunities for New Zealanders? Where are the incentives to get off the couch? Where are the incentives to make sure you go up and make something of yourself? Where is the ability to do that? Because this Government did absolutely nothing to provide training or incentives for people to retrain, upskill, or get ahead. Nothing.

So let’s take a look at health. Health is our second area. I’d like to take a brief—and it’s funny we talk, because I just received an open letter from the hospitals of Kenepuru, Wellington region, and the Hutt. And they’ve noted that despite the Government’s acknowledgment of the rising demand for healthcare services, funding remains critically insufficient. And Budget 2024—that’s the last one—allocated inadequate funding to maintain the current services, let alone improve current staffing levels and support retention. Hospitals nationwide are experiencing the direct effect of financial constraints with critical recruitment freezes—recruitment freezes to the front line and limiting the ability to fill vacancies and limiting the ability to address growing patient demand.

Furthermore, they note—and this links nicely with pay equity—that the failure to provide job security for new graduate nurses in New Zealand exacerbates this crisis. Many newly qualified nurses, who also won’t be able to receive pay equity, can’t secure employment—particularly if they’re working in a hospice, within the public system—despite clear evidence we need more staff on the floor. Without structured pathways into the workforce, we risk losing a new generation of nurses to overseas opportunities or to other industries altogether. That is an open letter to this Government from our health workforce post-Budget.

The last point is homes—jobs, health, and homes. So $1 billion was cut from emergency housing under this Budget, which this Government prize as a great record—a great success. During that time there was a 50 percent increase in homelessness in Auckland and a 40 percent increase in homelessness in Wellington. I went and I met with the Wellington City Mission and they said it was the worst it had ever been. And those opposite turn around and pat themselves on the back and say, “Well, we got the list down—we got that waiting list down.” You got that list down by kicking people off it or refusing them access to it. All of the housing providers and those who support those trying to prevent homelessness are being told they cannot access help. And those families experiencing family violence are being punished for being in a home where there is family violence, which is absolutely disgusting. They get a 13-week stand-down, with no access to housing because there is family violence in that house. Women and children are reaching out for support and they are turned to the streets.

I would hang my head in shame. This Government is heartless and this Budget delivers nothing for the hard-working Kiwis who just want jobs, health, and homes.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s great to be here on behalf of the people of Northland, talking about what a great Budget this is for the people of the North. There were a range of great announcements leading up to the Budget. Probably the greatest one was when the Minister of Transport came up and announced the preferred route for the new four-lane expressway to take us all the way, to carry on from Te Hana through to Whangārei. To stand up there on the top of the Brynderwyns and point out where that new route was going to go—the people of the North celebrated that point and they are looking forward to this road being built.

But there is one group of people in this House who take a different view. In fact, recently the Transport and Infrastructure Committee had a report brought in by the people of the North saying what they wanted from the road and what it was worth to the Northland economy. It was supported by the Government members of that committee, but there is a differing view that was brought forward by the Green Party and the Labour Party and it reads something like this: “The Green Party and the Labour Party consider that the evidence provided to the committee during this briefing is wholly insufficient to conclude that the Northland Expressway is the best way to improve transport links, improve economic productivity, and increase resilience for Northland.”

How out of touch are they? How disconnected from the realities of the North are the people from Labour and the Greens? Honestly, it just destroys me in the sense that the people of the North want and need decent connectivity. But, no, Labour and the Greens, once again, if they get into power—the last time they cancelled the road and they will do it again. But, actually, the most insulting part of the commentary was they also said in here, that “The NZIER report is advocacy research, paid for by people with monetary skin in the game to commercial providers of consultancy services, meaning its conclusions need to be regarded with caution by the public.” What an insult to the people that paid for that research to be done. These are Northlanders who care about the North, see a better country, and see a better future for our Northland region.

Now, the other thing I want to talk about from the Budget is Investment Boost. This is a great policy that will really, really help the farming sector of New Zealand, the sector that is dragging us out of this recession and leading us back out, just like we did in the global financial crisis; we are doing it again. Investment Boost will mean an extra 20 percent can come off the depreciation of purchase of new assets for the farming community—the Fieldays will be an absolute ripper. It will lead to economic growth through the regions and it will eventually flow into the cities.

There are other things that we’ve done for the primary sector. We’ve invested $246 million over four years in the Primary Sector Growth Fund; $2 million over four years in the contestable Rural Wellbeing Fund; $1 million extra over four years for rural support trusts, a group that do fantastic work in the rural sector of New Zealand; $400,000 over four years in direct grants to help the A&P shows of this country—the volunteers who get stuck in and help bind the fabric of our rural communities. There will be ongoing support for catchment groups: $36 million over the next four years will be provided. This is a vital—vital—investment because it’s catchment groups that are going to help deal with the environmental challenges in our rural communities. Why? Because it’s local people that can find local solutions to the challenges of water quality and environmental challenges.

The other thing that’s happened that’s been very helpful for the people of Northland is the health announcements. There’s going to be extended hours for the hospitals in Dargaville, Hokianga, and Kaitāia as well as extensions of other services for the areas of Kaikohe, Kawakawa, Mangawhai, and Waipapa. These are all benefits that are going to flow to the people of Northland from this great Budget, a Budget that is going to deliver prosperity over time for the people of Northland and the people of this country, because this Government understands what it takes to get growth so that people will be able to earn more wages, higher salaries, and do better for themselves and their families. I, with a great pleasure, commend this Budget to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s always really refreshing to speak after Grant McCallum, as two new members of the class of 2023 for the National Party. He’s the wise and I’m the young and it’s a great contrast from one another. I can be wise while being young, but it is refreshing to speak and spend time with you, Grant—absolutely.

This Budget shows that the adults are back in the room. This is a responsible Budget. Just like every household around the country who have to spend within their means, who have to a make pragmatic and reasonable decision—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, we’re back to the Government Budget is the same as a household’s. You are the children in the room.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —based on what’s coming in and what’s coming out.

And Rachel Brooking across the House, well, she’s been squawking all afternoon. She’s been squawking every time a National member’s got up and spoken, hasn’t she? But she hasn’t actually contributed anything significant to the debate, so I’d look forward to her taking a call to actually talk and contribute to this rather than just laying back in her chair and making a contribution from the other side over there.

But our Government’s economic plan is working. We’ve stopped wasteful spending. Inflation is down—remember inflation at that record high of 7.3 percent? It’s down to 2.5 percent now, and mortgage rates are falling. It’s a positive outcome for my community of the Bay of Plenty and for all New Zealanders.

Treasury’s latest forecasts? Well, they show economic growth averaging about 2.7 percent a year, 240,000 new jobs created. And wages? Well, they’re growing faster than inflation every year. This is on top of the real average wage growing nearly $1,100 since the election and our tax relief that we delivered in last year’s Budget.

We know that New Zealand battled a protracted period of high inflation, high interest rates, and an economic downturn. The cost of living soared. Do you remember that? The cost of living absolutely soared under the previous administration. Rents went up $185 on average—$185 on average—under the previous administration.

And the Government’s books? Well, they took an absolute hammering. They took a hammering with unsustainable spending increases fuelling high levels of debt. Remember debt and think about how high that is and how much Labour just tapped on to the credit card for the future generations—my generations and generations to come—that we will have to continue to repay. They were the Afterpay Government. They were the Afterpay Government: pay in the future, but take the products now. But, actually, there were no products. There was nothing. For all the spending, there was no delivery for the general public of New Zealand.

One of the things that I’m really proud of from the Budget for my local community in the Bay of Plenty was our spending in healthcare and what it will mean for our local community. By far, it is one of the biggest issues that is raised with me as a constituency MP for the Bay of Plenty—people talking about their ability to access their GP. God forbid if you get sick or hurt after 8 p.m. in Tauranga, because at the moment your only option after 8 p.m. is to go to the hospital. But under our Budget, we will be delivering urgent care services 24/7—24/7 for the community of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty. Access to urgent and after-hours healthcare is being expanded, and this includes in the Bay of Plenty.

We will have a new 24/7 urgent care service, which our community has been crying out for and I’m just so proud to be part of a Government that’s finally delivering for the 165,000-odd people that call Tauranga home. For the many, many residents and the wonderful community of the Bay of Plenty, this will make a massive difference. This will make a massive difference, and it will take off the increasing pressure on our hospitals and actually mean that hospitals can deal with those that absolutely need to be there. And then those that can go to the urgent and after-hours care will be able to go there for their alternative treatments as well.

The other part of the Budget in healthcare that I’m really proud of is the 12-month prescriptions. It hasn’t got a lot of airtime with everything else we’ve been doing with Investment Boost, the KiwiSaver changes, and the welfare changes that the Hon Louise Upston is leading. But this change around prescriptions and people now being able to get them for 12 months is going to make a massive difference and it’s going to make a massive difference in two particular areas. It’s going to free up our GPs. People won’t have to go back to the GP every three months to get the prescription to then collect it from the pharmacy. That’s fantastic news. And it saves the person themselves on average about $105 a year. It’s going to make a massive change. It hasn’t had a lot of headlines, but it’s a really pragmatic change. You still go and collect your prescription every three months, but you’ll be enabled to have that prescription over 12 months. It’s a fantastic change, and this is a wonderful Budget for Bay of Plenty and for New Zealand.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to talk about this Government’s Budget, which is paid for off the backs of working women. I want to focus on the pay equity changes that the Government has made to start with, because there have been a few polls recently about pay equity, and one thing seems to be really clear: people who understand it and who know about it really hate the changes that the Government’s made. But another thing which I think this Government should take responsibility for is there is also a large percentage of this population who is unsure about what these changes actually mean for them.

The reason I say the Government should take responsibility for it is because the pay equity changes that paid for this Government’s Budget were introduced with no process, no select committee, no notice, no education for the community, and no opportunity for the public to ask questions. So it’s not surprising that when they’re polled, the people aren’t quite aware of what is actually happening, so let me explain.

There are a few issues with what the Government has done. I’ve already talked to you about the process—the terrible undemocratic process—that allowed this Government to bring in under urgency and extinguish overnight the claims affecting 180,000 low-paid New Zealanders. Now, that is enough on its own for it to be an absolutely shameful day for this House. But the second thing that I wanted to mention is this Government had absolutely no mandate for these changes. When they were elected, they brought in lots of changes that we on this side of the House fought strongly against. One of the things they said in their defence when they passed legislation through urgency destroying the rights of working people was that they had a mandate for it. In some of those instances—although we fiercely disagreed with what they did—at least they were honest with the public about their intentions. That is not so with pay equity. They did not have a mandate for this, and when New Zealanders find out how bad it is, I’m sure that they will be very, very angry with what the Government has done.

So they said that they still have a pay equity regime that has paid for this Budget. But I want to tell you today that this bill is unworkable, and there are five reasons for that. The first reason is they have upped the threshold to 70 percent, effectively excluding people like secondary school teachers from taking a pay equity claim. That hard-working female-dominated profession, secondary school teachers—not allowed. They also have to make sure they’ve been the female-dominated for 10 years, a very high threshold that cuts a lot of people out.

The second problem with it is that you have to prove that your claim has merit before you’ve even started your claim. Now, just on a logical perspective from anyone—not even lawyers—you can understand how difficult that is. You have to prove that the claim stacks up even before you’ve started it. It’s completely unworkable and will be very difficult to progress without an employer that also thinks that there’s merit before it starts.

The third problem with it is the unworkable hierarchy of comparators. This Government has changed the way that comparators are used in pay equity claims to mean that you have to look at your own workplace and then a similar industry and then you’re limited. If you can’t find male-dominated workforces in a similar industry, you cannot take a pay equity claim. This is a distinguishing feature which makes it much worse than what the National Government originally proposed in 2016. So that is the third thing.

The fourth thing is blocking claims for 10 years. This locks out care and support workers like Kristine Bartlett who have been unable to take claims until 10 years after their claim expires, which means they’re unable to do anything despite the fact they have proven that are undervalued for 10 years.

The fifth reason is that they have provided no funding. There is evidence for this in this Budget. It is the fact that they have taken a significant amount of money out of the contingency fund, meaning that that money will not go to low-paid women. That is an admission by this Government that their pay equity scheme will not deliver the types of corrections for discrimination in the workforce that have been proven to be needed by the pay equity regime. That is the fifth reason that this particular pay equity bill will not work.

They have ruined the lives of many, many low-paid women by taking this away in this Budget, by putting this Budget on this platform, and it is shameful. There are a lot of other things that are bad about this Budget, but I think the thing that people will continue to remember in years to come is the day that this Parliament sat here and took the rights to proven equal pay that they deserved away from low-paid women. It is a shameful Budget built on the lives of working women, and I do not commend it to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Budgets are about choices, and this Budget tells us exactly what National values. They had the audacity to say the quiet thing out loud and show us who they really are. And more importantly, they’ve shown us who they think should be paying the price. They’re not asking tobacco companies to pay. They’re not asking fossil fuel giants to pay. They’re not even asking property speculators or corporate mega-landlords to pay for the common good, to pay for the things that we all do for each other. No, they’re asking women and young people to pay the price.

This is a Budget that reaches into women’s back pockets and into the retirement savings of everyday Kiwis, but in particular our young people, and that’s what makes it so egregious. And it hands that money over to the oil and gas lobby, it hands it over to landlords, and it hands it over to big corporates. So if ever there was something to compare and contrast these two different sides of the House, it is this Budget. It says it all right there.

Let’s also talk about pay equity. My colleague Camilla Belich has just delivered a master class in understanding what pay equity is all about. After years of work to close that gender pay gap that people have done over many, many years, this Government is literally slamming on the brakes. They’ve scrapped pay equity and they’ve scrapped the 33 claims that represent thousands of women, mostly woman, for no other reason than to simply make the Budget add up. They say, and again, they’ve had the audacity to say that they’re making the system more sustainable, but that is simply spin.

National have made it harder and harder for women to get fair pay for the valuable, valuable work that they do. Quite frankly, it is not just a betrayal of women; it’s actually a betrayal of fairness, it’s a betrayal of justice, and it simply doesn’t even make economic sense. It’s disgusting. Women earn on average 10 percent less than men. And the Government’s answer to this very real problem is literally to take away the mechanism that can make that fix. They call it efficiency, but on this side of the House we call it stealing from women, because that is exactly what this Budget is doing: it steals from women.

Also, let’s not forget KiwiSaver. The Government has halved the Government contribution, which is one thing. It’s not even fiscally prudent to do that. It’s cutting into the retirement savings of everyday working people. And then, again, they had the audacity to wax lyrical, including in this House this afternoon, about increasing the default contributions. But in their own Budget, they didn’t even take their own contributions into account, because they knew they didn’t need to budget for that because they know that those increases in default contributions from the employer will simply eat into future wage rises. So they don’t need to take it into account. That is not what people need when they are saving hard for their retirement.

While they’re doing that, what are they spending the money on? So they’re taking all this money and what are they spending it on? A $200 million subsidy for new gas fields. That’s right, $200 million. Not to invest in clean energy, not to invest in insulating homes, certainly not to build public transport or more social housing, but to underwrite the profits of oil and gas industries. That’s not a climate plan; it is literally a fossil fuel slush fund. And while we’re handing that money over to polluters, they’re gutting public housing, they’re scrapping emergency housing, they’re doing nothing—nothing—at all to even address our housing crisis, and we’re watching homelessness grow and all of the ills that come from that.

In health, a previous contributor from the Government side went on and on about health initiatives. And the reality is there’s almost no new money in health, just enough to keep the lights on—if we’re lucky; certainly not enough to fix the wait-list, and certainly not enough to staff all of those initiatives or staff our hospitals properly. National will protect the profits of landlords, fossil fuel companies, and tobacco giants. And here, on this side of the House, Labour chooses to prioritise jobs, health, and homes.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I can just have permission, please, I’d just like to acknowledge the passing of my uncle Adwan Raffoul Rahme. He was buried a few hours ago in Sydney. I’d just like to say I’m thinking of his children, Tony and Rony. الله يرحمك عمو ايدوين.

A week and a half ago when we were in this House and before the Budget was announced, we were taken to a little room. It’s called the caucus room, and the Minister of Finance let us know what was coming in the Budget. I remember we were just smiling. The energy in the room just lifted so quickly. And I couldn’t wait to finish from Parliament, even though Labour and Greens were playing their antics, making amendments like “let’s change ‘money’ to ‘moolah’ ” and saying that that was seriously defending people’s rights. But I couldn’t wait to go home to Takanini and, essentially, spread the good news. That’s how I felt. I felt like I needed a ledge somewhere to spread the good news about Budget 2025 from.

I’m going to just take us back to about a year ago when I was privileged enough to give a speech on Budget 2024. I envisaged and I gave the analogy of imagining that someone leaves their home for a few years and comes back, and it has been completely ransacked. Everything has been broken, and you don’t have the funds, automatically, to fix up this ransacked home. And that’s why we needed to be careful with how we were distributing taxpayer-funded money, taxpayer money, essentially, in fixing up this ransacked home that we were left with by the Labour Government previously.

So now in part of the fixing of this ransacked home, we need to generate income to be able to pay for the resources that we need to fix up that ransacked home, and this is what Budget 2025 is about. How do we grow our economy to generate those funds to fix up our ransacked home that we were left with?

In this fixing-up, what are we focusing on? There are a few key areas that Budget 2025 is focusing on so that we can grow our economy. But in the process of growing our economy as well, we’re addressing needs—very loud needs. One of them, as has been sprinkled about the House, quite rightfully, on this side, is health—yes, a record investment in health. And, yes, the focus for this Government and for Minister Simeon Brown, is how we address primary care, and Budget 2025 definitely addresses that. I am also—along with Tom Rutherford, as he mentioned earlier—really pleased and exceptionally happy to learn that we are going to get in Counties Manukau, which services my neighbours in Takanini, a 24-hour urgent care facility. Not only that, but with the $1 billion we’re investing in health infrastructure, we’re going to be uplifting the resources in Middlemore Hospital, which services a lot of families in South Auckland and beyond. Thank you to the finance Minister and the health Minister for finding that allocation to address the needs of my beautiful neighbours in Takanini.

When we talk about growing, in Takanini something that was extremely important to my neighbours during the 2023 election was the lack of law and order, and so how does this link to growing? Well, in my maiden speech, I spoke about education and how important education is for me, because, like many of us across the House, we agree that education is a key to breaking those cycles of poverty, those cycles of crime, and those cycles of intergenerational trauma, and I am so proud of the fact that this Budget, Budget 2025, is not only investing in keeping my neighbours in Takanini safe with restoring law and order but is also investing so much in education. I’m very pleased that the education Minister, Erica Stanford, was in Takanini just a few days ago, at Ormiston Primary School, letting them know how they will get extra support needed for those beautiful children that have those special needs.

There is so much more that is positive in this Budget. We, over here, do not have PhDs in “no”, like the other side. We believe in getting rid of a poverty of aspiration. That’s what this Government is about—instilling aspiration and starting at those youngest ages with our beautiful tamariki at school. I’m proud of this Budget. I’m spreading the good news. I will continue to, and I commend it to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on Budget 2025. I think we need a little bit of context around how we came to be in the position that we’re in. And I want to reference who I think was the worst ever finance Minister in New Zealand: Grant Robertson, and his sidekick Adrian Orr, who were the fiscal destroyers on the economic seas that put us in the situation that we’re in now.

Not only that, when we came into Government, Nicola Willis assumed the role of finance Minister and opened the books and found all these fiscal cliffs to deal with, hamstringing her choices and our choices and New Zealanders’ choices, actually. It’s not about us; it’s about New Zealanders. So that is a shocking thing to come in and see.

Now, that has happened before. In fact, someone referenced Jim Bolger earlier in the debate. Actually, that reminds me that Jim Bolger, who was in a recent news story, turned 90 this week. He came in in 1990 and exactly the same thing occurred. All the rosy books that he thought of and the plans that he had ahead for New Zealand to take it forward, and when he opened the books, there were big holes everywhere. We call them fiscal cliffs now. That’s what he had back in those days. And that really narrows the choices that are available. But that all said, that context and giving the context of the situation, Nicola Willis has done—the Hon Nicola Willis; apologies, Nicola—a fantastic job and put a Budget together that actually hits all the areas that it needs to hit.

Of course, everyone’s talked about Investment Boost. I got an email land in my inbox this afternoon on an investment opportunity to invest in a solar farm. That solar farm was projecting a 10 percent return in the first year, but they say now, if I can quote from it, “A one-time 20 percent write-down on new assets from the Investment Boost programme”, that they are now forecasting a 16 to 17 percent return in the first year by being able to expense that 20 percent in addition to the normal depreciation.

Hon Damien O’Connor: It’s great if you’ve got the money.

STUART SMITH: And we hear on the other side people say, “But that’s not affecting everyone else. It’s all about business.” No it’s not. Businesses actually employ people—that’s right, they employ people. And that money goes through the economy. I think that there is going to be one error in the Budget: there’s going to be underestimation of the impact of the Investment Boost programme.

Speaking in the electorate to different industries, I said to the Minister earlier in the week that I think this is a thing that’s actually quite a slow burn. People are picking up on it and what the potential is. They’ve considered it and they’re going to actually put their hands in their pockets and spend money to invest in their businesses and boost the economy, and I think that’s a great thing.

There are other things like the $480 million for front-line policing. That was mentioned before about the real turn-around that the police have been able to do with some of the legislation that we’ve had. We’ve given them the tools now with the gang patch ban, but now we’re also giving them the financial resources to be able to maximise that opportunity.

One of the things in the fiscal cliffs that I referenced before is the iReX project, which is very—well, not dear to me, but it’s certainly in my patch and I know quite a bit about it. I was well aware that that was going to fail well in advance, because contractors kept coming to me with horror stories about the practices that were going on in that iReX project. There was no plan. They just wanted to spend money with no—in fact, I’ll tell you, Mr Speaker, in my time that remains. One contractor told me that he was asked to price a construction job for the iReX project and he said he couldn’t do it because he only had half the drawings that were required for the project. And he was told, “Don’t worry about it. Just put a price in. We’ll sort it out later.” Well, that sort of fiscal management has led to the problem that we’ve got today, and that’s why the iReX project fell over—and other projects that had no fiscal controls on them. It was irresponsible management and it started at the top.

As I said, if I circle back to what I started with, that goes down to Grant Robertson and Adrian Orr’s destroying tactics in the fiscal seas.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): In reply, the Hon Nicola Willis.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It has been fantastic to listen to this debate when the voices have been coming from this side of the Chamber, because they’ve been voices grounded in reality and a sense of perspective and, frankly, a sense of aspiration about what New Zealand can be and should be, if only we make good choices. On the other side of the House in this debate, I have from time to time thought that members opposite are living in an alternative universe—certainly not on Planet Earth—because here’s the thing about the world in which this Budget was put together. It is the real world, and the backdrop to this Budget is relevant. Context is, in fact, everything, because we could wish to be in a time in which the books were full of money and there had been years of successive good fiscal management which gave us multiple options. We could wish to be in a time where global growth was going away to the races. We could wish for all sorts of things, but finance Ministers don’t get to live on Mars. They live on Planet Earth, and when they deliver their Budgets, they need to deliver them accordingly.

So New Zealand is in a very difficult fiscal position, a fact that those opposite seem very confused about. The Government’s books have taken a hammering. Over the past six years, debt has risen sharply, by more than $120 billion—more than doubling as a proportion of the economy—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, is that the pandemic?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and, Willow-Jean Prime, that is unsustainable. At the same time, New Zealanders have faced significant challenges, with soaring inflation and soaring interest rates. The inevitable economic downturn that came after that means that New Zealanders have been doing it tough, and our country still faces many long-term challenges that went largely unaddressed for six barren years.

Productivity in this country is lower than it should be and it needs to be to fund the rightful aspirations of New Zealanders, who wish to be in a wealthier country that can spend more on medicines and that can invest more in its schools. I’ll tell you the countries that can do that: they are wealthier, growing, more productive nations, and New Zealand has a long-term challenge with that.

Despite the extraordinary increase in spending that went on with that other lot, we still have public services that require significant investment, a health pipeline of infrastructure that was not invested in properly and hasn’t been managed properly, and endless other investments that are required. So our Budget, necessarily in this real world, takes a longer-term view, with initiatives—particularly Investment Boost and our KiwiSaver changes—which are not just about the here and now and the headline that the Labour Party wants tomorrow but are about what is the right thing to position our country for now so that in the future we are stronger.

When you think about Investment Boost, what that addresses is a genuine challenge that even, I see, Opposition members agree on, which is that we need higher rates of investment in capital in our firms in technology, in machinery, and in the equipment that will allow our firms to be more productive. We must address this, and this is a policy that squarely addresses that at, actually, a time when it’s needed the most, because we know that the impact of global instability is potentially depressing people’s decisions to invest, and this is the spurt that they need.

When it comes to KiwiSaver, New Zealanders get it. They know that to have the kind of retirement living choices that they want, they are going to need bigger KiwiSaver balances, in many cases. What they also understand is that countries that have deeper pools of private saving are better able to make the capital investment in their economies that we wish to see. This Budget continues the Government’s investment in health and education and in law and order, and even in a very challenging global environment, it makes the wise decision to provide funding to boost New Zealand’s defence capability—an area that was disgracefully run down under the previous Government, and an issue that we take particularly seriously. We feel a solemn duty to take it seriously.

Importantly, we are doing all of these things within a responsible expenditure track, because over the forecast period in this Budget, Government spending reduces as a share of the economy, the books return to balance, the structural deficit left to us by the last lot of vandals is eliminated in this Budget—and you can thank us for that later—and the debt curve is bent from going up to going down. Highlights of the Budget also include targeted cost of living support, prescriptions, rates rebates, Working for Families changes for those who most need the support, health capital investment of more than $1 million—because while on the other side, they issued the press releases about what might be nice to do at Nelson Hospital, did they ever write the cheque? No, they did not. This Government has written that cheque, we are investing in that hospital, and there is $1 billion worth of other investments beside.

This is the Budget that in these tight, uncertain, challenging times, with the fiscal holes we have to fill in, still makes a transformational investment in learning support. Mark my words and make no mistake, that investment in earlier intervention and in better equipping young children who do have additional needs but who have boundless potential—we’re equipping them with the extra support they need. I’m telling you now that it will keep kids out of court, it will keep them out of police cells, it will get them into jobs that would not otherwise have been realised. It is a long-sighted investment. There is also a major uplift in Defence Force capability and a social investment fund.

So this has involved real restraint, careful choices, an acknowledgment—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Pay equity.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —that despite the alternative universe in which Willow-Jean Prime and her mates live in, there is no money hose. There is no magic money tree. There is no one in this world who owes New Zealand a favour and says that they’ll just keep lending to us for ever.

I actually want to commend Barbara Edmonds, who, in her post-Budget speech—delivered to a packed house of 20 people, I understand, in her own electorate—said that “All Budgets are about choices,” and she went on to say, “and we would have made different choices.” Well, perhaps she could tell us what those choices are, and then people could see what choices they like the best.

At least, as she acknowledged, the Greens have a plan. They’ve set out what they would do differently, even if it means borrowing $88 billion more to do it and taxing New Zealanders more. Robbing from every pocket that is aching with the cost of living, the Greens’ solution is to whack more taxes on and hope for the best.

But let me just run through Labour’s choices, because I would summarise them as being somewhat conflicted. We’ve had these commitments: “We will return to surplus by the end of the forecast period on the old OBEGAL measure. While doing that, we will increase spending by $12.8 billion to reinstate the previous pay equity regime.”—and Chris Hipkins has acknowledged that that is a big number. He’s worked that much out. He said that it’s a big number, but he’s very confused about how we got it because somehow he infers that Treasury are making up numbers, or something like that, which is an interesting inference.

At the same time, in this fantasy land in which our friends on the other side live, they’re also going to spend more on health—there will never be another challenge in the health system because there will be so much money that is able to be poured in. They will also be building more houses because KiwiBuild was such a success, colleagues, and they will fund all of the savings that we made in the Budget. All of the reprioritisations are hopeless, they’re terrible, they’re cuts, they’re austerity, and so all of those will be reversed, and then—here is the miracle that happens on “Planet Labour”—they will do all of this while sticking within Treasury’s recommended debt ceiling of 50 percent of GDP, which was adopted by Grant Robertson. Although, to be fair, Chris Hipkins does seem to have some doubts about that. His maths seem a little bit better on that one.

But, actually, the truth of the matter is this. Actually, they won’t, because there are a lot of myths around about debt, and our spokesperson was, apparently, talking about the past, even while using the present tense.

My point is this: Budgets need to be anchored in the here and the now and in the realities that we face, but responsible Budgets make changes now that set us up better for the decades that follow. While we’ve had six barren years of a Government that thought its job was to just spend money at the fastest rate possible, we now have in New Zealand a Government that understands that the dollars you spend do not come from a magic ATM. They come from the work of ordinary New Zealanders, who will always have a choice with that dollar: should they spend it on their family and their business and their community, or should they give it to the Government to nurture and spend well?

I am proud that in this Budget, we are spending those dollars as wisely as possible for the now and for the long term, and we are doing it in a way that allows New Zealand to hold its head high and say that these are books that are sustainable, this is a country with a future in which it is growing more productive and a better place to live. The alternative is Labour fantasy land, and I’ll tell you a thing about that fantasy land—horrible place to live.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all of the words after “That” be replaced with “this House has no confidence in the Government because it has chosen to pay for its Budget by cutting the wages of future working women.

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) 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.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Invest New Zealand Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for consideration of the Invest New Zealand Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Invest New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 3 June.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We begin with the Invest New Zealand Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you for the call. I just want to remind the committee where we’d gotten to yesterday evening. We were starting to work our way through the bill clause by clause, given that this was a bill that was introduced under urgency. So we went through the first and the second readings pronto; hasn’t been to a select committee. So there’s a fair amount to discuss in this committee stage of the bill. In particular, at this stage, we were working on clause 3, the purpose part of the bill, and asking, I guess, really the questions that relate to the broader policy around the bill in lieu of having had a select committee process. So we’ve had a couple of calls on it and a response from the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, and I guess that’s where we’ll carry on with tonight, working through the purpose of this bill.

Now, I had asked the Minister why it was we were reintroducing this policy—the policy originally, of course; way, way back in the early 2000s, there was Investment New Zealand, which was disbanded in 2003. I was querying the institutional memory and what officials might be able to tell us about the disbanding of Investment 2003 and why this particular policy was being revived. So I’m hoping the Minister will have an answer for that. In particular, she said, of course, that she had been an employee of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise herself, which is great that she brings that experience to the role. I know that the Minister in the chair is some years younger than me, so she must’ve been a very young employee at that time. I suspect that perhaps if she’d been around there in 2003—I’m guessing she possibly wasn’t then, so we are relying on some of the institutional memory, which I hope her officials have been able to brief her on overnight.

However, what I do want to focus on in terms of the purpose of establishing Invest New Zealand is something that the Minister said—perhaps one of the other Ministers at the time—in terms of justifying this. The Minister drew on a comparison with Invest in Ireland—so I do want to investigate that—and said that there’s good precedent for this type of entity overseas. Now, this was during one of the first or the second reading debates, or maybe it was one of the members of the Government side. So I do just want to dig into that comparison a little, and in particular I would like to hear from the Minister how Invest in Ireland operates—obviously not in detail; that’s not something she’s going to be telling us, but, you know, we’re a similarly sized country and we have a similar economy in some ways, certainly an economy with a large agricultural basis.

But there are some very significant differences between New Zealand and Ireland as well. Amongst other things, Ireland has a very low corporate tax rate, I think of about 12 percent, so it has that kind of difference. And, of course, unlike New Zealand, Ireland is parked right beside a market of, I think, about 300 million people and it’s a member of the European Union, so it’s quite separate, obviously, from the United Kingdom. It has an entirely different sort of framework within which it is operating, so I want to know what lessons we can draw from the Invest in Ireland experience that are actually relevant to us, given that New Zealand is down the bottom of the world. It’s a long way to our nearest trading partners; even our closest trading partner, Australia, is still a three-hour flight away. Some of the Pacific Islands, of course, are about that distance as well. So we have some quite significant differences as well. So I’d like to understand how Invest New Zealand is going to—why that comparison with Invest in Ireland was justified.

So that’s a particular thing I’d like to consider under the purpose of the setting up of Invest New Zealand. In particular, I want to know—I guess Invest New Zealand will do what it does, but is the intention, then, to support attracting investment with other forms of Government intervention in the market? Is this a sort of an indication that we are going to look at, you know, changing that corporate tax rate and so on? So a little bit of an insight into the overall purpose, and, again, that comparison with Invest in Ireland would be very helpful.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I had to leap to my feet because they’re very good questions from the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. Yes, it is true: we have extensively looked at the model in Ireland and, indeed, Singapore. Like those nations—small, advanced economies—New Zealand is also an island nation. The Prime Minister himself actually, as the Leader of the Opposition, visited Ireland and has taken a real interest in that particular model.

These two particular countries that I’ve mentioned offer, as I think the member has acknowledged, some significant financial incentives. There are attractive tax rates for companies, but the Irish model particularly—the Industrial Development Agency, or, as we call it, IDA—does offer a really strong example of what an effective investment promotion agency can achieve. So what we’ve done for the New Zealand situation is try to apply those lessons learnt and that institutional knowledge that has been developed over there in the European setting—and acknowledging that, happily for Ireland, they do sit on the cusp of the European Union; equally happily for Singapore, it sits with the Goliath that is North Asia above and around it.

But it’s really important to take these lessons from international jurisdictions because we want to apply best practice here in New Zealand. The question was raised last night about why the need for urgency. As I mentioned last night, we want to get this agency up and running as soon as possible. You know, time is of the essence. So our view is very much that if we can translate international best practice to a model here in New Zealand, that is a really strong foundation for this agency to grow from.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for her response, but I think one of the things that was highlighted yesterday at the end of her contribution was where she—I like the fact that she was talking about virtue signalling certain opportunities that this bill may present, but I think there are a couple of things from our questions that haven’t been responded to. One of them being—and this was a question from the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell—what is the difference between this manifestation of Invest New Zealand and the previous version? That is something that we have not heard the Minister respond to.

Also, in terms of my numerous questions around the regulatory impact statement to start with, particularly whether the Minister is able to elucidate the committee on what the feedback and response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) was. Because the regulatory impact statement stated that advice was sought or consultation was sought, but they haven’t heard back yet. So what was the feedback from MFAT, particularly in relation to what they would consider? I also mentioned some of the other ministries, but I think the Minister touched on that yesterday, so we won’t go into that.

I want to pick up on two things that the Minister said, and I think one of the things, when we’re looking at comparing to international best practice, which I completely understand—but one of the things we also need to consider is the context and the fact that when we’re looking at investment, that is a complex process that involves different parts and there are certain geopolitical reasons why something could have been done in a particular way.

So, for example, the Minister mentioned Ireland. I know that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has mentioned certain aspects of Ireland in terms of lower corporate tax rate in terms of a difference in corporate tax rate, but we also need to consider that Ireland has 33 percent in terms of capital gains tax, which we already do not have here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The other thing is that while it’s true that Ireland is next to 300 million people with a much broader economy, we also mustn’t forget the unique geopolitical situation that Ireland find themselves in right now, which is their neighbour has exited from the EU, leaving them being the only country in the British Isles area being of the EU, therefore being a particularly lucrative avenue for people to invest in, particularly for people from the EU. So that we can’t forget.

I think Singapore—the example that the Minister gave—is also really interesting because one of the things we see Singapore does, in order to boost its own investment, is it has a debt of 173 percent, which is massively higher than what we see in Aotearoa New Zealand. Because they understand the need that when we’re looking at drawing foreign investors, one of the reassuring factors is that we must have a stable and long-term-thinking domestic market for something like that. So I really want to kind of get a better idea of—the Minister has already mentioned some of the parts—but how does the Minister reconcile some of these other aspects of the two examples the Minister gave that this is drawn from?

My last question to the Minister is around something that the Minister said yesterday: that investors won’t invest until there is an independent agency. I want to pick up on that—on why investors are waiting. What is potentially the difference in the policy setting that Invest New Zealand is going to make that fundamentally is different from what New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is doing currently and other agencies that are the one-stop-shop are doing currently that means that the Minister knows of investors currently lining up, wanting to invest, but will not do so until a promotion agency is up and running? That, for me, is an interesting question that I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to.

So a couple of questions for the Minister, just to recap. Number one is what was the feedback from MFAT? Number two is just to unpack a little bit more in terms of comparative studies with Ireland and Singapore, in light of other geopolitical factors and also other taxation factors. Lastly, what is the policy change that we’re going to be looking at with Invest New Zealand that means that people are not going to invest right now without that agency?

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for consideration of the Invest New Zealand Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. We begin with the Invest New Zealand Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 1, clauses 3 to 6, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedule 1. The question is again that Part 1 stand part.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the decision to create this new entity, I wanted to speak about the missing option. Looking at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), on page 11, there are four options that are set out that were considered by the Minister. None of those options, so far as I can see, although I’d be very happy to be corrected, look at both retaining the current option of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) more or less in its current form, injecting some additional funding into the entity to increase the scope of its work and, if necessary, making statutory amendments to that Act to enable it to do anything that isn’t currently contained in the purpose of that Act. It looks to me like the other options consider—so the status quo is option one. Option two is “Improvements to existing institutional arrangements”, but you’ll see that option doesn’t include an increased cost to the Government, so clearly there hasn’t been a proposed increased investment there. Option three is to “Focus only on general business settings to improve attractiveness of New Zealand as an investment destination” and there are some additional costs there, but it looks like there is a focus on the function there as opposed to looking at new functions the entity might be able to carry out. And option four is the creation of the new entity, which is where this bill has taken us.

So I’m just wondering why that wasn’t considered as one of the four options, especially considering the nature of current work that is ongoing at NZTE. I understand that the entity was incubated within NZTE, and on the website itself it reads that Invest New Zealand is managed by the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise investment team; that the team is focused on building a vibrant investment market that fuels a high-wage, low-emission economy; that it has a dual role to help investors discover high-value investment opportunities within Aotearoa and connect New Zealand businesses with the knowledge and networks they need to raise capital and fund international growth.

I did hear the Minister talk about the idea of giving the entity focus and having that singular focus was valuable, but I do think the thing that we need to consider here in terms of the establishment of Crown entities is that there are many Crown entities that have multiple purposes—that don’t have a singular purpose. So whenever we’re looking at creating an entity that does have a singular purpose, then we really must have looked at the pros and cons of the options available to us. And just bearing in mind what the finance Minister was saying in her Budget address that we do need to be cautious with the money we spend, that it is tough times, that we need to make hard choices, why that option of expanding the mandate and increasing the funding was not taken; so what the logic was behind that?

Having said that, I do recall—I can’t remember which part of the RIS it was in—that the statement was made that decisions had been taken before that assessment was done. So my question would be: was there another assessment of sorts that led the Minister to believe that that was the most financially prudent option to take—option four?

So, again, there doesn’t appear to be that assessment of why the increase wasn’t the best option taken, and again, perhaps, just some commentary from the Minister on the existing functions of NZTE, which look quite extensive and look like they are not at fledgling state but are being carried out now. There currently is a global team, there’s also a Māori investment team, and there is a private capital team. So there are multiple teams that have been established and are currently running, and whether there was an assessment of the cost to shift those teams to the new entity as part of the cost assessment done as well.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I will take time to respond to this, because these questions, actually, were asked last night, but I appreciate that the member Vanushi Walters may or may not have been in the Chamber. With the question, I think the member actually contradicted herself by saying she wanted to talk about the missing option. Well, the option most certainly, most demonstrably, is sitting in there: that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) and a repurposing of NZTE was looked at but it was decided that the need for an autonomous stand-alone agency was necessary.

As I explained to the committee last night, it will have a singular focus of attracting inward investment and, indeed, promoting New Zealand as a desirable destination for investment. It will also be working to support foreign investors who are interested in investing in New Zealand. So it becomes a one-stop shop, so to speak, for the purpose of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) into New Zealand. Now, that is quite different to the mandate that NZTE operates under, and again, I explained last evening that NZTE has, of course, the dual mandate. It does play multiple roles, as the member herself has articulated. It has got multiple teams. It has got hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of staff, and they are not necessarily focused on attracting inward foreign direct investment, which is the purpose of this entity. We absolutely maintain that focusing Invest New Zealand’s mandate solely on attracting inward investment will be better to set up the services that it is going to be offering.

I also just want to take a minute to answer the questions of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell about the difference between this new stand-alone entity and what, apparently, existed in the early 2000s. As Dr Russell articulated, she was young in her working career then, and she wondered what I was doing. Well, having cast my mind back, I was a ski bum working at Coronet Peak, down in Queenstown. I wasn’t at NZTE in 2003, as the member inquired. But the new agency Invest New Zealand will be a stand-alone, autonomous Crown entity, as I keep reiterating, focusing on the attraction of FDI. However, as I have been led to believe, the old Invest New Zealand, as a business unit of the then Crown agent Trade New Zealand, which then morphed into NZTE, lacked the focus on what is now a key priority for the Government, and that is attracting foreign capital in order to grow our economy.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m excited to see that the members on the other side are also eager to take a call around this. I’m just also waiting to hear the responses because I haven’t had engagement from the Minister of State for Trade and Investment regarding the questions I asked right before dinner as well.

I understand where the Minister’s coming from, but the problem is we’ve had no opportunity to speak to the officials as part of a select committee stage, so we do need to tease out—even though I understand the purpose and what the Minister is saying, but the broader policy questions remain unanswered. Those are what was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s response? I’m going to ask the Minister again because we haven’t heard the Minister respond to that.

A key proportion of this is talking about comparative countries and comparative markets. We mentioned a few times that those comparisons with Ireland and also with Singapore are complex. The Minister has not addressed the broader complexity of the question. Now, the reason we are homing in on those additional markets is because, on page four of the regulatory impact statement on balance of benefits and costs, it specifically says that it is difficult to anticipate quantitative benefits. So there is no data that suggests that this is going to work on the basis of the purpose statement in clause 3 and that it is going to achieve the outcome that the Minister says.

The evidence relied upon the international comparators. These are the international comparators that are, as suggested, Singapore and Ireland. But, like I said, what I’m wanting to hear from the Minister regarding those two particular countries is the complexity of, number one, the geopolitical situation in Europe with Brexit and how Ireland is situated. We do not have the same kind of attractiveness because we don’t have a neighbouring country who has left Brexit or has left—let’s say the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has decided to open up this entire market of Asia or Southeast Asia to us, to give an example. Another example is, let’s say the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand free-trade agreement. In that particular case—like, if Australia exited from that, we might see something like this that potentially simulates that tangible benefit we see in the situation in Ireland right now. Singapore: again, they’re a different situation. They are heavily invested in domestic markets. Again, we’re not quite seeing the comparison there. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind explaining how these two countries came about in terms of the comparative nature of this particular policy.

To keep on going with additional questions, one of the things that has been addressed in the regulatory impact statement, I’m really interested whether this is established terminology—other people, the Hon Damien O’Connor may know this much better than I do—around the term the “liability of foreignness”. This idea is that you want to be able to basically make it more attractive by equalling the playing field between domestic and international markets, which I understand. Has the Minister heard from domestic markets that this is not going to generate potentially any competitive behaviours or do it in a way that is harder for domestic businesses and domestic investors to invest locally because they don’t have that market advantage? Because apparently the whole point of this is that foreigners should be able to be on an equal footing with domestic investors.

Which then brings us to the question I asked the Minister in terms of what the Minister mentioned yesterday—which I’m still waiting for a response on. The Minister mentioned investors won’t invest until there is an independent agency; that’s kind of paraphrasing what the Minister said yesterday. Does that mean there are already current investors that are holding out? If this is just to attract foreign investors, why do investors need to hold out for this agency? I’m just not quite clear on the link between what the Minister said yesterday and the purpose of this particular bill.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Sorry, Madam Chair, I will respond to the member, because I intended to prior to the dinner break, but the previous Chair decided to ring the bells. Look, I want to clarify to the member: we’re not copying the exact model that has been adopted by the Singapore or indeed the Irish Governments. My comments were very clear prior to the dinner break that we are taking best-in-class, best practice, and we are applying that to the New Zealand environment. But as I say, there are wonderful, wonderful attributes to both of those models. But equally, New Zealand stands in a class of its own in terms of its attractiveness to foreign capital and foreign investors. We have a small, advanced economy. We are a stable democracy. We have an incredibly strong network of international relations. We have strong institutional settings. We have labour market flexibility, albeit now that we have a change of Government. We do have responsive regulatory settings. We have all sorts of unique, attractive propositions that foreign investors are really, really interested in.

And again, I’d like to correct the member: I did not say that foreign investors are “waiting” and “holding off” for the stand-up of this particular agency. I said that this agency is tasked with rolling out the red carpet to these kinds of investors so that we can make it as streamlined as possible. Actually, I would remind the member of the roadshow that was held up in Auckland, the investor summit. I mean, that had billions and billions of dollars of foreign capital in the room who came to New Zealand for the specific purpose of looking for business opportunities and investments. So I would just like to reiterate to the member that standing up an organisation like Invest New Zealand will only streamline that and make it easier for them.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to draw the committee’s attention to Schedule 1, which is to be debated under Part 1 of this bill, and it’s got some fairly significant provisions in it around the establishment of Invest New Zealand. I don’t want to go through some of them in detail myself. There’s some quite significant ones around the transfer of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) employees to Invest New Zealand, but I know my colleague Helen White, who has particular expertise in this area, wants to understand some of the detail of that. I do want to look at even just the transfers of functions that are sitting in Schedule 1 and how that is to be achieved. Part of it is the consequence of transfers of functions. Some functions are clearly getting transferred from NZTE to Invest New Zealand. I just have a general question. The first was why that needed to be accomplished by means of law. There must be something around the structures there that meant that with Crown entities—if you could just clarify why we had to go through writing this out in law instead of just a written agreement between the new agency and the old and things like that. Why did it have to be specified in quite some detail?

Then it goes from transferring of functions to also transfers of property and how the employees get transferred across, which I’ll leave to Helen to discuss. But in terms of the transfers of functions, I just wondered why that couldn’t be achieved by a Minister’s directive or a Minister’s engagement with the boards of the relevant entities, setting out who was to deal with which matters. And those transfers—I presume that’s some of what’s going on, but why the need to have legislation in place to do that?

In Schedule 1, Part 1—it’s actually only got one part, but that’s fine—clause 2(2) of that schedule, “New Zealand property identified by NZTE”. I’m curious about that because clearly a whole lot of property could just be transferred by a sale and purchase agreement. Again, I’m not quite sure why we need to go through having a clause in the legislation when it could have just been achieved by a few invoices flying back and forth. Something like that could have been done, so, again, why the legislation? But also I’d like to know what is contemplated by that word “property”. Are we talking desks and chairs? Are we talking trademarks? What are we talking about when it comes to that sort of property? It seems quite a thing to transfer property from one entity to another, so I would like to understand what kind of property is being transferred from NZTE to the new Invest New Zealand. Now, clearly it relates to the functions of the two entities, but, please, if the Minister could clarify what kinds of property we are talking about there.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I can happily clarify for the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell: intellectual property, as much as anything. Particularly, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, like most other development agencies, holds a customer relationship management - type system—an enormous database, from memory; several hundred, if not thousands, of companies—and their very sensitive commercial information is entered into that system. Therefore, we do have to set in law rules and parameters around the safe transfer of that commercially sensitive information.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. To stay with the schedule, as foreshadowed, I do want to focus on the transfer of employment. The first thing I would note is that we have a situation where in New Zealand law, usually when there is something so important going to happen to employees, there’s a consultative process. I would like to know whether that was attempted at all. It’s usually consultation at a formative stage. It sounds like we’re a little beyond that by the nature of what we’re doing here.

I’d like to know how many employees the organisation has that will be transferring and whether there will be shrinkage. It looks like there’s a contemplation for some positions to be disestablished, and I’d like to know what sort of positions are most likely to be disestablished and whether there’s a process around that going on. So it may be that it’s too sensitive to discuss because of the individuals involved, but if it isn’t, I’d like to get a handle on how big a transfer we’re looking at.

I’d also like to know, when I look at clause 2(1)(b), it talks about a transfer with all rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements, and engagements coming across. So it looks like that comes with you, but I did wonder if those liabilities and obligations included, perhaps, a redundancy compensation situation if you didn’t want to go across. It looks like it’s a forced going across, because it negates those rights later on. Under clause 3, it says you can’t get them. So if that’s the case, how can those two things be true at the same time? So I would love to know that.

I am also interested in the issue over privacy. There’s a situation here where it says—and this is clause 2(3)(b)—that there is no interference in the situation by the transfer of information. Again, I’d ask, why are we doing this in legislation rather than by agreement with employees? This is private information and often we would simply agree with the person. Was the Privacy Commissioner asked about that part of the legislation? We tend to guard that stuff rather zealously and it doesn’t seem necessary. Was there another way of going about it? And is the Privacy Commissioner happy with that or have they even been informed of it? So those are some of the things I would like to know.

I also wondered, with regard to who is suitable and who is not—and as I’ve said, I do appreciate that there are people and their privacy has to be respected and they need to be the individual concerned. But with regard to making that kind of selection over people, is there any indication as to what the criteria will be for the selection of people in that situation?

We will often have that protected in the contracts, but it seems to me that this is being treated as a technical redundancy and it’s being moved across. So do we go back to the collective agreement in place and say that’s the criteria that applies or do those agreements even have such criteria in them?

Because we’ve left out the formative stage consultation and then the selection process consultation, I think I’m entitled to ask those questions and understand, because they’re more systemic than something that is actually all about an individual, unless they’re on an individual agreement. I understand these people were on collective agreements. Again, that would be something I’d love to know the answer to. Are they on a collective agreement on the whole or are they on individual agreements? If they are on a mixture, can I just have an idea of the proportion of people that would be on a collective and which collective that is? Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we’re getting close. The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a serious piece of legislation. I just want to go back to clause 3—it’s the purpose of the bill—and ask a few questions of the Minister. It’s been traversed by some of my colleagues, around the role that was within New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) and prior to that. The world has moved on since the set-up of Invest New Zealand and NZTE—and that has rolled forward and, I have to say, we have to compliment their efforts. It’s been an interesting discussion at times, as to how NZTE will conduct its role in this area. But what they did do—and if we go, indeed, to Schedule 1, it lays out there three particular areas of responsibility, but that locks in with enterprise and with trade and so the investment was for a purpose. If you come back to clause 3 here, it says it’s “to establish Invest New Zealand to promote increased overseas investment”. As I raised before, within NZTE there was a purpose to actually enhance enterprise and grow trade. So the question I have for the Minister is: the $11 million that will be taken from NZTE, will that—not disable, I’m sure—but will that restrict significantly their role and other areas of responsibilities across the globe?

The other question is that, when up and running after, I think, four years—of the $54 million that the taxpayer will be contributing to Invest New Zealand here, is that, relative to NZTE, good value for money? I know the Deputy Prime Minister has a Ministry for Regulation; he’s supposed to be running a ruler over all of these things. I would have liked to have seen in the regulatory impact statement some kind of assessment as to what the additional value is.

Then the question of, as I’ve said before, why not full cost recovery, which is really what Customs is being asked to do in other legislation. The question of the Minister is: given that the purpose of this is to just bring in overseas investment—there are amendments that are put in there; one of them from myself to put in front of overseas investment the term “sustainability”. I raised before the conditions around the investment—for what purpose? Should it be written into this legislation, and did she have advice as to whether that would provide more safeguards as to the net benefit of this new entity?

If you go to the schedules there, the other question I have of the Minister—and it is Part 1 of Schedule 1 here, clause 1, “Interpretation”. Included are—I won’t read the whole lot; that would take too long—aspects of responsibility with NZTE that will, effectively, be removed from them. One of them is “(c) any aspect of a function that relates to investment promotion”. When we are offshore, most things are integrated. We have Immigration there, we have Customs, we have NZTE, we have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Most of the promotional work covers all of those areas. So the question of the Minister is: will there be a legal constraint on where NZTE can be offshore, and with whom will it be cooperating in terms of that promotion? So that’s another question. I’m sure she can come back to me on that.

The next one is, if I can go back to clause 3—and the Minister talked about, well, it says here, actually, a permissive regime. The Labour Party, in supporting internal investment or overseas investment into the country, has always said it’s a privilege, not a right. That’s why we have the Overseas Investment Office and that’s why we’ve had constraints on it, and, indeed, we believe that should remain. If the Minister is now setting up a new real estate agency that’s going to go out and just grab all the money it can, then I look forward to the New Zealand First speech on this. But also I’d like to ask of the Minister: was investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) considered as a provision that might be changed to assist the attractiveness of New Zealand? The international dispute settlement system, which actually allows any investor to take a country to court and is something that we have, as a country, for a number of years now, since 2017—

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. Since 2017, in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, we’ve actually said we’re committed to ISDS being omitted outside our trade agreements. In that particular trade agreement, we had a side letter. It was necessary, to be included in the agreement, but we had a side letter with partners that said that none of those countries’ investors would then be able to take the New Zealand Government to court. In many areas of international investment, it’s seen as a security for the investor. So the question I have of this Government and the ministry and the Minister herself—because we have seen some pretty crazy policies and law changes from this coalition Government. I just want to hear from her and from the coalition Government that ISDS will not be reinserted or indeed negotiated in any of these new investment provisions, because, I suspect, we would have people marching in the streets. I see that the officials are kind of nodding their heads.

But if the purpose of this change is to just bring in investment without qualifications—and in clause 3, the Government and the Minister could have included things like “sustainable investment”, “ethical investment”, because that’s what we want to see in our country, or “from ethical sources”. There are no safeguards in anything I’ve read in this piece of legislation that would mean that Invest New Zealand, as a real estate agency, can’t just go out and find the highest bidder for the best project that the Government or its Ministers might have lined up because someone says we want a whole lot of money for it.

These are serious questions at a time when, internationally, the purpose of international investment is being scrutinised very carefully, whether it be from China into Africa or China into the Pacific, or the US into the Pacific, or India, or anywhere else. We have trillions of dollars flowing around the planet, effectively. Some of it is being really well used but some of it is not, and so I think we need to have, within the purpose statement—clause 3 here—some qualifications and some safeguards, which the Minister might think of. We’re quite happy to take an Amendment Paper, if the Minister wants to put it on the Table, to actually reassure New Zealanders that this investment is actually from ethical sources, for good purposes, and not subject to ISDS provisions that would, effectively, allow those investors to take our Government to court. That is something that I think most New Zealanders see as a challenge to our sovereign rights, but in many places around the world it is seen as a basic requirement to attract overseas investment.

I look forward to the Minister’s responses to those.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll answer a couple of those questions that were put to me from different members. One to the member Helen White, her questions around the transfer of staff from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE): this has been well signalled—the establishment of Invest New Zealand—for at least a year. So staff have been very—very—aware of it. Staff from NZTE’s current investment team will be transferred into Invest New Zealand at the outset. However, future decisions around the structure of that team and their purposes and, indeed, their numbers will be up to the establishment board to decide.

Turning to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s questions: just around the funding, the $11.15 million that will be transferred from NZTE is coming only from the investment attraction budget and that is to enable investment promotion going forward, but there will be nothing taken out of the export promotion budget. He talked quite a little about investor-State dispute settlement provisions and I think as a former trade Minister he will well know that they are covered by unique and specific trade arrangements and have absolutely nothing to do with Invest New Zealand as an autonomous agency.

But I do want to reassure the House—the previous trade Minister has talked about safeguards and we absolutely agree with the necessity for those, hence this is a very broad-based establishment legislation purely being debated this evening around designing and establishing the entity’s objectives, its functions, and its operations. But, of course, there will still be the safeguards in place, the likes of the Overseas Investment Act, of which the primary purpose is to manage any risk that may arise from foreign investment, be it through this new body or previous. This legislation, here, tonight, provides for Invest New Zealand to receive information that’s necessary for the purpose of managing national security and public order risks associated with transactions by overseas persons.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, thank you very much. It’s my first call in this committee stage of the debate, and I just wanted to refer to the fact that this bill has not gone through a select committee process. We went through the first and second reading under urgency, so it would make sense that we’d be able to ask broader questions during the committee stages. That was certainly our intention. And so I wanted to refer to the regulatory impact statement, because the Minister previously was referring to the funding transfer from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, but I also wanted to raise the substantial reprioritisation that came from Callaghan Innovation. I think that that is inseparable from the Invest New Zealand Bill.

The purpose, in clause 3, is about: “to establish Invest New Zealand to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand”. According to the regulatory impact statement, one of the supposed problems is to enable more foreign direct investment so that it can enable New Zealand economic growth. But at the same time, this is coming—substantially—at the expense of Callaghan Innovation, which was, you know, one of the single largest employers of scientists in New Zealand, was one of the drivers of local, domestic innovation helping local businesses. So I just think these two issues are very difficult to separate, because while this bill that we’re debating is about establishing a new agency and that agency is going to be one of many one-stop shops for this Government to direct foreign investment into New Zealand, it’s also coming at the expense of our own investment in research and development, and providing assistance to local domestic businesses to, you know, find ways to be more productive. So I’m wondering if the Minister can tell us anything about that aspect of it.

So this is on page 15 of the regulatory impact statement, in paragraph 45: “The establishment of Invest NZ is being undertaken through the Budget 2025 process. Costs are to be fiscally neutral due to reprioritisation from existing funding. [This is] expected to come from: a. Callaghan Innovation: just under $49 million per annum from 2026/27, and out years.” So I guess, Madam Chair, during the committee stages of the debate hopefully we’d be able to ask about some of these policy questions, because on page 14 of the regulatory impact statement, where it talks about costs and benefits, there’s virtually no monetised benefits from Invest New Zealand. It says there’s low evidence, and then on the non-monetised benefits it’s high, but the evidence is only medium.

Can the Minister give us any information about how the relative benefits of an agency that is just about trying to provide another shopfront to attract foreign investors compares with—you know, was there any research or anything presented to Ministers about Callaghan Innovation and the benefits of that? How many of the people employed by Callaghan Innovation are likely to be able to find relevant jobs in Invest New Zealand? Probably none. I mean, like, within the vision of the organisation, is there any expectation that there would be scientists working in Invest New Zealand, or is it just going to be people who are investment managers? I mean, what’s—yeah, I’m just interested in how the Government thinks that scientists are going to be employed in New Zealand. Do you think that scientists are contributing to New Zealand’s economy and productivity? Do you think that there’s a role for Government to invest in science research and development? Or do you think that’s uniquely for the private sector and it’s the Government’s role to create Invest New Zealand, in clause 3, whose sole purpose seems to be trying to find bidders overseas who can purchase or invest in New Zealand. And then, you know, potentially own the profits that come out of that investment and have a large stake in taking that—actually, kind of sucking productivity out of New Zealand, the way that we currently have with the big foreign-owned banks and other sectors that actually don’t contribute to productivity in New Zealand, but do extract a lot of profit.

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

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to the Green Party member’s questions around Callaghan Innovation. It has been well signalled by this Government, with the announcement of our science sector reforms, that Callaghan had reached the end of its life—the end of its purpose, really—and so it’s quite exciting that there is the opportunity to reprioritise this money into Invest New Zealand. I would hasten to add that the Minister of Finance has been very, very clear with this Government that new innovations will be funded by reprioritisation at this time. So it’s an incredible opportunity that the Government is able to set up Invest New Zealand, which may well end up having a role to play in attracting multinationals, enterprises, R & D—those who have the capacity and capability to conduct more R & D here in New Zealand—which, of course, would benefit the broader science sector and, indeed, the wider economy.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to take a call at committee stage, so I’m grateful for that. I’m hoping that it won’t be my last, because I do have a number of questions and, in fact, a number of amendments that I’ve taken the time to go through and prepare in respect of the Invest New Zealand Bill.

Now, I think it’s probably important to—or, in fact, not probably; it is important to think about the context or the backdrop with which we’re moving towards the establishment of Invest New Zealand, which is in a backdrop of a number of cuts in this Budget to our innovation, science, and technology sector. There’s been widespread concern, which I’m sure the Minister in the chair, Nicola Grigg, has seen, about those cuts and about the significant change in direction that that signals, which raises some questions, addressed in my amendments, around the issues of governance and around how a new entity tasked with shepherding funds from offshore into research development, into innovation in New Zealand—how the governance structure here can give us in the Chamber tonight but also, more importantly, or at least as importantly, the science, innovation, and technology sector and, in fact, all New Zealanders, the confidence that they deserve to have that decision makers establishing a new entity, and new legislation to do just that, have given requisite thought to a governance structure that will provide a level of certainty around the safety of money being invested into New Zealand.

The reality, when you invest money into New Zealand and when it’s not coming from within, and we know from the context of the cuts that it—the suggestion here is that the money is being tipped in from somewhere else, which means that the return from that investment tips out. So it doesn’t stay here, which should be a concern to everybody. The amendments, and the specific amendments that I have put in for this bill, really look at the suggested board structure and some of the numbers in the legislation around suggested numbers of board members, which I think are alarmingly low and small and really raise the question of who those people would be and the potential that so few people would have so much influence over—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Look, I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but I think you’re speaking to Part 2. The board structure is Part 2.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Oh, have I gotten ahead of myself?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, you’ve gotten ahead of the committee. [Interruption] The member’s still on his feet.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Sorry—it is in Part 1, sorry: “Board means the board of Invest New Zealand” under Part 1, clause 4, “Interpretation”.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, but the structure is in Part 2, that you’re speaking to.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: OK, so—sorry, Madam Chair; I’ll reframe my question so that it fits. So, really, I guess the question for the Minister is: what is the purpose of that board? How is it going to be appointed? How is it going to function? That would be the gist of the question at this point.

I do hope to have further opportunity to take further calls to really dig more deeply into some of those questions that come up in future parts of the bill as well, because I think those concerns are very real and very widely held around the governance structure. So I do hope to get to that once these earlier questions have been answered. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I will answer that, just to close it out. I cannot for the life of me think why that member believes seven board members to be suboptimal, to even be small. It’s actually quite a rigorous construction, we believe, and, indeed, we consider it to be an optimal arrangement for this type of organisation and, indeed, the complexity of the job that they will be set up to achieve.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I’d just like to alert people to the fact that we seem to be running a bit dry on—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: We are dry.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, exactly—Dr Russell.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to clarify something that the Minister said in response to one of her previous questions, and it’s quite a critical one. It goes, again, to the overall purpose that we’ve been discussing and the decision of the Government to set up Invest New Zealand. I hadn’t intended to take another call, but I just thought this didn’t quite seem right. When the Minister was responding to my colleague Helen White about the transfer of employees and how well they had known about it, what the processes were, and so on, the phrase the Minister used—I think she talked about it pretty well; she gave us some pretty good explanations about how those employees are being looked after, so that’s not the issue, but it’s a timeline issue. The Minister said at that stage that this has been known about for at least a year and had been well signalled. The trouble with that is that that just doesn’t seem quite right to me, because if we go to page 6 of the regulatory impact statement and look at “Diagnosing the policy problem”, there’s various sort of discussions about productivity and investment in this, that, and the other. But then in paragraph five of the regulatory impact statement, it says that “The recent Science System Advisory Group (SSAG) report commissioned by the Government made clear that our underinvestment in research funding is a core [issue]”, and then it goes on through the Science System Advisory Group’s recommendations, which were: “21. Establish a National Innovation Advisory Committee (NIAC) and two agencies: Innovation New Zealand (INZ) and Enterprise New Zealand (ENZ).”

So this INZ has become, I think, Invest New Zealand rather than Innovation New Zealand—it’s hard to know—but in terms of when this was all characterised, the Science System Advisory Group reported on 23 January this year. Going down to paragraph seven there: “Invest New Zealand has also been announced as a key initiative in the Government’s economic strategy Going for Growth.” And it was in the quarter one action plan for this year, 1 January to, goodness, it says 32 March 2025. So congratulations to the Government for finding a whole new day in the year. But the point is that that timeline of at least a year just doesn’t quite stack up. I wonder if the Minister could just give us a timeline. I take her point that they were trying to keep the employees really well informed and well looked after. I just can’t quite make those timelines stack up.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I will clarify for the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell—I should have been clearer in my commentary. When I mentioned it had been signalled for at least a year, I should have referred to the fact that it was a National Party campaign pledge. Indeed, this specific announcement was made about six months ago.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): 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 Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting the word “beneficial” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 3 deleting the word “and” and inserting “and accountability measures” be agreed to

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting the words “unless the context otherwise requires” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting a new definition of “Minister” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Invest New Zealand, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 18, “Invest New Zealand”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by talking about clause 7, “Invest New Zealand established”. Now, in terms of what we’ve heard from the Minister before, I want to talk mainly about some of the financial aspects of the establishment of Invest New Zealand. Just before, on Part 1, the Minister mentioned that, for example, Callaghan Innovation is coming toward its end and “Isn’t it exciting to invest in something new?”. But one of the things I’m kind of curious about is that with the establishment of this, as we see in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), a large portion is taken from Callaghan Innovation. The other thing I’m noticing is that paragraph 4 of page 6 of the regulatory impact statement talks about the fact that one of the issues and one of the challenges that we’re facing is that New Zealand ranks 26th out of 37 OECD countries in its per capita spending on research and development. That’s not what the establishment of Invest New Zealand is, I’m assuming, referring to, because it’s not a research and development institute. Therefore, we are still possibly facing the issue of when we’re looking at redirecting the Callaghan Innovation investment into the establishment of Invest New Zealand.

Even more, I guess, curious—and I would really like some elucidation from the Minister—is that in Vote Business, Science and Innovation, page 140, it talks about the budget allocated to Invest New Zealand from 2025 to 2029 as a four-year block, which is $84.6 million in total, according to the Vote itself. However, in accordance with the regulatory impact statement—and this is now on page 14—on funding sought through Budget 2025, the amount is quite different. So I wanted to check with the Minister why there was a significant reduction in the amount allocated or the funding sought for the establishment of Invest New Zealand. What we’re looking at, if we’re looking at the four years combined, based on page 14, is a total of $155 million, which is nearly half of what it is in Vote Business, Science and Innovation. What happened between the RIS and the Budget that led to the establishment of Invest New Zealand taking, I guess, less? Or maybe there are going to be certain things that are changed.

So my main question is: why is there a significant variation in terms of the budget allocated, because, technically, we’re still talking about a bill that is being pushed through under Budget urgency—the reduction in the funding for the establishment of Invest New Zealand? Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): There is quite a lot sitting in this Part 2, in particular around the functions of Invest New Zealand, which has its main function, which is set out—well, there’s a couple of things. The objective—and this is in clause 10—“is to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand.” So that’s the pretty clear objective. Actually, to be fair, we’ve done a fair amount of discussion of that under the purpose statement.

But then it sets out in clause 11 the functions of Invest New Zealand, “to facilitate and enable increased overseas investment”, and then it has a whole set of additional functions. This is where, to be honest, I am puzzled by the policy decisions that have been made here by the Minister and by the Cabinet. So in clause 11(2)(a) it is “facilitating connections and collaboration between overseas investors, New Zealand investors, research institutions, public service agencies, organisations, and providers of opportunities for overseas investment:”. Now, I really want to focus on research institutions, because this just seems, well, a naive hope on the part of the Government. I do think it’s naive in terms of the research—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Your mic.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, I am sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’re fading.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I’ll say it louder. It’s a naive hope on the part of the Government, because, unfortunately, this Government has set about trashing its reputation in terms of research.

I can speak here because I’ve spent a bit of time with our research institutions, going around to the various Crown research institutes, which are now being put into public research organisations. The mood in some of them, at least, was of despair. Scientists have been lost. A number of science jobs have been lost. People have been lost to overseas. So in many cases it feels to our scientists that they are not valued. But more to the point, that attitude is being reflected in what people think of our New Zealand science institutes. So there’s people there working incredibly hard, but they feel under siege.

Actually, some of the same sorts of things are going on within our other set of premier research institutions, and that’s our universities, where, again, I’ve talked to many of the vice-chancellors and the deputy vice-chancellors and the heads of school and so on, right through our universities. In particular, I’ve sat down with some of the pro vice-chancellors or the leads of science faculties, and they feel that science in this country is at best at a crossroad, but actually they feel it is being undervalued and, again, they feel that our reputation in science is being undermined.

So in terms of facilitating connections and collaborations with research institutions overseas and in New Zealand, as I said, I feel as though that’s a lovely, lovely idea that is sitting within this bill. Of course that’s a good thing. But the practical reality on the ground is that the Government has, through its own actions, undermined the capacity for that to happen. So I guess I want to hear from the Minister why it is that she believes that that connecting, that collaborating, will actually happen when this Government has, frankly, been quite callous with respect to what it has done with the research institutions and with research in this country.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just starting with a few questions on Part 2, myself, and I’ll go first to clause 7 as well—the establishment clause—just because I wanted to ask a question about the choice of the way in which this entity is being established. Given the Minister’s comments about the knowledge that this entity would be created a year ago and the choice of creating a Crown entity under urgency, is the Minister aware of any other Crown entities that have been created under urgency? Of course, ordinarily, the public would have an opportunity to provide some input into this, but so would business, and so would those entities that my colleague Deborah Russell has described, in terms of what shape a bill should take, what scope its purposes should have, given what they know about industry-specific concerns and relationships. That simply hasn’t happened, because this entity is being created under urgency. So that was my first question.

My second question centres around clause 8(2) of the bill, which says “The Crown Entities Act 2004 applies to Invest New Zealand except to the extent that this Act expressly provides otherwise.” So really, I think I’m reflecting there on the purposes of the Crown Entities Act which, people will remember—the Act came into force in 1989, when we created a new form of public organisation. At the heart of that creation was the idea that sometimes, Government functions are best delivered with a degree of independent decision-making, with some commenting that operating at arm’s length from the Government would enable these entities to give more of a specialist expertise or focus on their roles.

There’s certainly been commentary from a director of MartinJenkins, for example, when looking at examining the role of chief executives and their monitoring body, reflecting on how important that independence is within these Ministers, essentially to ensure that decision making is kept separate from political decision-making, and, in many ways, that Ministers themselves are protected from decisions of those entities so that they can be seen to be made independently of those Ministers. The reason I’m asking this question is because I do have other questions later in this evening about the board and the specific choices that were made here in terms of the governance entity that were put into place, and I think it’s useful to know what the Minister sees this section applying to. So which specific sections of this bill does the Minister envisage are a step outside of what is provided for in the Crown Entities Act?

I do have other questions about the objectives as well, so that is clause 10, where it states that “The objective of Invest New Zealand is to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand.” As others have said, we’ve spoken about the overseas component; my question is really just about the generality of the use of the word “increased”. I believe, in terms of the consultations, it was Treasury who made the comment that there was a need for matching—so not just an increase of capital into investments in New Zealand, but a strategic matching, if you like—of those investments. I wonder whether the Minister considered more precise language in clause 10, the “Objective” section, which would have given the entity some quite precise direction about what their role was to be; as opposed to just encouraging general investment, to do so with some strategic intent. Perhaps also, as my colleague Damien O’Connor has referenced—essentially environmental, social, and governance principles: whether there was consideration of including some direction, again, under clause 10, to enable some clear direction to the entity around the parameters of investment. That seems like it would be a fit and proper place to include such direction.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I’ll respond to those questions around the functions and objectives. I think it’s very clear to all of the members in this Chamber that this legislation is very broad and its intent is to be very enabling. Therefore, the functions set out in this bill are high level by the very nature of what we’re trying to achieve here. There are, obviously, many types of investors and investments to be gained and to be achieved and, therefore, they exist with various objectives and preferences that require different Government policy responses. We want Invest New Zealand to be agile and to be fleet of foot to be able to respond to market demand. So, therefore, the bill does specify functions and operations of Invest New Zealand, but it is keeping them deliberately very high level so that Invest New Zealand can be proactive and can be responsive and engage with investors in the global operating environment.

I just also want to turn to a couple of questions that were raised by Dr Deborah Russell in her question around the link between this stand up and the science sector reforms. It is true that the Government has announced the largest reform that we’ve seen here in about 30 years, but that is very deliberately aimed at making changes to maximise the value of the taxpayer investment—the taxpayer dollars that we must treat so preciously—and, therefore, to create a much more dynamic science and innovation and tech system that can respond to emerging priorities and emerging markets and, indeed, with technological advances. As I think I articulated in a previous response, foreign investment plays a critical role here in providing the capital necessary for the growth of those innovations and, indeed, the commercialisation of those innovations. That is what we had stopped seeing from the science sector here in New Zealand. Hence we are making the reforms we’re making and they will go hand in glove with Invest New Zealand and its functions.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’re now on to Part 2, and because this bill has not had an opportunity to be properly scrutinised by the select committee, we are asking a lot of questions. Indeed, we have to move forward, so I appreciate that. I’m just going to refer to a couple of amendments that I have tabled, and they relate to clause 10, “Objective of Invest New Zealand”. Now, the Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg, has referred broadly to it ‘being “high level”, which actually implies “vague”, because the Minister doesn’t want to explain the details and the qualifications and the safeguards that we believe are necessary for investment into New Zealand.

I’ll put a couple of facts on the table that are relevant. How much money do we have invested in our country now? It is, at last count, $546 billion. Quite a lot of money is already invested in our country. To counter that, we have about $373 billion of New Zealanders’ money invested outside of our country, so it’s very hard to say, as the Minister has, that, actually, we need this money to move us forward. The objectives of Invest New Zealand need to be specified more clearly than we see here. It says, “The objective of Invest New Zealand is to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand.” What my amendment asks to do is to add in there “for the sustainable benefits of all New Zealanders.”, because we are right to ask the question: why do we need this money when there’s a huge amount of money in here now and we invest a huge amount of money offshore?

Is it about the money to be used in science or in real estate or in farming or whatever it might be, or is it just to provide opportunities for people to clip the ticket? In the past, we’ve accepted that direct foreign investment has enabled us to grow our economy. We’ve got $373 billion of New Zealanders’ money invested offshore now—right now. There’s no shortage of capital. The question is: where will it be invested and why will it be invested? I’d like the Minister to answer. Perhaps she might be prepared to accept my amendment, which says, “for the sustainable benefit of all New Zealanders.” That would be the objective of Invest New Zealand. It’s perfectly reasonable, I’d say. I expect that New Zealand First will support our amendment “for the purposes of New Zealanders.”—New Zealand First.

This legislation, without proper qualification, will be investors first. This is about investors first, so I call on New Zealand First to put New Zealand first and to support our amendments that will provide some qualification. I know that they’ll roll over; it’ll be part of the coalition agreement to actually push this through. Maybe they’ve had a road to Damascus experience and are now happy to sell out New Zealand. But if they are true to what their leader has been preaching for many, many years—and I’ve supported him in his statements—if it is a road to Damascus, and they think that it should be investors first, not New Zealand first, then they won’t support it. But I table that. I put, again, that the main function of Invest New Zealand is to facilitate and enable increased overseas investment in New Zealand. Full stop. I want to say, “for the sustainable benefit of all New Zealanders.”—a perfectly reasonable amendment that I’m sure New Zealand First can see its way clear to support.

Can I just go to the next serious issue that I have, and it is around clause 11, and it’s 11(2)(b)(iv)—well, it only goes (i), (ii), (iii). I’m proposing a (iv) in there. It says that “under the purposes in order to make”—it’s the functions of Invest New Zealand. I’m going backwards and forwards a bit because it is important to explain to the people who are watching, the few who may be watching on behalf of the future of New Zealand, and we haven’t had a chance to go through the select committee, because people—the public, stakeholders, and other MPs—have not had an opportunity to properly scrutinise this bill, so we must do it in the committee stage of the House.

Can I go back to clause 11 on functions, under (2)(b): “building knowledge about—(i) overseas investors;”—this is what Invest New Zealand, the real estate agency, will do. It’ll find out about, and build knowledge on, overseas investors—“and (ii) the investment environment in New Zealand; and (iii) investment opportunities in New Zealand.”—so it is, effectively, a real estate agent for foreign investors. These are people with trillions of dollars floating around the world who are looking for places to park it, and so this agency is going to set up a nice glossy of all the opportunities. What I would like to see added in there, as the fourth building-knowledge component, would be—if I can just find it here properly; literally, I can remember it actually; just bear with me, Mr Chair—“the impacts of additional foreign investment in New Zealand.” That is a clear obligation for this agency to monitor the progress of the effects of this investment in New Zealand. But there’s no such thing. They don’t even have to worry about, care about, or consider, what this investment might do to New Zealand.

For example, if it just heats up the real estate market in Auckland, the question would be: why? If it just heats up the market for farmland in Southland, the question is: why? Where does that leave New Zealanders and their opportunity to invest? There are many, many other questions, but I’ll ask the Minister: can you consider supporting my amendments to clause 10 and 11 regarding “for the sustainable benefit of all New Zealanders.”, and then when it comes to 11(2)(b), adding in (iv), which says to effectively monitor the impacts of this investment as they go forward? Because it will be hard to retrofit that obligation.

If I can go back three or four steps, of course, the answer that the Minister might give is: “Oh, it’s all going to be covered by the Overseas Investment Office.” Well, the question is then: why have a board? Why not have a process, as we do now, where you just go out and the Overseas Investment Office deals with the application, and they find their own opportunities and make application to pass it through the process? This is going to cost $54 million of taxpayer-subsidised money to run this organisation, and it is, effectively, a real estate agency setting up opportunities for small business, for bigger business, for the biggest business—who knows? Fonterra’s got quite a bit on the market at the moment. And then IP as well: “Come in and do joint ventures with some of our Crown research institutes or the new Crown agencies, and you can walk away with some of the best and brightest ideas from our country.”

Now, I realise that capital is required to grow those ideas into ventures. But $373 billion dollars of our own money—the superannuation fund, ACC, KiwiSaver—is invested offshore. Now, why not keep some of that money here and not, then, sell out our ideas, our land, our farms to people who have got so much money they don’t know what to do with it? This agency is going to help them bring this into the country. We need some safeguards through the amendments I’ve tabled to clause 10 and clause 11 to both have the objectives clearer “for the benefit of all New Zealanders.”, and then to make sure this doesn’t go on to create adverse outcomes—unintended, the Government might say. It may be intended—I can’t make a guess on that; it’s up to them—but they will be undesirable outcomes for the vast majority of New Zealanders. We need that clarity. There’s been no opportunity to scrutinise it through the select committee process, because of this going through under urgency. This is outrageous, and this is just another clear example of why this should have taken more time. Indeed, we don’t know whether it’s worthwhile.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Ladies and gentlemen, there we have it. A former trade Minister, Damien O’Connor, telling foreign capital it is not welcome here in New Zealand, drawing a line in the sand and pulling out the stop signs. I think the member himself used the word “disgraceful”; I think that’s a disgraceful attitude.

As I have repeated previously to this committee, any foreign investment opportunities coming through via this new organisation will be constrained by existing laws such as the Overseas Investment Office and the Overseas Investment Act. There will still be protections in place. Even the organisation itself will be further monitored by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—for example—which will act as a policy and a monitoring agency.

So I absolutely reject the protestations made by that member. I’m comfortable that the protections and safeguards will remain in place.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to be able to take a second call on this bill. I did, out of an abundance of consideration, previously foreshadow some of the questions that I would be asking later in the evening—and we have gotten closer to that point now.

In Part 2, specifically clause 9, around the size of the board of Invest New Zealand—I think it’s useful here for us to come back to the starting statement on the regulatory impact statement for Invest New Zealand, which is: “To establish a new autonomous Crown entity, Invest New Zealand, to serve as a one-stop-shop for attracting inward investment, including into critical sectors with the potential to raise productivity, expand research and development, and drive increased activity by multinational corporations in New Zealand.” It could be shortened to simply being “a one-stop shop for multinational corporations in New Zealand”.

That in and of itself is not necessarily cause for extreme concern. But when we look at Part 2, clause 9, and some of the detail around the proposed structure of the board of Invest New Zealand, we’re placing a huge amount of responsibility and a huge amount of interpretation with a very, very small, concentrated number of people. Especially given—and it’s stated also in the regulatory impact statement—that “The Prime Minister has highlighted economic growth as the core priority for the Government.” and that “Economic growth can lead to a country having increased job creation”.

“Can” is the magic word there. It’s magic in the same way that “up to” is a magic word when you’re talking about how much the average New Zealand family is going to get in tax breaks per fortnight—“up to” $250 per fortnight; we just can’t find one that has. Similarly, as my colleague to my left has pointed out, I can win Lotto. Doesn’t mean I’m going to; doesn’t mean I will—just means that there is the possibility there.

Now, clause 9—and I have written a number of amendments, which I’m sure the Minister of State for Trade and Investment has had a great opportunity to look at, especially because I foreshadowed that I would be raising these. But also it would be hard to think of any board that could operate with three members and claim to be a responsible governance entity for the level of decision making and the amounts of money that we are talking about with Invest New Zealand potentially.

Further to my concerns would be some of the language used by the Minister this evening to describe exactly how she sees that board. Those are terms like “broad and enabling”, “high level”, “attracting many types of investors and investments”, “being agile and being fleet of foot”, and “deliberately”—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Slippery.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —“high level and responsive”.

Now, my colleague to my left has suggested the word “slippery”. It’s not a word that the Minister used, but “fleet of foot” and “slippery” do have significant parallels. They could arguably mean the same thing. So the amendments specifically to clause 9 in Part 2 really address, I think, very valid concerns around the fact that three people as a board seems like a very light board. If you have three “fleet of foot”—or “slippery”—people as a board, you don’t have a governance structure that could adequately or responsibly manage $54 million of funds. I think it’s absurd to suggest that that three “slippery” board members should be in charge of that much money and of the investment future for New Zealand.

So the amendments that I have put in give the Minister a very easy opportunity to—using her own “fleet of foot”—pivot and move this legislation into a place that makes it far more responsible and far more like the kind of legislation that you would expect to see for such significant amounts of funds and for such a serious governance role as the as the board of Invest New Zealand should have. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just make a comment that I expect in a five-minute presentation—to at least end it with a question at the end of it to be taken seriously. Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it is concerning that we have the Minister in the chair who, so far, has either attacked one of the speakers or is repeating the same sound bite over and over again. What we are seeing is a lack of genuine engagement with the detail of these, which I’m sure that officials are happy to provide because this is quite significant.

Now, when we are looking at the bill, one of the things I want to ask the Minister about is clause 11. Oh, by the way, I’m still waiting for a response from the Minister regarding the funding and the cost aspect based on Vote Business, Science and Innovation; that is in clause 7 because it’s how you establish the board—how you establish Invest New Zealand. So, yes, I referred to that in my previous contribution explicitly.

So my question is about clause 11(2)(b) when we’re looking at building knowledge, and also 11(2)(c). So when we’re looking at one of the purposes and one of the functions of Invest New Zealand—I understand about building knowledge and I understand about sharing the knowledge with overseas investors—the first thing I’m seeing is a lack of reassurance: are we sharing with anyone as opposed to only the people who are interested? In which case, are we sharing information and our data—New Zealanders’ data; I know we have just had a couple of bills going through the House around consumers and data protection—with people who then can potentially use that data without investing in Aotearoa New Zealand but using our data for other purposes? That part was not explicitly stated in 11(2)(c).

So one of my amendments—maybe it’s quite a simplistic approach—is to insert the word “interested” in front of “overseas investors” as a way of at least guaranteeing that people we’re sharing our data and our insight with are people who are genuinely willing to invest as opposed to taking our data and going. That’s my first question.

My second question, building on data and around the aspect of data sovereignty, is: what advice has the Minister received from, for example, Māori data sovereignty experts that the building of knowledge, here, upholds our obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi? This is something that is serious. This is something that potentially will come into conflict with our obligation under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But what I’m seeing is that nothing here gives me the reassurance, under “building knowledge”, that it complies with our obligation and with our current legislation around data sovereignty and data privacy.

So in this bill, and along with the Crown Entities Act which this bill also in some ways applies to, because clause 8(1) talks about “Invest New Zealand is a Crown entity for the purpose of the Crown Entities Act 2004.”—neither in this bill nor the Crown Entities Act do we see any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the Treaty of Waitangi, as far as I could see. I could be wrong; please correct me if I am.

So one of my other amendments, if the Minister would consider, is after clause 11(2)(d), before “(e) carrying out any additional function in relation to investment”, include a new paragraph that specifically upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi when we’re looking at a function of Invest New Zealand.

So those are my two questions. The first one is basically around how our data is going to be used and how that knowledge is going to be used.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just will respond to those questions around Treaty of Waitangi obligations, because I’m quite certain that was the only new question I have been given this evening. But I would refer the member to the departmental disclosure statement where it very clearly says “MBIE’s Investment Policy team did not identify any inconsistencies between the policy to be given effect by Invest New Zealand Bill and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” And I could go on: “MBIE took steps to determine whether the policy to be given effect by Invest New Zealand Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This included consulting [the Ministry of Māori Development] (Te Puni Kōkiri), who were generally supportive of the Bill and the establishment of Invest New Zealand. Te Puni Kōkiri also expressed concern about whether the Bill provides efficient protections for Iwi, Hapū and Māori to be able to benefit from this proposal. MBIE are comfortable that the operationality of Invest New Zealand will be able to work to ensure that Iwi, Hapū and Māori are able to benefit from this proposal.”

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister in regards to how the “functions” clause, clause 11, sits against the “objectives” clause, clause 10.

Ordinarily, you would have a broadly framed objectives clause, and the functions would then flow and sit nicely underneath that objective. But my read of clause 11 is that the functions clause sits slightly outside the objectives clause. I’m looking in particular at clause 11(2)(c), which is the clause that others have referred to—the sharing of knowledge—but it’s a sharing of knowledge with overseas investors, New Zealand investors, and then it lists others as well, in terms of providing opportunities for overseas investment. I’m just wanting some clarity as to the function of the information sharing with New Zealand investors and how that facilitates international or overseas investment—just also noting that we have clause 11(2)(e), which says that the functions, again, are also “carrying out any additional function in relation to investment that the Minister may direct in accordance with section 112 of the Crown Entities Act”.

My thought, when I read it, was: could this not be a window for New Zealand investors to receive information pursuant to a requirement under the Act, and then for the Minister to direct facilitation, in terms of a more calculated and strategic connection of New Zealand capital to potential investments—which, in my view, and I suspect a lot of people on this side of the Chamber would think, is a good thing. So I’m delighted to see that, in terms of my read of those two clauses of the bill in there, and I was just wanting confirmation from the Minister that that was intended and that was what also can happen, potentially.

I then also wanted to speak to some of my tabled amendments to clause 11—and let me just bring those up. I have proposed inserting clause 11(2)(d). I spoke earlier, in terms of the purpose of the organisation, about whether that would have been a good place to talk about ESG—environmental, social, and governance—responsibilities, in terms of framing the obligations of the entity. I have proposed specific amendments in relation to 11(2)(d), inserting a new function at the end of that list, to add “including in relation to risks relating to human rights accountabilities”. I’ve proposed a few variations of that as well, because internationally there has been a set of different language adopted in terms of whether it’s environmental, social, and governance, whether it is purely human rights standards, whether there is reference to the Ruggie rules, which are the UN business accountability rules, or whether there was another preferable option that the Minister was open to. I think that would be a useful thing to include within the specific text of the legislation.

The Minister did, I noted in her previous comments, refer to the Overseas Investment Act, so it may well be that I’m missing provisions in that Act which adequately direct investment accountability in this space and contain them, or require some form of reporting or accountability or best practice. Certainly, if those are there, I think that would be useful in terms of understanding why this hasn’t been included, and if the Minister isn’t supportive of these amendments, why that would be the case. Just recalling, in terms of why we’d include these specific amendments within a discrete piece of legislation, we do have obligations within the superannuation Act that point to these types of obligations and then give rise to an obligation to create policy. It’s not unusual, so I’m just wanting some responses from the Minister to those questions.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to take a call. There are just two areas in particular that I want to address, and the first of them is around the special adviser to the board. It’s contained in clauses 13 and 14. The Minister has a power to appoint a special adviser to the board, and it turns out that it’s not just any special adviser; in fact, the special adviser contemplated by the bill is that the special adviser to the board will be the chief executive of Invest New Zealand. So, in effect, the chief executive of Invest New Zealand won’t sit on the board but will have the capacity to attend all the board meetings, and has to be given reasonable notice of the meetings and has to be given all the written material or documents that relate to the meetings.

The idea, it says, is to facilitate the exchange of information between the Minister and the board on the matters of Government policy relevant to the board in performing its functions. So I’m assuming that that is actually the chief executive as special adviser to the board. I’m sort of puzzled here about where the primary relationship is, because if the Minister wants to sort of communicate and facilitate information between the Minister and the board, well, then, surely the appropriate person is the board chair, not the chief executive.

I’m assuming that, obviously, the Minister will meet with the chief executive—that does happen—but in terms of facilitating information, I wouldn’t have thought that that meeting would happen in the absence of the board chair. So you’d want to have the chair there as well as the chief executive, but in terms of those State entities, the primary relationship that the Minister has is with the chair, not with the chief executive. So I’d just like a little bit of explanation around that. It is interesting, because it says that “The special adviser must not give directions or seek to influence decisions of the Board.” You’d sort of think, well, why on earth is the special adviser there, then?

So, first of all, that chief channel of information goes through the board chair, and that, I understand, is the standard model for the various Government entities. That’s the way that they work—the Crown entities—and that’s where the exchange of information happens. So what is the point of having the chief executive there as a special adviser? It isn’t there to provide information, because that’s not the standard way it happens. It isn’t to give directions or seek to influence decisions of the board, and I can get that having the chief executive there is probably a very good idea in terms of the chief executive understanding what the board wants. But that’s a flow of information from the board to the chief executive; it’s not the other way round, and yet these clauses imply that the information goes the other way around, from the chief executive to the board.

‘I don’t know the Crown Entities Act well enough, unfortunately—we’re discussing this bit at the moment. So I want to know if that’s a standard arrangement with the chief executives of Crown entities, and I want to particularly understand what is supposed to be the major channel of information between the Minister and the entity: whether it’s supposed to be the board, or whether it’s supposed to be the chief executive. If it is supposed to be the chief executive, that does seem at least a little unusual to me, but I’d like to have a little bit more detail and a bit of discussion around that.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): I will respond to that question, because it is a pertinent question. Look, to confirm for the member, appointing a head of department responsible for the administration of a bill or an Act, and the Crown entity, as a special adviser to that Crown entity board, is indeed common. In this instance, it will be the Secretary for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) who will be appointed as a special adviser to the board of Invest New Zealand. MBIE, as I said earlier in one of my responses, will act as a policy and monitoring agency with a range of responsibilities, including administering appropriations legislation and tendering advice to Ministers.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call on this bill, and I want to, hopefully, have a backward and forward with the Minister in the chair, Nicola Grigg, regarding, first of all, the objective of Invest New Zealand and the question around strategic risk. Then, perhaps on the same call or on a later call, I’d really like to drill down into some of the transitional arrangements to understand what happens with staffing, intellectual property, liabilities, and unfinished projects. So if I look first—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just have to remind the member that you being you doesn’t mean that the information hasn’t been covered before.

INGRID LEARY: Yes, thank you for that. I can confirm to the committee I’ve been watching avidly from my office, so I am well aware. One of the things that I would also caveat my contribution with is that I haven’t heard, when I’ve been watching avidly, a lot of discussion about the regulatory impact statement (RIS). We haven’t had a select committee, and there are quite a few caveats in that regulatory impact statement about the quality of the information about quantitative amounts and so on.

So in the interests of time, because I understand you don’t want me to waste time, I will get on with my questions. The first one, really, is just around the geopolitics. I’m wondering if the Minister has actively considered or sought advice around making this change at what is a pretty difficult time geopolitically where foreign money could be coming into big strategic assets. When I look at the RIS, page 4 says there is—and I quote—“difficulty in assessing direct and indirect impact of the relevant [foreign direct investment] to the [New Zealand] economy.” So what that tells me is that the RIS says we can’t prove this is going to work, this new entity, but what I can see is that it is full of risk and no guarantee of return.

Then, on page 6, the RIS says that we may not be able to innovate due to “poor levels of research and development.” I know that there has been extensive discussion about Callaghan funding, but I’m wondering if the Minister has actively turned her mind to what it would mean to replace Kiwi expertise by bringing in foreign money that would then have a claim on the intellectual property. That’s really relevant around some of the development of new technologies that could be used in sinister ways, I guess, or dual-purpose ways that may not be in the best interest of New Zealand. So I’m really interested to hear the response to the question from Vanushi Walters about whether the Overseas Investment Act has some kind of bearing on this that would provide us with some surety.

I also note that on page 8 of the RIS the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was asked for consultation, but the Minister had not received it. They are a key stakeholder, and they’re missing from the advice, so I’d like to know if the Minister, if she can, when she does her series of answers, could just let us know whether she has actually received that advice.

Treasury, on page 8 of the RIS, wanted clarification on funding, clarity on investment priorities, and clarity on how it would work in a wider New Zealand context. I’m not sure that we have heard clear answers on that, but I would like to hear the Minister answering those three specific questions that Treasury itself wanted, and that is one of the caveats in the RIS.

DPMC on page 8 of the RIS—that’s the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—did itself raise national security issues, and so I’d like to know whether the Minister responded to those security issues. Did she reassure them? Was a paper written? Could that be produced? What is the plan, and which sectors will or won’t be included in this new entity? For example, can she be very specific about things like ports or roads or hospitals or airports—those other strategic assets that we know from our experience in the Pacific Islands are important to maintain control over.

I’m thinking, also—I mean, I will have questions around the fees that can be gathered, too, because when fees can be gathered from foreign investors, then in some ways that does have a bearing on incentivising the direction of business. So I will come to those questions later.

Also, pages 9 and 10 and the table on page 11 of the RIS, there were three options—I know there’s been a question on that, so I won’t hold up time on that. Questions on page 11 of the RIS: when it says it will liaise—[Bell rung] Mr Chair? Mr Chair? I’ve still got some more questions, Mr Chair. Thank you. Page 11, the RIS talks about liaising closely with other ministries. Is there actually a plan for that, and can the Minister please tell us which specific agencies, and how will it be independent? How will it be accountable for the risks?

I know that she’s talked about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), which comes to a later question of mine, which is around monitoring and evaluation. On page 16, the RIS says that the “monitoring, evaluation, and governance … [is] yet to be finalised.”, and that’s really unusual from a governance perspective. Usually, monitoring and evaluation (M & E) and governance should be designed first and sorted out before designing an entity. It’s a bit like building a plane and flying it. So it would be good just to have some reassurance and some extrapolation of the comment that she made to Vanushi Walters about MBIE being accountable. It was a very flippant, one-line response the Minister gave that doesn’t give us any assurance that there is actually a true M & E and governance plan.

On the RIS, on page 14, when it comes to monetised benefits, it says that there is no ability to assess that and that the evidence certainly is low. Again, I know this has been traversed in the first part, but given that that is in the RIS, it would be really good to understand why the Minister is so confident about the benefits this will bring to New Zealand.

Finally, the RIS says that recruiting is taking place in February and March. There has been no parliamentary mandate for that, and I suspect that is against the employment rules. I know there is a section in the bill that talks about superseding the Employment Relations Act, but I’m wondering: under what authority has the new entity been doing that employment, given that this bill hasn’t passed?

I have some more separate questions that are not around foreign risk, and I would like to come to those in a later contribution, but I’d love to hear the Minister’s answers to those many questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister of State for Trade and Investment for responding to my previous question, but I wanted to check a couple of things with the Minister. Again, I just want to check that the Minister hasn’t responded to my question around the budgetary implications in the establishment. And also based on what the previous speaker, Ingrid Leary, has mentioned as well, the Minister hasn’t yet elucidated the committee on what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s advice was.

But going on to two things that I want to ask the Minister around, one of them is clause 13, “Power of Minister to appoint special adviser to [the] Board”—as in, i.e., to appoint the chief executive. I genuinely don’t know this—I know the Minister mentioned previously that it was within the mandate of, let’s say, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to appoint the chief executive, etc. But is it normal for an independent Crown agency, the Minister, to have the ability to appoint the chief executive on to the board? Is that a normal process? On top of that, is that a normal process for the chief executive to play the intermediary between the Minister and the board in clause 13(2)? If it has been answered, that’s all good. If it has been answered, I don’t know because I was looking at some of the things as well.

One of the things that the previous speaker, Vanushi Walters, spoke on that reminded me that one of the things the Government is currently doing—because there’s a number of bills in the Justice Committee as well—is around anti - money-laundering and also countering foreign terrorism, etc. But in terms of that—because New Zealand Trade and Enterprise presumably would not be doing that—what mechanisms would Invest New Zealand have to ensure that potential investors would be vetted as a part of that?

It is an operational question, but again the Minister previously has mentioned a few things. But we are still trying to understand exactly how this is going to provide that level of vetting. Yes, I understand the Minister mentioned that they will be compliant with domestic legislation—that’s fine, we understood that—but how? How are they going to be able to vet things in a way that we know that there is going to be an accountability mechanism by Invest New Zealand to ensure that domestic legislation is indeed followed? That is my main question to the Minister around anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to pick up on a follow-up question I had for the Minister, just on the basis of a response that she gave. It was in regard to the comment that the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment would be appointed as the special adviser to the board. It looks to me like in the interpretation section, which I know we’ve already discussed, the chief executive is defined as meaning the chief executive of the department. I just thought that was an unusual way for that term to be defined in a statute when, of course, we have a number of chief executives in a number of different departments. And if you compare the equivalent in the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) legislation, in that legislation it’s quite specific, it says: “(a) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and (b) the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development.” I guess the question is whether that’s an error, and there was an intent to insert a specific chief executive there. That’s the first question.

The second question is that a very calculated choice has been made here, in terms of who that chief executive is, clearly. Whether it’s explicitly in the bill or not, my question is why the other chief executives who were considered relevant for the functions of NZTE were not considered as potentially relevant, particularly the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and whether they were consulted on the views about whether being in a special adviser capacity would have been a useful function for them to serve, given the purpose of the new entity. I’m not sure where in the documents it is, but there was commentary that Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade hadn’t provided some of the feedback requested. So I am just ensuring that that dialogue did in fact take place.

The other question I have, in terms of the special adviser function, is whether there was any thought given to whether there were useful governance functions that a special adviser shouldn’t be party to. As often happens with governance boards, you may have the board who are meeting in a stand-alone conclave session for parts of the function. The way in which the bill currently reads looks like it goes the opposite. It looks like it creates the ability for that special adviser to have access to all the papers, access to all the committee meetings, so I wonder whether there was any advice on whether there was some utility in carving out a conclave session specifically for that board.

In terms of clause 15, my colleague from the Green Party has touched on the issue of ensuring that there isn’t corruption in terms of money coming into New Zealand. Clause 15 allows “Invest New Zealand [may] charge any fees and recover any costs in respect of the provision of services, information, or advice requested from Invest New Zealand in relation to its functions under this Act.” This is quite a unique function, in many ways. It’s not purely a function that’s about selling a loan; it sounds very much to me like it’s a function about brokering. So my question is really: what are the safeguards in place within the legislation that the Minister sees to direct the entity to ensure that it has policies in place that actively prevent, rather than waiting for those situations to eventuate before taking action?

I would also just go back to a point I made, but make a slightly different point on environmental, social, and governance provisions. I made the point that I think we have obligations that we ought to be inserting within the statute. There are obviously investors who will be subject to international rules, and the EU is actually a great example of where a body of work is being done on responsible investment. My view is that any entity in this space ought to be aware of those external obligations coming in, and I would again reiterate my view that it is worth holding that information and those learnings within the purpose of this entity.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. And I’m sure that the Minister will be prepared to answer the questions of my colleague Vanushi Walters, and I welcome that. I go to a couple of points.

The one around investment, I’ve referred to it briefly earlier on in principle, but in clause 15 “Invest New Zealand may charge fees and recover costs”. This is a $54 million commitment by taxpayers to an agency that’s going to be selling New Zealand, and the question is: why not, like every other real estate agency, doesn’t it fully recover—in fact, they’re making good, healthy profits—from any of the actions and the functions of it? That should be written in, because there will be enough suspicion about what this agency’s going to do. We’ve heard before of the vague qualifications and safeguards in this legislation. There’ll be many people out there saying, “Is this just a coalition deal to sell New Zealand to the highest bidder?”. Because there are, as I’ve said before, trillions of dollars floating around the world, looking for a place to park. If you wanted to bring it somewhere, to a country of hard-working, honest people for the most part, with systems that have integrity, that are reliable, and no capital gains tax, then actually we’re a very, very prime location for some of that money.

The fact that we are committing to spend $54 million—well, not “we”, but the Government is committing to spend $54 million—to a board of unknown numbers, with very few safeguards is something that we want to see a bit more certainty around. So can the Minister accept that Invest New Zealand—or can she give a reassurance that we’ll have 10 percent cost recovery, 50 percent cost recovery, maybe 75 percent, or maybe 100 percent, which would be the fair proposition for something that is not necessary—not necessary at all? There’s enough money in New Zealand.

The question I have alongside that—and it goes back to the purposes, but it’s kind of through this bill—Minister, is: does ownership matter? It’s a serious question for each and every one of us across our economy, across our private lives, for the future of New Zealand. Because this bill is going to open up the opportunities for anyone to say, “I’ve got a good idea. Can you go out and find me the money?”, without any safeguards over who owns the entity, the enterprise, or the infrastructure. Does ownership matter? It goes to the heart of what we do as a nation and as politicians. We are here for all New Zealanders, now and into the future.

Steve Abel: And Australians!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Does ownership matter—does ownership matter? I welcome the Minister getting up and explaining that, because that might give us some sense as to the purpose for this investment, the likely avenues and areas of investment. I missed that, sorry, because I’m a bit deaf, so I’m sorry if I missed a really good joke. But it is a very fair question to ask in a piece of legislation like this, which may give us some indication of the philosophical, ideological, or indeed practical reasons why the coalition Government is bringing in an agency to sell New Zealand. Does ownership matter?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment): Speaking to questions from the member Vanushi Walters that are specific to this bill, she asked about Invest New Zealand and whether or not it may be able to charge fees and recover costs. I think the keyword there is “may”. Invest New Zealand “may” charge any fees, recover any costs. It is simply being put in here to futureproof the legislation. It will be an option in the future. It is not unusual. I think of Immigration New Zealand, indeed the Overseas Investment Office. There are multiple cost recovery and fee charging agencies within the public sector.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 9, replacing “3” with “4” and “9” with “8”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “3” with “4” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “3” with “5” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “3” with “6” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “3” with “7” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “9” with “10” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “9” with “11” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 9 replacing “9” with “12” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 10, inserting the word “ethical”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 10 inserting the words “and additional” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 10, deleting the word “overseas”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 10, inserting the words “for the sustainable benefits of all New Zealanders”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1) inserting the word “advise” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1) inserting the words “sustainable and environmentally conscious” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 11(1) deleting the word “overseas” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1) inserting the words “for the sustainable benefits of all New Zealanders” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(b) inserting new paragraph (iv) “the impacts of additional foreign investment in New Zealand” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 11(2)(b), proposed subparagraph (iv), inserting the word “environmental” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to Vanushi Walters’ amendment to clause 11(2)(b), proposed subparagraph (iv), replacing the word “standards” with “mechanisms” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(b) inserting new paragraph (iv) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(c) inserting the word “interested” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(c), replacing the words “providers of opportunities for overseas investment” with “providers of overseas investment opportunities”, is ruled out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(d) replacing “information” with “insight” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(d) inserting the words “including in relation to risk relating to human rights accountabilities” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(d) inserting the words “environmentally and socially responsible” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 11(2)(d) inserting the words “and increase the value for New Zealand from this investment” 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.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(4), inserting new paragraph (da), “upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order. I seek leave to pause the vote and resume it when the committee resumes at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, given that it is five minutes to 10 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12(a), inserting the words “in writing”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 12, replacing reference to “having regard” with references to “implementing”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to clause 13, to amend subclause (1) and delete subclause (2), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 13(1) inserting the words “or a delegate of the chief executive” be agreed to.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 13(1) inserting the words “on an ad hoc basis” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 13(2), inserting the words “and to advise”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 14(1), to insert “however is not permitted to attend board alone or executive committee only discussions”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 14(2), inserting the words “as requested by such committee”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 14(2), inserting the words “and is not permitted to attend board meetings alone or executive committee, only discussions that are part of committee meetings”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 14(3)(b), to delete “any” and insert “that is not prepared for consideration by the Board alone”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15, replacing “any” with “reasonable”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 15, to insert a reference to the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 15, to insert a reference to the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights, is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 17(2) replacing “through trade promotion” with “through promotion of sustainable trade opportunities” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 17(2) inserting new paragraph (d)(iii) “encourage sustainable and environmentally conscious trade opportunities” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 17 inserting new subsection (3) is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to the votes on Schedule 1. The question is, That Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, clause 1, replacing “1 July 2025” with “1 October 2025” 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.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, I may be mistaken, but I thought when you said the question stands part, you actually said the question is not agreed, but I believe it was agreed. I was just seeking clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, sorry, did I—so the question was agreed. That’s just to ensure—that goes back to the question of whether Part 2 stands part. OK, thank you for pointing that out.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, clause 2(1)(c), deleting “immediately” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1, clause 2(1)(e), replacing “may” with “must” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1, clause 3(2) and (3)(b)(i), inserting “and remuneration” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 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.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Schedule 2.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 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.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.12 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 4 JUNE 2025

(continued on Thursday, 5 June 2025)

Bills

Invest New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good morning members. The committee is resumed on the Invest New Zealand Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we had just concluded the debate on Part 2. We therefore come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, which are the title and commencement.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This bill is named the Invest New Zealand Bill, which I suppose that’s partly what this bill is trying to achieve, but I just wonder if a better title for it might be the “Sell New Zealand Bill”. It’s here to sell, encourage people to come into this country and to buy up our resources—to buy them up—not to the benefit of New Zealanders. We tried to put that into the bill last night in various stages, that the purpose might include ensuring that New Zealanders are better off. But in fact, this is all just about selling New Zealand overseas. Now, of course we want people to come here and enjoy our tourism, enjoy our hospitality, enjoy some of the fine things this country has to offer, but let’s not forget that the purpose of this bill is to bring foreign money in.

When we bring foreign money in, people don’t do it because they have a warm fuzzy feeling about doing it. They don’t do it just for the likes and the jollies. They actually want to get a return out of it. Now, there’s nothing wrong with getting a return; no one minds that. But we have to ask ourselves: why are we trying to send those investment returns offshore to people who live overseas, when we actually have some perfectly good sources of capital here in New Zealand ourselves?

Over many, many years, thanks to the foresight of Sir Michael Cullen, we’ve at last managed to build up a bit of an investment pool in our KiwiSaver funds. Why are we not developing mechanisms to ensure that our KiwiSaver funds can invest in New Zealand? Why are we not trying to develop mechanisms to ensure that New Zealanders themselves can invest in New Zealand? Why are we not trying to ensure that people have decent wages and a decent income so that New Zealanders themselves can invest in New Zealand?

This is not actually about New Zealanders investing in New Zealand. This is about New Zealanders selling our country off to foreign investors and foreign investors who want to return. So I’m going to suggest that instead of calling this the Invest New Zealand Bill, we should be calling this the “Sell New Zealand Bill”. That would be a much more accurate description of what this bill actually sets out to do. I invite this committee to consider that.

If we weren’t going to call it the “Sell New Zealand Bill”, I have another suggestion to offer here, and it goes to some of the issues which we alluded to last night around this bill’s rather naïve hope that we might develop collaborations around science, after we’ve thoroughly decimated our science sector. So we could call it the “Living In Hope But Not Having A Real Plan Bill”.

You see, in order to get something going like serious science collaboration across countries, across sectors, across the world, you probably need to have a decent science system at home. We’ve had a really good science system. We’ve had dedicated scientists. We’ve had people who research and do this because it’s thoroughly interesting. But in the last year or so, we have just slapped those people in the face, told them that we don’t value science any more, totally undermined the institutions, walked away from science in both our universities and in our science research institutions. Yet somehow, this Government thinks that overseas investors, overseas research institutions, having seen the way we’ve treated our own scientists, will actually turn around and decide that they should come and collaborate with us.

A rather more accurate name for this bill might be the—I can’t even remember what I said now, something around the naïve hopes but not actually having the reality to back it up. I think that’s characteristic of this Government. So this bill would be a much more accurately named bill if we reflected what this Government is doing, saying something in the hope that just by saying it over and over again, it will actually happen, but, in the meantime, undermining the reality. So I propose those different names for this bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I know there’ll be many people out there watching; they’ve probably waited up and been by their TVs to tune in and follow this bill and they’ll be really interested in the title. There might be others who are not. But the point is it is actually quite critical.

As my colleague Deborah Russell has said, it could be named in different ways. There are two questions I have of the Minister in the chair, really: why not call it “Buy New Zealand 2025” because, clearly, the fairly blunt and crude way that this bill is being constructed with few, if any, qualifications on what kind of investment we will be getting into New Zealand, then why not just call it the “Buy New Zealand Bill”?

And then the question is: 2025—why this year? Why not push it out for a year and provide the business community, New Zealanders, and parliamentarians a greater opportunity to look at this bill and see the implications of it? As I’ve said previously in this debate, we have $575 billion worth of investment in our country already. It’s foreign investment in New Zealand and a lot of it is valuable, but not all of it—not all of it. I think being able to differentiate between good foreign investment and bad foreign investment is critical. That’s why we have the Overseas Investment Office. But, actually, if you constrain them, or you flood them, then you limit their ability to work out what is good and bad investment.

There’s a philosophical issue, as well, that if you bring in money just to inflate asset values but not drive any further productivity across our economy, it further drives us back, because there is a lot of money out around the world, and in spite of the Government saying that it has to set up this real estate agency at a cost of $54 million a year, I think good investment finds its way to New Zealand anyway and with the good work of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

So I think “Invest New Zealand Act 2025”, which is the title which we’re currently debating, is somewhat unhelpful, if not misleading, because we could end up with a flood of investment that simply buys our valuable assets and our productivity. The Minister in the chair there might think, well, he’s OK, and the Māori people and the Māori interests he represents are OK because they’re protected and sensible—the same doesn’t apply to the rest of the assets across New Zealand, many of which are already owned by overseas people and may be flicked on to other overseas people through this initiative, and put us in a worse position in terms of productivity.

So the question is: why not have this bill called either, one, “Buy New Zealand 2025”, or, we could call the bill the “Invest New Zealand Act” and make it 2026 and provide this—

Joseph Mooney: This gentleman was the Minister for Trade, what happened?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —House and the rest of the country with another 12 months—

Joseph Mooney: What happened to trade?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to look at, arguably, what is one of the most critical things? The member’s going on about trade. As a former trade Minister, I know what we have done is negotiated increasing the thresholds to allow more investment into New Zealand, all with qualifications. When we negotiated those agreements, we did not in any way remove or attempt to remove the sovereign rights of individual nations, including ours, to have qualifications, to have checks and balances and, ultimately, the right to say “No” to the investment. Some of those provisions will still remain in place; I accept that. The question is why should we set up, under the title “Invest New Zealand 2025”, a real estate agency costing taxpayers $54 million a year to just go out and welcome in and incentivise people to come and buy New Zealand? Because that’s what’s happening.

If there were provisions in this bill that had an assurance that the money coming in was either for greenfields investment or for additional productivity and for benefit, then I think we might take a different approach. But, in fact, there are none of those qualifications in the legislation.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Look, the pejorative and scrambled messaging that’s being conspired by the Opposition is not just dank and dark, dark and dank, but it’s opaque and black—opaque and blank.

The purpose of the bill is to establish Invest New Zealand to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand and provide for Invest New Zealand’s objective functions and operation. It is entirely appropriate, in this brunch and breakfast session in our esteemed Chamber, that the Invest New Zealand Bill turn into the Invest New Zealand Act. Kia ora.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. We understand what the purpose is, because we had a discussion about this last night. But just following on from the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who was the previous trade Minister—and he captured it quite nicely—we already have a number of one-stop shop agencies for this. What is unique about this particular one?

I want to go on to the commencement date first, which is 1 July 2025. I want to check with the Minister, the Hon Tama Potaka: we’ve heard from the Minister previously on some of the work that is being done, potentially, in the background. But I think what we haven’t heard, succinctly, is a response to the question that was asked around the transition measures and whether they will be in time for 1 July, particularly from the perspective of collective agreements in terms of the Public Service perspective. So that’s my question in terms of the commencement date—whether 1 July is feasible or whether we should be looking at pushing the 1 July date out further.

But just now coming to the title of the bill, I know that we talk about “Invest New Zealand”, but what we’ve heard from the Minister—and, to be honest, every three questions that we ask, we get maybe one answer and the other two left unanswered; you know, we still haven’t heard exactly what was the advice given from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and we still haven’t really heard why the regulatory impact statement and the Budget had different amounts allocated to Invest New Zealand.

We are really curious as to whether “Invest New Zealand” is actually the best name for this, because there seems to be a half-heartedness when it comes to this particular bill and this particular agency, and there’s going to be a lot of confusion, and, to the Minister’s own words, “opaqueness”, when it comes to the way that agencies can be set up. Fundamentally, when we’re looking at the title of this bill, I wonder if the Minister in the chair would consider, from all of the things we’ve discussed, the lack of reassurance we have received from the Minister that this is indeed something that is going to be good for New Zealanders and for New Zealand in general. We’ve heard things and we’ve heard more concerns and more questions than actual responses, and the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, mentioned that this is, essentially, going to be a real estate agency that’s going to sell off New Zealand one bit at a time.

So I wondered if a better title for this bill, rather than “Invest New Zealand”, would be “Divest New Zealand”, because that’s what, fundamentally, the concerns around this agency are going to be. We are actually no longer supporting New Zealand entrepreneurship and also innovation but, instead, we expect overseas companies, carte blanche, without any sort of precautions and provisions—we didn’t hear anything around how they’re going to ensure, from a procedural perspective, from an operational perspective, that there is not going to be any sort of anti-competitive measures, anti - money-laundering measures, or any of those things. Yes, I admit that they’re part of domestic legislation, but the fact is that just because the law is in place does not mean that the agency is well equipped to ensure that they are followed.

So I personally think that “Divest New Zealand” is a better term for us to use. But other ones—to be fair, if the Minister thinks that “Divest New Zealand” is a bit too on the nose and too similar to “Invest New Zealand”, we can look, I think, at changing the title to “Country for Sale”, because that seems kind of appropriate as well, or even just “Selling New Zealand Out”.

I think the other appropriate title, when we’re looking at the title of this—again, although we do see in the departmental report some of the advice that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has undertaken in terms of our Te Tiriti obligations, we’re still not entirely convinced, particularly in light of some of our trade agreements but also in light of some of the current trajectory that the Government is going in. I think if we really want to signal to the world that we are a country that upholds indigenous rights, “Invest Aotearoa” would be a more appropriate title.

So I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether he would consider any of those titles and the change to the commencement date.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): There’s been some lopsided and obtuse comments this morning—you know, again, the cursory remarks about Māori interests from individuals who have probably been involved for about half a second in Māori development.

Now, it was wonderful, a couple of weeks ago, to attend, with the colleague from Hamilton East and others, the Ruakura development being led by Tainui Group Holdings and a commitment by an international investor of nearly a billion dollars into a tribally led land development on the eastern flank of Kirikiriroa Hamilton. Yet today, we hear that Māori are scared of doing this—this wasn’t good for our tamariki and mokopuna. Actually, iwi and Māori want to invest with capital, and, to be fair, it doesn’t matter what the colour of that capital is as long as it’s aligned with iwi and tribal development. The agencies are ready to move forward, and I have full confidence in their commitment and enthusiasm and energy to enable this country to fulfil its co-investment potential.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to continue this morning the debate around the Invest New Zealand Bill, because last evening when we were discussing through the committee stage aspects of the bill, it was good to see the commitment from the Government parties to sticking around for as long as was required to go through, one by one, the various amendments that we had suggested to try and make this bill better, because there’s a lot of concern around the House that there isn’t the correct governance certainty and structure provided in the bill to give New Zealanders the certainty they deserve. So my suggestion when it comes to the title is that we really ought to be calling this bill what it is.

There was a discussion earlier in this part of the debate around the title—there was a comparison to people tuning in this morning, like they would when we’re playing a big game globally, and New Zealanders want to tune in and watch that big game and see the result. The difference here is that when New Zealand as a nation tunes in to watch our teams compete on the world stage, the hope is that we will bring the cup, the prize, the win back to New Zealand. What viewers are tuning in for this morning is to see the complete opposite of that.

What viewers are tuning in for this morning is to see a bill that takes the cup, the prize, the trophy out of New Zealand. So with this bill, a win is actually a loss for New Zealanders because the loss is that great intellectual property, that great development, that great idea and work and innovation being taken away from New Zealand because the money didn’t come from ourselves; it came externally.

It’s a little like having a garage sale. You have a garage full of goods. You open the door on a Saturday morning, people come along, they buy those items, and then you have a little bit of cash in your hand, but you also have an empty garage. So all of a sudden all those things that you had in your garage that used to be yours are no longer yours, because you’ve sold them off to whoever would pay whatever they would pay for it. So this is all leading to some suggestions here around actually calling this bill, titling this bill, more honestly what it is.

Part of the discussion last night was around the Minister suggesting that this bill needed to be fleet of foot, which I think the consensus was it actually just meant slippery. So a slippery bill like this needs a more honest title. Some of the title suggestions I have are—and I’m really looking forward to some calls from the other side with some of their suggested bill names too. Some of my suggested bill titles—and I’m really interested to hear the Minister’s opinion on these. My question is really which of these the Minister thinks best fits the bill.

The first is to recycle a name that you’ve already paid for, which is “Everyone Must Go Bill”. That was the tourism slogan. It was also the slogan that was repeated to the science sector as the $90 million worth of cuts were rolled out in this year’s Budget. “Everyone must go” is the message that this Government sent to our brightest in the science sector.

Another potential title is the “Sell Out Our Future Invest New Zealand Bill”. Another is the “Briscoes Sale Invest New Zealand Bill” or the “Failing Our Science Sector Investment Bill”—one of my favourites. [Interruption] You’ll need to listen carefully, because I might need to explain it to you, members of the other side of the Chamber—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am listening carefully.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Not you, Madam Chair. I’m sure you’ll get this immediately. Sorry to bring you into the conversation. It’s the “Buy-bye Invest New Zealand Bill”, and the important distinction here is that the first “buy” is spelt B-U-Y. and the second “buy” is B-Y-E. The message is goodbye, but the message is also that it is simply a fire sale.

But I’m going to use the Minister’s own words and describe possibly the best title as being the “Lopsided Invest New Zealand Bill”, because that’s what this is. It doesn’t favour New Zealanders; it favours foreign multinationals.

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Again, the inventiveness and foxiness in the vernacular that’s being promoted by the Opposition commentariat will not change the intentions and the commitment of this Government to get the economy back on track and to ensure that we enable and expedite and accelerate co-investment, not only with public and local providers but also with Māori and iwi developers. I will retire and allow the other Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg, to carry on.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we’ve got room for one more tranche of ideas. I call the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. I really am grateful for this opportunity to speak to some of my amendments on this part of the bill, because I think they possibly do need some explanation, particularly for the members opposite.

In my second reading speech on this bill, I brought up Utopia, which is a satirical show. It takes place in Australia. I feel like it just perfectly sums up the energy of this bill and this whole concept, because the Government has already set up a one-stop shop for investment in infrastructure with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing company; I’m not sure if members are aware of that. That happened less than a year ago and now we have yet another agency being set up at a cost of over—I think it’s going to be about $50 million a year for the next few years to set up another one-stop shop to attract foreign investors into New Zealand.

So I thought this is amazing, because it seems like this policy is really more about PR than it is about substantially addressing the issues with productivity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Particularly when we consider that the majority of the funding for Invest New Zealand is coming from Callaghan Innovation being wrapped up. That was an agency that was actually driving research, employing scientists here in New Zealand, working with businesses, actually achieving genuine innovation. But this concept, Invest New Zealand, is that we don’t have the ability to invest in our own country; we have to rely on rich foreigners to come in and invest so that we can somehow get wealthier. But of course those investors are going to require a return on their investment.

Is that going to stay in New Zealand and benefit New Zealand? Realistically, no. So one of my tabled amendments last night was in clause 1, title, “After ‘Invest New Zealand’, page two, line 3, insert ‘(Utopia As A Satire)’.” It’s not meant to be an example of how we actually govern and come up with things.

My other amendment was a reference to yet another one-stop shopfront for private investors to profiteer. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The interjections are not now being directed at the member speaking, they’re being directed across the Chamber. So we’ll just have a little bit more calm, please.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also had another tabled amendment. If the Minister didn’t like the “Utopia As A Satire” reference, we have another option, which is “Invest New Zealand (Yet Another One-stop Shopfront For Private Investors To Profit Here) Bill”. Ultimately, this bill just demonstrates, I think, the difference between having genuine ideas about how New Zealand can develop and be a prosperous nation that’s looking after its environment, that’s investing in its people, that’s investing in its own infrastructure by having a fairer tax system—and, instead, the ideas of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and this coalition Government are simply to set up more agencies, multiple agencies directed at trying to get money from overseas, which is going to be looking for a return. So rather than really properly investing in New Zealand, it’s going to be looking to draw profits out of New Zealand.

That is the fundamental difference, I think, between the concept of economic development, between this—well, it’s certainly for the Greens, who proposed an alternative budget and some very realistic costed policies that would actually support innovation, support green industrial development here in Aotearoa New Zealand, would support science. I know people who want to come back and work in New Zealand who have PhDs from some of the top science universities in the world, and they don’t even feel they can come to New Zealand. They’re having to go to Australia or other countries. That’s because as a country, we need investment in public-good science—public-good science—not just things that are already commercially viable. There’s no need to put public money into things that are commercially viable. But we do need public money in public-good science and that has spillover benefits for everyone in the country.

If we look at other small economies, that’s what they’re doing. [Interruption] Yeah. Like Singapore, like Denmark, like Ireland, they actually have substantially more public-good investment. They may have done similar silly things. I mean, Ireland did, that’s for sure. But, actually, they have more progressive tax systems. They have more public investment. That creates jobs. That creates opportunities. Fundamentally, this Invest New Zealand Bill is like a bad joke.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): 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 following tabled amendments are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest” with “Divest”, Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Country For Sale”, Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Foreign Profits First”, Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Selling New Zealand Out”, the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Utopia is a Satire”, and the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Yet Another One-stop Shop Front for Private Investors to Profiteer”.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “New Zealand” to “Aotearoa” 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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments about SuperGold Card income abatement threshold

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. We start with Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 6, “Amendments about SuperGold Card income abatement threshold”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to put some questions to the Minister around this particular bill. When this was spoken to in Budget urgency, we indicated that we were supportive of this bill. However, we do have some questions, and there may be some amendments that flow from that and an opportunity to make this bill a better one. In terms of Part 1, I want to address clause 6. This is the clause that, basically, seeks to reference the status of a SuperGold card holder. In it, it specifically references the regulations that are contained in the Social Security Regulations 2018. This, in effect, gives the definition as to what a card holder is described as and also the definition of a SuperGold card.

One of the interesting things is around the eligibility criteria—so that those who are able to, effectively, access the scheme, which will be a new opportunity for many New Zealanders, which is a good move for us to be considering and addressing this morning, but the clause references the regulations around eligibility. Now, there is a question around the time frame that would follow for someone to receive a SuperGold card in the post from when they actually apply. The issue may be that for someone who becomes eligible for a SuperGold card towards the end of the rating year, there potentially is going to be a delay in them receiving the SuperGold card.

My question to the Minister is—there are two parts to this, really—the first is the definition of a “card holder”, which is defined in the regulations, and what that actually means. Does it mean that someone who perhaps might be eligible towards the end of June, or if we think about now, someone, on 4 June, who might suddenly turn 65 and, therefore, become eligible for a SuperGold card? They have right through until 30 June before their eligibility runs out, in terms of being able to access the scheme, but they don’t hold a card at that particular point in time. Likewise, it could be someone who perhaps turns 65 on 29 June, yet they don’t have a SuperGold card or are not in physical possession of a SuperGold card.

My question to the Minister is around the time frame through to 30 June and where that sits, but also how someone who is eligible to hold a SuperGold card but who may not physically be in possession of a SuperGold card, or be determined as a card holder under the regulations, would still be able to access the rates rebate, because this is a rebate that is meant to be available to anyone who, effectively, is 65 and, therefore, the age of 65 is the point at which eligibility kicks in. But the regulations are very specific in that it relates to a “card holder”, being “person who holds a valid SuperGold card issued to that person”. So the question is around that descriptor of “holds a valid SuperGold card”. Would it not be perhaps more appropriate to refer to the fact that they have become eligible? So the point at which they would be eligible to access the scheme under the provision of the SuperGold card actually is not that they are a “card holder” as such, but perhaps they become “eligible to hold a SuperGold card”.

The whole point of this is not to try and cut out anyone who is eligible or for us to be, as a Parliament, tripped up on the strict definition of things associated with the fact that you need to be a card holder or someone who holds a valid SuperGold card, but, rather, someone who is eligible and how someone who might be eligible as of, say, 28 June and who, therefore, can access this, aren’t prevented from doing so. I know that some senior citizens are able to apply in advance of that, and they receive that, and it becomes active on a certain day, but that would still provide a limitation perhaps to those that want to, for some reason, get on to it on their birthday, or whatever it might be. So I’ll just start with that question to the Minister.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I thank the member for the question. It’s an important distinction. Fundamentally, I’m very glad that we’re talking about the SuperGold card and ensuring people do apply for it as soon as they become eligible. For clarification, if the applicants apply before they have a SuperGold card, they will be assessed under the lower income abatement threshold. If they apply later in the year, they will be assessed under the higher income abatement threshold and receive the top-up available.

I think the process by which they apply—they are able to apply when they get the card, therefore they would be entitled to the full top-up. I think it’s an important distinction, but I think it’s also worth noting that this is based upon the income assessment as well. So it is important that to get the full entitlement, your income threshold has to be based upon the superannuation as the sole income because that’s the threshold component that we’ve set under this legislation.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to see this initiative in the Budget. It’s one of the few initiatives that I would say has been useful, and I’m very happy for the seniors, as the Opposition spokesperson for seniors, that there is some rates relief. I guess my questions are, really, about the very broad-brush approach that the Government has taken, with very little nuance. It feels rushed, and I will go into a series of questions over this committee stage that look particularly at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and the analysis, or lack of analysis, in the RIS that makes it feel like a rushed process.

That’s curious to me because, as the Minister knows, I’ve made quite a number of Official Information Act requests to her office, and what continually has come up around the Rates Rebate Scheme is redacted sections, particularly around costings. It felt like there was a significant amount of work going on, and I can’t reconcile the amount of work that went on with the very broad-brush approach and the lack of nuance in how it is being applied.

So although, on the one hand, it is good that there is some rates rebate for seniors, perhaps if it had been done in a more nuanced way, we would have better value for money for the taxpayers but also probably more significant relief for some of those who really need it. I’m thinking here about constituents in my electorate in Taieri, certainly in the Lawrence area where I’ve done quite a lot of door-knocking, and also in parts of Balclutha, where seniors who are homeowners have been deeply worried about their ability to pay their rates. I have to say that that issue has come about, really, through the affordable water reforms that were swept away by this Government, and then there was a new regime, but, ultimately, the end game is that the councils are being forced to push up the rates, which probably should have been done previously but all the systems errors meant that they couldn’t do that. Now these pensioners are faced with huge rates bills. Some of them have been in their homes for 40, 50 years—they’ve worked very hard to get there, they’ve got some security, and now they are deeply worried. I’ve had people in tears when I’ve door-knocked—so concerned about getting kicked out of their homes.

So to see rates relief is a good thing, but I wonder if, in a more nuanced regime, they would have a higher level of rebate that would take away that angst, and there might be some who would not necessarily benefit—for example, those who might qualify for the Rates Rebate Scheme who are in a relationship, for property purposes, with someone who can actually pay the rates. Those are questions to come later.

For the purposes of this contribution, what I would really like to look at is how this will be evaluated. I am a little bit fixated on monitoring, evaluation, and performance, because I think we do it pretty badly in New Zealand, and when I look at the RIS, the evaluation of it seems to be, on page 2, that the success of this policy will be demonstrated by the higher uptake of this scheme. I wonder if that is the right indicator, because to me it would seem, from an outcomes perspective, that what we’re really trying to do is stop people from getting kicked out of their homes. So perhaps a better measurement would be to ascertain how many people received the rates rebate, and, as a result of that, the change that we’re measuring is whether they are able to stay in their home and they do not lose their home to a mortgagee sale or to some other kind of hardship.

So it does speak, in some ways, to the contribution of my colleague Tangi Utikere, but I think this is very much around the design of the monitoring and evaluation, which seems, again, broad-brush and quite rushed and quite superficial—it’s an outputs measure; it’s not an outcomes measure. Wouldn’t we be better finding a way of actually enabling better access, as Tangi Utikere has said, but also of measuring the scheme in a more profound way so we can see whether it does address the mischief that it is designed to, which is that it is providing real relief to those who might otherwise face some kind of hardship? Instead, in the RIS, we have it that it will be demonstrated by a higher uptake of the scheme. So I am really keen to hear from the Minister and I will have further questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with clause 4 of this bill in terms of the section 2 amendment, particularly around definitions. I think my first question is around the type of card holders that meant that they were eligible for this scheme in the first place. I know that we have asked the question around the SuperGold card and the previous speaker Tangi Utikere has also mentioned, in terms of some of the eligibility to SuperGold card holders but, also, in terms of people being able to apply and have access to the SuperGold card at the right time when they become eligible.

But I think I’ve got two questions for the Minister that are more broad: one of them is around SuperGold card holders. One of the things that we do see, for example, is that people who are migrants, etc., particularly in terms of the threshold of 10 years eligibility for super, etc.—we still see a lot of migrants who are over the age of 65 not being eligible for a SuperGold card. Is that something that the Minister has considered when designing this particular policy—when using the SuperGold card as a measure or as a threshold for eligibility for this higher-income abatement threshold? That’s my first question.

My second question is around—I will get to clause 5 a little bit later because I want to focus on one clause at a time. In terms of the SuperGold card, there are other card holder types that potentially would benefit from this increased threshold abatement, and that could be things like people who are on a community services card; it could be people who are on various other card holder types. I just wanted to check with the Minister what was the intent there to limit just to SuperGold card holders and not to other card holder types.

Now, when it comes to the overall policy of this—and during the second reading, we indicated to the Minister that we have a lot of questions around this bill. As part of the speeches in the second reading, there were conversations around the fact that there needs to be some sort of easy, manageable things. But I also wanted to check with the Minister on, I guess, a broader question: why the rates rebate was selected as a way of alleviating cost pressures, etc., for seniors when there are other things that are facing the senior population and vulnerable people within our population, such as seniors who are renting, seniors who are from migrant backgrounds, seniors who potentially may not be paying rates in the first place. So, more broadly, I just want to kind of get a sense of the policy intent over here in terms of why the rates rebate was selected as the scheme that we’re looking at.

So those are, I guess, three questions. Two of the questions are around the SuperGold card. One of them is around eligibility to the SuperGold card and whether we are looking at some sort of intention from the Minister on expanding the scope and eligibility criteria of the SuperGold card holders; the second one is whether other card holder types were considered who are also in similar vulnerable situations; and thirdly: why the rates rebate? Why not consider other forms of support for people over the age of 65 such as increasing the super, such as over-65s who are renting—we know that there’s going to be an increasing number of people who do not own their own home over the age of 65 over the next decade, so it just seems like there’s a missed opportunity there. So I will be keen to hear from the Minister.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I’ll first just run through a few questions. With regard to the measure of success that the member Ingrid Leary was talking about, I think it’s important to remember that this rates rebate is an existing system that’s in place that we are enhancing; it’s not a new system.

I take on board the need to ensure that we have good measures in place. At this stage, the measure of uptake is one of the measures in terms of how successful this is in reaching the people that we’re trying to assist. I don’t think it’s an end position, but at this point what we need to do is gather that data, because the SuperGold card introduction is a new measure to be introduced. I think that’s the important component we want to work through, which is ensuring that we are reaching the target demographic. I think it will be important also to see an increase in the uptake of the SuperGold card holders as well, because we want to promote those benefits that are available through the SuperGold card.

In terms of the members’ questions about exploring eligibility for the SuperGold card, there is no work under way at this point to change the eligibility of the SuperGold card. The other card holder types, I think you’ve got to be cognisant of the fact that for the Rates Rebate Scheme, it’s about an income threshold. Those that don’t hold a SuperGold card can still be eligible for the rates rebate under the other income thresholds. So other cardholders still may be eligible if they own a home, they’re paying rates, and their income threshold is below the rebate income threshold.

Why was the rates rebate selected? Well, I might be bragging a wee bit, but it is a New Zealand First coalition agreement commitment to explore options to build on the local government rates rebate scheme for SuperGold card holders, so it is a delivery on the commitment of the coalition agreement.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just quite a specific question, but I think it’s an important one in terms of this bill, and that’s in relation to the advice that the Minister received when creating what I would consider quite an extraordinary secondary legislation power.

Looking at the existing Act at present, there’s a power under section 3 that allows the creation, by Order in Council—so the Governor-General may amend the provisions of subsection (1) substituting any amount for any amount specified in that section. What that means is that the threshold can, essentially, be set by Order in Council, including the maximum total. What this does is it retains that, but it allows an Order in Council resolution in terms of what the Governor-General can do just for super.

That touches on the human rights discrimination provisions, so I would expect a section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet to address the question of whether there’s a reasonable limitation lever in the legislation, or how this is being reasonably limited. Instead of having a reasonable limitation lever, it looks like we’ve gone the opposite way in that the Order in Council also allows the total maximum to be set at any level. A potential outcome could be that anyone who is not on a SuperGold card has a threshold at a much lower level than a SuperGold card member if at a later date, by Order in Council, those other two thresholds are changed.

The questions are really around whether the Minister received any advice in terms of the engagement with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if so, what that advice was, and what, in her view, is the reasonable limitation being applied in this case?

It is quite an unusual power to have in any legislation in terms of what we already have. It’s known as a “Henry VIII” power, because you’re giving someone who’s not within the legislature, or making a decision as part of the legislature, the explicit power to override legislation. That’s already quite rare, but what this change does is build on that and it allows that decision to be made in prima facie breach of the Human Rights Act as well. I do think it’s important that this is an issue that’s considered by the Minister, and I look forward to hearing her response.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I think I can allay concerns. In 2008, Cabinet agreed that the maximum rebate and income abatement threshold should be adjusted annually in line with movements to reflect inflation from the previous calendar year. Cabinet adjusts that rate by Order in Council. The extension in section 3(1) will ensure that the additional threshold for SuperGold card holders will also be able to be adjusted annually in line with inflation through an Order in Council, similar to that process.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to—

Shanan Halbert: Māngere.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: —make a short contribution—yes, finally, thank you. I appreciate the Minister’s comments in the formation of this and the choice of the rates rebate. I want to raise a couple of aspects in terms of—and I spoke about this to the Minister the last time when we were able to make a contribution—the engagement and the public consultation, because we treat our seniors very much with care. For some of them that have very limited incomes, especially now in their retirement age, every dollar counts in their household, so this is a good system that we will be supporting.

However, when I read the regulatory impact statement (RIS), Minister, I am really concerned about the limitations and the constraints of the analysis, because it says right here that Cabinet had a preferred policy and that the department were constrained in the analysis of risks and benefits. One of the things of the system, when it does become available—because it has been chosen; it is being delivered on a political party promise—is that we want to maximise the number of our seniors in Aotearoa that are able to understand (a) the system, (b) the language, and (c) the assessment.

I just have some questions to the Minister around the transparency and understanding. It says here, Minister, that the department doesn’t hold any demographic information. Why is that, regarding rates rebates recipients? When you don’t have a baseline assessment, then someone’s got to make up some information from somewhere, with regards to our SuperGold card holders, because we want to ensure that when the policy is rolled out—we’re talking about two weeks; 1 July 2025, which is really soon, around the corner. My concern is for those who don’t understand the English language as well as they could—it’s around the accessibility of our Māori, Pacific, and ethnic seniors, particularly when you’ve got a system that is going to assist their weekly bills. So I come back to the analysis. Why wasn’t that done properly, so that Cabinet, when deciding that, could have the intensity, the numbers, and just do a really good cost-benefit analysis? So, whilst we are supporting this bill, I want to ask the Minister that.

The information that the department holds on our seniors is really important because then you can get a really good idea around success rate and how well the system will be rolled out—in particular, the time frame. When the analysis is not presented by the department, why is that? It has said very clearly in the RIS that there is a sensitive nature—we get that—but it is important that when systems are rolled out for the benefit of a particular group, particularly the seniors, you have baseline measurements for the uptake. I’ve heard the Minister talk about “uptake”, which is really important because we want to see the success of this policy and of this initiative, which will be targeted to specific seniors in our population. So those are the points that I wanted to raise.

Also, lastly, I do have a concern around the understanding of this policy in communities across Aotearoa where English is the second or third language. They’re very particular about their households and the money that they receive weekly, because they have to rely on their children or their extended families. So, Minister, that’s my plea—that when the system does come up, the territorial local authorities need help in rolling the system out so that the system is effective, so that it goes to the seniors that deserve it and that have worked hard all their lives, and that the rates rebates uptake is rolled out properly. Thank you.

Hon Casey Costello: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Celia Costello.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): Celia Costello?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry! I went to school with Celia Costello.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I thank the member for her impassioned presentations on advocacy for our seniors. I would, first of all, highlight the fact that, again, this is an existing scheme that we’re adding to, and the challenges that the collection of data—because age was not a component of eligibility under the previous Rates Rebate Scheme, it was only income threshold, so it would have been inappropriate for the department to be gathering data about age, when it wasn’t relevant to the eligibility component of the rates rebate scheme, as it was before. We will be collecting that data, moving forward.

I would also highlight—and you’ve highlighted a really important issue—that we do want many people to take up this opportunity. So there has been a range of communications. We have specifically communicated with the councils. Office for Seniors have sent out communications. But I acknowledge the fact that sending this information doesn’t necessarily mean it is taken up. I know there are a number of local constituent MPs who actually sit with their constituents and help them fill in the forms to assist them, and I’m sure you’d add the same as to ensure that we reach as many people as possible—this is the reason why we’re trying to do this.

The SuperGold card eligibility will also allow that information to be part of the SuperGold card hub information, and, again, directing that information to the other discounts being available through the SuperGold card holders will be useful, as well, so that we can optimise those benefits.

So, yeah, the ability to analyse has been restricted because it wasn’t a criteria for the rates rebate eligibility as it sat previously.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister, and thank you for the hint that you might be going to ask me. I really wanted to start with a couple of questions about the focus for the rebate and then move on to ask some wider questions about what options were and weren’t thought about. I guess I’d like to start by leading on to my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about whether the Minister actually values seniors who don’t own property, and whether she considers that a senior, whether single or a couple, who pays rent is not also paying rates, in that very few landlords would subsidise their tenants by paying the rates unless it came out of the rental income they received.

I also looked at the question of timing and the Minister just referred a moment ago to the coalition agreement. The coalition agreement of November 2023—you must have been doing a lot of work on this beforehand, but this comes to us with the regulatory impact statement saying that in the time available and given the decisions taken by Cabinet, only one option has been assessed. So I just wonder what the Minister was doing about this proposal, this amendment bill, in the time between November 2023 and the announcement in this Budget that they were only able to look at one item.

Then I’d like to move to questions that would really depend on to what extent the Minister talked to the Minister of Local Government. To me it seems like we’re putting a band-aid on the issue—and a band-aid for only a few people—of affordable rates. Has the Minister talked to the Minister of Local Government, either current or previous, about some of the issues about the national rates postponement scheme. I’ve got a list here from Local Government New Zealand about funding and financing tools, and they’re in three tiers. Number one is ones that are on the Government’s agenda, like congestion charging, potentially sharing GST, a regional deal. There are some like the ratepayer assistance scheme that the Government has apparently shown interest in, and one of those is to end unfunded rules and responsibilities imposed by central government.

I understand that through the Budget the bulk of the cost of this scheme will be from the taxpayer, but surely there is an administrative burden, and I wonder if the Minister or her colleague the Minister of Local Government has actually taken the time to consult with Taituarā, local government officials, Local Government New Zealand, or those councils that are part of the consortium for the rates postponement—there’s a group that do the rates postponement together. And in particular, going back to this list of potential support for local government rather than kicking them, tool 20 looks at having a national rates postponement scheme, because out of the 85 councils, I think only about eight or so have a rates postponement scheme that may or may not be tied to financial hardship.

There are a number of reasons why people might want to temporarily postpone rates. They go on to the title of the building in question so that the other ratepayers are not disadvantaged by this and whether there would be some mileage. Unfortunately, the “2 or 20” national rates postponement scheme here is listed under tier 3, the tools that councils want but the current Government doesn’t have an interest in.

This is quite a narrow bill for a group of people. It’s a bit questionable as to how many will be eligible in the end, but would this Minister take up the issue of a national rates postponement scheme as a rather broader way of solving some of these problems?

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on some of the points that have been made, but with different questions, actually. So in terms of the point made by the previous speaker, I note on page 4 of the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that the benefits of the Minister’s preferred option are not necessarily likely to outweigh the costs. What the RIS actually says is that “Given the short timeframes to consider the regulatory [impact] proposal, no assessment has been made.” And then again at point 44 of the RIS, page 15: “Given the short timeframes to consider the regulatory proposal, and that Cabinet policy decisions have already been made, a full cost benefit analysis has not been conducted.” I also refer to the table, which is table 6, and this goes to the previous speaker’s point. She talked about only one proposal having been looked at but, actually, there were options that were ruled out immediately with no consideration, including delaying the implementation until 1 July, which I think would be eminently sensible, given some of the issues that have been raised. There are a number of other options there as well.

So it comes to the philosophical question, and I have heard the Minister say that this is around the coalition agreement. It seems to me that there is a different philosophy from that side of the House, certainly from New Zealand First, that says that something that’s in a coalition agreement supersedes all else; there is no need for policy development or a rigorous process. I’d like to hear a little bit more about whether the Minister agrees with that. I guess that’s an ideological difference, but, if so, it would be good to have that on the record, because anybody in this place who is looking at policy normally would expect there to be a cost-benefit analysis at the minimum. So not only are we not seeing the CBAx but there hasn’t actually been one done, and for the RIS to say that they can’t even say whether the preferred option, whether the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs, is quite remarkable.

So if the Minister is justifying that based on a philosophical proposition that coalition agreements made through politics, not through policy, supersede all else, then I think it would be good to have that on the record. I think the Auditor-General and various other institutions of democracy would have commentary on that. Certainly, they have before, when we look at things like the Gumboot Friday funding, which went through a non-contestable procurement process, $24 million, no contestability of the funds, very little analysis. Is the Minister suggesting that this kind of system is akin to that? If so, it would be good to have that on the record. Also, why could she not wait at least until 1 July? This could have been an announcement outside of the Budget that could have been done with a bit more rigour and then announced at a later date. So that is the option that was ruled out immediately with no analysis. There were other options as well, including a flat rebate to all SuperGold card holders. Why was that not considered?

Also, providing all SuperGold card holders with a 50 percent discount on rates up to $1,600, and “Detailed analysis of this option was not completed but Manifesto Commitments from New Zealand First estimate the cost of this as $1-$1.2 bn.”—I’m really interested in that proposition, because it looks like some initial costings were done, and it would be really good to hear from the Minister. I realise it’s not ministerial work, but certainly some of the evidence that she has relied on for previous decisions have come from alternative sources, so if they had done some costings, it would be really good to hear about why they ruled that out. Was it purely a costing matter, or was it simply to do with the time and the quick time frames in which she had to deliver this policy? If so, and if the philosophical difference is that coalition agreements supersede everything, then, again, having that on the record would be useful.

There was also the option of raising the income abatement threshold for all ratepayers to $45,000, and that would have exceeded the amount budgeted for according to the reasons for rolling it out, but because we haven’t seen the CBAx or any kind of process, it’s difficult to understand why that was ruled out, so elucidating on that would be very helpful. My last one is the last point on the table. So I’m really trying to get a sense from the Minister about the underlying philosophy and justification for this lack of process.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I’ll just go back to the previous commentary around the recognition of other financial needs—those that are reliant on the pension and renting. For all of those factors there is a range of work, but it sits well outside of this piece of legislation, which is about providing some immediate relief in the rates rebate space.

In terms of the consultation with local government, although there was no direct conversation with local government, Local Government New Zealand have posted a press release saying they support the changes to the scheme, which is encouraging.

In terms of the discussion points broadly about the decisions being made around this Rates Rebate Scheme and how we came to these conclusions, I will highlight yet again that this is an existing system that we knew was successful—we knew it was favourably received by seniors, that they valued the system. Therefore, what we have introduced here is an opportunity to provide some immediate relief, and deferring things and all of that seems counter to the discussion around wanting to give relief as soon as we can to those that are desperately in need. This is targeting those that are completely reliant on superannuation as their sole income. It is one tool in the tool box to provide that rates rebate.

In terms of the commitment, this is a broad commitment to cost of living relief, not just purely a coalition commitment around the rates rebate. It was an opportunity to improve cost of living pressures. This is one demographic and one tool that we’ve been able to deliver some immediate cost relief in some small way for those that are reliant on superannuation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, just before I take the next call, I’m aware this is a relatively small part. I’m aware there hasn’t been a select committee but I will be looking for some fairly targeted presentations henceforth.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a question that I don’t believe has been traversed at all, and that is in relation to clause 4, which has a definition of “cardholder” in it. Now, I was interested in looking at this particular definition, and I see that it refers back to the Social Security Regulations 2018, which I also have. The definition in the Social Security Regulations suggests that a cardholder is a person who holds a valid SuperGold card issued to that person. Then there is a definition in section 283 of those regulations.

The question I have for the Minister is: at the moment, SuperGold cards are available to those people who are 65 and over, and I am aware that that Minister’s party, and indeed my party, have a commitment to that particular age of superannuation. But I am also aware that that is not a universally recognised position in this House. In fact, the largest party in Parliament has a policy position—and I’ve just checked their website to make sure that that is correct—of raising the retirement age to 67 by 2044. There are many of us, myself included, who would be affected by that, and I am sure many New Zealanders listening to this today may be impacted by that. So I think it is prudent of this committee—and, I think, the hope of all Ministers when they put forward legislation that they feel will be beneficial to the country, and which we in the Labour Party agree is going to be beneficial to New Zealanders—to make sure that that legislation is sustainable over the long term. I wanted to know: will this definition of someone who’s entitled to a SuperGold card change with the possible superannuation retirement age rising to 67, if the National Party were to have its policy implemented, meaning that those people who would currently be covered, come 2044, may not be in a position to receive the benefits of a rates rebate under this scheme?

I think it’s not clear, from what I’ve read—and I have looked into the regulations, as I said—what the situation would be, but I think it would be really useful for the committee if the Minister could clarify that. Often, we might think that 2044 is a long time away. However, when we look at some of the legislation that we have to change in this House, often it’s to do with those future dates and issues with the legislation not foreseeing possible changes—that issues arise and we need to make changes to that quickly. I have had a quick look through the regulatory impact statement and the departmental disclosure documentation. I think this is something that could have been traversed at select committee, so I am interested to hear what the Minister’s view of that is, in terms of the intersection of the retirement age, eligibility for the SuperGold card, and those definitions being used in this Rates Rebate Scheme, in clause 4.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to have a look at clause 5. This relates to the actual figures that are contained in there. This is the clause that we haven’t actually touched on yet, because it identifies what the actual level of abatement is when it comes to income. I have a number of questions that relate specifically to this section, which actually is the guts of Part 1. Because we’re talking about here what the actual threshold is, what’s appropriate, the costings that are associated with that, the lack of analysis, and what’s contained in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), so there are a number of questions related to this clause.

As for clause 6, which is yet to come, there are a number of questions about what it is that the local authority actually has to take into consideration in discharging their duties, and there has not been any comment made around that—so there are no questions around that. But in relation to clause 5, this is, effectively, the two-tier approach, where the existing low-income abatement threshold is set—it’ll be at $32,210 in the new incoming year—and this bill seeks to basically insert the new level for a SuperGold card holder, which is higher than that, at $45,000, and it does basically cover, on analysis, a couple who are both in one household receiving New Zealand super. It wouldn’t actually give them much discretionary income over and above that, to receive the full abatement level.

My question to the Minister is: what analysis was undertaken and what consultation was undertaken? Because these are the sorts of things that we would be exploring in select committee. We would be hearing from those that held a New Zealand SuperGold card, or those that didn’t, and what difference this would mean. This is a Budget measure that has been slated as alleviating cost of living pressures. We accept that; that’s why we support this. But why $45,000? Why not have it at a slightly higher level that acknowledges that there are some seniors in our community who perhaps undertake a little bit of work, that generate a little bit of additional income, who would not be—under this proposal—able to, effectively, be eligible for the full-abatement level.

Now, I get that this is a reducing amount, so the more that someone earns, in terms of the income levels, then the amount of the rebate that they’re able to claim would reduce over time, as that income increases. But my first question for the Minister is: was there any consideration around increasing the level so that it took into account discretionary income? It doesn’t have to be huge amounts of money. But when we’re looking at people in communities who are SuperGold card holders, who would go about doing, even if it’s five hours a week—some employment opportunity that they might do—this would make a huge difference in terms of their inability to be able to actually activate or achieve the full rebate. That is the first question I have for the Minister.

The other one is around the figures. Nobody has talked about what is being described as “$154 million over four years”. Now, how was that figure arrived at? Because the RIS—and it is good to see a RIS with this this Government, I have to say—identifies that, actually, there is quite a level of uncertainty around the confidence that officials were able to provide with the figures, with the uptake, with the costs that this would place on councils; and we’ll get to that later. But how was that $154 million figure arrived at? The other thing is there are a couple of figures floating around—one says $154 million; one says $155 million. What is the accurate figure here, in terms of the appropriation that has been recorded or is sought to be achieved by the Government?

This is something that has been in the pipeline, and considering that this was a National - New Zealand First coalition agreement opportunity, why were these costings not done sooner to give certainty around how much it’s going to cost? So, really, two questions there. One is the discretionary level of income and those thresholds, and whether there was some thought given to actually increasing it from the $45,000 to take account of that. The second one is around that figure: what is it, $154 million or $155 million—$1 million makes a difference in this Budget—and how was that figure arrived at?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I’d sort of first calculate, in terms of the levels being set and how much discretionary income you would allow in that system—unfortunately, the allocation of limited Government resources in the context of social policy is complex and requires brightline tests to be set. Like, there have to be some limitations on what we’ve done. So this has been based upon the foundation of a couple who are solely reliant on superannuation as their only source of income. That was the decision that had to be made. In the fiscal environment that we’re in, it is important that we are accountable for those taxpayer dollars that we take off New Zealanders and, therefore, we’ve set a threshold in that space.

The other component I think the member has raised is around the certainty of the numbers. As I’ve previously stated, we didn’t collect demographic information on the Rates Rebate Scheme. So, in terms of determining how many seniors were taking this up, it was not a calculation, it wasn’t information that we had, we weren’t asking people’s ages when they—so, therefore, determining how many superannuitants were taking up the Rates Rebate Scheme meant that we had to make some decisions. What we did know was the approximation of 66,000 households that were solely reliant on superannuation as their income, and that is the estimate that’s been driven. So, yes, it’s not an exact science, but that was how we reached the conclusions that we’ve reached.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to thank the Minister for answering my previous questions so concisely. It’s really good to see the level of engagement from the Minister and also her level of expertise. Now, I spoke on clause 4, and those questions have been answered.

I want to move on to clause 5. I know the Minister mentioned before the variation in terms of the threshold between one setting for SuperGold card holders and one setting for other ratepayers. That has been clarified, but I want to check with the Minister: in the regulatory impact statement, it does state that the rate for SuperGold card holders was $47,000 for a couple. As far as I remember from the original Rates Rebate Act, it is in terms of a household, not for individuals. Would that be correct? The $45,000, in terms of what we see in clause 5, which inserts new section 3(1AA)(a), is not for an individual amount?

One of the questions I had was whether, in that case, the Minister then considered, rather than looking at an individual household amount, an individual amount, because we know that, in terms of superannuation as well, there have been complications between considering it as a couple and considering it as an individual. Was that idea ever floated? In which case, then, if we’re looking at individuals, that original amount of $32,000 potentially might be sufficient, as opposed to the higher amount.

I also wanted to check, because the departmental statement doesn’t actually specify that any form of Te Tiriti analysis has been done on this. I appreciate what the Minister has said, in terms of there hasn’t been sufficient information—and I’m hoping there is going to be better information that’s going to be tracked as a result of this—but would the Minister be open to, as we are tracking this now with this legislation, there being adjustments in the future, and balancing, depending on what sort of demographic data we will be receiving as a result of this? Those are my questions for clause 5.

Now, moving on to clause 6, I’m really interested in the fact that, for this clause, there are specific ones where the chief executive (CE) of the territorial authority is not required to verify the statement about the following matters, but I really want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider some of my amendments to include additional matters as a part of that list. It’s interesting that there are things like ratepayer’s income, other persons, occupancy of the property, etc., which seems really reasonable, but what isn’t fair and, I think, should be captured—and whether the Minister would consider them—is things like a person’s relationship status, a person’s immigration status, and things like a person’s criminal conviction records. I think those kinds of thing are also important to capture if we are going to be looking at things and the CE has the mandate to authorise and not require those sorts of things. I think the additional amendments that I’ve proposed are reasonable and are also in line with some of the other things that we see here. So I want to check with the Minister whether the Minister would consider those amendments.

Since I have a little bit of time left, just going back to clause 5, one of the things I did ask regarding the threshold was also just to ask the Minister to consider the tabled amendment that I’ve put forward as well, which is to increase the threshold—the Minister may not accept the one to increase the threshold for any other ratepayers—from $45,000 to $56,000 for a ratepayer who, at the time the ratepayer applies for the rebate, is a SuperGold card holder. I think that captures the higher threshold in terms of a couple having a higher superannuation threshold of $47,000—unless there is a reason for keeping it at $45,000? Also, it captures what previous speaker Tangi Utikere mentioned as well, in terms of what happens if there are families who are just adding that additional income.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): In answer to the first part, regarding the combined household income, if they weren’t a couple or they were on their own, they would be well below the threshold and therefore fully apply for the full rebate.

In terms of the suggestion that we gather more data, I think we’ve already discussed the fact that we want this process to be as accessible and as encouraging as possible. I think it would be both administratively more difficult, but I think it would also be obstructive to the application process if we were asking such personal information about an applicant. The data that is being recorded is the data by which we assess eligibility and that’s all we’re interested in. The SuperGold card is one of those new eligibility components.

The council to whom they submit the application does not review the accuracy of that information. They accept the information as an accurate account, and it is then evaluated so that the rebate can be forwarded. So I would not be considering any additional requirements to add further information purely for the interests of data gathering.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert definitions of “deserving citizen” and “deserving resident” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 4 regarding a community services card are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s 10 remaining tabled amendments to clause 4 regarding other forms of card are also out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to replace “$45,000” with “$56,000” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to replace “$32,210” with “$56,000” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5(2) to insert new paragraph (aa) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to insert new subclause (4) is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert “unless they reasonably suspect that the statement is untrue or dishonest” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s medical history be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s criminal history be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s immigration status be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6 to insert new paragraph (e) regarding the ratepayer’s relationship status be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments about savings

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 and 8, “Amendments about savings”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague Tangi Utikere has some questions relating to this short part, mainly because it does have an impact on some of the things that we’ve not been able to cover in Part 1. We did have a number of questions around costings and so on.

This schedule here, I really am just wanting to ask the Minister for Seniors about how she sees this being delivered in a way that’s not going to be a postcode lottery through the transitional impact of it. That is because when we look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) there are a number of risks that have been identified, particularly around territorial authorities’ ability to be able to actually roll out the legislation. There is a date here and it says that if it hasn’t been enacted by July, then it won’t come into effect. But it will be enacted by then, and therefore we are now contingent upon territorial authorities having the equipment and ability to be able to roll this out effectively and in a way that doesn’t make a difference so that somebody in one part of the country is receiving the full benefit and somebody else may not due to the territorial authority’s capacity to be able to deliver.

That was identified as a risk in the RIS where they have said there are four risks. The baseline measurement has been already referred to. The capacity risk we have not touched on at all. If I look at clause 51 of the RIS there is quite an extensive discussion about the Electronic Request Management System (ERMS) being planned to be retired in 2026—which is only a year away due to security concerns—and that’s to do with the Windows servers in places such as Christchurch City Council and Auckland Council, where they have created software for their administrative staff to process applications in a way that’s integrated. But not all councils are in that position. With a July 2025 implementation date, there’s no time to create a new version of ERMS and allow for territorial authorities to amend their systems to integrate with it. That is actually mentioned in clause 54 of the RIS.

It goes on to say that building a system of this nature and testing it would take between nine to 12 months and require additional funding. Council systems would also then need to be amended to reflect the new data fields and calculations at their cost. I do note that as a result of that the policy has only been able to partially meet the quality assurance. Now, that is a concern, but it’s even more of a concern with such an imminent date of 1 July when this is going to roll out, assuming that this legislation passes.

So what we want to know is that there’s going to be equity in terms of geographical equity. I note that Auckland Council and Christchurch Council have made steps to improve their systems. I don’t know where Dunedin Council is in that picture, but as an electorate MP in Taieri—and also the Clutha Council, which is much smaller, probably has not had the opportunity to update its data systems—I want to know that the seniors in my electorate are not going to be unfairly disadvantaged due to the capacity constraints that have been clearly listed in the RIS as a risk for this policy.

I’m going to truncate my contribution because I know that my colleague has quite pertinent questions, and I’d like to see those ventilated, given that this is the only opportunity that we will get to discuss this.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just pick up on a couple of the issues that my colleague Ingrid Leary has referred to but not delved into. I thank her for leaving those to me. This is in relation to Schedule 1. It’s the transitional provisions that we are debating at the moment, and this really touches on the operational component for local territorial authorities to be able to deliver things in a timely way. As Ms Leary has identified, there is a definite time frame by which this bill would be stood up. We’ll get to the commencement date later. But in terms of those transitional provisions, in terms of eligibility being continued across through to the new council year, it is important.

One of the concerns that has been expressed, though, is the inability for there to have been any consultation with local councils around what this would mean for them in terms of implementation. However, what the regulatory impact statement (RIS) does identify is that there were five councils who were engaged with to get their views. Those five councils have been identified in the RIS: they are Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Manawatū, and Clutha. My question to the Minister is: why those five? Why were those five selected for some form of consultation? The specific elements of what that consultation looked like have not been divulged. So I’d like to know from the Minister, why those five councils were selected. What was the specific nature of the engagement with those five councils, and what were the specific issues that they raised in relation to the roll-out of this particular proposal?

Now, I understand that they may not have been perhaps specifically told about what the proposal might be, but what the RIS does sort of lend itself to, or infer, is that there was some inkling that this was going to happen. The Minister has talked about this being in the coalition agreement between her party and the National Party, so it’s not as if this would not have been something that they were not able to foreshadow. But it is interesting that there were five councils that were selected. How were they selected?

But I think, more importantly, what some of those issues were that they touched on—because what else is in the RIS is the acknowledgment that there would be some administrative costs that would have to be borne by the council for this. In some cases, the RIS identifies that councils could incur costs of up to $200,000. Now, if we all reflect on what $200,000 would mean in our local communities for councils to do, some would say that, in the bigger scheme of things, it’s a little drop in the pot, but that is a significant amount of money. Is there confidence that the transition provisions are able to and are actually going to be delivered to avoid the geographical inequities that Ms Leary has referred to?

This is very, very important. So I’d like to know about those complexities, in terms of costs. It’s suggested from the RIS that it’s $100 million all up. That infers that some councils—I think it was two; the Minister can correct me on that—might incur up to $200,000 and that there would be a splattering of costs throughout the rest of the country for other authorities. From the Minister, I’d like to know, well, what do those sorts of costs look like, not just across the board but for smaller councils—I mean, there is a little bit of diversion between the five that have been referred to there in the RIS. Although two of them might be quite similar, the other three, I think that many members will accept, are large metropolitan areas or councils in terms of the representation.

So my question, firstly, is around those five councils. They’re the only ones that have had a chance to engage with officials on this particular issue or proposal, so I’d like to know about that.

We’d also like to know about the actual amounts that this would lead to for councils, and why has funding not been made available. In the bigger scheme, if this is $1 million, is this not yet another unfunded mandate that this Government seems to want to pass on to or hoist on to councils? Yes, we are supportive of this scheme, but we’re also supportive of ensuring that councils have the tools to be able to deliver aspects for their community. So those are the two questions that I’d like to start with.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I thank members for their questions in relation to the engagement with councils, as it’s an important component and we want them to be advocates of the system as well. In terms of the engagement, in the regulatory impact statement, as you can see from the councils, it was the larger councils where there was some concern about the technical systems that they operate and whether they would be able to adopt it. That consultation has been ongoing and continues. Those councils have all, along with many others that have been consulted, confirmed that they are happy. As Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has communicated in their press release, they are happy that they are able to roll this out. That initial engagement with the larger councils we based on that. Since then, the department has continued to engage and the response has been very positive in regard to their capacity to deal with it.

Again, I would highlight that this is an existing system that’s already in place that we were adding a broader threshold—so the issues were really around the numbers. Again, as I’ve mentioned previously, the ability for constituent MPs to offer support to their constituents in terms of assisting and filling out the forms and making the process as easy as possible so that those who haven’t taken advantage of this scheme can optimise it—the objective is, of course, to increase the number of people that are accessing this scheme, and we will do everything we can to broaden that understanding and appreciation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I really appreciate the Minister’s response. I just want to check—the Minister mentioned that it is an existing system and it’s in the system. One of the things in Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1 that really stood out to me is: “as if the Rates Rebate Amendment Act 2025 had not been enacted.” These are for rates for the year ending before 1 July 2025.

I want to check with the Minister: for those kind of rates, and then for them to go into the new year—i.e., starting from 1 July 2025—would the Minister know if the council’s internal system is able to easily make those adjustments from the perspective of rates postponement? My colleague Celia Wade-Brown previously mentioned that out of about 80 or so councils, eight of them currently actually allow rates postponement as it is. That includes Auckland Council, for example, and even Wellington City Council. So for those people who are going to be applying for and going to the new system but have traditionally been allowed to have rates postponement, does the system then allow the rates postponement adjustment to tick over, on the basis of what we see in Schedule 1, as of 1 July 2025? I’m assuming that’s an easily adjustable system if it’s already been captured, but I’d be interested to hear from the Minister specifically on those who are currently on rates postponement.

The second question, then, that I have for the Minister is—the Minister also just mentioned that this is, again, something that you apply for. Let’s say a person applies for it after this bill comes into effect, will they then get retrospectivity given the fact that they may apply it in September? We’ve heard that, yes, the bill will be active and will come into effect and people will apply for it—but at various times. Would, again, their higher threshold be on the basis of when they applied or when this bill came into effect? I think those are the two questions I would really like to get some advice from the Minister on.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to pick up on a couple of things that the Minister has, herself, brought into the debate, and also just a supplementary question, which I’ll start with first. From the contribution from Lawrence Xu-Nan, when he talked about the retrospectivity, I guess the supplementary question on that is: if there is some delay to the processing of the SuperGold card at the council end—at the territorial authority end—that would seem to be very unfair to the ratepayer, who would otherwise be entitled to that rebate. I’m wondering if she has considered who should bear that cost. Would that be a Government cost? Would the territorial authority, perhaps, have to pick it up, and, if so, how can we be sure that that’s going to happen?

There is, I think, secondary legislation available but, if not, having this on the Hansard would be really helpful so that if, for a ratepayer, for some reason there is a problem with the equipment at the territorial authority, which we’ve already canvassed, and if the ratepayer is told that, say, in an email from the council, they can then present that to the council—if the Minister can just clarify who bears that cost, I think even having it on the Hansard would be really good, in terms of making the case for that poor superannuant, who would find it incredibly stressful. But also, rates are stressful, if they can then recoup that and say, “Well, actually, I applied on this date and, therefore, as a matter of natural justice, I should be able to get the rebate”—that would be very helpful.

The further matter, though, that the Minister herself brought into the debate was something that just piqued my interest, because I understand it was made in a very sincere and genuine way and, as an elected MP, I certainly would be wanting to help anybody coming to my office who would like to apply for a SuperGold card. But I’m wondering if that is an indication that the Minister is expecting MPs and other agencies to be, sort of, supporting the roll-out of this—and then, how is that going to work? She’s just indicated that now, and for list MPs, who don’t necessarily have a permanent base or are not known to be there at particular times, is she expecting list MPs to do that too?

MPs have a huge workload and normally, for those listening, where we try to help is where people have gone to a Government agency and have fallen through the cracks. It might be a matter of housing, it might be a health matter, perhaps. For example, I’ve been helping a constituent recently who has been on a very long waiting list for hip replacements. It’s costing taxpayers a huge amount of money for home care, and actually, although the squeaky wheel shouldn’t get ahead on the list, with some further investigation and letters from an MP, we are able to step in and be that place of last resort to help constituents.

But what I heard from the Minister was something quite different, which was an invitation, perhaps as a matter of course, to be helping constituents to fill out the paperwork for the SuperGold card. Now, I’ve never done that. I’m not sure if my office have, and I know that my very adept staff would be able to support people to do that—and there is probably going to be a flurry of people now coming to the office to get that done. I would welcome that, because we want them to get the benefit of the rates rebate, but it does seem unusual to me that the Minister would be suggesting that, as a matter of course, people would go to their office.

I’m thinking also about the contribution made earlier by my colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who was talking about some of the barriers for our ethnic communities. For some of them, English is not their first language. If we, as MPs, are going to be helping to support the roll-out of this, it could be really useful to have some additional translation material and paperwork available, perhaps some forms done in Samoan, for example—it is Samoa Language Week—that would be really helpful for those electorate MPs.

Actually, given that we have te reo Māori as an official language, perhaps we could also have some paperwork in our offices for that. Certainly, a lot of the people from Te Tai Tonga come to my electorate office, because there isn’t a permanent office anywhere, I think, in the South Island, given that that electorate stretches all the way up to Pōneke—to Wellington. If we’re going to be serious about taking on this duty, which I’m happy to do—I don’t know what it would entail work wise—is the Minister seeing that as a matter of course, or is this something just more as a backstop? I’m keen to understand.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): Just in response to the member’s questions regarding the councils’ systems of managing postponement, the bill won’t affect that. The postponement system that the member talked about, councillors have advised that they can deliver on this work, so we don’t have any concerns in that space at this time. Will there be a retrospective effect? No, we haven’t considered that. There’s no retrospectivity. It will come into effect from 1 July 2025, should the bill pass.

In response to the member from Labour’s questions about the processing, I think there’s a misunderstanding about what I was talking about. I wasn’t suggesting that members assist with SuperGold card applications. What I referred to earlier on was that I know of MPs who have assisted members in filling out their rates rebate applications. I’m not suggesting that is compulsory and I’m not suggesting that that needs to be done. There are systems and information in place. There will be further information continuing to be circulated by the Office for Seniors. Councils, I know, have been helpful in the process. So that is not at all the suggestion that I’m making.

In terms of application dates, there were some concerns about processing applications and who would bear that cost and whether there would be anybody penalised. I can assure you that the application date will determine the eligibility. Regardless of whether there is any delay in processing, it’s the application date which starts the process. So how long it takes to process won’t affect what is paid out.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for Seniors for that clarification. I think what I’m hearing from her is that it is the application day, but is there any discretion that relates to any other time frames, particularly around when councils would be expected to have to undertake particular tasks? There is, for example, in the bill, the expectation that councils are not required to double-check eligibility criteria. Obviously, if this is Schedule 1, the transitional sort of provisions, is that something that can still be dealt with regardless of when an application is received or not, or is there some thinking around that?

I want to also just pick up on the Minister’s point around her expectation that, no, it wouldn’t be list or constituency MPs who would be, basically, taking on board this backlog of applications to assist with. Like Ms Leary has, we all have wonderful staff. I have wonderful staff in my electorate office that would very happily help anyone who comes and wants some assistance, whether it be for an application for a SuperGold card, Minister, or whether it be that they wanted to access this rebate scheme, either under the existing lower-income threshold or with the new one.

I think there is, though, still the outstanding question around where the costs fall, because the Minister hasn’t actually responded to the $1 million that is anticipated or expected as a cost that would currently fall on councils. Why is the Government not making available the $100 million to meet the costs that would otherwise be going into communities all around the country, and, yes, in some cases it’s the $200,000 mark for larger councils, and the Minister has said that that’s largely, I think, related to IT development or opportunities that exist within a local territorial authority. That is none the less a cost that is being borne by the councils. Why is the Government not footing the bill to do that?

The Minister also talked about, in response to my question to her—and I thank her for it—the fact that there is ongoing consultation with councils. Now, that is news to the committee, because we obviously saw that there was some level of engagement with the five named councils—Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Clutha, and Manawatū. The committee was not aware that there was an ongoing level of consultation, I assume, with those five councils, and it might just be that, yes, they’ve agreed that it is acceptable for all five of those councils and they are able to roll it out and they believe they can absorb the costs or what have you, or no, there are three of them that have IT issues.

What’s not clear still, though, from the Minister is: is it just those five councils? Or since this policy announcement, has there actually been a wider level of engagement with a wider level or range of councils outside of those five to reflect, or in response to, some of the transitional issues that might be faced that perhaps the Minister or officials were not aware of—the Government was not aware of—when this was brought to their attention?

So this is about the fact that, OK, all we know at the moment is that five councils in this country have been involved in feedback around this. That’s better than none; I accept that. But now we hear from the Minister that there has been an ongoing level of consultation. Well, what is that, what does that look like, has that been widened or not? Actually, as some of these issues have come to light and given that this was introduced under Budget urgency, there has been the passage of time and the benefit of time since then and now, so what is the level of consultation? What is some of the stuff that those councils have been raising?

We don’t get an updated regulatory impact statement (RIS). We can only rely on what the RIS is in front of us, but there may very well have been some issues, and they may all be positive. It would be great if they were positive and saying that they don’t have an issue with this. But what are the issues that have been raised with the Minister or with officials as part of this newly found ongoing consultation to ensure that with Schedule 1 that smooth transition through to councils around New Zealand is able to take place?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I think, perhaps, I’m not making myself particularly clear, but, as I’ve said repeatedly, there has been ongoing communication with the councils. I think 57 of the 67 have been engaged with webinars, and they’ve been in Local Government New Zealand and sent out communications that they’re supportive of it. Of the five councils that were mentioned in the regulatory impact statement, they have, again, come through this process and supported it. They are just five of the many councils that have been engaged with; they will continue to be supported through this process.

In terms of around where that cost will sit, this is quantifying what that cost might look like. Most of the councils submit these forms in a batch monthly. How they quantify that cost I’m not quite sure, but in terms of that, ready to roll out—all of the feedback that we’ve had from the councils is that they are generally supportive of the process. Local Government New Zealand has come out publicly and said they’re supportive of the system, and, at this stage, we feel confident that they are ready to engage, and no further issues have been raised at this time.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the same line of questioning. I know, Mr Chair, that you’re saying that new points need to be raised, so I just want to go back to the line of questioning that has been followed by my colleagues, and I thank them for raising points on Part 2.

The Minister has explained clearly that from her understanding there are no issues, but I go back to the issue of those who are eligible to apply. There is an assumption that is made by the department that things will come right in terms of the roll-out date, in terms of the eligibility of the SuperGold card, in terms of the understanding of who will be eligible and who will not, because you’ve got to meet the income threshold, you’ve got to meet also the SuperGold card. But what I want to put on record very clearly is that when the roll-out does happen, because there’s a lot of information that we have asked questions on—what I want to stress is the importance of the public engagement of who will be eligible and at what point. Because the department shows here in the regulatory impact statement that without the cost-benefit analysis and with a new electronic rates management system, there are going to be some issues, Minister, with the roll-out, particularly if only five territorial local authorities have had engagement that they have raised.

But that doesn’t speak for everyone. So I go back to what I earlier said, Minister, on those communities that will be eligible for a SuperGold card, and my question is: will the applicants receive the same amount of engagement, will they have a very clear understanding as to if they are eligible as SuperGold card holders, and at what point will they be eligible for rates rebates?

This is really important, and I want to put on record and stress that those households that are eligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme under the new system—at what point do those details need to be spelt out explicitly by the territorial local authorities, not just the five that have had engagement? What about everybody else? If we’re talking about the fairness of a system for our seniors, I want to stress that. My really quick question, Minister, is: will there be the same level of public engagement?

An earlier comment was made by the member Ingrid Leary that there has been a small assumption that MPs, constituent MPs—and I come from South Auckland, and there’s a lot of diversity, and there’s a misunderstanding of officials. Also, please don’t assume that people can just rock up to a Government office. They can’t. There’s a whole lot of things that come with approaching the Department of Internal Affairs or the Ministry of Social Development. You’ve got to go through a whole system.

So what I want to ask the Minister is: will the same amount of engagement, not just with officials when the system is rolled out, also be for the seniors? I continue to stress that for Māori communities, for Pacific, and for ethnic communities, English is not their first language. There needs to be a very clear system that when people can have the benefit of a rates rebate in their household because they’ve got very limited incomes, they will get the same amount of attention and engagement and clear understanding of the language in terms of what they are eligible for. That is my question to the Minister.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): I would say it again, and I’m not sure how many times I can repeat this: we have not just engaged with five councils. All 67 territorial authorities have received information through their ratings officers. Webinars with councils have engaged with 57 of those councils. We have sent out information through Grey Power, through the Office for Seniors. We will continue to work with mayors and chief executives. The information has been sent out. I will say it again: it is not just the five councils that have been receiving information.

My only suggestion—and I’m sorry that I’ve created alarm—is that the constituent MPs may wish to assist this process. I am not trying to overburden hard-working constituent MPs, but I am acknowledging the fact that you may wish to assist. But there are lots of tools and information available. We will continue to engage. There will be further information sent out, and, again, the intention is to ensure the engagement—and any suggestions to improve that engagement, I’m sure, will be welcomingly received.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7 to insert new section 2AB is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Part 2 agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I won’t make reference to clause 3; I think that’s very clear in terms of the Act that it seeks to amend. However, I do want to pose some questions to the Minister around clause 1, which relates to the title, and clause 2, which relates to the commencement.

One of the things that I think is really important—and we do hear this quite a lot in this House—is that the name of the bill that is making its way through the House should really, truly reflect what the bill is actually about. I accept that sometimes that can be very difficult to achieve, particularly if there are competing aspects in a bill. That’s not the case with this one. It is a very discrete change around eligibility for the Rates Rebate Scheme.

I have an Amendment Paper which would seek to change the name of this bill to, I think, actually, call it exactly what it is, and that is the “Rates Rebate (SuperGold Card Eligibility) Amendment Bill”. I’d really encourage the Minister to consider the appropriateness of that. I think this is a bill that is purely around a change in eligibility for those that hold or possess a SuperGold card. So anyone that’s looking back at this would just look and say, “OK, well, it’s the Rates Rebate Amendment Act”, and might think, without delving deeply into it and looking at the annotations that would follow an amendment Act and what the changes were specifically about—whereas calling it what it is, the “Rates Rebate (SuperGold Card Eligibility) Amendment Bill”, would go more than some way to identify exactly what this bill seeks to address, and that is to deliver eligibility for this scheme for holders of the SuperGold card.

I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. It is the only Amendment Paper that is in my name. I think it is a sensible one, but I would be interested in whether the Minister was open, at this late stage—given also, though, that this was an Amendment Paper that was drafted under urgency and was tabled on the exact same day as urgency; none the less, I still think that it does ring true.

On commencement, we’ve had a lot of conversations in committee about the appropriateness of councils being able to deliver on this. My question to the Minister on this clause is very simple, and it’s whether she has confidence in being able to have this bill, which will become an Act, effectively coming into force on 1 July, which is not too far away. My colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene had identified that. I wonder whether there are any concerns around the time pressures associated with this commencement and whether—look, I get the point that the Minister will probably make, which will be that the Government and Parliament will want this to come into force for the coming rates year; I get that. But is it such that it can’t actually be delayed, albeit slightly beyond 1 July, to allow for councils to get their systems in place to deal with this?

Now, the Minister has said that there appears to be some confidence that—well, councils like this idea, ratepayers like this idea, we like this idea, but we want to make sure that it works. So the question to the Minister is around the level of confidence she has that having this bill, or the Act, as it will be known, commence in a matter of two and a bit weeks is still an appropriate time frame, particularly given that there are a number of over-burdened administrative systems that councils around the country are more happy to contend with. It doesn’t have to be smaller councils that will only fit this bill when it comes to some difficulties with systems; there are larger ones as well, and I think that lends itself to what the Minister has said around those councils that are looking at a $200,000 cost which is not funded by this Government. That is an important distinction to make; yet another unfunded mandate that is being put on to councils around New Zealand.

So is the 1 July date still appropriate, or would she be open to amending that so that it is somewhat—just slightly—further out?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 2, “Commencement”, and then move on to clause 1, “Title”. In terms of the clause 2 and the commencement date, the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, mentioned some of the viability of the implementation date of 1 July, but I kind of want to hone in on the complementary order that is coming into force at the same time as named here in the commencement date, which is the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025.

Now, my understanding in terms of that particular order is that this is where it comes into effect for other ratepayers—we’re increasing the threshold to $32,210 from $31,510, which is in that particular order as well as the maximum rebate amount from $790 to $805. But what I’m curious about in this is: what does the Minister for Seniors mean by “immediately after”? Should immediately after, essentially, be interpreted as at the same time, like a few seconds after, or in quick succession? It’s a new thing for a commencement date that I’ve never seen previously on any of the other bills. If it just means a few seconds after, an hour after, it’d be good to know, because I genuinely have never come across that term before, and whether it’d be easier just to say, “at the same time as”.

On to the title, I take note of what the previous speaker, Tangi Utikere, mentioned in terms of his amendment, and I think his rationale is a really important one where through this bill, we’re not looking at a complete system change of rates rebate, but instead we’re looking at some minor adjustments. We are in support of Tangi Utikere’s amendment as well, but we also propose something else here which is that it is best to look at it maybe from a SuperGold card holder perspective or even simply a threshold adjustment, which is what we have here. So our proposal is: after “Rates Rebate” insert “(Threshold Adjustment)” just to again specify that this is looking at a very small portion of it.

I’m still a little bit puzzled, and we hear from the Minister that this came about as part of a coalition Government agreement in terms of looking at adjustments to the rates rebate for citizens, for seniors over the age of 65. But what we haven’t seen—and the Minister has continuously ruled things out outside the scope—in terms of this bill and in terms of the regulatory impact statement is how it benefits more vulnerable communities and vulnerable seniors than other members, and particularly that other members from the Labour Party have mentioned consistently as barriers for access to either SuperGold card or access to this.

So I wondered if the Minister would consider other title amendments that actually, again, more accurately capture the fact that while this is something that is going to benefit, it’s only going to benefit seniors who—to be honest—are eligible to a rates rebate in the first place, who are only going to be homeowners or landlords, but does not consider people who rent, does not consider the broader spectrum of, honestly, people over the age of 65 who are in more vulnerable situations. So I really think that there’s a missed opportunity here—whether the Minister will then consider “Rates Rebate (Great but a Missed Opportunity) Amendment Bill”. I’ll be keen to hear from the Minister in terms of my question on what does “immediately after” refer to in terms of the commencement date and whether the Minister would consider my title amendment.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors): Just to confirm: the 1 July date is the start of the new rates year. As you know, the rates year is up to 30 June, so this is to come into effect from the start of a new rates year—immediately upon the start of a new rates year.

In reference to the title, I think it is a very small piece of legislation. It is amending the current Rates Rebate Scheme. I think the title accurately reflects that.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 1, to insert “SuperGold Card eligibility”, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert “(Threshold Adjustment)” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 21

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1, “Amendments to principal Act”, which is clauses 4 to 9, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to start by giving an indication of how I see this debate and what we will be doing on this side of the Chamber around how we’re going to frame our debate over the next wee while. First of all, it’s well-known that we absolutely oppose this piece of legislation, so very much for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I’ve got some big-picture, umbrella questions on where her thinking was around this legislation, what led to this, and the evidence that supported it, and then I’ve got some questions relating to individual clauses. We have a number of amendments that we will table or have tabled that will speak to those individual amendments as well that we are proposing.

On that, I want to just set the scene a little bit. Going through the bill itself and going through the regulatory impact statement (RIS), it seems to me that as it says in the RIS, the Minister has proposed this legislation change to—and it quotes—restore the “balance to collective bargaining situations.” In there, it argued that employers are disadvantaged because they cannot make proportionate responses to partial strikes undertaken by employees during bargaining. What it fails to recognise, in my opinion and the opinion of quite a number of people who work within this area, is the inherent imbalance between employees and employers in the industrial situation, and the fact that employees are inherently in a lesser situation in an industrial situation with that power imbalance.

What this bill does is it takes away many of their rights and much of their ability to be able to bring their position forward in that industrial situation, particularly when it gets to a point that there’s a bit of an impasse, and the fact is that they have nowhere to go other than to full industrial strikes. That was the reason why the partial strike provision was introduced in the first place, so that it would alleviate the need to have the full-on strike and the full-on industrial action.

Just going on from that, the RIS shows that there was no robust evidence on the effectiveness of the bill. Clear evidence of the impacts of these measures should be available—and they absolutely should be available because these amendments have previously been enacted and then repealed—but the effectiveness of these proposals towards the Minister’s aims has not been provided. So my first question to the Minister is: what evidence does she have—and not reckons, but evidence—that this wouldn’t result in a more full-on industrial situation, because rights have been taken away from those particular employees and from those particular workers. So what evidence does show that?

What evidence does she have that employers have been marginalised in this situation, as well? I’ve been through and, as a previous Minister, have overseen a couple of rather big industrial situations, and at no point was it ever the case in either of those situations—and I’m talking about the firefighters and the teachers—that the employers were marginalised in those situations at all, as has been said here in this rationale. What evidence does she have that employers have been marginalised?

So the two questions are both around evidence, as far as her rationale goes, for this bill being enacted in the way that it has been. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Here we are again at the committee stage, discussing another bill brought by this Minister that would take away the rights of workers and put them in unfair situations. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a surprise as there appears to be a continued attack on the rights of workers, and this particular one is in relation to their right to take industrial action.

This bill is a bill that allows employers to, for any action that might breach an employment agreement, deduct 10 percent of that worker’s pay with impunity, and that does not protect those workers from not being paid the minimum wage and it does not protect those workers for their employer unfairly deducting a larger amount of their wages than the proportion of work that they haven’t done. I think these are aspects of this bill which are inherently unfair. There are amendments on the Table which I look forward to asking the Minister about because I think there is an opportunity here for her to look beyond the arbitrary punishment of working people in New Zealand and look to what is actually fair and reasonable legislation, which will fulfil the purported aims as outlined in the introduction statement of this bill. So I do have a number of amendments that I would like to discuss with her.

The first one that I will discuss is in relation to clause 5. This provision in the bill was originally repealed due to the fact that employers were using this in a way which was deemed to be unjustified and unfair in relation to the action taken by employees. That is the reason that this provision was repealed. That aspect was specifically in relation to something which will be put back into law under this particular piece of legislation—that is, allowing partial strikes to be considered for deductions of wages.

I have put in front of the Minister an amendment which will not get away from the inherent unfairness, I don’t feel, of this bill, but it will go some way to alleviating the extreme unfairness that was seen in the prior legislation which was repealed, and it would, in fact, improve this legislation to make it slightly more beneficial to all working New Zealanders. That is specifically looking at the extreme unfairness and pettiness that had been in place, where employers had looked to clothing that people were wearing and badges that people were wearing as part of a partial strike and industrial action, and they had, in fact, deducted wages from those people, despite the fact that they had completed all of the tasks in their job description and all of the tasks in their employment agreement and had, perhaps, gone above and beyond in relation to their effective duties.

Now, this could be something that the Minister could carve out; I implore her to do just that. It is not fair to state that just because someone wears a badge—and it has been noted, with some irony, the particular predilection of that Minister’s particular political party towards doing just that—or an item of clothing, that is, therefore, enough to deduct wages from an employee. The Minister could change this bill to specifically exclude technical breaches of employment contracts that might be associated with items of clothing or adornments like a badge or a brooch that state a political message.

I know my colleagues on the other side won’t be taking a call on this, but I’m sure that if they would, they would say that that is fair enough because that might affect the business. Now, this is something we can discuss later in relation to the public sector, but this doesn’t just apply to private businesses. This applies to every single worker in New Zealand, whether they’re public facing or not, and so that overall statement that it might impact on the reputation of that business is not borne out by the fact that this particular bill goes so far as to allow any technical breach of an employment agreement, like wearing an item of clothing, to be considered a partial strike. So I don’t think that that particular excuse holds water. I think that any reasonable person would not think that not adhering strictly to a uniform policy during a period of industrial action by wearing an item of clothing should mean that you’d take home less wages.

In this bill, as I’ve said before, there is a specific section that allows workers in New Zealand to be paid less than the minimum wage. This is for people that have done their job. What kind of country are we that we do not want workers who do their job—adult workers entitled to, at the bare minimum, the minimum wage—to receive that simply because of something that they wear? I think that that is abhorrent, I think that it is absolutely contrary to our values as a country, and I have a specific amendment around that, which I will talk to later, that would remove that particular item from the legislation.

My question to the Minister is: will she accept my amendment to insert in the definition of “partial strike” in new section 82AA in clause 5 a new paragraph (c) that states “despite paragraph (b), this does not include actions such as wearing clothing or badges that are solely meant as a silent or visual protest while the employee otherwise conducts their normal performance of work as outlined in their employment agreement”? I haven’t put this forward to waste the Minister’s time. I have put this forward because I think this is a well-thought-out, practical solution that would actually strengthen this piece of legislation and make sure that the worst situations of unfairness that we did see when this was previously the law—and then it was repealed—would not occur under this Minister’s legislation.

My colleague Jan Tinetti has specifically asked for the evidence that has been used in formulating this particular piece of legislation, and if the Minister has had evidence to suggest that there are some inherent issues with these very minor, technical breaches of employment contracts that may constitute a partial strike, has she had any evidence to suggest that that is actually going to improve the lot of workers in New Zealand? I don’t think she has. I would be interested to know if she has, and I would be very interested to know if she would consider implementing my very pragmatic, very sensible carve-out that would improve the fairness of this legislation for all New Zealanders and get rid of what is a terrible, terrible injustice that we have. It’s not just scaremongering; it actually happened under the prior legislation.

I genuinely want to know from the Minister: will she consider that amendment or a similarly worded amendment to the same effect, and, if not, why not, and how does she justify that? Is that justification based on advice or evidence that she has received, and, if she has received that, what is it?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will respond to the contributions made so far, and through the contributions, I’ve been hearing about fairness. That is at the heart of why this Government is passing this legislation—it’s about a rebalance of fairness across industrial action. At the moment, the status quo is that in response to a partial strike or partial withdrawal of labour, an employer can either suck up the costs and not do anything, or have a full strike. There is no balance in the middle about ensuring that the parties get back to the negotiating table, but there is also nothing in here about the fairness of the actions on others.

When we’ve been talking about what evidence there may be, over the last few years there has been a number of partial strikes, and I’ll just list a couple. In 2024, hospital-based MRI and nuclear medicine technologists undertook partial strike action, including limits on the number of scans completed each day. This resulted in a reduction of around 50 percent of scans, delays in early cancer treatment resulting in increased waiting lists and increased outsourcing costs, and it required additional front-line staff to cover the striking workers’ radiology work, and so there is an inherent unfairness that the employer’s response is either to accept this or to ask for a full withdrawal of labour, and the people who miss out are the Kiwis who are waiting for their cancer scans.

The second point is that in 2023, teachers undertook strike action which was a partial strike, refusing to teach certain year groups on different days. This seriously disrupted student learning and families, who, at quite short notice sometimes, needed to find other places to have their kids for a day, or who had to give up work for a day to look after their children. There is an inherent unfairness that the response for the employer is either just to accept it, or to ask for a full withdrawal of labour, and so this incentivises getting people back around the bargaining table and not having to have a disproportionate response to the action of a partial strike.

When it comes to the issue of whether or not the items of clothing that Camilla Belich has put forward in her amendment could be excluded, look, that’s not something that the Government will progress with. But I also want to put on record some of the concern that I think it’s been borne out of, which is that in 2017, some St John Ambulance officers took a partial strike action, which was that they had worn their union T-shirts. The concern here was not the union T-shirt; the concern was that they refused to wear a high-vis vest on top of the union T-shirt, which was something that the employer, understandably, wished to uphold in the employment contract because of the nature of the work that they were doing as St John Ambulance officers.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: It’s safety.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: You’re right—it comes down to health and safety and the obligations of the employer to uphold that health and safety in the community. So, for that reason, I will not be supporting Camilla Belich’s amendment, but this actually does come down to the rebalancing of fairness for employees—yes, the right to strike—but for the right of the employer not just to have to accept it or to ask for a full withdrawal of labour, which is disproportionate, and also for the fairness of the Kiwis who have been missing out on cancer treatments and schooling.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions in relation to clause 5 and the new section 95A, which is in clause 6. But, parking aside the fact that this is a rubbish piece of legislation that will hurt our workers, I have some questions in relation to unintended fiscal consequences that may arise as a result of the provisions in clause 5.

One of the reasons why I ask this is that in the Social Security Act, for example, there’s a definition of “strike”, which in and of itself impacts on people’s eligibility to access, for example, jobseeker support, or other types of assistance. Right now, we have provisions that allow low-income workers who may be facing hardship to apply for things like hardship grants, or special needs grants, as they’re called, but while there is a definition in clause 5 of the meaning of “partial strike”, it seems like the Minister hasn’t changed the definitions in, for example, the Social Security Act to add “partial strike” to that in terms of the provisions of who can access assistance. The interpretation, therefore, that I’m getting is that based on the language in new section 82AA in clause 5, people who are undertaking partial strikes could, in theory—some of them—be able to access financial support from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) if the deduction in pay puts them in hardship.

Now, if that is to be the case, has the Minister accounted for any unintended fiscal consequences that may arise from having a definition of “partial strike” in this bill, but not then, for example, translating that to the Social Security Act, because what we could see is people who have a pay deduction being put in hardship? Particularly, we’re talking about low-income workers then having to access hardship assistance and facing rent arrears, and then having to ask for rent arrears assistance, which is something that low-wage workers could access via MSD. So I just wanted to ask whether MSD was consulted around these potential unintended fiscal consequences that her bill may have as a result of people who are being put in hardship still being able to access assistance from Work and Income due to the language, very specifically, that is found in clause 5 around “partial strike”, and then subsequently in the new section 95A, which allows for that amount to be variable.

I think, to me, this is a really important consideration, because if we take away all the discourse that the Minister just presented around the notion of fairness, the real-life impacts of this bill is that some people could actually be placed in hardship as a result of this. It could include—as Camilla Belich and others have noted—changes in the attire that people wear, and that could result in, say, for example, lower pay. So if the Government hasn’t accounted for potential fiscal impacts that, particularly, the provisions in clause 5 in Part 1 may have, does she think that it was being responsible to not have consulted with MSD about the potential impacts and the contradictions in definitions found in this bill versus those in the Social Security Act? There’s no definition in the Social Security Act of “partial strike”, and the way that “strike” is defined in that Act seems like it would not encompass everything that is in here. Does she think that that is problematic, and, if not, why not? If she does have information about unintended physical consequences, would she be able to front up to the House and reveal what those are so that the general public understands what additional pressures may be put on MSD as a result of people needing assistance from them?

Lastly, I did want to just seek clarification—and I think it would be good to put it on the Hansard—about what happens to KiwiSaver contributions as a result of those pay deductions. Would those be affected or not, because, obviously, that’s been a feature in those changes in the Budget. So I think it could just be useful for the Hansard for the Minister to clarify to the committee what happens in relation to them.

To recap, I do think that the way that she has decided to add a definition of “partial strike” in here while perhaps not looking at how that is defined in other pieces of legislation does feel problematic, mostly because they’ll have a fiscal consequence. That fiscal consequence is real, and that’s why we’ve been concerned in the House. What we’ve been concerned about is the real fiscal consequences for low-wage workers that this bill is punching down on, so any clarification on unintended fiscal consequences as a result of the provisions in clause 5 would be great, and also on any consultation that she may have had with MSD in relation to this potentially being a gap that we’ve identified. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was clear to anyone listening to this debate that we on this side of the House consider this to be an odious bill. Rather than rebalancing employment relations, it’s yet another example of tipping the balance in favour of employers and undermining the rights of workers to collectively bargain for a fair share of the wealth that they generate.

I wanted to add to the list of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to consider that the big contradiction that lies at the heart of this bill that was kind of illuminated at select committee, but not really properly explained or resolved, and that is what this means in terms of the place of the contract in employment relations, which of course is central to all of the way that we think about workplace relations and how we govern them. What this bill, effectively, allows is for people to have their pay deducted for abiding by the terms of their employment contract. Now, on the face of it, that seems bizarre, but that is, in fact, what this bill does.

I’d point people to new section 82AA in clause 5, in Part 1, which is, essentially, the definition of a “partial strike”, which includes “a reduction in the employee’s normal performance at work, normal output, or normal rate of work:”. Now, as everybody knows, an employment contract sets out and specifies the details of what an employee is required to do—the rights and responsibilities—but in every example, I would argue, there is always a range of kind of informal and flexible arrangements that develop between an employee and an employer. It might be the understanding, for example—it might not be in their contract, but it might be that in certain circumstances—that an employee will stay behind a bit later to help clean up after some event or some activity. It might be an understanding based on a quid pro quo with the employer that an employee may backstop another employee in the team when something needs to be done. It’s not in the employment contract, but it’s just one of those things that you’d do to make sure that the team works effectively and that a workplace is efficiently run.

The example that we talked about a lot in select committee was teachers who coach sports teams, and that’s a very common example. There wouldn’t be a school in the country where teachers don’t routinely do things that are outside the explicit terms of their employment agreement, but they do it out of a sense of pastoral care and commitment to the students and a desire to make sure that the school is successful and works well and provides a great environment for the students.

All of those little flexible kind of arrangements that develop in an employment relationship would arguably, I think, come to be seen to be the normal output of an employee, but it appears, under this bill, that if someone stops coaching that sports team, they stop backstopping another employee, or they stop staying back behind to help clean up after some kind of event, which are things that aren’t in their employment agreement—

Camilla Belich: But are not paid.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —yeah—but that could be considered to be part of the normal output, then that can be deemed and construed to be a partial strike. Is that right? Is that fair? Is it consistent?

I think it’s a total contradiction at the heart of this bill, and I invite the Minister to explain what her thinking about this is. Does she accept that it’s a contradiction, and what about the practical consequences of doing this? What are employees going to do? Are they going to say, “Well, I’m going to stop doing all those things.”? I would really like to hear some answers to that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by focusing on clause 5 and new section 82AA around the definition of “partial strike”. We’ve heard what the Minister said before and some of the examples, and I’ll come to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s example in a bit, but just picking up on Camilla Belich’s question around items of clothing, I really want to unpack the exact wording of the definition of “partial strike”. I want to test a few scenarios with the Minister on the applicability of that definition and who that burden of proof is then on.

So in terms of the definition of “partial strike”, paragraph (a) of that definition talks about “perform some work” and in paragraph (b) it talks about a break in terms of “normal duties, normal performance … normal output,” or a “break their employment agreement,”. Now, can I just check: if the employment agreement doesn’t specify anything about items of clothing, is it a break of the employment agreement and what would be the determining factor on that? Would that be a mutual decision made by the employer and the employee, or does that decision making solely rest with the employer, because under any good contractual agreement, the benefit of the doubt and also the interpretation and any changes in the interpretation rests on the party that did not draft the agreement in the first place. So would there, again, be more case load or challenges through the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) not only on a matter of interpretation of the legislation but also in terms of the employee’s employment agreement?

I also want to check, again, in considering having an employee perform some work—because I remember this, possibly, as part of the select committee stage, when questioning one of the submitters—whether working to rule is considered to be a partial strike, because in some cases, working to rule has been interpreted as a partial strike. However, if a person is working to rule, it is not considered to be a partial strike under the definition in this. So if an employee was striking in a form of working to rule and they’re being slapped by this, would they then have probable cause to challenge that with the ERA? That is my second question.

My third question is: what data does the Minister have when it comes to there being a genuine change—or what then would the employer need to produce to suggest that there is a genuine change in productivity? In terms of the regulatory impact statement—and the Minister has mentioned the instance with, let’s say, St John Ambulance officers and the instance with Health New Zealand—that is data that possibly we could track, but most of these sorts of things possibly happen in the private sector. So what data does the Minister have that is genuinely from the private sector that a partial strike has led to a reduction of productivity, which means a reduction in the normal performance of work, because if an employer cannot prove that there’s a genuine reduction, rather than just saying “We think there’s a reduction in productivity.”, how would that be upheld when things like this get challenged? That’s my third question.

My fourth question is around what the Minister has said in terms of the backlog in the Health New Zealand example. I reject the Minister’s trivialisation of why employees would conduct partial strikes in the first place as a way of—do you know what? In general, people don’t do that for fun; people do that because of a genuine fundamental issue that they cannot have agreement on with the employer, and I particularly reject the notion that the Minister proposes of pitting parents and patients against teachers and health staff as a way of saying, “Oh look, what about this?” As a matter of fact, most people would agree that teachers and health staff and nurses should have the best workplace conditions possible, and so I would just like to consider the Minister to reflect on her example.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask a very quick question, and then go on to the question around the amendment that I have tabled in my name on new section 82AA in clause 5. My first question is just in relation to an answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave around the question about clothing that my colleague Camilla Belich asked her. She talked about whether, considering that partial strikes are intended to include non-compliance with an employer’s policies and procedures that do not give rise to loss of productivity—and my colleague talked about the clothing side of things and that definition in new section 82AA. Just as that question was being asked and the Minister was giving her answer and gave the example of the St John Ambulance officers, I wanted to ask whether she considered the likes of Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s (FENZ’s) industrial action, and what the firefighters did with their industrial action with FENZ in 2022, I think it was, when they used—

Sam Uffindell: Was that when you had internal affairs?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, actually, Sam, that was when I was the Minister, and I’ve already said that. You weren’t in the Chamber when I said that, so just for clarification, I’ve already mentioned it before. You should keep up with the debate maybe, which would be really good.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It would be better if the member used full names and referred to the member not hearing it—

Hon JAN TINETTI: Oh, thank you—Sam Uffindell.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —and not the member not being in the Chamber, OK?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI: What I wanted to ask about in that case is when they used their fire engines as a little bit of a billboard to let the public know what their issues were—which was a very creative way of getting that out there as part of their industrial action—it was very similar to the uniform policy that the Minister answered before about St John. So does the Minister see something like that as being a partial strike, because if that’s the case, it seems to me that anything that is deemed to be a partial strike is taking away every single bit of industrial action that employees have open to them, in which case, this isn’t rebalancing; this is absolutely taking the balance well out of the employees’ ability to be able to actually get their messages across.

I’d really like to know the answer to that one, but what I wanted to talk about—and my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned it—is that I have an amendment around new section 82AA in clause 5, and actually giving some definition around “normal performance”, because I feel that that is a very generic term that can be misused by any employer and it is likely to be misused around that. We talk about working to rule, and my colleague talked about teachers and their ability to be able to take sports outside of their normal time. I really would like to know whether the Minister thinks that that is the same as a partial strike. It’s not in their employment agreement that they take those things, but they have volunteered to do that, and, as part of their industrial action, they have then said, “Well, we’re not going to go down the route of only having certain year groups or teaching certain year groups, but we are going to work to rule. We are going to keep to that employment agreement, and we will not be taking any extracurricular activities.” Is that seen as a partial strike?

The reason that I ask that is because those roles are volunteer roles—I mean, I’ve done those myself. They’re usually given to the last person to put their hand up, or it is usually given to the youngest and newest teacher in the staffroom to take those. I know, because I have been one of those people and I earned my stripes not to teach certain sports at certain times when I got a little bit older, but I think that that would be very, very unfair if that was deemed to be a partial strike, so I have put forward an amendment that would clarify that. I wonder whether the Minister is open to that but also does she think that that would constitute as a partial strike—so there were two questions there.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to a number of the contributions, the member Ricardo Menéndez March asked specifically about interactions with the Social Security Act. The definition of “strike” in the Social Security Act connects to the definition of a “strike” in the sections of the Employment Relations Act. The definition of a “partial strike” in the bill must be a strike as per section 81 of the Employment Relations Act, so a partial strike is a subset of a strike, and there is no need to change either of these Acts.

Ricardo Menéndez March also asked about the Ministry of Social Development. They were consulted as part of the usual agency consultation, ahead of taking the paper to Cabinet. But when it comes to specific fiscal consequences, there wasn’t, I believe, a necessary need to try and model this in any way, because it’s very difficult to know what will happen in the future. But there are some kind of fiscal implications that you could infer. For one, when we’re rebalancing the ability for business owners to respond, this has an implication that the business owner doesn’t have to either accept the full costs of the partial strike with the lowering of normal work, or go to a full withdrawal of labour and a complete withdrawal of that pay.

So the next question, then, was: how does it impact KiwiSaver? The standard approach for how KiwiSaver applies when a deduction is made to an employee’s wage will apply as normal, so there is no need to amend the KiwiSaver Act.

Phil Twyford, as well as Jan Tinetti, raised the issue of teachers and extra duties. Whether an action is considered a partial strike will be quite case-specific, but when it comes to being in relation to things like coaching, which was raised by both members, if the employment agreement explicitly includes coaching as part of the role, then refusing to coach would be a breach of that agreement and that could be a partial strike. If coaching is not explicitly included but was considered to be part of the teachers’ duties that they received renumeration for based on past practice and employment conversations, it may be that refusing to coach could be considered a breach of their employment agreement, or considered to reduce their normal output and, therefore, it could be a partial strike. But I want to reiterate that this is very case-specific, and I can’t talk to any specifics of cases in the future that would be considered those.

The next question, then, from Lawrence Xu-Nan was: if the employment agreement does not require a uniform—once again, that’s very case-specific, as some employment agreements might include a requirement to comply with the company’s policies, so it could depend on what is covered by other company policies as part of that contract. The employer would determine if they consider that they can make a deduction, but if there is any disagreement, you can use the dispute resolution available.

The previous answer I gave is also attached to Jan Tinetti’s amendment. The Government will not be supporting that.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. While we’re still on clause 5, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her response to some of my earlier comments, and also ask some follow-up questions. I also just wanted to spend a tiny bit of time looking at—as we are on Part 1 now—the reasoning in the departmental disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been used by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in determining this course of action in relation to this bill.

The first thing I just wanted to follow up with the Minister on is this: in response to my question around my amendment that would prevent this bill being used unfairly, in my view, when people are simply wearing an item of clothing, she cited an example where she had noted health and safety requirements associated with that item of clothing. I accept that it is correct in some instances that there are items of clothing that need to be worn for health and safety reasons, and another example might be a helmet or protective wear. So a follow-up question to the Minister is: given that she has used that example as a justification as to why the Government would not be considering an amendment of this nature—which I do think is a sensible amendment, and it would actually get around a lot of the fundamental, overt unfairness that is being brought into the House by this bill—would she consider an amendment that disallowed deductions for items of clothing or other adornments that are worn, except where it is a requirement that that particular items of clothing be worn for health and safety reasons? I think that’s a reasonable question, and it would be something that I would be happy to amend my proposed amendment to allow to happen. I think that would be a really sensible way forward.

I also wanted to ask the Minister about this. There is reference in the departmental disclosure statement for advice provided by the Ministry of Justice on this particular bill. I haven’t seen that advice and I couldn’t see that in the regulatory impact statement, and I wanted to ask her what that was.

The other thing that I noted that was redacted in the regulatory impact statement was the international relations section. Was it redacted for the reason of international relations? I wanted to ask the Minister, given that redaction and given that we are now discussing this in the committee stage, is she able to provide advice as to whether the proposals that she has outlined will undermine our international obligations under our fair-trade agreements—notably, our fair-trade agreements with the UK and the EU, which specifically provide that there should not be a reduction in labour standards—and whether she has considered that?

I do have a point which I won’t speak to now, but it is in relation to clause 6, which I do want to talk about in relation to comparable jurisdictions. But this is a separate point. This is about our international obligations that we do have, and also our obligations to the International Labour Organization, which, I understand, is meeting at the moment, so I wanted to ask the Minister about that.

The other thing I wanted to ask while we are still on clause 5—and it is related to my other questions—is whether she considered that we do have a definitional section in clause 5, which is what we’re talking about at the moment. We have got a definition of “partial strike” and we do have a lot of discussion around normal duties. Did she consider putting in a definition of “normal duties”? I think that if she did put in a definition of “normal duties” that was more consistent with the minimum required to complete one’s work, that would, potentially, get around the concerns around a work to rule, which would be considered a partial strike under this bill, and it would get around the concerns raised by my colleague Phil Twyford. So did she consider putting that in this?

Just while I am still asking questions around this consultation, the Minister has in the departmental disclosure statement and in the RIS talked about and mentioned public sector consultation. Was there any consultation with the private sector? I cannot see that in this particular bill, and it is particularly pertinent because there are a lot of justifications which relate to the private sector. So I want to know that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just tick off a few more items. Lawrence Xu-Nan had a question about the private sector and the impact of partial strikes there. Look, I have seen private sector partial strikes. This was apparent with the train operators in Wellington. It is also important to note that this is not actually a very radical bill. This is going back to the 2017 era, before Labour changed the law in 2018. Public sector productivity is important and private sector productivity is important, but there are other jurisdictions around the world that have regimes for partial strikes, including Australia and the UK, which are countries that we quite often compare ourselves to—and so I see that as a response also to Camilla Belich.

Jan Tinetti had a question about firefighter strike action and billboards. The particular case that she has referenced would be very case-specific and would depend on what the employees’ agreement and company policies involved.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked about whether a disagreement over productivity and output has occurred, or whether that has gone up or gone down, and how that would be resolved. There is a dispute resolution process provided in the bill, using the usual employment processes like mediation and the authority.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have got a point I’d like to make in relation to the information made available in the regulatory impact statement around clause 5. But I would just like to highlight that we on this side have been trying to ascertain how this is going to play out.

We’ve given the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety some very different scenarios, and each time we have heard that that’s case-specific. Well, that’s the point we would like to kind of understand, and the workers of New Zealand would also like to understand how this is going to work and play out. So the Minister’s response to these questions by saying that that’s case-specific and, therefore, not responding to them is not an adequate answer for us on this side or for the workers impacted by this legislation.

I would encourage the Minister to consult with officials and maybe be able to give some further consideration to some of the instances that this side of the House have offered in order to understand the practicalities that this bill will have. That comes back to the main problem that we have, which is that the bill specifies that a partial strike can be defined as “a reduction in the employee’s normal performance of work, normal output of work,” and yet the bill allows sanctions for actions undertaken as part of a partial strike that cannot be reasonably construed as impacting upon the workers’ normal performance of work.

When we look into the bill itself, there is no explanation as to what this bill is aiming to achieve. What is the output?

The Prime Minister is big on outputs. When I read the commentary of this bill, it simply repeals what was put in place under the Labour Government in 2018, without stipulating whether it is increased productivity, whether it is more jobs, or whether it is higher employment. What is the outcome that these changes make, because when we look at the regulatory impact statement, the officials have stipulated that they have tried to identify data on the use of partial strikes and any correlation with the length of bargaining, but they state that there have been significant data limitations. So there is no analysis of what the solution is that this Minister is providing via this legislation, or as to what the problem is.

I would really love to hear from the Minister what the problem is that this legislation is responding to, because the officials themselves state that “We have concerns … regarding the quality of data as it is self-reported by the employer and therefore reliant on the employer accurately providing information regarding the strike. MBIE does not have any mechanisms under the legislation to compel employers to comply in reporting strikes to MBIE. In addition, prior to 2014 not all work stoppages were included in reporting. Work stoppages were only included in the report if they involved more than five person-days of work lost.”

I would like to understand on what analysis and on what evidence the Minister has concluded that this legislative change is required. The problem in that is that the regulatory impact statement relies on absolutely nothing to put this forward. The regulatory impact statement lacks qualitative data in any way to support the recommended option that has been put forward via this legislation. The lack of qualitative data, to a limited extent, is just compensated through the use of qualitative evidence, and that has actually resulted in reliance on historical evidence, the use of anecdotal evidence, and untested assumptions being made. There is absolutely no evidence that consultation has been undertaken in arriving at this course of action, and, furthermore, it raises real concerns as to how this legislation will impact workers in New Zealand.

I would like to acknowledge that my colleague Camilla Belich has pointed out the redacted sections in the regulatory impact statement regarding international obligations. This is the second piece of legislation that this Minister has brought to the House which could potentially breach our international obligations, with the previous one being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women with regard to pay equity.

When we have our local laws, there is a real concern with the general direction of workers’ rights in this country when we are contravening international agreements. It is our domestic legislation that is being eroded to such a point that we now look to international human rights and international obligations to try and pull this Government back into line when they are contravening what are very fundamental human rights. So I believe it is absolutely unacceptable that the regulatory impact statement of this bill is simply redacted in relation to those international conventions for labour and workers’ rights. This Minister has an obligation to tell all of those workers in New Zealand who are impacted by this bill whether or not she has received advice that has contravened their rights in terms of the international agreements that we have signed up to as a country.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ll start with the contribution made by Ginny Andersen, in part because Ginny Andersen has been a Minister before and will be well aware of the role of being a Minister, as opposed to being a lawyer. I want to make it very clear that I’m not a lawyer, nor would anybody expect me to be giving legal advice on specific cases. I am a Minister. I’m not a member of the Employment Relations Authority. I’m not a member of the court. I don’t have purview to look into individual employment agreements and individual company policies to have an in-depth understanding of every collective agreement and whether or not every single action that could be underneath an individual or collective agreement or the variety of different employer company policies across this country would interact with the partial strikes legislation, and it’s odd to me that anyone would expect a Minister, who sets the laws, to have that level of detail of every individual or collective agreement and every company policy, or to be providing legal advice.

Now, the next question that she raised was the problem in regards to the bill: what are we actually trying to address? It’s quite clear—it’s in the purpose statement and it’s been through the select committee—that the purpose of the bill is to provide for a more effective and efficient bargaining environment where rights and consequences are more balanced and which minimises undue impacts on consumers and the public.

Camilla Belich wanted to refer again to the high-vis example, and why not limit it to those cases. Well, look, this is a good illustration of how it’s not possible to legislate for all circumstances. Like I have referred to in my contribution to Ginny Andersen, I’m confident that allowing employers, employees, and the employment institutions to make those judgments is the right approach.

Camilla Belich also asked about whether or not the bill complies with our international obligations. The Government has a range of international obligations, and I’ve taken these into account in my decision making.

Camilla Belich also asked what advice I had received from the Ministry of Justice. The advice from Justice was that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that occurs for all bills—this is available on the Ministry of Justice website, and they concluded that it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

There was also a question from Camilla Belich about consultation with the private sector. Stakeholders from any walk of life have had the opportunity to provide their views through the select committee process.

There was also a question about whether I considered including a definition of “normal duties”—no. What is considered to be normal duties is, once again, very case-specific, and that would be far too detailed for this type of law.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also a little while ago asked about work to rule. There is a misconception that all work-to-rule measures will be affected by this change. Once again, this is case-specific and it depends on employees’ employment agreements.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March. But what I do want to say is we’ve been having some very full answers from the Minister and we’ve progressed a number of issues, and I’m listening for new questions.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair—I appreciate it. I just wanted to follow up on an answer that she gave in relation to my question, and I’m just trying to clarify. The Minister spoke about how there was consultation with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in relationship to potential unintended fiscal consequences. I heard that the feedback that she had received was that there was no need to model, but if I look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and at the list of entities that were consulted, MSD is not named.

There’s nothing in the regulatory impact statement that actually talks about consultation with the Ministry of Social Development, and so I just wanted to give the Minister the chance to clarify to the committee whether they were actually consulted and what the scope of the consultation with the Ministry of Social Development was. I’m just surprised that she was able to tell us that, apparently, to her recollection, there was no need to model those potential consequences, or that it would have been difficult to model the consequences around, for example, the increased need for special needs grants. But it’s not reflected in the RIS, so was that just omitted? Did that consultation happen later down the line after the RIS was produced, or when did that consultation happen?

That takes me to clause 6, around the ability to, I guess, have some flexibility for the employer in terms of the level of pay deduction. One of the other areas that hasn’t been touched upon is the interaction around that and the accommodation supplement—which I didn’t touch on earlier—when, for example, it comes to the calculations of the accommodation supplement, which we haven’t raised before. I’m interested to know, for example, if there’s an ongoing partial strike where there’s an ongoing pay deduction, whether she expects—while I can accept that maybe she did seek consultation with MSD that perhaps there is no modelling, but I ask whether she is aware that this could result in an increase of those on the accommodation supplement, even though she may not have the exact number.

This is because with the way that that is modelled, due to an interaction between the base income with your rent, the need for the accommodation supplement could be increased, and I raise this in relation to clause 6, because I think that that’s the most appropriate way to raise it. I’m just really perplexed. If she is saying that there was engagement with MSD, why don’t we have that anywhere in the RIS and the departmental report, or in anywhere else?

I just want to seek clarification from the Minister as to what was the extent of consultation with the Ministry of Social Development and why is there no paper trail of an acknowledgment of that level of consultation. I wonder whether this is in the redacted stuff around the anecdotal pieces in the RIS, but I would think that that would not relate to the anecdotal components that were redacted in the regulatory impact statement. So if the Minister would like to point out exactly when and how she consulted with MSD and why that’s not anywhere in the documents, that would be great.

Now, finally, I’m also seeking clarification from the Minister because she spoke about how section 81 of the Employment Relations Act relates to the definition of “strike”. But she’s adding a completely new section called section 82AA, and that’s a separate section, right? So I just want to, once again, try to seek clarification from the Minister in giving her the opportunity to potentially clarify, because it’s a new section. It’s not like section 81A, but she’s adding section 82AA. The Social Security Act does not refer to section 82, but it refers only to section 81 of the Employment Relations Act. So I just want to test out whether the Minister was correct in making the assumption that the definition of “strike” actually flows on to this new section 82AA that is being added in this bill.

Just following on from that, I acknowledge that she did engage with my initial questions. But that’s now opened up a whole raft of questions because there’s nowhere here where we can see that there’s been engagement with MSD, and I’m really concerned that we did not have access to that information if it did actually occur at some point during the legislative process. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call Camilla Belich. Now, the member referred before to looking to some new questions, so that would be appreciated. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do believe we’ve traversed clause 5, and now I would like to move on to clause 6.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I also am aware that we’ve got into a bit of urgency mode lately. This has had a select committee stage, and so I’d like the questions to really home in now. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that guidance. I just would also note that the substantive sections of this bill are in clause 6. There’s actually several, I think—it’s these two pages and half of the other pages are on clause 6, so it is quite a big clause. I’ve got two amendments to clause 6 and I want to speak to the first one of those amendments now, if I may, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you may.

CAMILLA BELICH: I think I have about eight amendments, so I don’t have as many as I would in urgency, if Madam Chair is concerned about that.

My second amendment is, again, made in good faith, and it is, I think, a sensible and reasonable suggestion that the Minister should consider in relation to this piece of legislation. It talks to new section 95C in clause 6, which looks at the way pay deductions are calculated. I have suggested that the Minister looks at a different way of implementing partial strikes through this amendment, and that is to use a proportionate approach based on the actual work that is not undertaken by the employee.

Now, this is a really important point because in the regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials provided the Minister with a number of different options in order to proceed with this legislation, and one of the options put to the Minister as a credible option—and that’s what I’m suggesting today in the Chamber—is to enable employers to make only a proportionate pay deduction for partial strikes. I think that it’s important to note that particular section as it relates to my amendment to clause 6, which is this particular option, which the Minister didn’t take, but I’m suggesting that maybe she should revisit it. It is that employers would be able to deduct the amount that is proportionate to the amount of work not being performed, so that for so the amount of work you don’t do, you don’t get paid for.

That is actually the rhetoric that has surrounded this legislation, which is that people shouldn’t be paid for work that they don’t do. This amendment and this option—had the Minister gone ahead with it—would actually implement that rhetoric into law much more fully than the legislation that we see before us.

The regulatory impact statement states that “This could be considered the fairer approach for employees and employers, as the amount deducted [would] never be … over the value of the work … being performed.” Notably, this is the situation in two of the jurisdictions that the Minister has mentioned, both today in relation to the UK and in select committee in relation to Australia. That is the situation undertaken in the UK and Australia. In the UK and Australia, they have a proportionate approach to partial strikes. What the Minister has determined to do in this instance, under this bill, is not to implement a proportionate approach. She has decided to implement an approach that would have one option of a proportionate approach, or a second option of a blanket, instant 10 percent reduction in wages.

My amendment to clause 6 would look to the advice of MBIE, look to our international partners and what they think is reasonable in relation to addressing a partial strike, look to general reasonableness and to, of course, why you should have a higher amount deducted from your wages. For example, if you did a partial strike of only 2 percent of your job, you would get a 10 percent reduction—that is what this allows. So my amendment is to change that by deleting new section 95C(3) and to actually implement a proportionate system similar to that of Australia and the UK in New Zealand.

Just a further point while I have the call: the Minister said private businesses were able to submit through the select committee process. She should note that out of the 620 submissions that the Education and Workforce Committee received, 606 opposed the bill, and so that should be taken into account. If you’re looking at what the select committee said, it was that this bill should be binned.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start with a response to Ricardo Menéndez March. Look, in repeating myself, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was consulted as part of the usual agency consultation ahead of taking my paper to Cabinet. I don’t believe it was necessary to ask specifically about fiscal and financial consequences, so that’s my view. He asked why the regulatory impact statement (RIS) then doesn’t actually state that MSD was consulted. The RIS doesn’t list which agencies were consulted, as it’s not normal for a RIS to have that. The agencies that were consulted are listed in the Cabinet paper, which has been proactively released on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s website, and it includes MSD.

Camilla Belich was also asking about the ability to make a fixed deduction of 10 percent in relation to her tabled amendment. I’m not supporting her tabled amendment, because removing the ability to make a fixed deduction of 10 percent would impact employers’ ability to make a deduction in situations where it’s difficult to calculate a proportionate pay deduction.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I move that debate on this question—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’ve just got a point of order—just a moment.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has just stated that it’s not appropriate for the agencies who were consulted to be included in the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement states that the Public Service Commission, the Ministry of Health, Health New Zealand, and the Ministry of Education were consulted, so I think that that is incorrect and the Minister may want to reflect on that statement.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It is a debating point, I’ve just been advised, and not a point of order. It’s actually a debating point.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ve just consulted with my officials, and they’ve told me I was correct.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 262 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to amend paragraph (a)(i) of the definition of “partial strike” in new section 82AA by inserting the words “as outlined in the employment agreement” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to amend paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of “partial strike” in new section 82AA by inserting the words “as outlined in the employment agreement” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting paragraph (a)(ii) in the definition of “partial strike” set out in new section 82AA be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing paragraph (b) in the definition of “partial strike” set out in new section 82AA with words beginning with “break their employment where it is a breach of contract and not a withdrawal of goodwill;” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new paragraph (c) into the definition of “partial strike” relating to the wearing of clothing or badges be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting paragraph (e) into new section 95A(2) preventing pay deductions for an employee earning minimum wage be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing 95B(3)(c)(i) is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 95B(3) requiring notices to specify a deduction amount be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing subparagraph (ii) of new section 95B(3)(c) requiring at least 10 working days’ notice before a first deduction is made be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subparagraph (ii) of new section 95B(3)(c) requiring at least 15 working days’ notice before the first deduction is made be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subparagraph (ii) of new section 95B(3)(c) requiring at least 20 working days’ notice before a first deduction is made be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 inserting subsection (5) into new section 95C requiring an independent arbitrator to oversee deductions be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting subsection (3) of new section 95C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subsection (3) of new section 95C providing for employers, unions, and individuals to apply to the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 6 deleting new section 95D be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 6 replacing subsections (1) and (2) of section 95D with subsection (1) setting out that employers may only deduct pay to the minimum wage be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting paragraph (d) into new section 100(4), relating to issues of unfairness in the granting of injunctions be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. Kia ora, Madam Chair. I’m just wanting to seek some clarity from you in terms of your decision, and we understand it is your decision to make in terms of closure motions. The challenge from the Labour Party members, who were heavily engaged in this, is that clause 6 is the meat of this legislation and we’ve spent more time on previous clauses, but clause 6 actually is the real guts of what this is all about. The other part of this is, in looking at the regulatory impact statement, it also had the officials saying that they had had little time to prepare this, and so I guess being able to prosecute it in this space was something that we’re frustrated about, and we wanted some understanding about why you chose to close the debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I do understand the frustration, and there always will be more questions that need to be asked. But how I’ve based my judgment here is that there had been a select committee process, we did have a Minister who was engaging in answering the questions, and I did feel that sometimes the questions needed to home in a bit more, and maybe we could have spent less time and repetition on some questions and saved some more time for others. That’s how I’ve based my judgment, and I think that where we’ve had a select committee stage, there are opportunities to ask questions there, as well.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Speaking to your clarity there, we did have a number of amendments. I know that there’s not a rule that they all have to be addressed, but I know that, particularly, Camilla Belich has indicated that she had, I think, at least eight that she was going to speak to and didn’t get to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, and I will say to that that you’re correct in that not all amendments do need to be spoken to. But I would suggest that if members want to speak to their amendments, they move quite quickly into that process of speaking to the amendments in a committee stage. Thank you.

Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Invest New Zealand Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Tangi Utikere): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)