Tuesday, 24 June 2025

TUESDAY, 24 JUNE 2025

TUESDAY, 24 JUNE 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Bharat Bhushan requesting that the House reinstate a pathway to residence for Bharat Bhushan and long-term temporary workers who were unable to re-enter New Zealand during COVID‑19 border closures

petition of Tony Gore requesting that the House urge the Government to further explain the Ministry of Social Development’s traffic light system, sanctions, and potential use of AI

petition of Meg Vardy requesting that the House urge the Government to incorporate voices with lived experience of eating disorders into a review of Health Star Ratings

petition of Matilda Otter-Lowe requesting that the House urge the Government to reinstate the previous school lunches programme

petition of Gemma Yates requesting that the House urge the Government to stop proposed changes to the Palmerston North and Manawatū school bus routes.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 10 papers.

CLERK:

Government responses to

petition of Patient Voice Aotearoa

petition of Malcolm Mulholland

report of Petitions Committee on the petition of Erin Tiplady

statements of intent for 2025-29 for

Accreditation Council

Southern Response Earthquake Services

statements of performance expectations for the 2025-26 year for

Accreditation Council

Southern Response Earthquake Services

Takeovers Panel

strategic intentions for 2025-29 for

Land Information New Zealand

Ministry of Social Development.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General titled Managing conflicts of interest in the Fast-track Approvals process. Those papers under the authority of the House. Twenty-one select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

petition of Bex Howells

petition of Mark Potter

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Education New Zealand

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Education Review Office

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority

report of the Environment Committee on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Commentary on Te Tai Waiora: Wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand

Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Financial Stability Report, May 2025

Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2025

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence for the year ending 30 June 2025

reports of the Justice Committee on the

Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Human Rights Commission

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Law Commission

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Public Trust

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of

Dannielle Davis

Mark Baldwin

Tamati Warmington

Walter Hicks

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2024

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Auditor-General’s report, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s report, the review briefings, and the report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of three bills.

CLERK:

Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matter) Amendment Bill, introduction

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, introduction

Employment Relations Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Obituaries

Maurice Gee

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the death of Maurice Gee.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That this House express its sympathy and condolences to the family of Maurice Gee, who passed on 12 June 2025, and acknowledge his significant contribution to New Zealand literature.

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

Motion agreed to.

Ministerial Statements

Situation in the Middle East—Government Response

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to the situation in the Middle East.

The situation in the Middle East is of the gravest concern. No New Zealanders want to wake up to news of more bombing, more strife, and more misery. Yet, tragically, for the last two years, that is what we have seen: a relentless and remorseless series of events which have greatly destabilised the region and gravely harmed its people and their sense of security and prosperity.

New Zealanders are scattered across every part of the world, and so, of course, our minds turn in the current crisis to our people in harm’s way. Ensuring their safety is an absolute priority for this Government. New Zealand is a very long way from the Middle East. Unlike our own region, the Pacific, New Zealand’s influence in the Middle East and our ability to affect the trajectory of events is modest. Nevertheless, this Government, continuing New Zealand’s long tradition as a responsible international citizen, has pursued an active foreign policy based on engagement with all—via an intensive programme of prime ministerial and ministerial travel.

We have sought to understand the perspectives of all involved in the Middle East crisis, and to present a clear New Zealand position. That’s why we travelled to Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia and why we’ve met and discussed these issues with Israel, Iran, the Palestinians, the Turks, the Gulf states, the Europeans, Australia, the United States, our Asian partners, and many others. That’s why we have resisted the pressure from some to expel from New Zealand the ambassadors of some Middle Eastern countries. We prefer diplomacy to moral outrage. Indeed, ours is a foreign policy of collecting all the facts, hearing all the perspectives, and applying a careful, reasonable, cool-headed approach to the situation—not kneejerk reaction and simplistic moral posturing.

The New Zealand Government’s response to what is happening in the Middle East should be guided by two questions. First, how can we act to get our people out of harm’s way? Second, how can we best contribute to an international debate which helps push the situation towards de-escalation and peace, not further disintegration and despair?

Our first priority is the safety of New Zealanders. Our months-old advice to New Zealanders in Iran and Israel remains to leave if and when they can find a safe route. By the way, to hear some media carrying on about the fact that we have not helped our people or warned them is a disgrace, given that for months we’ve said to leave—and yet they never carried that message to New Zealanders wishing to warn their cousins or friends offshore. Back to the issue. The Government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis. Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided round the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran—and to their families back home in New Zealand—and will continue to do so.

As we announced on Sunday, we have sent a C-130 aircraft to ensure that we have the resource available to aid in evacuations from the region for those who want to leave. We are also in discussions with commercial airlines to see if they can help. We encourage all New Zealanders in the region to make sure they register with SafeTravel so we can have an accurate picture of who may need assistance and where. We are also monitoring carefully the economic impacts back home of what is happening in the Middle East.

We note and welcome positive signals in the last few hours about a potential ceasefire. New Zealand strongly supports all efforts toward diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. An enduring solution depends on de-escalation and diplomacy. As we have repeatedly said, the Middle East is not a situation of black and white; of good and evil; of just one bad actor. Those in this House who rush to condemn, or call out, one actor or other, or who demand that the Government do the same, should pause to reflect on whether they are seeking to understand and influence what is going on, or simply virtue-signalling about it. New Zealand has consistently called for peaceful resolution of this latest conflict. Diplomacy must always be the first resort, not the last. We have been clear to all our partners, and to all parties to the conflict, that military action must end and parties must return to the negotiating table to find a lasting resolution. New Zealand has a long, proud history of standing up against nuclear weapons. Our concerns about Iran’s aspirations for nuclear weapons are longstanding. Iran has a proven pattern of non-compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, and Iran has made threats against other countries in the volatile Middle East.

We end this statement by noting what New Zealand is looking for in the Middle East and what we oppose. We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-State solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace, side by side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm’s way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli citizens alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end.

The Middle East is a long, long way from New Zealand, and our influence is limited, but the Government is committed to doing all we can to help New Zealanders affected, and to help contribute to de-escalation and diplomacy. Thank you.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Over recent days, the world has watched with increasing alarm as the United States has carried out missile strikes on Iranian territory. These are not defensive actions under imminent threat, they are not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, they are not supported by the international community, and, most crucially, they are not legal under international law. There is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with. We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support.

New Zealand’s always stood proud as a nation that upholds the rules-based international order. We are a small country, but our voice on the world stage matters precisely because we’ve been prepared to stand up to speak truth to power when doing so is right. We did that in 2003, when Helen Clark and the Labour Government took a principled and courageous stand by opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq. We were told then that New Zealand should stay silent. We were told then that it was in our economic interests to look the other way. We didn’t, because we knew that legality matters, principles matter, and international rules matter. Those same principles have to apply today.

The strikes on Iran mark a dangerous escalation in an already volatile region. They risk igniting a war that would inflict enormous suffering on innocent civilians, destabilise the Middle East further, and undermine the very system of collective security the United Nations was created to uphold after the bloodshed of World War II. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State unless, as article 51 states, that is in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council. Neither of those conditions has been met. There is no clear justification, there is no credible claim of imminent threat, and there is no UN mandate. That makes those strikes contrary to international law. That’s not just my opinion; that’s an opinion shared by legal scholars, human rights organisations, and former diplomats around the diplomatic world.

New Zealand should not drift from our values, simply because the actions come from one of our traditional allies. We do not believe in a world where might makes right and where power justifies impunity. New Zealand has a proud history of diplomacy, from our nuclear-free stance to our leadership on disarmament and peacebuilding. We’ve long argued that international security must be based on cooperation, not coercion. That legacy demands consistency by New Zealand. We should not accept one set of rules for the powerful and another set of rules for everybody else. We must choose principle, we should choose peace, and we should choose the path of international law. Honouring our past and living up to our values means that we need to be a voice for restraint, for legality, and for justice on the world stage.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Noting that article 51 on the right to self-defence states specifically that that right is inherent for “individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”, does the New Zealand Government believe that the US’s pre-emptive strike on Iran meets that criteria?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): In the context in which the Leader of the Opposition asked that question, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities was based on the US statement to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. That was a statement they made, and, of course, in time, that will depend on the emerging evidence.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister may not have heard my question to him. My question was: does the New Zealand Government believe that the pre-emptive strike meets the criteria of article 51?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Well, as I said, unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we’ve said it constantly day after day that instead of rushing to judgment, as we were asked this morning by the media: “Has peace broken out?” “No,” we said, “We’re going to trust but verify.” When we sought to verify, we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. In this case, we’re going to find out the facts as time goes by. There’ll be some days yet—maybe some time yet—before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Is it the New Zealand Government position that article 51 permits the use of pre-emptive force?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): It is, in fact, the international position that, if justified—and that is why it’s recognised in the UN and exactly why it’s written that way.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Has the New Zealand Government received intelligence supporting the claim that the US strike was in line with article 51?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): As we have said before, we have not been privy to that information, nor did we, frankly, expect to be, but we have made the wise decision—in my view—to hold our counsel until we know all the facts before we rush to judgment and imperil the future of 5.2 million New Zealanders. More importantly, there are people over there in Iran right now—where the numbers have escalated from 46, just two days ago, to, now, 134—that we have to get out. That’s our number one priority, and we’re going to have that on our mind before we make any rash statement that might affect their safety getting out.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Will the New Zealand Prime Minister use his presence at NATO on behalf of our country this week to urge for restraint, de-escalation, and adherence to international rules by all countries?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I will contact the Prime Minister and pass on the Leader of the Opposition’s message. I think the response to that is, as the Minister of Defence says: he always does.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Finally, when the Government commits to the two-State solution, as he did in his ministerial statement, does that mean it will now take steps to formally recognise Palestine by inviting the ambassador to present their credentials, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Well, the trouble with that is—and we have said countless times—is that it’s not, when it comes to recognising Palestine, if but when. But having spoken to the Palestinian Authority, having spoken to the Egyptians, having spoken to the United Arab Emirates, having spoken to the President of Turkey, having spoken to the President of Indonesia—these huge Islamic countries—and others, they understand our view. We said, “How will we actually recognise it and maintain the standards of recognition which we’ve always held thus far, or are we’re going to lower the standard, and then the next time it happens, we’ve got a much lower base and precedent that we’ll come to regret?” That’s a position that a lot of countries share with us. It’s not if but when, and when is when we know we’ll have the authority legitimately capable of making the claim that they are the representatives of the people.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker!

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, just a reminder that this debate is in response to the ministerial statement that was largely confined—although it did stray widely—to the sending of the C-130 to the Middle East. I appreciate that there is going to be some broader questioning, but I don’t want to see a repeating of questions that have already been asked.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party condemns the United States’ unlawful and aggressive strikes on Iran, and we call on the Government to do the same. The attacks by the United States are a blatant breach of international law. The attacks on Iran constitute a breach of international law because neither attack was made in self-defence by the US and by Israel.

I heard in the ministerial statement that the Minister of Foreign Affairs prides themselves on wanting to prioritise diplomacy, wanting to push for de-escalation, and wanting to push for enduring peace, and yet we did not see a statement that recognised and acknowledged the dangerous escalation of the US strikes on Iran. So, in response to the statements from the ministerial statement, we are looking for that condemnation of Israel and the United States’ illegal strikes on Iran.

The Minister also spoke in his statement about the ceasefire and having a look into it to check out whether it’s worth anything. I too want to speak to that part of the Minister’s speech, where if it is then true, of course we would all welcome that; it’s what we all want. But we know from the continued genocide in Gaza that a ceasefire with Israel isn’t worth the paper it’s written on; they have continued to breach and breach and breach ongoing calls and so-called settlements of a ceasefire.

We don’t want any nation armed with nuclear weapons, but there is no greater motivator—and, again, this refers to the Minister’s statements about diplomacy and de-escalation—to obtain nuclear weapons and power than the realised threat of attack by the greatest nuclear power in the world. Absolutely, it would be wonderful to have Iran back at the negotiating table, where they were before the strikes from Israel and the United States launched their unilateral strikes.

New Zealand must stand for—again, we heard this from the Minister—upholding rules-based international order. The Government is absolutely right—the Minister is right—to state that for a small State like New Zealand, a small country like Aotearoa, the rules-based international order is what we have to protect our interests. It is that very rules-based international order, especially because of our positioning in the world as well as our size, that we have to be able to use against military powers around the world, and yet the Government refuses to take action to uphold that very order when it is clear that it has been violated. So—

SPEAKER: The member needs to come to the heart of the ministerial statement, not round the edges of it. The ministerial statement was about the sending of the C-130 to pick up New Zealanders who may be distressed.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There were a broad range of statements that I was directly referencing in the ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: Well, you were interpreting some of the statements made. Bring it back to the purpose of the debate.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I heard some valid wide interpretation in the speech before me, as well. Mr Speaker, I will take your advice on board, but there was, surely, some ground for interpreting this speech from the Minister.

SPEAKER: And I was very liberal; you had three minutes.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Israel and the United States—oh, well, OK, let me put this as a particular important point that I do genuinely want to put to the Minister: we stand by the support for evacuating New Zealanders, particularly, from both Iran and Israel, and we are very clear about being able to use and deploy our forces for those purposes. We have stood by those very similar actions to crises around the world, as the Green Party. We continue to stand by that as well.

I do implore the Minister to think about the very Iranian freedom activists who deserve freedom from both the oppression of the Iranian Government but also the freedom from the terror inflicted upon them by Israel and the United States, because the Minister did refer to the self-defence clause from the US in these strikes on Iran. I do ask that the Minister consider the very voices of Iranians in Iran and the diaspora here and around the world, who are pushing for a pathway to peace that is without violence. Will the Minister condemn Israel and the United States’ illegal strikes on Iran?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I made it very clear, in the ministerial statement, the Government’s position, but I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran—the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever. On October the 7th, that outrageous terrorism of 1,200 people and 200 people kidnapped or abducted, there was not a word, not a syllable. This is not balance at all. Above all, I believe our country needs to demonstrate that we’re even-minded, even here. We’ve condemned all parties—

Chlöe Swarbrick: In the face of a genocide, Winston.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member’s only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she’s mentioned Iran’s people. Yes, Iran’s people have been under 40 years of desperation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Look at my track record!

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know all your track record; it takes five seconds to examine it.

SPEAKER: Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you’d expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker’s ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): How is New Zealand contributing to de-escalation and to diplomacy if we continue to only selectively condemn breaches of international law from those countries we think we agree with?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Because the premise of that member’s question is demonstrably false. As I’ve pointed out in my speech and countless speeches, there are no rightful parties in this dispute or in this disaster. We’ve said it over and over again. Balance is what we’re talking about, not mindless virtue-signalling and one-sided answers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Māori Development

1. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by the Government’s track record in upholding its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): In the context of the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, yes; particularly the Government’s and the sagacious Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Paul Goldsmith’s support of recent celebrations of Matariki mā Puanga—or as we call it, Puanga mā Matariki—with a national ceremony hosted by my whanaunga iwi of Ngāti Rangi at Tirorangi Marae in Ruapehu, and various hautapu throughout the country.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he stand by the exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Regulatory Standards Bill, which sets the constitutional standard by which all laws should comply?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Regulatory Standards Bill was a matter that was chaperoned through the coalition agreement between ACT and National. That matter is just closing now in select committee, and I look forward to a summary of the robust and strident submissions therein.

Tākuta Ferris: Was he consulted on the Regulatory Standards Bill before it was introduced; and, if so, did he advocate for the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori in the bill’s principles?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That matter is the subject of advice that has been reached to my office. But, as the member will understand, kōrero in Cabinet remain confidential.

Tākuta Ferris: What advice, if any, has he received about the potential impacts of the Regulatory Standards Bill on the ability of the Crown to uphold its Tiriti commitments outside of Treaty settlements?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Various advice has been proffered in relation to the ability of the Government to uphold Treaty responsibilities, both within settlement arrangements and outside of settlement arrangements, and those matters can be sought by the member.

Tākuta Ferris: Can he assure that the Regulatory Standards Bill will not undermine the Government’s ability to implement Treaty clauses and needs-based, Māori-specific provisions in health, education, and environmental legislation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As the member is aware, this Government, through various coalition arrangements, is very committed to upholding Treaty settlements. And as the member is aware, and I’ve said before in this House, I am absolutely determined, as the Minister for Māori Development, to ensure that the disproportionate statistics that continue to malign Māori iwi, whānau, and other communities are attacked and the inequalities of opportunity and the unequal citizenship implications are addressed.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that if successive Governments over the last 185 years had followed the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill, many of the grievances Māori hold today would never have arisen?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I certainly can acknowledge that there are a lot of disproportionate impacts as a result of Government actions over the years, and I am assuring this House that I will work my best and as effectively as I can to address those inequalities and unequal citizenship.

Tākuta Ferris: Will the Minister support amendments to the Regulatory Standards Bill to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori as foundational principles of good regulation; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The 130,000 submitters to this bill, and I’m sure many members of this House, will look forward to the summary of those robust and strident submissions that have been made to the select committee and will take up various matters with the architects of this bill.

Tākuta Ferris: How does he reconcile his opposition to the Treaty principles bill with his support for the Regulatory Standards Bill, which will achieve the same intent of the Treaty principles bill, only through different means?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The member has drawn some conclusions that I don’t necessarily share with him. And if the member had some time between attending to his various responsibilities up and down the motu, including Te Waipounamu, he will see that there are differences in terms of the coalition arrangements in relation to those bills.

Question No. 2—Foreign Affairs

2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government condemn the United States’ strikes on Iran; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealand is not going to rush to judgment on the lawfulness of various military actions occurring on the other side of the world, arising in such a seriously complex situation, without the full picture. Responding on these things can’t just be a matter of instinct but of facts. We have consistently called on all parties to comply with international law. New Zealand has consistently opposed Iran’s nuclear programme, along with many other countries. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and in that context, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the US statement made to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. That’ll be based, in time, on emerging evidence, which we have not got before us right here, right now.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, that the United States’s attack is a “dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge—and a direct threat to international peace and security”; and, if so, why won’t the Government condemn the illegal attack?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, as someone who knows the Secretary-General very well and has had a number of meetings with him, I do think that his own statement will have, in time, to pass judgment on the legal context. We have consistently called on all parties to the conflict in Gaza to comply with international law. Allegations of breaches of international law are for international courts to determine. That’s what the Secretary-General will also have to live with, as we do. We are not going to comment further on matters before the court.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Government stay out of the AUKUS security pact and build a foreign policy independent of nations fanning the flames of war?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Although this is, so far, distant from the original debate, I’d welcome the chance to answer, because in August 2021, the then Prime Minister and the Labour Government, supported by the Greens, entered the discussions on AUKUS Pillar II—not a mutter, not a murmur from anybody over here—all the way until the 2023 election. Then, all of a sudden, what we inherited innocently—not invited yet, of course, and still not invited yet, of course—is something of grave alarm! Do I see here something starting with “h” now?

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to the many Iranians who have made it clear that we cannot liberate their people from an oppressive regime by blowing up their towns and bombing their country?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, I’ve heard it from a number of people in Iran and not living in Iran, including the royal family from Iran, who have a different view entirely from that member, but that’s because, perhaps, they know a bit more about what’s going on on the ground.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will the Government rule out joining any United States - led war on Iran or any American war lacking a UN mandate?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, that question just shades into an insult. After all the seriousness that we and Foreign Affairs, working 24/7, have given to this issue over many months and many years, that question is simply a disgraceful insult.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is the Government concerned that our international reputation as a fair and honest dealer in global affairs may be undermined by the Government’s failure to meaningfully challenge and oppose the United States’ efforts to undermine international law and global security?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Actually, it’s quite amazing to hear that question and look back in the last few hours at those people internationally who have supported—and, dare I say it, in this country, from all sides—the New Zealand Government’s balanced, fair, reasonable, logical position.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s actions which focus on cutting wasteful spending, which is making a real difference to the cost of living for New Zealanders. Inflation, which was 5.6 percent when we took office, is now 2.5 percent. The official cash rate has fallen from 5.5 percent to 3.25 percent, and Kiwis see that in falling mortgage rates. Rents are also coming down. According to TradeMe, tenants are paying $20 less a week on new rentals than they were last April. New Zealanders are much better off under a Government that manages its own finances as carefully as New Zealanders have had to manage theirs under the previous Government’s fiscal profligacy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how are New Zealanders better off when the price of butter has increased by 50 percent and the price of cheese has increased by 30 percent, showing that the cost of living continues to go up under his Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Dairy products have increased in price because the global dairy price has improved—something that is good for New Zealand’s farmers. What would be bad for New Zealand’s farmers is if we had a different Government that put an avalanche of regulation on to those farmers that produce for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, pushing up those prices even higher. New Zealanders are better off because inflation overall has gone down, even though some prices may vary—and sometimes that benefits sectors of the economy that that side of the House seems to hate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why are international prices and international factors now the cause of the cost of living crisis when two years ago, they weren’t?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It has always been the case that both local and domestic factors influence inflation. What has changed in the last 18 months is we now have a Government that is not borrowing $115 billion and leaving us with nothing but inflation and high interest rates to show for it. We have a Government that is fiscally cautious, managing its accounts in the way that families and firms and farmers had to manage theirs when those guys were in power, hosing it around like there’s no tomorrow.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does a 50 percent increase in the price of butter and a 20 percent increase in the cost of bread make it harder or easier for families struggling with the cost of living to “make a Marmite sandwich” when their kid’s school lunch doesn’t show up, explodes, or is inedible?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think it’s interesting that the member wants to talk about the Healthy School Lunches programme. We’re now seeing 67 percent approval from the students—actually, they’re loving it. Most parents will tell you that if you get, more than two times out of three, your kids loving the lunch you send them, then that’s winning. We’re doing it for half the price that the previous Government was doing it. That’s a very good example of how this Government is doing things better, faster, and smarter, and, yes, we are achieving over 99 percent on-time delivery. Now, to come back to those other prices, what we are seeing is inflation overall of 5.6 percent when this Government came in. That is at 2.5 percent now. Overall, the out-of-control prices that those people—

SPEAKER: Good—yep.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —left the New Zealand households with—

SPEAKER: Bring it in a bit.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —are under control. They can cherry-pick all they like, but you won’t butter up—

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —the New Zealand public after your last failures.

SPEAKER: Answers to questions are not an opportunity to make a grand speech, but points made are points made.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does adding nearly $25,000 to the projected cost of a medical student’s degree help them with the cost of living and help to address critical doctor shortages?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, you will have seen today that the Government has committed to a 13.89 percent increase in GP funding, so if your focus is on the patients—who are the people who are actually supposed to benefit from the healthcare system—then this Government is putting the taxpayer’s money where its mouth is so we can get the healthcare that New Zealanders deserve, after neglect. Just remember: this is the guy who managed to increase—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —the health budget—

SPEAKER: No—don’t.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister now could address the question that I asked.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he started out by doing exactly that, and I just pulled him up when he was starting to stray into material that wasn’t quite appropriate for the answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are increasing council rate bills, higher power bills, higher car registration fees, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for childcare—all of which the Government has directly contributed to—signs that the Government has fixed the cost of living crisis?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I look at the 12 percent increase in council rates in Wellington, a city that has just built a $2.3 million toilet, and that tells me that this Government is on absolutely the right track when it restricts the range of goals that councils should have. I also notice that there are some new candidates on the ballot this year that people may just want to have a look at if they’d like to act a bit more locally.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will taking $13 billion—

SPEAKER: Sorry—wait, wait. Your own team were talking while you’re trying to ask questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Fair enough. How will—

SPEAKER: Well, not really. I think it’s most unfair.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will taking $13 billion from the pay packets of low-income working women help them with their cost of living?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, if that was true, then it wouldn’t, but it’s absolutely untrue. Unfortunately, we have an Opposition that lives in a post-fact environment.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Acting Prime Minister believe that households are better or worse off as a consequence of the Government’s decision to reduce taxes, including those households with children who, on average, receive $78 a fortnight extra in their pay packets?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is absolutely the case that one of the largest costs that most households face is taxation—and they don’t mind if they’re getting something for it. But, for example, when you have someone who increases the health budget by two-thirds and ends up with the same number of ICU beds at the end of the pandemic as when he started, you see how easily people’s money can be wasted, and that’s why they’re keen to see tax cuts so they get a little back.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he or the Minister of Finance or the IRD located one single family that’s receiving the $250 a fortnight the National Party and the Government promised them?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact is it’s not our job to go hunting for people. I would recommend that that member goes and hunts for one person in the Labour Party who believes that he’s going to last till the election.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, sir. Can you please review the answers to those questions and consider whether it is appropriate for an Acting Prime Minister to use question time to essentially campaign for their political party in local elections.

SPEAKER: I’ll certainly do that, but I’ll also review the question that was asked, and the review of that question is likely to conclude that the answer was somewhat inevitable. But I will certainly have a look at it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the same breath, I want you to review the tape and check the Leader of the Opposition wasn’t—

SPEAKER: I just said that—I just said that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —inadvertently campaigning for the ACT Party.

SPEAKER: It’s not going to go terribly well for the Government’s balance of the day, with that sort of commentary.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, Stats NZ released GDP figures for the first three months of the year. These showed the New Zealand economy expanding 0.8 percent over the quarter, following growth of 0.5 percent in the last three months of 2024. Stats NZ also reports economic growth per person. Per capita growth was 0.5 percent in the first quarter of the year. This is the highest per capita growth since September 2022 and the second consecutive quarter of per capita growth after eight quarters of negative or no growth. These economic results are welcome news for New Zealand workers, families, and businesses.

Dan Bidois: How do these latest GDP results compare to forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The latest result was higher than almost anyone had forecast. In particular, growth of 0.8 percent in the March quarter is exactly twice the 0.4 percent growth rate forecast by both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank only a short time ago, and it was the second quarter in a row where growth outstripped what forecasters had predicted. It confirms that the economic recovery was not just under way but was gaining momentum late last year and at the start of this year.

Dan Bidois: What is the expectation for growth in the second quarter of this year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We are almost at the end of the second quarter of this year. At the start of the quarter, in early April, new tariff announcements created uncertainty and dented confidence in economies around the world. Now, at the end of the quarter, there are bombs dropping and missiles flying in the Middle East. New Zealand is not immune to these global events. We have seen evidence of a knock to domestic business confidence and investment intention, and these global events mean it will be very challenging to sustain the previous level of growth into the June quarter. The Reserve Bank, for example, is forecasting positive but subdued growth in the June and September quarters before picking up again strongly at the end of the year. If members opposite think New Zealanders are silly enough to think that global events don’t have an impact on our New Zealand economy, then they are grossly underestimating the people we represent.

SPEAKER: The final part of that answer was probably not adding anything to the actual content of the answer.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the Government remains committed to very careful management of its own finances, because when the Government takes less, there is more for people to spend and more for businesses to invest, and a virtual circle of growth carries on in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that we were the first Government since 2010 to deliver tax relief to New Zealand households, benefiting more than a million households. Members opposite opposed that tax relief and would have those New Zealanders worse off.

Dan Bidois: What conclusion does she draw from the strong GDP results in the December 2024 and March 2025 quarters?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealanders should be confident that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and they should be heartened by the fact that growth has been outperforming what experts said was possible. The economy is in much better shape now than it has been over the last few years, with lower inflation, lower interest rates, and a return to per capita growth. Yes, global events can and do rock the economy—sometimes quite sharply—but I genuinely believe that New Zealand businesses and exporters are well placed to meet these headwinds, and they have a Government that backs them to do just that.

Question No. 5—Trade and Investment

5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: How does the Government’s $200 million fund for the fossil fuel sector impact the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): It has no impact upon the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) nor on the Government’s ability to honour our commitments under this world-first trade agreement, which will reduce tariff rates for environmental goods that we sell, including New Zealand wool and wood. ACCTS does not prevent the Government from reopening oil and gas exploration permits nor entering into commercial arrangements to ensure energy security and affordable prices for New Zealand households. Natural gas will play a vital role in energy stability as a low-emission alternative to the coal that was imported by that member’s party in the last Government. Until viable, cost-effective, renewable options are in place, we intend to honour our climate change and environmental obligations under this trade agreement.

Chlöe Swarbrick: On what basis can he claim that there will be no impact when, today, it has been reported that independent legal advice shows quite clearly that the $200 million for the fossil fuel industry in his Government’s Budget is a subsidy and, therefore, a breach of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, this is not a subsidy, and I refer the member to the definition of fossil fuel subsidies in the ACCTS agreement. Article 4.3 of the agreement shows a number of flexibilities to enable New Zealand to address risks to energy security and affordability. Any options the Government pursues around gas exploration and development will take into account New Zealand’s international obligations, and the Government intends to do this within the commitments we’ve made within this agreement.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. The document is independent legal advice, commissioned by the Green Party, showing that the $200 million set aside for the Budget is a fossil fuel subsidy. It is not currently publicly available in full.

SPEAKER: But it’s an in-house document.

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, it was legal advice that has been commissioned, provided to the media, but I have not yet seen it published in full on any media website. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry—to be clear, this is a Green Party - commissioned document that’s been made available to the media.

Chlöe Swarbrick: And the media have not published it in its full totality.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Funny that—so much for transparency. Mr Speaker, he pātai tāpiri.

Hon Members: Aw! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House will contain itself and listen silently while a question is asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he think that this Government’s fossil fuel fund says about the value of Aotearoa New Zealand’s signature on any international agreement when the Government chooses to breach them six months in, after six years of negotiation?

Hon TODD McCLAY: What it says about this Government is we will meet our international obligations. When we enter into them, we take them seriously. But we’re also going to work hard to stop the importation of coal, directed by the previous Government, and find alternatives as we transition to cost-affordable energy for all New Zealanders. It does feel like the Green Party have used taxpayer money to commission a report to get on TV, from a lawyer that probably is not involved in this agreement.

SPEAKER: That’s not for you to comment on.

Hon TODD McCLAY: We take our obligations seriously and will meet those commitments in the agreement when it enters into force. But we’ve also worked to get the cost down for every New Zealand household when it comes to electricity and energy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government, then, take it’s $200 million taxpayer-funded subsidy for the fossil fuels sector off the table and invest that money in things that will actually improve New Zealanders’ lives, not the least given this news that the subsidy probably breaches the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well—

SPEAKER: Just a minute. In so much as there are aspects of that question that may be in order, the Minister may attempt to answer. But the question, by and large, doesn’t comply.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I refute strongly the suggestion from the so-called independent legal advice that the Green Party paid for that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. We will meet our obligations under that agreement. New Zealand will ratify the agreement on 1 July of this year. It will enter into force some time over the next one to two years. But I would also suggest that, actually, saying that the Government’s commitment to work with New Zealanders to get their costs of energy down is a subsidy is absolutely wrong and, in the case of this agreement, a fallacy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Minister, then, publicly release the advice and the information that he is making statements upon about this not being a breach of the ACCTS, given that he has so far refused to in parliamentary written questions from our offices?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the questions that have come from that member’s office are actually around fishing and wouldn’t be sustainable in themselves. It’s really, really clear that this is not a subsidy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, I said the Green Party offices. I can very—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. No, sorry. That’s not how it works.

Hon TODD McCLAY: The answer is: it’s not a subsidy.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is it correct that Budget 2025 appropriates $200 million in contingency for the Crown to take commercial stakes of around 10 to 15 percent in new gasfield developments and commercial exploration, in which the Crown takes a stake and, therefore, receives upside profits, cannot be a subsidy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, that is exactly correct, and that is within the bounds of the ACCTS agreement. I’m surprised that’s not in the legal advice the Green Party has commissioned with taxpayer funding. If it isn’t, and if I was the Green Party, I’d ask for the taxpayers’ money back.

SPEAKER: Look, these little swipes at the end of questions are going to stop.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does it remain the Government’s position to support the global phase-out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies given our current membership of at least four groups advocating to end these subsidies on the international stage?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I’m not the Minister responsible for that, but what I can very clearly say to that member is: it’s the Government’s policy to ensure energy security for New Zealanders and that we can bring the cost down. Merely turning the lights off—as did that previous Government that that member was a member of—and importing as much coal as they can is not good for the climate, and it’s not good for New Zealanders. No wonder energy prices are so high for Kiwi households.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Immigration: What update can she provide on the Active Investor Plus visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): Since the Active Investor Plus visa opened on 1 April, we’ve received 189 applications. These investors have indicated they’ll be investing a minimum of over a billion dollars into our businesses and economy, of which $845 million is from new applications. That is all in less than three months. It’s a staggering lift from the 116 applications received over more than 2½ years under the previous settings. Attracting investment for our economy means businesses can expand higher and grow, which creates more opportunity for New Zealanders. And this message from our Government is clear: New Zealand is open for business and for investment, and we are serious about unlocking our economic potential.

Cameron Brewer: Where are applications being received from?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’re seeing significant global interest in these new investment settings. Forty-five percent of the new applications are from the United States, with China and Hong Kong following. Applications have also been received from Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britian, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Vietnam. These investments will help grow businesses, create jobs, and provide new skills for young people.

Cameron Brewer: What Kiwi businesses are benefiting from the Active Investor Plus visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I recently visited Hot Lime Labs, a clean tech business in the mighty Lower Hutt, a New Zealand business that uses world-leading technology to produce clean and sustainable carbon dioxide for greenhouses from waste wood, using world-leading, patented technology. Hot Lime Labs are an accredited business available for direct investment from the Active Investor Plus. They’ve already received investment from a managed fund, and they’re targeting the European market and looking to grow to an over $100 million business, headquartered here in New Zealand, which means hundreds of jobs for Kiwis.

Cameron Brewer: What feedback has she received about the Active Investor Plus visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve spoken with a range of people who are very positive about these changes. One said to me that opportunities for New Zealand businesses to seek investment have never looked so good since before the 2008 global financial crisis. Queen City Law managing director, Marcus Beveridge, described the scheme as “A ray of sunshine” and said that he wouldn’t be surprised if we exceeded $10 billion a year coming in through this programme. He said, “We’re expecting quite an explosion of applications over the next couple of months”. Attracting foreign investment means boosting the economy, creating jobs, and building a prosperous future for New Zealand.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “A number of Budget 2025 initiatives deliver targeted cost of living support”; if so, what were those Budget 2025 initiatives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and the most important thing this Budget—and the previous Budget—does for the cost of living is help keep inflation under control through strong fiscal discipline; what a change that is from previous years. In terms of specific Budget initiatives, these included enabling New Zealanders to get 12-month prescriptions for medicines, rather than paying to get a new prescription written every three months; increasing eligibility for rates rebates, for up to 66,000 older New Zealanders; raising the family income threshold for Working for Families so that low to middle income recipients get additional financial support; continuation of our Government’s commitment not to lift petrol taxes this term, a proposal made by the previous Government and a continuation of our commitment not to reintroduce the Auckland regional fuel tax introduced by the last Government; ongoing support for the Commerce Commission to exercise its functions under the Grocery Industry Competition Act. Mr Speaker, I could go on, but you didn’t ask for a speech.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does $7 a week starting next year for Working for Families recipients help Kiwi families struggling now?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Quite simply, this was not a change that was in law; this is a change we introduced in this Budget. It has been the longstanding practice of successive Governments that tax changes like this happen on 1 April in the tax year.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does a decrease, on average, of $43 per fortnight for 61,000 families, who are now no longer applicable for Best Start in the first year of their baby’s life, help with the cost of living when food prices have increased by 4 percent, and electricity prices are up 8.7 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We took a leaf out of the last Government’s book, which in one of its rare circumstances decided to target the second and third year of the Best Start payment at those families who actually needed it most, and we have simply continued that targeting into the first year.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Acting Prime Minister that it is not the Government’s job to find a family that received the full $250 cost of living support that she promised in last year’s Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We delivered on our promise. The policy commitments that informed that case study were delivered in full. I find it very difficult to take that question seriously when that member opposed every tax relief measure in our last Budget, meaning she actively wanted New Zealand voters to be worse off.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she believe that international factors, such as a global pandemic and a global conflict, can impact inflation and economic settings?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, which is why it is so important that Governments control what is in their control. So, for example, Governments who, in the midst of global challenges, decide to double, triple, and quadruple down on their operating allowances and send cost of living payments to dead people and French backpackers are making inflation worse, not better. Our Government will not repeat the wasteful spending record of the last Labour administration.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that a number of measures in Budget 2025 delivered targeted support for the cost of living when $7 per week from 2026 barely buys a block of butter, 61,000 families with a newborn lose up to $43 a fortnight, and she still can’t point to one family that received the full $250 she promised them in her previous Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The facts are very simple. Let me read out simply the facts, which are around inflation rates. In September 2022, prices were rising 7.2 percent; in June 2022, 7.3 percent; in December 2022, 7.2 percent; March 2023, 6.7 percent; in September 2024, they’d come down to 2.2 percent. They were 2.2 percent in December 2024 and 2.5 percent in March 2025. My point is a simple one that the member has not yet grasped: if prices are rising out control and inflation is out of control, every New Zealand family is worse off. That’s your record—own it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Someone’s going out early.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting general practices?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Primary care is at the heart of the health system, delivering care to around 55,000 people every day. That’s why, this morning, the Government announced the largest ever funding boost for general practice in our country’s history. GPs will receive up to 13.89 percent funding uplift, bringing the total Government funding increase to $175 million for this financial year. That’s more than double the highest annual increase there has been since capitation was first rolled out. This is about putting patients first. We expect this investment to deliver results including shorter wait times, easier access to care, and better health outcomes for patients.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What will this record funding boost mean for New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are backing general practice to deliver real results. We know that when people see their doctor or nurse earlier, they stay healthier and stay out of hospital. That’s why our record funding boost will enable general practices to see more patients, reduce wait times, and provide faster care to those who need it most. We’re also supporting GPs with an additional $5 million to deliver minor planned care procedures in the community, such as skin excisions and infusions, minor gynaecological procedures, and oncology infusions, so that New Zealanders can access care closer to home, without unnecessary delay.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister need some pseudoephedrine, perchance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m currently taking it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will this record funding boost support childhood immunisations?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Lifting childhood immunisation rates is a top priority for this Government. We want to see 95 percent of enrolled children fully immunised, and GPs will play a critical role in achieving this target. That’s why our record funding boost includes performance payments for general practices that lift their childhood immunisation rates by up to 10 percentage points or to 95 percent of their enrolled population, with partial payments for partial achievement. We’re a Government that is serious about results, and improving child immunisations remains a top priority for this Government.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else is the Government doing to support the primary care workforce?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As part of Budget 2025, we’re making significant investments to grow and support our primary care workforce, including funding 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care, 100 additional medical training places at our universities over the term of this Government, and up to 50 graduate doctor training places in primary care. We’ve also invested in nursing, with our recruitment centres for up to 400 graduate nurses each year, accelerating tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses, and are funding up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners. We will continue to invest in our front-line workforce so New Zealanders can get the care they need when and where they need it.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Three Strikes law?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): On 17 June 2025, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Act 2024 became law. It reinstates firm, escalating consequences for offenders who commit any of 42 serious violent or sexual offences. A first strike triggers a formal warning, a second means no parole, and a third imposes the maximum sentence without parole. These consequences will apply unless the outcome would be manifestly unjust. Do the crime and they’ll do the time.

Todd Stephenson: Does the Minister’s announcement confirm that strike warnings issued under the previous regime will be counted towards the reinstated law?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Offenders who received valid strike warnings under the 2010 three-strikes regime and whose offences meet the new thresholds will have those strikes recognised and upheld. The message from this Government to offenders is clear: they will be facing the consequences of their actions. They will be held accountable. If they have a problem with that, don’t commit the crime in the first place.

Todd Stephenson: How will this policy reduce the likelihood of innocent New Zealanders becoming victims of repeat offenders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Bluntly, by removing repeat violent and sexual offenders out of circulation rapidly and longer, thus reducing their ability to offend. This Government is committed to protecting victims, not criminals. If a repeat serious violent or sexual offender must serve a longer sentence to ensure public safety, then so be it.

Todd Stephenson: Is the regime already addressing the kind of offending it was designed to deter?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes, the law is already being applied to repeat violent offenders, with cases reported in the media just days after it came into force. The last Government repealed three strikes to cut prison numbers, even if it meant letting dangerous offenders walk free. We’ve made it clear that, if they commit serious crimes again and again, they will go to prison and stay there. The soft-on-crime experiment failed. We’re backing victims, not cuddling up to offenders.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is it his goal to provide “greater certainty for the private health sector”; if so, why?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yes—and I quote—“in order to make the best use of all capacity that is available in the health system.” I agree with the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, who made that statement in 2020.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he direct officials to involve health charities, like St John Ambulance or Hospice, in writing long-term contracts for themselves, or will he only give that advantage to private hospitals?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, we want longer-term agreements across the health system, because, ultimately, that allows for greater planning and greater enablement of delivery of services for outcomes for patients. And that is the outcome that I want across the health sector.

Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. Supplementary.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: This is my second supplementary. Will his agencies rewrite primary care rules to benefit community, iwi, or owner-operated general practice, or is that special treatment reserved for corporate giants like Tend?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The focus of Health New Zealand is on timely, quality access to healthcare for all New Zealanders. We have five health targets that we’re focused on, and we want to see them delivering against those targets.

Rima Nakhle: Supplementary. Supplementary.

SPEAKER: We go three here.

Rima Nakhle: OK—yes, thank you, sir.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he bring back free prescriptions so owner-operated pharmacies are sustainable, instead of letting Chemist Warehouse drive them out of business?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we believe in competition, and we believe in private enterprise, and, actually, a significant part of our health system is delivered by private enterprises across the country, including general practitioners, who are one of the greatest public-private partnerships this country has, and we’ll back them.

Rima Nakhle: What certainty does his announcement of a record funding boost for general practice provide for one of the largest public-private partnerships in our health system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, what a great question. Local GP services are private businesses, and our Government is focused on ensuring they can continue to deliver timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. The funding agreement reached yesterday with the sector is another significant step forward and will support GPs to continue providing care for the 55,000 Kiwis who visit a family doctor each and every single day.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from Ayesha Verrall’s question about policies to suit the Chemist Warehouse, which party was it that put the charge on in terms of pharmaceutical prescriptions in the first place when they were told by their colleagues in New Zealand First not to do it and now it’s being defended by that very Minister over there—has she got no memory?

SPEAKER: That’s a very skilful political statement made inside a question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he invest in proper staffing of cancer services, or will he, instead, continue to allow health funds to subsidise insurance companies for medicines they’re already obliged to cover?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, look, I’m very happy to talk about cancer medicines and the absolute hole in the Pharmac budget that that Government left behind and we had to fix. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, and the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon David Seymour, for the work they’ve done to deliver more cancer medicines for more New Zealanders. That is making a real difference.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he build a proper-sized hospital for the people of Nelson, instead of building a smaller hospital that creates greater opportunities for private providers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m very happy to talk about Nelson Hospital and the fact that the rescoping started when she was the Minister—when she was the Minister. We are actually going to get on and deliver it, unlike the fake promise made in 2020 by the former Government, where they said spades would be in the ground by 2023—not a spade even got near Nelson.

Hon Nicola Willis: In terms of delivery of health services by private providers, can the Minister confirm that it has been the longstanding practice of ACC to procure a number of its surgeries and treatments from private healthcare providers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the great ACC scheme, which I thought that party was proud of, absolutely procures services through the private sector, and I just want to remind the House of a Cabinet paper that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins took as Minister of Health in 2020 where he said he wanted to see longer-term private sector arrangements to deliver elective care.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, having regard to—

SPEAKER: Mr Peters, just a moment. The House will give you the courtesy of a bit of silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to Ayesha Verrall’s questions, could the Minister tell me as to whether Pharmac has got any prescriptions for medicines for the early onset of political amnesia?

SPEAKER: We’ll move on to—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon Chris Bishop: Here comes the cavalry.

SPEAKER: Well, with another comment like that while we’ve got a point of order on the floor, it will be an early afternoon.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Mr Speaker, in the past—just making an observation and wanting to know what your ruling is on this—when questions are asked, we’ve been told they have to start with question words. I think they’re called interrogative pronouns. We’ve had a lot of questions asked that do not start with those words. Are you saying that that’s OK now?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll look at the Hansard, but I do think that some of the questions that you have asked this afternoon have started—and I have listened—with “Can” and “Is” or “Could”. Now, those are all question words.

Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries

11. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What reports has he seen regarding the sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): It’s my privilege to report to the House that the Food and Agriculture Organization, an international organisation housed within the broad spectrum of those things that occupy the UN, has given high praise to the sustainability of the New Zealand fishing resource: nigh on 85 percent pass their threshold, reflective of great stewardship, especially over the last 15 months.

Andy Foster: What measures are being taken to support the good news in this report?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s important that members of the public bear in mind that we have already taken measures to sustain the future of the crayfish resource in the Hauraki Gulf. We are introducing a host of protective measures in the Hauraki Gulf, in the Tīkapa Moana, with a small concession to enable legacy fishermen to continue plying their trade in and around Kawau Island. But, more importantly, we are contemplating a set of closures or restrictions on the east coast of Tai Tokerau to protect the kōura, or the crayfish, industry.

Andy Foster: What other reports has the Minister received regarding the sustainable growth of fisheries?

Hon Shane Jones: Recently, the report issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries reflected good news in that part of our fisheries sector, where 13 percent growth—double-digit growth—was recorded in respect of marine farming. This is built on the fact that there is greater certainty and investment, traceable back to the extension of all the farming permits for the marine industry right through to 2050, something I look forward one day to emulating in terrestrial matters.

Andy Foster: What is the likely impact of the proposed fisheries reform on the sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries?

Hon SHANE JONES: As a key hallmark of the work that our Government is undertaking to boost sustainability and drive jobs, soon we will be bringing back options in the form of proposed legislation to deliver the reforms for the fishing industry, the quota-management system, and a host of other improvements—the most profound since 1986. This is built on the understanding that this industry can create more jobs, generate export earnings, but, most importantly, will not fall prey to green ideologies designed to intimidate investment.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many people are employed now, and how does that compare to when the Government took office?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The unemployment has been rising since 2021. In December 2023, 2,936,000 people were employed in New Zealand, and in March 2025, this figure sat at 2,914,000 people, in line with Treasury forecasts. Unemployment is always one of the last things to come right after a recession, and, unfortunately, we have inherited a low-growth economy, where unemployment was always forecast to increase above 5 percent. That is why our Government is so relentlessly focused on growth and getting people into work. When businesses have the confidence to invest and grow, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there 30,000 fewer people in work since her Government took office?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, that’s a very easy question to answer: because of the mess that member’s Government left us, with an economic recession.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there zero new employment initiatives in Budget 2025 to assist or support people into work?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government’s focus is on growth in the economy. For that member’s understanding, things like Investment Boost encourage businesses to create jobs, because this Government knows that businesses are the entities that create jobs. This Government is relentlessly focused on keeping inflation down, on keeping interest rates down, and going for growth.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the rates of unemployment in the economy now are tracking almost exactly, if not a bit better, to forecasts provided by the last Government prior to the election, despite the many challenges left to this administration; and would the Minister join me in providing the member opposite a briefing on how to read Budget documents?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I can confirm that the unemployment rates are tracking as Treasury has forecast.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is it that Budget 2024 forecast 204,000 jobseekers in 2025, but just one year later, under her watch, that has increased by an additional 13,000?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It was always forecast that the unemployment rate would be over 5 percent. It is sitting at 5.1 percent. This is in line with Treasury forecasts, and Treasury are currently forecasting that jobseeker benefit numbers will peak at 217,000 in December 2025.

SPEAKER: Could I just remind that member, before we go too much further, Speakers’ Ruling 181/3 makes it very clear that supplementary questions, or questions, cannot be used by a Government to attack another party in the House.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that jobseeker numbers do not always track with unemployment numbers and that, in fact, under the last Government, jobseeker numbers increased even while unemployment was decreasing?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. It’s quite extraordinary, when you give a very clear direction to the House, that senior Government Ministers just immediately ignore that. There is no responsibility of this Minister on what the previous Government did.

SPEAKER: No, but the member was talking about the stats and talking about the disparity sometimes between one stat and another. In this case, I took it as being somewhat complimentary of what was happening under a previous Government.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m not sure that’s what she meant, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, you need to see things the way I do.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, it is true that the jobseeker numbers do not always track exactly with the unemployment figures. As I’ve said previously, the unemployment figures are difficult to shift in a recession, and they are always the last stats to improve in a recession.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she accept that her Government’s cancellation of State houses being built, schools being upgraded, and hospitals being rebuilt has contributed to over 15,000 job losses in the construction sector?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I can confirm that high inflation rates, that high interest rates, that businesses having to watch every cent that they spend because of the incompetent management of the economy by the previous Government is the main factor in why—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order.

SPEAKER: When the House is ready.

Hon Nicola Willis: Look, I hesitate to lengthen the debate at the end of question time, but we do have an emerging practice in supplementary questions from the Opposition in which they allege facts which are not factual. This Government is continuing to build more State houses, to build more classrooms, to deliver hospitals. For the member to claim in his supplementary question that that is not the case has the potential to mislead the House.

SPEAKER: Well, if that is the case, the member has a remedy to pursue.

Hon Erica Stanford: Can the member tell this House, or confirm for this House, that, in fact, last year, this Government built more classrooms than in the previous year, which has meant that the construction industry has had more work in the classroom industry?

SPEAKER: Hang on. Sorry, sit down. I’m absolutely sick of that. We’re calling it quits.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’ve got one more quick supplementary; can I have one?

SPEAKER: No, we’re all over.

Urgent Debates Declined

Government decision to assist New Zealanders in Middle East

SPEAKER: I’ve received a letter from the Hon Marama Davidson seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government’s decision to deploy personnel and a C-130J aircraft to assist New Zealanders in the Middle East. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The situation in the region is a volatile one, and the Government’s efforts to assist New Zealanders who are in that situation warrants the attention of the House. This matter has been well traversed through the provision of the ministerial statement today and, indeed, in questions. The application is declined.

Bills

Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: I understand that the Government is to introduce an imprest supply bill.

CLERK: Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading immediately.

First Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill

Second Readings

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a second time.

These two bills are technical but also very important for New Zealand’s public finances. I think it would assist the House if I explain at the outset what each of them is and what purpose they serve. The overriding constitutional principle, as set out in the Public Finance Act, is that the Government cannot incur expenses or commit capital expenditure without authority from Parliament. Parliament must agree to the spending that the executive incurs.

Of course, there are instances in recent history where Governments have fallen foul of that rule. I think back to the Ihumātao land deal, in which the Auditor-General found that the Government incurred expenditure without the appropriate parliamentary authority to use imprest supply, as the funding used was intended to deliver more housing but was instead used to stop housing development on that land.

Imprest supply is an important principle. The new financial year 2025-2026 starts very soon, on 1 July. The Budget for this year was announced on 22 May, and the main Appropriation bill had its first and second readings on that day, with excellent speeches from members on this side of the House. However, this legislation will not have its third reading until later this year, so that means that there is, effectively, a gap between the start of the new financial year and the point at which the House at law confirms the Budget.

The purpose of the imprest supply bill is to bridge that gap and to do this in a way that is essentially temporary. More precisely, the imprest supply bill provides financial authority to incur expenses and capital expenditure for the first three months of this financial year—the 2025-26 year—before the passing of the appropriation estimates bill, when new appropriations for the financial year are authorised by Parliament.

The overall amount being sought in this bill is consistent with the amounts sought in previous years. The imprest supply bill seeks authority for the Government to incur a maximum of $39 billion in expenses, $7 billion in capital expenditure, and $1 billion in capital injections. Part of this amount is to cover the possibility that fiscal risks materialise and to allow for the uncertain timing and spread of expenditure, as is standard practice. These are matters on which the Treasury advises, and there are longstanding conventions about the way these numbers are formulated, conventions which this Government has adhered to.

Overall, that’s the purpose of the imprest supply bill—it’s an interim spending authority. As its name reveals, this is the first imprest supply bill for 2025-26. There will be a second imprest supply bill later this year.

Notwithstanding the routine nature of this legislation, I’d point out that even when it comes to imprest supply, Governments face choices. It is simply the case that Governments who commit to more extraordinary levels of spending than this Government is prepared to would also have to incur parliamentary authority for many billion dollars more in imprest supply. For example, if our Government hadn’t taken the prudent and responsible step to deliver $23 billion worth of savings in our first Budget, $21 billion worth of savings in our second Budget, and hadn’t taken a number of steps to provide fiscal constraint, then the Government would be in a position of having to ask Parliament for much more money in order to tide New Zealand through this period. This is important because these are actual choices that Ministers need to make, and I am conscious that there are members in this House who oppose every measure the Government takes to control its own spending yet who also wish to hold the position that they care about debt and they care about taxes.

The simple reality is that while we and members of this House vote for what spending and taxation occurs, we do not do so with our own money, a point that is often lost by members in this House. In fact, you heard it in the member the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question today where she tried to infer that particular spending was Labour’s money or Labour’s funding. There is no such thing as National Party money, Labour Party money, Te Pāti Māori money, Green Party money; it is all taxpayers’ money, and those of us who are stewards of that money, I think, have a serious responsibility to ensure that we are as careful with every dollar as mums and dads struggling with the cost of living at home are. The question that this Government asks itself before it incurs expenditure for “doolally” exercises like three waters mergers and co-governance reforms, hundreds of millions of dollars on doomed light rail projects, and huge amounts of expenditure on hiring more policy analysts is: can we look New Zealand taxpayers in the eye and say, “We’re taking that money from you in higher taxes so that we can pay for the little things that we think are exciting.”? Our test is that we should always ask ourselves, “Could those dollars do more work in the bank accounts and wallets of very hard-working Kiwi people?”

It is the case that our imprest supply bill and, therefore, New Zealand’s borrowing requirements at this time and, therefore, our taxation requirements at this time are less burdensome for New Zealanders because of the careful choices that Ministers in our Cabinet have made about what spending they commit to on behalf of New Zealanders. Those who wish to oppose every measure to do with saving, who wish to say that every dollar should be spent on every idea that everyone has had, need simply reflect on a simple lesson that I have found easy enough to explain to my 9-year-old, which is this: there isn’t actually a magic money tree; there isn’t a place where the free money comes from. It comes from hard-working people who get up in the morning, go to work, sometimes not because it’s the thing that gives them joy that day but because they know that they need to earn the dollars to put food on the table, to pay the rent, and to fill up their car. Then what we do in Government is we take a big chunk of that in tax, and we commit to spend that for the public good.

So those who like to pretend that we can just spend as much as we want are really saying to New Zealanders that they want an open call account on New Zealanders’ back pockets, and we on this side of the House do not agree with that approach. We think it is important to be prudent and to be responsible to ensure that we keep the economic recovery that is under way going, through responsible fiscal management; that we don’t overtax New Zealanders; and that we don’t over indebt our kids and future generations. Our spending choices, as reflected in this imprest supply bill, do just that.

The thing is, it’s very easy to oppose Government Budgets when you have absolutely no alternative plan, when Chicken Little cries at the sky falling at every move but has no alternative plan except to fantasise about a magic money tree—what you have is an Opposition lacking all credibility. The thing is, I’m given great heart because those same hard-working New Zealanders I just spoke of are smart people and they can see through the antics of the other side. They know that that approach of pretending that there is fantasy money and a fantasy locker that doesn’t come from their back pockets failed them. It delivered the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, from which many households are yet to recover. It delivered masses of debt, a huge spike in inflation, and price rises. And it delivered very little that New Zealanders can speak of now except for an almighty recession.

And so I proudly speak in support of this imprest supply bill, a reflection of a return to good, responsible fiscal and economic management. I dare the members on the other side to explain exactly where their magic money tree is planted.

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

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I actually go into the Supplementary Estimates bill and imprest supply, I’d ask the House’s indulgence for a moment. I want to acknowledge the passing of a senior kaumātua and rangatira ko Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust, Rakauoteora Te Maipi, or Koro Don, as we know him up on the Kāpiti Coast. Koro Don passed away this weekend, and he was a beloved kaumātua who led with wisdom, honour, and music. He served as the Kāpiti Coast District Council kaumātua for 25 years. He was deeply committed to our community. Our thoughts are with Pat, his wife; his wider whānau; and Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai. Moe mai rā, e te rangatira, haere atu rā ki te okiokinga mutunga kore. [Rest in peace, noble leader; go on to the eternal resting place.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to turn my attention now to both the Supplementary Estimates bill and the imprest supply bill, and, once again, we hear—from the Government side of the House and, in particular, from the Minister of Finance—a focus on the Opposition. We saw that again right throughout the lead-up to the Budget, we saw it on Budget day, we saw it after Budget day, and, again, all we’ve heard about is this side of the House in the debate on the Supplementary Estimates and the imprest supply bill.

It’s quite interesting because when you talk to New Zealanders on the ground, they say to themselves, “Well, I didn’t see anything for me and the cost of living in this Budget.”, and that’s why the Government spends all the time talking about this side of the House. We’ve seen both in question time and in the Minister of Finance’s speech just now—which I want to respond to—the talk about high inflation at the time when we were in Government.

As I asked the Minister the question during question time, we had high tradeable inflation during the period when we were in Government—particularly post-COVID—because there was a global pandemic and because there were supply chain issues. If you look at the data around tradeable versus non-tradeable inflation, you will see the major difference, and so it’s important to set that out today because what we know is that going forward, as a result of this Budget, this Budget and the Treasury documents talk a lot about the geopolitical uncertainty that’s happening in other jurisdictions. We’ve seen that, obviously, from what was debated in the House today with the ministerial statement from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and New Zealand is not immune to those global shocks or impacts that happen overseas.

That’s exactly what happened during the COVID pandemic, and that’s exactly what’s happening now, which is why it’s even more important to think domestically about what we can do as a country to support each other during a cost of living crisis and during a time when there is super-high demand. In a number of our non-governmental organisations, there is huge demand for food banks, there is huge demand for mental health services, and there is huge demand for housing, and yet what we see through this imprest supply bill, which, effectively, gives temporary authority for what’s in the Budget—what we, again, go back to is that the Budget did not provide enough support for everyday New Zealanders.

The Minister of Finance talks a lot about this magical money tree—the magical money tree which, unfortunately, doesn’t have much for everyday Kiwis or everyday New Zealanders, but it has a lot of money for landlords, it has a lot of money for tobacco companies, and it has $200 million for the gas industry. Again, there is a magic money tree with big branches and big flowering blossoms for these different industries, but what do families get? What do families get?

Some families, if they’re entitled to Working for Families credits, get $7 a week, but to pay for that, they had to strip away Best Start from 61,000 families for the first year. That first year of having a newborn is one of the hardest periods, which is why, when we were in Government, that first year was not income-tested, because we knew how hard it was for families in that first year to, first of all, deal with a newborn and the huge life changes that that makes for your family. That’s why we never income-tested it in the first year, but in the second and third years, income testing and abatement thresholds were introduced. But we’re seeing with this Government and their Budget that 61,000 families will be $43 worse off per fortnight because of this Government’s choices, and it all comes down to choices.

We heard a lot of words from the Minister about choices and money trees, and, yet again, the magical money tree seems to happen for lots of big corporates, but not for the everyday Kiwi battler who is on the ground every day and who is trying to, basically, make ends meet because inflation is not coming down for food—it is still increasing. Again, what happens overseas does have an impact here, but, once again, all we hear from the Government is, basically, that it’s not OK when Labour is in Government, but it is OK when National is in Government.

I do want to look at the Supplementary Estimates. We received a briefing from Treasury as part of scrutiny week that went through the actual line-by-line changes in the Supplementary Estimates. Again, the magical money tree seems to give—let’s have a look—$7.25 million to deliver new ministerial suites in the executive wing, at level three. The magical money tree there has $7.25 million, and yet for food banks, those get only $15 million. So, basically, the magical money tree gifts $7 million to ministerial offices so that ministerial offices can be redone on level three, but food banks only get $15 million, and yet when you talk to food banks right across the country, they are saying that demand is super high—higher than it’s ever been. They are crying out for the Government to support them, but the Government is saying, “We’ll give you $15 million, and, by the way, the magical money tree blossoms for ministerial suites.”

The other interesting thing from the Supplementary Estimates is in Vote Social Development, in relation to emergency housing. The appropriation for emergency housing decreased by $225.79 million to $78.849 million for the 2024-25 year, and so when Treasury set out why that is, they said that there is a lower number of grants than previously forecast and it’s a lower average payment per grant than previously forecast—OK, that’s the magic money tree, which is in motion again. Again, the Government chose to tighten the criteria for emergency housing assistance—so much so that this Government saves money from it.

Yet again—I say it once again in this House—this seems to be a Government that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing, because we have growing homelessness across all our major districts. Even in Rotorua, we saw media reports out from the Salvation Army of there being a number of homeless people, and the Salvation Army at the time were trying to manaaki them, but their hands were tied because they had no choice. So, again, we see that, basically, the appropriation for emergency housing assistance has been reduced, but we have growing homelessness.

The other interesting thing which we saw in the Supplementary Estimates was to do with the jobseeker support and emergency benefits. Well, that appropriation increased by $276.236 million, so it’s gone up to over $4,711.258 million. I know that those are all just numbers, but, ultimately, there’s a person behind that number, and the reason why it’s gone up by over $282 million is because, again, there is a higher number of people than previously forecast who are now on the jobseeker support and the emergency benefit.

Once again, these are people in our society who have no choice but to have to come to the Government to ask them for support, and it’s increased. They’ve had to increase that appropriation because this year, there are more people on the benefit than Treasury had forecasted last year, which is why I stand in support of what Ginny Andersen said during question time, which was that the forecast has increased by 13,000 people—that is 13,000 people. Again, members of the House on the Government benches say, “Oh, the magical money tree.” Well, the magical money tree is having to give more to those people who don’t have jobs, because this Government has tanked the economy.

Last year, there were two periods of recession. As much as that Government believes that it didn’t cause the recession, it was still growing in the early quarters of the financial year, and Treasury confirmed it. There was modest growth until the last two quarters of the financial year, and that was because that Government paused, reviewed, and cancelled huge infrastructure projects, which led to a loss of construction roles—which, again, Ginny Andersen talked about during question time; 15,000 construction sector roles—and then, what happens when you have less people spending money in the economy? All those little suppliers, all those retail shops, and all those restaurants don’t have people going there to enjoy part of what working does to help people live with dignity and to live with integrity.

This Government can crow as much as it wants, but the facts are in the numbers. This country is going backwards under that Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: E te Māngai, I can’t hear you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Good to go?

: Yeah, DEPUTY SPEAKERChlöe Swarbrick—yeah.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Apologies, Madam Speaker, your microphone wasn’t on.

Bills like this represent really important—in fact, some of the most important—Government decisions. That is: how we collectively and democratically use our collective resources to build the kind of country that we want to live in, here in Aotearoa New Zealand. What I find really interesting about parties of the right and those that currently occupy the Government benches—

Mark Cameron: Ideology.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —is that we hear a lot of rhetoric about freedom. I hear just now some heckling about the notion of ideology. I would inform that heckler that all of us in this place have ideology. It simply means that we believe in things and that we stick our neck out on that basis. What we don’t want to be, in response to that heckler, is dogmatic—that is, so immovable in the things that we believe that we are not willing to reconcile with the experience of others whose shoes we have not walked in.

Back to that point around the rhetoric of freedom, which members of this Government talk about a lot, let’s be really, really, really clear: you only have illusory freedom that is not real freedom if you do not have economic freedom—that is, the ability to make meaningful decisions about how you live your life. It is incredibly hard to imagine that any New Zealander could claim to have real freedom if they cannot afford to put food on the table, which Government Budget decisions have made a heck of a lot harder for regular people.

We in the Greens unashamedly believe in universal basic services. Just to give people a snapshot or an insight into what it is that we’re talking about when we’re talking about universal basic services, we’re talking about things like free schooling, we’re talking about things like free hospitals—those things which now are considered rather undebatable. They are things that we consider to be normal and as though they are immovable. But, once upon a time, these things were impossible to fathom. Indeed, if we were fighting for these things today, for free schooling and for free hospitals, I believe—make no mistake—that this Government would call it wasteful spending and that they would say that this is about envy politics, about how we choose to tax certain groups of people who are doing pretty all right and decide to channel those resources into our collective public resources and services.

This Government is running the trickle-down economics playbook. It is to defund public services, to watch them wither and ultimately fail, point that out to the public, and then say we should privatise that. The next step of that logic is that those privatised services are then sold back to regular New Zealanders for a far higher cost in order to account for the profit that this Government so wilfully champions, which in turn increases the cost of living. You only need to look at the decisions made by the former National Government with the electricity sector to get a clear indication of where it is that we are heading.

This Government, if you’re to read between the lines of their rhetoric, wants everyone to only think about themselves. They encourage people to fight each other in this rampant, dog-eat-dog competition and especially to punch down on those who are not doing all too well, while they shred the services that all of us ultimately need, that all of us ultimately rely on. That is not how you build a country. That is how you destroy one. We are not 5 million random individual people running around this country; we are New Zealanders, and we get to choose to make decisions that benefit all of us.

But what we are debating specifically today isn’t even the full Budget; it’s just a microcosm of that, with their interim spending. Let’s put the microscope on some of the cruel penny-pinching that the Government has decided to do, hurting our communities and destroying local economies. In the environment, climate, and conservation space, they have cut $16.4 million from services for conservation. They have cut $13.9 million from identification and implementation of protection for natural and historic places. They have cut $6.1 million from managing climate change in Aotearoa New Zealand. They have cut $1.8 million from the Climate Change Commission. They have cut $95 million from waste minimisation. They have cut $6.5 million from greenhouse gas mitigations research and development funds. They have cut $4 million from sustainable land management and climate change research. In the transport space, they’ve cut $121 million for school transport. They have cut $16 million from mode-shift - planning infrastructure services and activities. They have cut $29 million for decarbonising the bus fleet. In housing, they have cut $1.3 million from transitional housing, and they’ve cut $226 million from emergency housing assistance.

The Prime Minister and the Associate Minister of Housing had the gall to stand in front of TV cameras in January of this year and announce that the Government had met its targets early to kick people out of emergency housing, when, in December last year, they had received a briefing that said that homelessness was visibly increasing in our major centres. It just really, truly, honestly boggles the mind. I think that that is the sense of frustration, the sense of gaslighting, the sense of living in an Orwellian world where we’re told one thing and the reality is another, that the Opposition is experiencing—and, indeed, I might say, I hear frequently from New Zealanders all across this country.

This Government tells us that they are all about productivity. Meanwhile, they actively undermine that very productive investment which stimulates that productivity. Indeed, this was actually identified just two weeks ago in a report from the International Monetary Fund that I asked the Minister of Finance if she had read, at scrutiny week just last week. The IMF—known Marxists at the International Monetary Fund!—pointed out that some of the major barriers to our productivity challenges here in Aotearoa New Zealand are the distortions in our tax system that see money flowing into real estate and away from productive investment in small and medium enterprises. The IMF told us that we need to see more Government investment in productive research, which this Government has cut. These things do not add up, and we’re imploring New Zealanders, here—with the transparency that we are offering, in the world between what the Government is saying and what they’re doing—to understand that this Government is not operating in their best interests.

Then, there’s all of the rhetoric about growth. Well, the question has to be: who is that growth actually for? What we can see represented in the reality of the data and the evidence that we are getting out of the consequences of Government decisions is that that growth is only benefiting those who are seeking rents or those who are seeking profits. It is not for the children that they have decided to keep in poverty. It is not for the 15,000 construction workers who their withdrawal of investment saw lose their jobs. It is not for the half a million New Zealanders who are now having to access food banks every single week. It is not for the 191 New Zealanders who are leaving this country on a plane every single day, three quarters of them between the ages of 18 to 34.

The Government is not a household; it is the democratic manifestation of all of our nation’s households. It can, and it does, borrow money on all of our behalf, and it should do that to make productive investments; the opposite of which, I might add, is what this Government is doing by borrowing for unproductive tax cuts which have not generated one job and have in fact kneecapped that growth and productivity. That borrowing that a Government can do comes with interest repayment rates that are a fifth of the cost of what a household repayment rate would be. Government spending also has positive multiplier impacts, and when a Government withdraws its spending, particularly on the infrastructure and the services that New Zealanders rely on, the experience and the evidence show us that private household debt goes up. But these facts, this truth, the experience of New Zealanders on the ground, seem to be absolute anathema to this Government—they’re just not interested in hearing it. They either don’t care, or they’re so ideological and dogmatic that they’re not that interested in engaging with that reality.

At the end of the day, the thing that I just really can’t reconcile the most in my head is the rhetoric that they use around hard-working people, who they pretend they are playing this game for, all the while further entrenching a tax system that sees those hard-working New Zealanders—regular, average New Zealanders—paying double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest in this country. And this is not Green Party reckons; this is IRD research, which is one of the first things that this Government cut in their first hundred days, repealing the enabling legislation.

I just—I’m at a loss. Very clearly, we oppose this legislation, and we oppose this Government. They’re not operating in the interests of the regular New Zealander.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, this is a split call, I understand—yes. I call Mark Cameron, and it’s good to see you back in the House.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just inform the House that dialysis and kidney disease is a terrible thing, but I am here.

Hon Member: You’re looking great.

MARK CAMERON: Thank you very much to my colleague.

I’m saddened by some of the remarks by my dear friend Chlöe Swarbrick over the other side of the House—and I’ve got a lot of respect for her—as she talks about ideology in this imprest supply bill that we’re discussing and where we see targeted funding by this Government, speaking loudly, as she does, about what I’d maintain is collectivism. Ideology, certainly, is something that she referenced. Yes, this side of the House has a slightly different aspiration for its New Zealanders. We speak to the individual rather than the collectivism of the left, and we certainly don’t beat up those that are successful. Targeted funding, I wager, Chlöe Swarbrick, has been felt by the primary sector, which, by the way, is the backbone of the very country that you speak to and should be supportive of.

I want to speak to a couple of targeted funding measures that you might choose to support—there would be a novel idea. The primary sector afforded itself $246 million in Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures funds to help on-farm profitability and productivity. Now, I say to Miss Chlöe Swarbrick, how on earth are you going to tax a society when the country, especially the primary industries, affords itself an activity and produces nearly 60 billion bucks? And yet collectivism on the left just likes to beat up those that are successful. Well, I maintain this side of the House has done marvellously well in this bill, accounting for the primary sector and all the work that those people do. We don’t go and come into this House and evangelise and offer sermons about how the primary sector should live from those from central Auckland—gracious me, that’s nonsense.

Another thing I’d like to address that I think is very salient in this House is rural wellbeing and community support. Now, this is a very personal issue for me. Most people in this House know that my son committed suicide a year ago, and yet I came here, and I looked at this imprest supply bill and what was in the appropriation. I buried my boy a year ago. Now, this has afforded $2 million as a contestable fund. I would argue it’s not enough, but it surely speaks to the issues that we face in rural New Zealand. I am sick to death of that side of the House beating my side up for what we do every day to try and make rural New Zealand a little bit better for all of us, because, gracious me, some of the members on the other side of the House know what it’s like living in a remote area in rural New Zealand. The wellbeing that I see in this contestable fund will help my people address these very salient issues that only some of us understand. We’re over the sermons. We’re over Chlöe Swarbrick and her clan beating us up when we come to do the very best, which is supply a food product for all of us and access a market that keeps the whole country out of the economic doldrums.

Four hundred thousand for A & P Shows—what a wonderful investment. Everyone here, I would suggest, should go to an A & P Show. You will learn what it’s like to be a cow cocky, a wool grower, a farmer, or a horticulturalist. What a wonderful thing—400 grand to keep that reality of iconic rural New Zealand alive. How cool is that? Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for rural women and their support.

Now, I just want to highlight one thing about these good people. I was asked, when I went to speak to these people, what a rural community was, thinking of this fund as I speak to this. They asked me what a community was and what a community meant to me? I offered this: in all the difficulties I’ve personally had in my life, these people in rural New Zealand are lesser so a community, because we are a rural family. Everywhere up and down New Zealand, we are a collective of rural people that believe in what we’re doing. We believe in this country, we believe in feeding a nation, and, most of all, we believe in being the fiscal spine that keeps the country alive.

This bill is a damnably good piece of legislation. It absolutely helps rural New Zealand do what it’s done for so long—keeping the country out of the economic doldrums and in the black. I support it. I think it’s a wonderful piece of legislation, and “Hear, hear!” to rural New Zealand.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to my good mate Mark Cameron. It’s great to have you back in the House. Unfortunately, you’ve got to get the radiator flushed tomorrow, I think, but, yeah, look, it’s great to have you back here.

Look, I just want to back up the comments from the Minister on this one. We live in a reality world where we’ve got to make the books balance. If you’ve been in charge of your own business, you know that the reality is that if you’re only getting so much in, you can only afford to spend so much, otherwise you’ll go out of business pretty quickly. It’s pretty simple stuff, and businesses up and down the country—small and large—wrestle with that challenge day in, day out. A key thing that we’re focusing on here is ensuring that we’re spending the money where it needs to be spent to get the best bang for buck and to deliver the best outcomes.

I hear a lot about “Oh, you’re not throwing enough money at this. We used to throw more money at that.” Throwing money at something doesn’t necessarily mean you’re delivering something and that you’re getting something in return. I’ve seen that a lot of the spending that has happened in the past has been completely and utterly ineffective. Sometimes, it’s not how much you spend, but it’s how you spend it and how you take other actions to make sure it does the job well that it needs to do. It’s thinking outside the square. Sometimes, when you’ve run a business, you learn that—“Money’s tight. What else can I do? How can I do this differently? How can I get the best bang for buck from what I’m spending?”

On this side of the House, that’s what we’re focusing on—how do we get the best bang for buck? And the Budget—on this side of the House—is about enabling New Zealand to do well. It’s not about giving stuff to people. It’s not this magic lolly scramble of “You get something, and you get something.” No, a Budget, mainly, is about us taking from New Zealand, and then it’s about redistributing it in the most effective manner. Now, obviously, we benefit New Zealand more if we take less. If we interfere in New Zealanders’ lives less and enable them to live the life most productive to them, that is to their benefit.

And I hear, “Oh, you’re only giving so and so $3 or $5 or not this amount.” No, it’s about having the settings right in the first place. It’s about getting inflation under control. It’s not about destroying our energy sector and pushing up electricity prices. The previous speaker mentioned that there’s $200 million going to oil and gas drilling for joint ventures there. Well, we need to, because the previous Government created a massive sovereign risk here, and we need to do something to keep the lights on. This country will not function if we cannot get reliable energy happening in this country, and so this is an imperative. It’s not something that, on this side of the House, we necessarily want to do. We don’t necessarily want to rush off and do joint ventures with various businesses, but it’s a reality that we are left with and that we have to do.

Look, finally, I just want to talk about a couple of areas in my portfolio. It was good in the biosecurity space. We were able to keep the money that we’ve got and ensure that it’s spent wisely and effectively on the front line keeping New Zealand safe. As my colleague said, agriculture is the backbone of this country, and protecting it in the biosecurity space is what protects that backbone. We need to make sure that we’re spending that money wisely and that we’re investing it where it needs to be invested, protecting our borders.

It was really good that we were able to find savings and direct an extra $2 million toward wilding pine control. I know that’s an issue that many farmers, particularly in the central South Island, are concerned about, so having an extra $2 million there—I’d love to have more; I’d love to spend more, certainly, because I can see it’s an important thing, but we’ve got to be fiscally sensible.

Also, in food safety, we’re spending the money wisely. We’re looking at how we can reduce the complexity and red tape in that area so that, in that future, hopefully, we can run a leaner system that reduces costs for businesses and that allows them to invest more, which obviously leads to improved outcomes and incomes for New Zealanders. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill. I must say, trying to put a speech together for this was quite a hard feat when you stare at, I think it was, 960 pages of appropriations. Being a first-term MP and having the opportunity last week, through our Estimates debates and our scrutiny week, to revise that over just the hour we had in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—960 pages, and it was over $10 billion worth of expenditure. What I would say is I remember, before becoming a local-body politician, the family budget, where you’re dealing with dollars and hundreds and thousands; and then going into local government and dealing with millions; now, standing here and having to talk about billions. So those budgets change.

The one thing I did learn from the last week’s review was the difference between what the Budget for 2024-25 said and what was achieved was only a 5.4 percent difference. Why I raised that issue is, when a Government sets a Budget, you would expect the Government to stick as closely to the Budget as you can. I will talk to some reasons why you do change a Budget, but what I thought was quite impressive was how close we were to the original Budget spend. If you actually looked in the information given to the select committee, that difference in the last couple of years has got closer. Under this Government, we are sticking closer to what we are saying we’re going to spend, and we’re not blowing out the Budget. That 5.4 percent—which was $9.8 billion—was how close the Budget was. That took the Government spending up to $192 billion—that’s what we are actually here to speak about.

Also, the imprest supply bill—and the finance Minister introducing that into the House today has said it’s a temporary measure. We support that. It allows the authority of Government to start spending money, and that’s important. As the process of the Budget goes through and is adopted, at the moment we need that imprest supply bill to be able to spend money and keep the country moving and doing all the things the Government of the day wants to.

Also, as the finance Minister said, we face choices. Those choices have been set out in the Budget. We’ve heard a lot about a “magic money tree”. I’ve been told, yes, money doesn’t grow on trees. But where I come from, it actually does, because my portfolio is horticulture. In horticulture, money does grow on trees in that sense; it’s just not real money. You’ve got to pick that fruit and actually take it to market. The one thing I’ve learnt in recent times, travelling around the country, and especially at the Fieldays, is how great our horticultural industry is doing at the moment—our apple industry, cherries, and also kiwifruit and Zespri. That thing with horticulture is such an important thing. I’d say to the other side of the House: “Yes, money does grow on trees. We just need to put more of those trees in the ground, put the hard work in, and actually get the rewards from there.”

Again, going back to the home budget—the home budget—where all of us and people out in TV land will be able to understand, we have a certain amount of money, we budget for it on expenses and different capital things, and it’s no different from this Government. We have our expenses that must be paid for, and then we have our capital items as well. That sometimes changes, and the reason they can change is we need to reprioritise. We’ve heard from the Government how well they and the Ministers have been able to reprioritise spending. That’s been really important in that appropriation of $9.8 billion, actually reprioritising spending and actually not always finding new money but using existing money.

Also, during a year, we know, even with the home budget, there are new incentives. Ministers do have new incentives, and sometimes they need to be funded. How do you fund them? Again, through these appropriation entries. Also, you need to respond to unforeseen events. And we all know in a budget at home, things crop up—the car breaks down. Well, imagine running the Government, the different departments, and the different things that happen. Those unforeseen events are why we have the need for these Estimates.

The major reasons, we’ve learnt through the select committee last week, for some of the changes were infrastructure. Infrastructure is a key element to this Government’s priorities. Sometimes, as we know, timelines change. Timelines change for a number of reasons. And we’ve heard a lot about consenting. We know this Government is going to change the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’re going to get things moving quicker. We’ve got fast track on the cards. We’re going to make sure that infrastructure projects—where we’ve got a number of different projects out in a programme for the next 10 to 20 years, that’s all going to be done through fast track. Also, consenting just your ordinary infrastructure projects is going to be a lot simpler under the new RMA reforms that we’re putting through.

Also with infrastructure, you have supply chain disruptions. We’ve got different things in the labour market that make things not as timely, sometimes, as we want them to be. You have things with funding, with different infrastructure projects, that you need to change from your timelines and your priorities, and, as we know with infrastructure projects, there are also increased prices. The Regional Infrastructure Fund is a key element of the New Zealand First manifesto and through our coalition partners. The Regional Infrastructure Fund, that $400 million a year—$1.2 billion over the three years—in the appropriations, was needed to be brought forward. We had over $100 million for flood protection. Those flood-protection projects with local councils that were announced were an appropriation that was done through these supplementaries here.

We’ve also had global economic uncertainties. We know the uncertainties in the world at the moment. New Zealand’s not immune to that. Sometimes in Budgets, for one reason or another, you need to find money and place that in different areas. Something we’re really proud of, on this side of the House, was the help with cancer treatments and other medicines. Extra money needed to be found for that, so appropriations were brought forward for those cancer treatments. We had the community housing and finance agency group set up for community housing, which was $180 million. That was an extra appropriation put in that part. We also had some decisions through our veterans’ entitlements that actually increased the Budget by over $3 billion just in that one area that we needed to take care of.

New Zealand First is voting for this bill because it upholds the integrity of the financial system while enabling the necessary amendments. We are particularly encouraged by the targeted increases in funding for regional development that got touched on, for infrastructure resilience, and for bolstering the front-line services that this Government has talked so passionately about and is actually putting into place. These also reflect New Zealand First’s priorities of strengthening rural and provincial communities, fostering economic security, and preparing New Zealand to meet tomorrow’s challenges today, instead of having to wait further down the track. The bill also reflects practical governance, not ideology, and those are the principles New Zealand First will always stand for. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I just wanted to firstly acknowledge Mark being back in the House: tēnā koe, and also, I guess, your own health and particularly you sharing your personal matter, Mark; I just want to mihi to you. We come from rural areas, you know; we get it, I get it. I don’t know whether I get it exactly the same way you get it, but, nevertheless, I do want to bring some of these ideas to the House. I want to speak about rural Māori, if I can, Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of course you can.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —because I want to bring that into the minds of people as we discuss and decide on these particular bills this afternoon. I think, to open it up, really, it comes down to—because I was listening to the Minister and the range of debate, and the words that come to mind mostly for me are “trust” and “verify”. The verification part is probably not going to come for a little while, so we sort of go, “Can we trust what we’re hearing?” I don’t know; I don’t know whether we can. I’ll make these statements as I start.

Te Pāti Māori will not be supporting either of these bills, and this is why: because what we recognise is that it will legitimise a Budget and a policy agenda that protects power and not people. This is how we see it. When I say, “not people”, I’m talking about it not protecting the hard-working people, the people that can work, and the people that cannot work, and the people that cannot find work. Does this help those scenarios? I’d say no. I’d say this Government needs to pass these laws because, under the made-up rules, you cannot spend our tax dollars without the consent of Parliament. This is a hypocrisy of this institution: the Government needs the consent of Parliament, where they themselves make up the majority, but they do not need the consent of our Treaty partners to decide how they spend the revenue earned off our whenua.

The past two Budgets, in our mind, are a betrayal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They have slashed our ability to protect our lands, our waters, and our futures. They are defunding our climate solutions, defunding our housing solutions, defunding our health solutions, defunding our solutions to poverty, and giving tax breaks and handouts to the already wealthy. There is no respect in this Budget for Māori. I know some of you might have feelings when I say that, and I’m happy to take that discussion outside this room. But that is how we see it, that is how we how we perceive it, and that’s how we recognise it when we’re meeting with our families across the motu. They do not respect Māori for our babies, for anyone, except the Government and their mates, it seems. Despite tangata whenua making up 20 percent of the population—that’s 1 million people—Vote Māori Development is receiving only 0.27 percent of the total Budget—the lowest in a decade; the lowest in a decade. How can I trust that? How can we trust that? Well, we cannot.

This Budget didn’t forget our tamariki; they ignored the unique culture, language, custom, and lifestyle of our mokopuna. They ignored our wāhine, our iwi, our hapū, and our whānau. This Budget takes $13 billion from our hard-working wāhine and gives it to the military. This Budget takes $3 billion from all of our retirement funds and gives that money to the already wealthy and happy landlords. We cannot support any bill that enables the systematic erasure of our constitutional rights, the defunding of Māori-led solutions, and the transfer of wealth from those who need it, from the have-nots to the haves. If this Government’s Budgets cared about everyday tangata whenua people, we would support them. We would like to, but we cannot, because we do not support the bills as the ones we are discussing today. Since they only care about lining their own pockets and those of the rich mates, we do not and cannot commend this to the House. Tēnā tātou.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Listening to the Minister of Finance deliver her speech on this bill, I was really struggling to tell whether she is just deeply cynical or wilfully ignorant. When she talks about responsible spending, almost every statement she makes about her Government is actually completely the opposite of what they are doing. A responsible Government that was looking after hard-working New Zealanders would not have ensured, in their Budget, that over 300,000 hard-working nurses, midwives, care and support workers, and other people in historically female-dominated professions were going to lose a pathway to fair pay. Putting more money in the pockets of those hard-working New Zealanders who do so much of the mahi that holds up our communities and our society, the glue that makes all of this possible—by not doing that, we actually hurt ourselves as a country.

If the Minister of Finance actually cared one bit about what was good for the economy and hard-working New Zealanders, she would not be giving billions of dollars to landlords. That is an irresponsible choice that this Government has made that is actually bad for productivity. It’s bad for our economy. But it is good for that small number of New Zealanders who happen to own a certain amount of property or happen to be borrowing to own investment properties. That doesn’t increase the supply of housing in our country, but it makes it easier for some people to earn money through rent-seeking behaviour. For those who haven’t studied economics, rent-seeking is not a good thing in economics. Rent-seeking is the opposite of productive activities that make us better off as a country.

It’s either deeply cynical or wilfully ignorant on the part of most of the Government MPs when they stand up and claim to be the responsible fiscal managers, when they’re giving away billions of dollars to landlords and hundreds of millions to the fossil-fuel industry, at a time when we know—we’ve known for decades now—that we cannot afford to find and exploit new fossil-fuel reserves and still have a livable climate. That’s just basic.

I remember back in the days of the John Key Government when they signed up to the agreement at Paris. That was a National Party that was somewhat in touch with reality. They weren’t doing much to actually address climate change, but at least they stood on the world stage and signed up to the Paris Agreement, which acknowledged that we cannot afford to carry on exploring for new fossil-fuel reserves and exploiting them. We cannot.

When the Minister of Finance says , “There’s no magic money tree”, it’s actually just projection. She’s accusing Opposition parties of not having a plan when she doesn’t have a plan. Let’s look at their transport policy—completely unfunded. This is what is so infuriating about listening to the Government members. They claim certain things, and then they do the exact opposite. They’ve got a totally unfundable plan and a complete denial of that. The New Zealand Transport Agency comes to select committee and tells us. Treasury comes and tells us. They’re promising tens of billions of dollars of spending in the future on a handful of projects, and they don’t have the revenue to pay for it. When they accuse this side of the House of not doing the math and not doing the numbers, they’re actually talking about themselves.

Finally, when we talk about taxpayers’ money, that is a really loaded term. In fact, it’s public money for public good. Members opposite—most of them; not the members of the ACT Party—members of the National Party and the New Zealand First Party, I think, would say that we should have public hospitals, we should have public schools, and we should have public investment in roads. They admit all of that. Why is it that we can’t recognise that the purpose of public money is to invest in public good? That’s exactly what the Green Party is proposing and being realistic about: what the limitations are on our ability to keep using fossil-fuels and putting greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and still have life functioning on the planet as we would like it to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to rise on behalf of the National Party to talk about this imprest supply bill. One of the things that it will be giving authority to is Vote Disability Support Services. That is one Vote and one announcement that hasn’t really had the airtime that it deserves. I’m going to give it a bit of airtime.

You won’t have heard the Opposition criticise us about our investment—our significant investment—into the disability support services this Budget. Has anyone heard that?

Hon Members: No.

CAMERON BREWER: Has anyone heard that? Has anyone heard the Opposition hit us on disability support?

Hon Members: No.

CAMERON BREWER: No. Why is that? I was kindly invited by a good friend of mine Sonia Thursby, who is the CE of YES Disability and a leading youth and disability advocate. Shore Junction is something that she has a lot to do with as a youth centre in the North Shore.

I was very, very happy to turn up to this I.Lead conference. I.Lead is a disabled youth movement, and the conference is all about ensuring that young disabled New Zealanders have the skills to lead in the communities that they represent and live in. One thing that many of them kept repeating was just how much they appreciated the support in Budget 2025 from this Government. What support was that? That was a billion dollars—a billion dollars. They were telling me this, and I was standing there, kind of taking the credit, going, “Oh, yes, no problem.” I went back and googled it, thinking, “Surely it wasn’t a billion dollars of new money.” I went back to the statements from our disability issues Minister, the Hon Louise Upston—and, man, they’re loving the work that Louise is doing—and, yes, there is a billion dollars in extra funding over four years.

Some of that is going into improving the residential care service that 7,000 disabled Kiwis rely on. But most of it is going to address the many cost pressures that the disability support services face, as do many others across many sectors in New Zealand. I just thought that that was worth highlighting, and that was something where the Opposition haven’t been able to land anything on us. I don’t know who their disabilities issues spokespeople are, but they haven’t been able to touch us on that, because that is a billion dollars of new spending over four years—additional spending; additional spending.

Another major investment: Erica Stanford said at the time that the extra money that she was putting into learning support was the greatest investment within a generation. We all go to primary schools in our electorates, and the principals say, “We are sick of having to play God, frankly, with the future of children; deciding who gets Ongoing Resourcing Scheme funding and who doesn’t.” Well, the Hon Erica Stanford, as the Minister of Education, has introduced a system that will be demand-led; any child in New Zealand with higher needs will get the help and support they need. I’ll tell you what: we’re going into primary schools now, and they’re loving that announcement—they’re loving that announcement.

Have we heard much about the learning support from this lot? No—no, because that’s gone down very, very well. Building new schools and classrooms: geez, that’s gone down well, too, for kids across New Zealand. I know in the Upper Harbour electorate, the Hon Erica Stanford has come to my electorate, and she’s announced a 10-classroom block for Scott Point School—a brand new 10-classroom block. In the same day, she wandered over a couple of kilometres, and for the area of Westgate, the fast-growing north-west in Auckland, she announced a brand new school that people have been advocating for for about six or seven years, but it was the National Minister who delivered it—a brand new school on Fred Taylor Drive for Redhills, Westgate, for 600 primary school kids, opening in Term 1, 2027. These are the kinds of announcements that we made on Budget day that didn’t really get the noise that they deserved, largely because the Opposition didn’t have anything to say about them.

Now, improving KiwiSaver—who was the party that stopped the Government contribution for those earning over $180,000? You’d have to think that that was the 1916 party for the workers on the West Coast of the South Island that would stop that contribution of those earning over $180,000 and stop wasting taxpayers’ money. No, it was the party for the real workers; it was the party for small business; it was the National Party that stopped that Government contribution for those earning over $180,000 to KiwiSaver. Who lifted the default rate from 3 to 4 percent? It was the National Party—and, of course, our friends in the ACT Party and, of course, our friends in New Zealand First. Who wanted that default rate to be lifted—employer-employee contributions—from 3 to 4 percent, gradually, incrementally increased over three years? Well, it was the late Sir Michael Cullen, but it was this party, this Government, that delivered that.

Who also enabled 16- and 17-year-olds to access KiwiSaver, to access those Government contributions, to get those employer contributions? Who was it? Was it the self-proclaimed party of the “youf”—with an f—the Green Party? Was it the Green Party? No. It was the Green Party who opposed 16- and 17-year-olds getting into KiwiSaver, getting the Government contribution, getting the employer contribution. It was the Green Party, joined by Te Pāti Māori and joined by the Labour Party, who opposed all our KiwiSaver measures, despite them, in 2006, with the KiwiSaver Act, piling in behind Sir Michael Cullen and supporting KiwiSaver—and now they’re against those initiatives that so many New Zealanders have said thank you to.

I want to also acknowledge something else that hasn’t had the publicity that it deserves, largely because the Opposition don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about this. That is increasing the council rates rebates and extending it to 66,000 more SuperGold card holders. That is something that you won’t hear much about.

Another thing that we would have heard a lot about—and we’ve heard a lot about it as constituent MPs—is extending the prescription length to 12 months for those that are getting prescriptions from their pharmacists, from their doctors, meaning less time, less money, visiting the doctor. That is something, again, that has gone down very, very well.

Our smaller operating allowance—hasn’t that proved to be very, very timely? Hasn’t this Government arrived at a very, very timely time in global history? Thank goodness we’ve got a Government that’s taking a very responsible fiscal management approach to this economy. We are working on our debt so we can start bringing it down over the decade. We are bringing down inflation, that was over 7 percent under the last Government—it’s at 2.5 percent now. Our fiscal policies are working hand in hand with the Reserve Bank’s monetary policies, which are seeing the official cash rate reduce—I think it’s 225 basis points since August. Interest rates don’t have a “7” in front of them like they did two or three years ago; they have a “5” in front of them, and, in fact, in many cases, they have a “4” in front of them.

This Government is perfectly timed to take control of this economy. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a call and outline exactly why it is that Labour is opposing this bill. The Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill sound like dry, dusty pieces of legislation. Within these very dry documents are some very powerful stories. There are powerful stories that talk about the choices that Governments make. They talk to the values of a Government. They talk to where the priorities of a Government are.

If we take the Supplementary Estimates for a moment just to set the scene, we have a Government that lists, as an achievement, how much it has cut out of emergency housing assistance. They set this as a benchmark for a Government’s success—the fact that the Government appropriation decreased by $225 million. Supplementary Estimates are where the changes to the appropriations that were originally envisioned when the Budget was put into place in the 2024-25 year appear. In Supplementary Estimates, you’ve got to come back and say how the plan changed. What was different? Well, what was different was that we had a policy from a Government where they would control the spending on emergency housing by simply not letting people in. What have we seen? We have seen an explosion of homelessness in this country. We have a Government that has shown, in these documents, that it is not a priority for them to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities have the dignity of a roof over their head, albeit a motel.

I look at my hometown of Christchurch. I look to one month in Christchurch and what the agencies were telling us, and that’s December 2024. Let’s bear in mind that December is a month where, famously, people could find shelter when needed. But, in that month of December, in my hometown of Christchurch, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) figures show that that over 300 people were sleeping on the streets. In that month, 372 households left emergency housing; of those, 54 households—MSD have no idea where they went. They did not go into State housing, they did not go into transitional housing, and they certainly didn’t get any assistance with an accommodation supplement. Nobody knows where they went. This is the policy that is adding to the explosion of people rough sleeping in our country—in their cars, in the doorways, and not having somewhere they can call home. These are the priorities that this Government is setting, and it is showing through these appropriations.

As we’ve heard through many, many contributions in this House, Budgets are about choices about whether a Government makes the decisions to fund or cut. And what have we seen from this Government? We certainly have seen a Government that has cut. We have seen a Government that has cut nearly $13 billion set aside for the pay packets of hard-working women in New Zealand to pay for this Budget, and what did we get in exchange for that? “A Working for Families increase”, the Minister of Finance told us in the House, was the big cost of living relief that was contained in the Budget—142,000 families are going to receive an extra $7 a week from next April. That’s the big cost of living measure that the Minister of Finance can point to in this Budget.

Best Start will be cut. It will be income tested for the entire three years from 1 April. There are going to be thousands of families that will no longer receive those payments. Jobseeker: the age of eligibility has been raised. Then, if we look into the documents and we see what the changes were that happened in terms of jobseeker support and emergency benefit numbers between Budgets 2024 and 2025, we can see that that appropriation increased by $276 million. That figure rose because of the policies of this Government, a Government that is not putting the jobs of New Zealanders at the centre of the choices it is making. We have seen 30,000 jobs in construction disappear because this is a Government that has cut infrastructure programmes, that has slowed down the State house build, and that has stalled our housing market in New Zealand. Instead, we had to have an increase in the amount that was paid out in jobseeker support.

What have we seen in terms of housing? This was a Budget that not only trumpeted the fact that it was cutting people out of emergency housing and motels, but we are also now seeing that 3,500 State house builds that were planned under our Government and funded for under our Government are being cut. These are the choices that this Government is making.

I really want to talk about energy, as we finish up. The Minister for Energy presided over a Budget that cuts support for New Zealand businesses and households at a time when they are struggling with their power bills. This is a Minister for Energy that not only could not gain more support for New Zealand households and businesses; he couldn’t even sustain what was already there. He let that Budget be cut at the very time when New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households could do with that support for their power and energy costs. He’s a Minister for Energy that could not even withstand holding the line on the money that was already there, let alone have the ability to go and get more in the Budget.

What was in the Budget was $200 million put aside for the fossil-fuel industry—for the fossil-fuel industry.

Grant McCallum: To replace coal.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Let’s unpack this. I can hear some chirping on the other side—some very ill-informed chirping on the other side.

Even if you believed that there was oil and gas to be found and you should find it, how long would that take to come on stream? Well, on average, in New Zealand, around 10 years. We are not talking about relief for New Zealand households and businesses if this was to be found. We are also talking about bringing on stream some of the most expensive marginal cost of electricity that you could, through gas. We certainly are not talking about cutting the costs of energy for New Zealand businesses, and we certainly are not talking about security of supply, because, after our Government proudly ended oil and gas exploration in 2018, over $1 billion was spent on existing permits and they came up dry.

The Minister came to select committee dressed in his costume that he’d spent more time picking than actually preparing to tell New Zealanders how he would spend $200 million and what the criteria for deciding who he would hand that subsidy out to would be. He came to select committee and told us that it was needed for security of supply. Now, this just does not stack up. What we have is a Government that has no plan for energy security in New Zealand and has no plan to help New Zealand households and businesses. Instead, we have a Minister for Energy that allows the Budget to be cut. Money that had been put aside by previous Governments to assist households and businesses, he blindly stood by and let the knife slice through and had no plan to put in place instead about how it is that we could support this.

Now, the Minister for Resources came and said that the whole of the South Island could be opened up for exploration. Someone should tell the Minister for Resources that billions of dollars have been spent looking for oil and gas in the South Island and that exploration has come up dry. There is no plan. This is a Government that makes choices to the detriment of New Zealand, and it is a Government that is not putting the jobs, the homes, and the health of New Zealanders at the first, and it certainly is not one that puts them first.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. He pai rawa tēnei pire mō ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa, ā, tae atu ki te iwi Māori—this bill is very good for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Probably about now, I’d be depressed if it wasn’t for such a great Budget and a great imprest bill, after the Chiefs’ narrow four-point loss on Saturday night. I know most New Zealanders are grieving right now, but, fortunately, we’ve got good news today—good news that cheers me up—and it’s not just ACT’s psilocybin prescription!

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Talk about how good the Crusaders were, Ryan!

RYAN HAMILTON: Oh, that can wait for another day, indeed. But, credit where credit’s due, I must acknowledge the Crusaders.

I do want to focus my comments on some remarks that have been made. My great chair on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Cameron Brewer, already alluded to the things that we’re hearing and the things that we’re not hearing. We’re not hearing the acknowledgments for learning support investment and the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) funding, which is the greatest in a generation. We’re not hearing about our support for our disability sector, which we got a lot of grief for, a long time ago. We’re certainly not hearing about the increase to KiwiSaver, which we supported.

There are some very good acknowledgments. I do want to touch on some of the things in the Budget: the changes to KiwiSaver; the investments to health, education, law and order; the launch of Investment Boost and Invest New Zealand, which will pass its third reading later today; funding to support defence, which is so crucial, as we heard today, and our part to play in those global shifting sands; new infrastructure; $1 billion in hospitals and $700 million in schools; and, of course, our targeted cost of living to middle and low income earners.

Let me start with KiwiSaver. We’ve reduced the Government contribution. In a way, we’ve means tested it. As Mr Brewer pointed out, the Opposition could have done that, but we’ve done that to those who have incomes over $180,000. We’ve reduced that amount because it’s no longer required at that income level. Also, we’ve halved the $1,000 contribution to $500, because when KiwiSaver was introduced, it was a bit of an incentive, but now, with millions of people in KiwiSaver, it’s no longer fit for purpose.

I also want to draw attention to the fact that we’ve opened up KiwiSaver to the 16- and 17-year-olds that can now contribute through their employment package. My non-solicited financial advice to those young people would be: ratchet your KiwiSaver contributions up, do a good deal with your employer, and put in as much as you can. If you can do 10 percent of your PAYE income into KiwiSaver, crank it up and even top it up more. If 16- to 17-year-olds can start lifting their KiwiSaver contributions early and compound that, by the time that they’re 22, 23, 24, 25, and potentially with a partner, they’re going to have much easier access into their first home. If you do that in the context of the Resource Management Act reforms, which Minister Bishop is doing, which is to flood the housing market with supply, it’s going to be much more easy and attainable for our young people to get into homes, which is just fantastic. I’m really excited about that. I’d also like to draw attention to Investment Boost very quickly. We’ve heard a lot about it since Budget day, but that accelerated 20 percent depreciation on top of normal depreciation—so, in many cases, nearly 30 percent.

We had great success out at Fieldays. We know the coalition Government were out there in force. We had a lot of positive feedback. People were saying, “You guys are everywhere.”, and we’re only pleased to support them. People were giving us lots of feedback, like “Someone’s listening.”, “A Government that supports farmers.” That’s great feedback both from exhibitors and the farming community, and on the back of the official cash rate dropping, the banking inquiry putting sunlight on rural lending, good Fonterra payouts, and now this accelerated depreciation—Investment Boost—it was great news. Over 110,000 people attended Fieldays, despite wet weather, on the back of some great Government policy. It was truly a satisfying four days out there.

I also want to draw some attention to health, because we just had some announcements from the Minister of Health this morning. It was derived from some of that allocation that had been set aside in that Budget. I mentioned the investment in the learning support workers, ORS funding—the largest in a generation; the largest in a generation. But wait, there’s more: we’ve also now had the largest funding towards capitation for GPs in a generation. That’s two generational increases on the back of our second Budget.

This Government is focused on results. When you’re able to see your doctor or your nurse earlier, you stay healthier and out of hospital, and we all know that’s better for the system and better for New Zealanders. Too many New Zealanders have struggled to get care because their local GP just isn’t taking more patients or the next available appointment is weeks away. This funding boost is about to turn things around. It’s part of our $1.37 billion investment in Health New Zealand. This was the agreement that the sector reached with Minister Brown only a few days ago.

Under this agreement, GPs will receive a 13.89 percent—so nearly a 14 percent—funding increase for capitation, and that’s on the back of the 4 percent capitation funding last year. That’s a nearly 18 percent capitation increase for GPs, which is just incredible. Not long after I was elected, I met, in 2024, with one of our local GPs in Hamilton, and, like a lot of GPs, they were actually mortgaging personal property to prop up their clinics. They were capping patients coming in, and they were actually personally subsidising their business because the capitation hadn’t been lifted much, I think, in a 20-year period. This is significant. This is an 18 percent increase in two years. We know the importance of delivering healthcare in those primary sector, front-line suburban areas, and of course rural too. I’d like to acknowledge Vanessa Weenink, the MP for Banks Peninsula; she herself is a GP and has advocated very hard for a capitation increase for some time. The challenge that doctors have had is this supressed capitation and their inability to raise fees, and they’ve been trapped in the middle. For our very GPs that we want to support, this is some fantastic work for them.

A $59 million capitation increase for the number of patients enrolled with individual general practices, $60 million for improved patient access to appointments and to encourage practices to provide more data to enable more performance-based funding, $30 million for performance-based funding for improved immunisation outcomes, and $26 million in additional outcomes for GPs to keep fees capped on community services card holders and those on low incomes and to prevent fee increases for those under 14 years. It’s really good news for GPs and our health. This is the largest investment in general practice in decades, but, more importantly, it’s tied to better results, shorter wait times, higher immunisation rates, and more patients getting the care they need in the community.

I just want to reflect on this investment that builds on the Government’s comprehensive primary care package announced earlier this year, including increased access to urgent and after-hours care, 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors, recruitment incentives for up to 400 graduate nurses annually for five years, 100 doctor training places over the course of this Government, up to 50 graduate doctors training in primary care, up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners in primary care, better access to 24/7 digital services, and accelerated tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses. So, despite the Chiefs losing, despite the Blues losing, despite the Crusaders winning, there is some good news, I’m pleased to announce.

Finally, just to talk about Invest New Zealand, which, I believe, we’ll have our third reading on later today—this is going to be the one-stop shop for foreign investment being able to invest in New Zealand.

Dan Bidois: City of the future.

RYAN HAMILTON: We want to make it easy to bring—that’s right, the city of the future: Hamilton. Thank you for that, Dan. I hadn’t mentioned New Zealand’s fastest-growing city, Hamilton, now with international flights out of the Gold Coast and Sydney! But I digress.

Investment Boost is going to be fantastic for New Zealand, led by our Minister—Minister “Trade McClay”—attracting foreign direct investment, encouraging corporations to set up operations in New Zealand, acting as a one-stop shop, facilitating collaboration, supporting existing investors, and acting as a source of expertise to improve the policy and regulatory environment.

Mr Speaker, there is so much to unpack in this Budget, and I hope you’ll appreciate that I focused on health and the announcement around capitation and general practice around New Zealand. It’s good news. We should hold our heads up high. This Government is proud to deliver its second Budget. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I say to 16- and 17-year-olds around the country: do not take financial advice from that member Ryan Hamilton or this Government. They’re saying, “Well, all they have to do is crank up their investment into their own KiwiSaver to get into a home later in their lives.” Well, that might be OK, but it’s hard when this Government, through their decisions in this Budget, have shrunk the economy. It’s hard when you look across a squeezed job market right now where young people cannot even get into the job market. It’s hard when this Government, through their choices, have actually made it even harder for pay increases for young people right across this country. I say to 16- and 17-year-olds, as they listen to this particular debate, do not take financial advice from this particular Government.

I stand in opposition to these two bills that are being debated right now, the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill. I want to pick up a number of words that I’ve heard from the Government benches on this matter. The first one is “an increase of productivity”. Well, we know that when you shrink the economy and when you take money out of important sectors that see productivity lifted in this country and pretend like you’ve invested it elsewhere—well, productivity does not simply lift because of an announcement. I can also say this: productivity’s primary driver is people, but people are turning their back on this Government and their Budget. We know that despite their announcement around the Investment Boost, right now, Kiwis across this country are keeping their hands in their pockets because they know that the world climate for investment right now is not a good one. They know, and their banks told this Government that, despite their announcement, most Kiwis are going to sit on their hands because they know turbulent times are here and even more potential turbulent times are coming.

We heard an admission in the House today that nobody has spoken about: that is, this Government has finally realised that global matters impact on New Zealand’s economy. Throughout the entire 2023 campaign, we heard that side of the House, from the National Party, saying it was because of the Government’s decisions that the inflation rate was so high. Well, with a quick look at the trends and a quick look at all of the statistics right across this country around productivity and interest rates, they’ll see that global matters matter. I say to this Government, with what’s happening now, as sad as it is, it’s going to get even harder. This Government might crow all they like about what they’re investing in these spaces, but it means nothing when people are not investing.

I also want to talk about another term I’ve heard from that side of the House: “fiscal responsibility”. Well, say that to the Kiwis who are stranded either here in Wellington or in Picton because of the ferry decisions made by that Government. They want to talk to us about fiscal responsibility, and here we are listening to that side of the House say that they’re here, making sure they can manage our fiscals responsibly. Ultimately, there has been a lot of money wasted, there has been a lot of money taken out of the pockets of New Zealanders right around this country, and my colleagues have done a great job at pointing to a number of those factors. One, pay equity: we know that in order to get more productivity and to make sure our people are paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, you’ve got to invest in them. This Government has decided, through these bills and through their choices here in this Parliament, that do they do not back our wāhine and they do not back our low-paid workers right around the country.

Ultimately, Budgets are about choices, and I heard the member’s opening remarks in his contribution. Pai tō reo Māori. [Your reo Māori is good.] It’s fantastic to hear Ryan Hamilton speaking Māori; he talks about how fast Hamilton’s growing—well, he whenua Māori tēnā. [that is Māori land.] That’s fantastic. It’s great to see te reo Māori growing in the rhetoric of the National Party, after they’ve turned their back on it over the past 18 months.

That member talks about investment in Māori. Well, look at Māori housing investment and the money that, through this Government, has been taken away from Māori housing investment. They talk about Treaty settlements. Well, we’ve seen what they’re trying to do to Ngāpuhi, to my relations, and I can tell them—and Grant McCallum can tell them too—they’re in for a fight. They think the Musket Wars were bad—you take on Ngāpuhi and it’s not going to end well.

I stand in opposition to these bills. I want to make clear to that side of the House that they can spout all the announcements that they want—like those that they’ve given over the past three months—but they’ll realise that Kiwis see right through that garbage.

NANCY LU (National): I have to first address and actually correct what was spoken before me, particularly about the economy shrinking, because I believe the member who just spoke before me, Peeni Henare, clearly didn’t watch the news last week and clearly didn’t watch the news another quarter ago. Stats New Zealand last week reported that the economy of New Zealand grew 0.8 percent—grew—in the first three months of the year, twice the rate forecasted by Treasury and the Reserve Bank a short time ago.

There is more: this is the second consecutive quarter in which growth outstripped the assumption by the forecast. Let it be clear, New Zealanders: the economy is back on track. The Government is back on track. The adults in this country are now in Government, cutting wasteful spending and actually reprioritising so we can put the useful resources, the very hard-earned New Zealand taxpayers’ money, into the places where it’s needed the most, and so that we can make sure that we are not spending on wasteful projects, on things that don’t drive delivery, and on things that don’t deliver us any efficiency or impact. Actually, maybe we should start building something for the country, because, in the last six years, the Government clearly—clearly—spent a lot of money, but I don’t see any single new bridge, new tunnel, or new highway. Where has the money gone? Anyway, Stats New Zealand now have confirmed that New Zealand is back on track, with the economy growing 0.8 percent in the first three months of this year.

Now, I do rise to support the second readings of the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill. While these are very technical bills, like the Minister of Finance has explained a bit earlier, they are very important because they underpin a fundamental principle in our democracy, which is that the Government of the day cannot spend a single cent, particularly on capital expenditure, without the authority of this Parliament. More importantly, these bills reflect the kind of Government that the National Government is. We are disciplined, we are careful, and we are relentlessly focused on delivering outcomes for New Zealanders. We’re not here to spend like there’s no tomorrow, like the last Labour Government, but we are here to deliver for New Zealanders and to do that without further indebting our children and the future generations.

Now, we inherited rising debt and persistent deficits, and that’s why Budget 2024, under the great leadership of the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was designed not as a wish list but actually as a deliverable plan, one that would actually demand better outcomes and one that will deliver better outcomes for every taxpayer dollar.

Take health: $5.5 billion in new funding is being invested into hospital services, primary care, and community health. Actually, today, that was a great, great announcement to all the GPs out there. I have a really, really close friend who is my personal GP, who had texted immediately and said, “Oh my God, finally—finally a Government that listens to us and sees the critical need to further support us.” Take education: the Government is investing $464 million to lift school achievements, including support for additional learning needs, and another $100 million for targeted maths support. Let’s take law and order. In law and order, extra money has been prioritised for front-line policing and serious youth offender intervention.

Now, take it back to another one: what are we doing to grow the economy? What is this Budget doing to help the Government to grow this economy? I just take us back to one thing: Investment Boost, the new tax incentives that got the market and people so excited. As a chartered accountant myself, many of my former colleagues have called me and said their practices have not been this busy for the last seven years. Businesses call them and say, “Oh my God, tell me about this. Can I do it today? What can I do it with? What is it that I can spend on? Tell me about it today, because I am ready to do something, but I need to understand: are we serious? Is this Government serious about backing the growth of Kiwi businesses?” Here, to them: yes, we are serious. We are backing you to grow. This is why I support this bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The previous speaker, Nancy Lu, began with a correction, so let me begin with one, too. The previous speaker correctly pointed out that on a quarterly basis, the economy was up 0.8 percent in the first quarter of this year. That’s what the Stats New Zealand data told us. They also told us that on an annual basis, to March this year, growth in the economy was down; in fact, it was negative 1.1 percent. It fell 1.1 percent on an annual basis. More tellingly, in the last month or so, there has been data coming out showing that if there was growth in the first quarter, it has stalled in the second quarter. Retail card spending was down 0.2 percent in May. The Business New Zealand’s Performance of Service Index strayed below 50 in its most recent index.

What does that show? It shows an economy that is waiting, waiting, waiting, not sure. It shows a service sector where there is no growth occurring, and the service sector makes up about three-quarters of our GDP. I’m just going to suggest to the previous speaker that while one might crow about the last quarter, it would be advisable to wait for just a wee bit more data to tell whether anything has really changed. It’s too soon yet to know.

In terms of the debate that we are having today on the imprest supply and the Supplementary Estimates, the Minister of Finance opened the debate and told us a lot about what these bills are and how they operated. Then she made some very telling remarks. She said, “Governments make choices.”—she said, “Governments make choices.” I say that, yes, Governments do make choices, and their choices let us know what kind of people they are.

The Minister of Finance talked in broad terms. She said that in the first Budget they had presented, they saved $23 billion; in the second Budget they presented, they saved $21 billion. She used words like “fiscal constraint”, and she said then that these were the “choices” they have made on behalf of New Zealanders: to cut, to do away with, to undermine, to underfund. Those are the choices she said that they had made on behalf of New Zealanders. But it does beg the question: what do New Zealanders want?

Like Mr Hamilton over there, I spent time at Fieldays the week before last, and as we usually do, we had an issues board at our stall—at the Labour stall. The number one issue for people attending Fieldays, rural people and urban people alike, was the cost of living. That was the biggest issue for them; the one thing that they saw as a huge issue was the cost of living. What did New Zealanders want? Well, they wanted help with the cost of living. What has that Government offered? Well, they’ve offered $14 a fortnight, starting in April next year, for families.

Now, let’s carry on with that, thinking about what’s going on right now. You see right now, food prices are up 4.4 percent, year on year. That was the statistics release that came out just a few days after the Budget—it came out last week: 4.4 percent, year on year. This is from last year, since when this Government has been at the helm. Beef has gone up 16.2 percent, year on year; lamb has gone up 20.3 percent, year on year; cheese is up 17.3 percent, year on year; milk is up 13.7 percent, year on year; electricity has gone up 8.7 percent, year on year. What is that Government offering? What is that Government offering? It’s offering—

Tom Rutherford: What about rent? Talk about rent.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Up 2.1 percent, year on year. It’s offering $7 a week starting in April next year. How have they paid for that? They’ve paid for it by taking Best Start away from 61,000 families. That’s the kind of response that that Government has had to the daily cost of living problems faced by ordinary, everyday families in New Zealand—$7 a week, next year. If we ask New Zealanders what they want, it turns out they want some of the basics. They want health, they want welfare, they want education. These are some of the great agreements that were forged in this country as far back as the 1920s and 1930s when the welfare State was formed in this country and we agreed that we were better off doing health and welfare and education together.

This Government has not chosen health and welfare and education. We know that hospitals are not being built; they’re being downsized. We know that patients are queuing in the corridors. We know that people can’t get the mental health assistance they need when they want it. We know that this Government has cut emergency housing. We know that there are more people on welfare at the moment but that the increases in the benefit have not matched increases in wages—people on benefit are going backwards. We know, in terms of education, that that Government has cut pay equity for teachers. That Government is undermining the great things that New Zealanders want: health and welfare and education. The Government has not chosen those.

One of the speakers over there talked about the hard work of running a business, and he was quite correct. It is extraordinarily hard to run a business. Those business owners do it tough. You see, the thing is, in terms of running a business, they just want to get on with it, and they don’t think there’s any magic money tree to run their business. But there is no magic worker tree either to run a business. There is no magic worker just out there who is going to turn up day after day in a business without a decent wage, and more importantly, without the support of the health system, without the support of the welfare system, without the support of the education system.

You see, that’s how workers get to turn up to support business owners day after day after day. They do it because they have the security of the health system, and the welfare system, and the education system. That was the great compact forged in the 1920s and the 1930s by the Labour Party. In the face of the destruction from the right, we forged a compact that said that in this country, we will all pitch in together and look after each other. That is why business owners can have workers in their businesses, because those workers have the health and welfare and education systems.

The line that was coming from over there was the line about there being no magic money tree to pay for all this. Well, there is also no magic teacher tree; there is no magic nurses tree; there is no magic police officers tree. If we want these sorts of people working to support us, then they don’t come from nowhere. We actually need to have an economy that supports them, and that Government has chosen to contract the economy, chosen to undermine the economy.

Now, they say they’re interested in growth. And there was one measure in their Budget which they said would add to growth. It was going to maybe add 1 percent to growth over the next 20 years. It took until the eighth speaker in this debate for anyone to even mention partial expensing. They kept on talking about being proud of their Budget, but the key point of their Budget for businesses, it took them right through until the eighth speaker to mention, and even the Minister of Finance didn’t mention it at all. And yet it was one of the key points of their Budget.

That is not a Government that is proud of their Budget. You can see why: sitting in the Supplementary Estimates of appropriation, sitting in the revenue section, there’s a section that forecasts a $324 million increase in the forecast impairment of debt and debt write-offs due to debt—forecast debt growth across all tax types. That Government is predicting that they are going to write off more tax debt than ever before. Then we look and see why that is the case. It is as a result of the global economic environment.

This is an economy that is in trouble. It’s seen in those figures there—those tax debt write-off figures—and it’s seen in the increased numbers for the jobseeker benefit because more and more and more people are out of work. That Government has done nothing to support ordinary New Zealanders in the Budget and is doing nothing to deal with the fundamental problems that they have caused by undermining the economy. They should be utterly ashamed of this Budget.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to be the last speaker in this debate and to round off this exciting discussion of the imprest supply bill and the Budget Estimates bill as well. I do want to go back to some comments from the other side—in particular one from Megan Woods—and say to her, look, we don’t measure our success as a Government based on how much we appropriate; we measure it based on the outcomes that we are actually able to achieve. If you take housing and homelessness, like what Megan talked about, we’ve got a great Minister here, Tama Potaka, who’s managed to turn that around in a very short space of time. I’m really pleased to announce to the House that more than 1,000 families are no longer in dark, dingy motels. That’s over 2,000 children that are no longer in hotels—

Tom Rutherford: Remember it costed a million dollars a day.

DAN BIDOIS: A million dollars a day. There you go. Thank you, Tom Rutherford. For those of you who’ve monitored the situation in Rotorua, I remember the days in the last Government where Rotorua became a bit of an emergency housing city. I was really pleased to see an item on the news the other day saying that they’re on track to have no emergency motels by the end of this year. That is really great testament to the work that we’ve done and the work that we continue to do.

Now, I just want to reflect, because we have just come out of a week of scrutiny of the Government—

Hon David Seymour: Didn’t feel like it.

DAN BIDOIS: Doesn’t feel like it. That’s right, David Seymour. I just want this House to know that I felt that there was a general level of flatness amongst the Opposition members. There were no knockout punches, I should say—only F-bombs and S-bombs. There was no “gotcha” moments—only props and empty rhetoric. To me, it showed an Opposition that hasn’t done the work. They haven’t done the mahi. They haven’t put in the work to understand what is in the Budget, and they don’t get the rewards. They don’t get the rewards. Now, don’t do the mahi; don’t get the treats. That’s a clear adage that I try to apply when I’m at the gym.

On this side of the House, we’re focused on really two things: growth and delivering better outcomes. I’m really pleased to see Ryan Hamilton; he had a great speech talking about all the extensive things that are in the Budget that are focused on growing better outcomes in health, education, law and order, and you name it.

My focus is really around growth, and I want this speech to be focused on growth. Just take a step back and understand where New Zealand’s economy is at the moment, we’ve come out of the worst recession since 1991. Why were we in that recession? Because interest rates were jacked up and because of the cost of living crisis and the debt that the previous Government had doubled. Now, we have a recovery under way.

It was great to see Deborah Russell at Fieldays—and a lot of my colleagues as well. I must say it was a really positive, upbeat environment amongst our rural communities. I had my gumboots from Birkenhead on, and it was a really great, upbeat environment. I think—

Tom Rutherford: Did she stand in my seat?

DAN BIDOIS: That’s right—no, Tom. Look, I think there’s actually a real positive growth trajectory, particularly in our rural communities, which is real positive to see.

I do want to acknowledge—and I want to put this in the House, today—that I think there’s a two-stroke economy that we’ve got in New Zealand at the moment. We’ve got the rural economy, which is driving our economic recovery, but in parts of Auckland, like where I represent in Northcote, we’ve got some tough times at the moment. I do want to acknowledge that people are still struggling with the cost of living, and we have a construction sector that’s still understanding how that pipeline looks. We’ve got some real big challenges, and I do just want to say that we’ve got a lot of work to do on this side, in Government, so that the other side of New Zealand sees that economic recovery like the rural sector does.

I want to turn my attention to debt, because out of every aspect of this Budget, I think the most important number is how much debt we’re in as a country. Right now, we’re forecast to have a debt that is $277 billion this year, and that is very concerning. In fact, if you put that on a per-household basis, that’s about $136,000 per household. Let me break down the fiscals for those of you on the other side that haven’t read the Budget documents. This coming year, we’ve got a forecast revenue of $175 billion. How much are we due to spend? We’re due to spend $191 billion, which leaves us with a deficit situation—according to this new measure, the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—of about $12 billion. Now, that’s $12 billion that we’re going to have to borrow from overseas, and we’re going to be borrowing that money every year until we get back to surplus. This Government has certainly got a path back to surplus in the 2028-29 period. That is the state of our economy. That’s our fiscals. We are growing again, but it’s a little bit uneven.

I do want to acknowledge that, actually, it’s been real positive; growth on a per-person basis is now 0.5 percent, on a quarterly basis. That is positive, but we want to see more from that. I would encourage every single one of my colleagues on this side of the table to think it’s not just about growth; it’s actually about growth relative to our peers, because no one cares about growing. It’s actually about growth relative to Australia, relative to America, and the UK. We’ve got a lot to do to make sure that we are growing faster than our peers so that my son doesn’t have to leave to go overseas and can have a great future right here in New Zealand.

That turns me to the Budget, because this Budget was all about growth. I don’t think in my time understanding Budgets that there really have been Budgets that are transformative. I think the most important role of Budgets is setting the general direction, the direction of the boat.

Hon David Seymour: Some of the Labour ones transformed us.

DAN BIDOIS: In more ways than one. That’s right. Certainly, I think the most important part of a Budget is setting the direction of the ship and where the ship is going. I think, with this Budget, what we’ve found is that Nicola Willis, our finance Minister, has tried to steer the ship in a direction that’s pro-growth, pro - returning to surplus, and is actually trying to get this fiscal ship under good management.

That’s why, in terms of growth, my colleague here Cameron Brewer, ably chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee, has talked about Investment Boost, KiwiSaver, and Invest New Zealand. No one here has talked about the investor visa that Erica Stanford’s got. I think that’s excellent news. There are people that want to pay to come here—and pay a lot of money—and invest in New Zealand. That is great news. We should be encouraging more of that and unlocking the bottlenecks in the way to make that happen.

In terms of cost of living relief, that is by far the top issue in this country. There were some good wins in the Budget. The 12-month free prescriptions: if you’re one of those who needs those prescriptions, you’re having to renew them every 90 days, and that, of course, has a cost associated with that. The eligibility thresholds for rates rebates: I think anybody over 65 would definitely be appreciative of the work we’ve done there. The commitment to no new regional fuel taxes: that’s also very, very positive. We have a lot of work to do on cost of living—we know that—and the best thing we can do for the cost of living is improve our economy. That is, by far, the number one thing. The last thing we need is an alternative approach, which is to dish out money. That is what we’re focused on here.

I just want to spend the last minute talking about our long-term challenges, because, in my sense, beyond the forecast period, we’ve got some real big challenges to face. Treasury’s own forecasts say that debt-to-GDP is going to balloon to over 100 percent of GDP by the time I’ve far left this world. I think we need some greater bipartisanship from across the House on things like superannuation, raising the age, putting in means testing, and other things like that. Infrastructure: we have some fantastic infrastructure projects, but we need the other side to support them because, sooner or later, they may be in office, sadly, and we need them to support those projects.

Education: we should all agree on the things that are actually making a difference to improve our kids’ educational performance, healthcare, and the like. We’ve got some big challenges here. I would encourage those members from across the House to come to a bipartisan consensus with our side. We’re up for it, we’re ready, we’re focused, and we’re getting our economy back on track. I support this bill in the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill read a second time.

Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Those bills are set down for third reading immediately.

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2025.

Ryan Hamilton: Ah, very good!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you. Ha, ha! You shouldn’t take anything for granted. It’s with great pride that I speak on the first reading of this bill. It forms part of our Government’s commitment to opening ourselves to the world and ensuring that we are a place where our friends who would like to do business with fellow Kiwis and who would like to invest, to trade value for value, and get stronger together with us are welcome under our laws.

I saw a very wise New Zealander who has risen high in the ranks of business and politics internationally tell us something recently that I think we need to ponder on. He said, “It’s very simple: New Zealand needs foreign investment, but foreign investment does not need New Zealand.” For far too long, our country has stood at the edge of the map, asking people to jump through more hoops and go through more rigmarole in order to send their money and ideas to be part of New Zealand’s economy than nearly any other society. The delays have made people ask the simple question: “Are these guys for real, and do they really want us to send our money there?”

Well, since this Government has been in place, we have transformed that attitude. We have seen a dramatic improvement, simply through issuing letters of expectation, that have ensured that consents are processed much faster, with 88 percent of consents recently processed within half of the statutory time frame. That means 88 percent in less than 35 days. The average consent to invest, to send money to New Zealand, is now processed in 28 days. That’s pretty good progress compared with where we’ve been in the past, where people just kind of found that their consent had maybe been left in the bottom of the Minister’s draw.

However, in order to make more progress and achieve our goal of ensuring that New Zealand is a place where, if you have ideas, if you have knowhow, and if you have capital and you want to send it to New Zealand and invest in this country as a vote of confidence in the New Zealand people and the New Zealand economy, you will find that the laws of the land are welcoming to you, so long as you are not a threat to our national security, our public order, or our particularly sensitive assets. That is the objective of this legislation.

This amendment to the Overseas Investment Act, specifically the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, does three things, as laid out in the legislative statement. The first is that it revises the Act’s purpose statement. For too long, we’ve been alone in the world in telling overseas investors that it’s a privilege to invest in this country, with no sense that maybe people sending money to New Zealand might also have some benefit. This legislation finally rebalances that imbalance by putting an explicit statement at the beginning of the Act—and if I could just bring up clause 4, amended section 3(2), so I read it exactly right—that we will also have “the purpose of recognising the role of overseas investment in increasing economic opportunity by enabling the timely consent of less sensitive investments through an initial national interest risk assessment.” That purpose is now in line with the true benefits to New Zealanders of people sending their money and their knowhow here.

It will also consolidate the national interest benefit to New Zealand and investor test for the majority of consents. Now, there are some asset classes that will remain sensitive. Farmland will remain sensitive. We will keep the restrictions on investing in residential property. Investing in fishing quota will remain sensitive. However, for a large number of the investments that people would like to make in land that is not farmland—in businesses, for example—we will be consenting—and this is the third point of the bill—within 15 days. This is the message of a country that is open for business and does not fear the world but stands proudly amongst our friends who want to do business with us, trade value for value, and get stronger together. The effect of this—of clarifying the purpose; of consolidating the test; and ensuring that the overwhelming majority, I suspect, of consents will be processed in just 15 business days—is that New Zealanders get more investment.

Let me just give you a few thoughts about what that really means. I was visiting a couple of businesses—it was a few years ago now—in the same region in the same sector. One of them had received enormous amounts of foreign direct investment from a company on the other side of the world—a very sophisticated manufacturer of luxury goods. The sophistication, the automation, the marketing, the technology that this business had was seriously impressive. They were able to do it because they’d received two things from the other side of the world: one was knowhow, the other was money. That is what foreign direct investment brings. As a result, they were able to create better products that sold for more. As a result, they were able to pay their workers more. That’s what it’s really about—higher wages for people working with more capital. I went down the road to visit another business in the same region, in the same sector. Don’t get me wrong, they’re good people. They worked hard. They had good ideas. But I couldn’t help but think they were just a little bit behind because they hadn’t had that advantage of the capital and the knowhow from trading and exchanging value with their friends from the other side of the world.

This shows up in the statistics. Ultimately, a cost of living crisis is a productivity crisis. It’s because people don’t take home the money they need to afford the things that they want. That’s what it’s really about. Ultimately, if we want to raise productivity, we have to look at the factors of productivity. The most glaring one is that New Zealanders, particularly in the past decade—particularly after we had a Government that regulated too much, spent too much, and borrowed too much—have not had the advantage of significant investment in capital in the workforce. If we want to raise the productivity of New Zealanders, then we have to ensure that they have more capital to work with.

The other side of being able to afford more stuff is actually the productivity of delivering the goods to market. I spoke with a company this morning, and I won’t say exactly who it is because I don’t want people to stop telling them, but let’s just say that it was a business that is heavily invested in getting New Zealanders the goods that they need every day. This business is from offshore, and they are invested in a capital investment programme with an enormous sum of money. They’re investing that money—I won’t say how much, in case anyone figures out they’ve breached their confidence—in ensuring that the goods that people take for granted but often are not concerned about the price will be delivered fresh, often chilled, on time to the right place in the right quantity at an affordable price. In order to do that, they are taking an enormous amount of money from outside of this country into this country so that they can deliver goods faster, better, and more affordably to where New Zealanders live.

It could be another Costco—they’re doing this. It could be an IKEA. It could be the third supermarket competitor that people are talking about wistfully as if it will bring down prices. All of those examples are ways that by ensuring we have more investment, more knowhow, and more capital, we can get goods to market faster and more affordably so that New Zealanders can afford them. That is what foreign investment really means—more capital to work with, more higher wages through higher productivity, and more affordable goods and services.

This bill will go a long way to ensuring that foreign direct investment that can lead to better lives for all New Zealanders is reflected in our laws as a country that is actually proud that people want to send us their money and invest in our future, and that is not fearful of the rest of the world but stands proudly amongst it. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Actually, quite oddly enough, I want to first of all congratulate New Zealand First on being able to prevent the foreign buyers ban being reversed under this legislation. It’s good to see that you have held strong that that is a sensitive asset in New Zealand, and New Zealand First has held the line for the rest of New Zealand who does believe that our land, our residential land, should stay in Kiwi hands unless it meets certain tests. First, I do want to acknowledge New Zealand First for that.

The second thing I want to just have a discussion about is that I’ve just heard the Associate Minister of Finance say that we have one of the most restrictive overseas investment policies in the world, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The interesting thing that the Minister failed to actually say is that there are four other countries that are more restrictive than New Zealand: Australia, Canada, Iceland, Mexico. If you just look at Australia and Canada alone, it’s quite interesting to see that the Minister failed to say—we have one of the most restrictive overseas investment regimes in the world, in the OECD, and yet he failed to mention that our closest neighbours, which, if you want to question the productivity, you can, by the Government members, but, actually, they have the most restrictive overseas investment—

Dan Bidois: They don’t need the money.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —regime in the world. It’s actually in the regulatory impact statement. I hear Dan Bidois, the MP for Northcote, say it’s because they don’t need the money. If that is the problem you’re trying to solve, how is cutting Government KiwiSaver contributions going to help deepen our capital pools? On that point, it doesn’t incentivise greater savings and investment, which is why Australia has greater pools of investment, of superannuation savings. Had the National Government back in the day not cancelled the Superannuation Fund back then, we would actually have billions and billions and billions of dollars more of capital here in New Zealand. But I digress, because he was just talking about why Australia is different from New Zealand, but, again, Australia, Mexico, Canada, and Iceland have more restrictive overseas regimes than New Zealand, yet, on some accounts, they’re actually more productive as a nation.

The Labour Party does not support this bill, and, ultimately, the main reason why we do not support this bill is because of the changes to the economic benefit test. The economic benefit test, under this legislation, will not only apply to assets such as farmland; it will apply to fishing quota and residential land. What about forestry? What about other assets? The Minister talked about investment in business assets.

The real key reason why I believe that we need to take a very good look at this at the select committee—and I implore our New Zealand First members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to have a really good look at this—is because the benefit test to New Zealand has seven factors which are now gotten rid of by this Government. The thing is, under the regulatory impact statement, Treasury says overseas investment is enabled by a screening regime, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the economic benefit is actually realised in the country.

This Government is getting rid of the benefit test, which has seven key factors; one is economic benefits. What’s an economic benefit? The creation and retention of jobs, the introduction of technology or business skills, increased productivity. These are all about growth, and yet they’re taking away the test that actually helps to ensure that there is going to be proof of increased productivity—increased export receipts, increased processing of primary products, and reduced risk of liquid assets. They’ve narrowed the test.

The second element of the benefit test which is important is the benefit to the natural environment. I’m pretty sure we will have a number of members in this House who will stand up to say, “What is the point of overseas investment if it degrades our environment?” I’m not going to go into that, because I’m sure there’s going to be plenty of commentary on that.

The other assets that the benefit test, which has now been narrowed by this Government and which therefore doesn’t apply to are sensitive assets. There’s public access—there has to be some sort of assurance that the public can access these assets—protection of historic heritage, advancing a significant Government policy, oversight or participation of New Zealanders, and consequential benefits. This Government has narrowed that test and is giving, basically, a green light to all overseas investment unless it’s farmland, residential land, or fishing quota—basically saying, “Here’s the red carpet; come in.”—never mind whether it creates jobs, never mind if it degrades our environment, and never mind if New Zealanders can no longer access this asset. Basically, they’re saying that doesn’t matter. They are open to overseas investment, but never mind about actually proving that it benefits New Zealand.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Aotearoa New Zealand is a country that could be very, very prosperous if we looked after all of our people. The Government we have—and, in particular, the Minister who spoke to this bill—does not have the ability to imagine a country where we actually look after each other, invest in projects together which enable us to live good lives, enable us to protect our climate, enable us to protect our waterways and our beautiful diversity either on land or under the sea and our very large exclusive economic zone. Life is not commodity. The ideology—

Hon David Seymour: That’s so profound!

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —of the Minister who is speaking has been proven wrong for the last 30 years. Letting the rich get richer does not trickle down and help ordinary New Zealanders. There is no way that making these changes to the Overseas Investment Act is going to flow down to better wages for workers when the Government is, at the same time, changing employment law to disadvantage workers and refusing to raise the minimum wage to even match the rate of inflation. Every step they take is about disadvantaging ordinary workers and advantaging those who already have money and power.

This Government, make no mistake—Minister David Seymour; Prime Minister Christopher Luxon; most of those blue suits, or whatever, over there—all believe in a magical money tree, and the magical money tree that they believe in is foreign investment. They believe that very kind, benevolent foreign investors with their capital from overseas are going to come to New Zealand and invest in a way that benefits New Zealand. Really? Do we still believe that after the 1980s and 1990s? Look, the Green Party is proudly—

Joseph Mooney: Proudly against foreigners, against foreign accents?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —a party that believes in global peace and action on climate change. Don’t try to pretend that allowing foreign hedge funds to come in here and own our retirement villages—which is already the case, by the way—and to own more and more of New Zealand is something that is going to benefit New Zealand, and that those who question the benefits are somehow against people from other countries. That’s not the case.

The Green Party has proudly stood in favour of enabling immigration and of enabling human rights. I’d love to see the Government increase the refugee quota. Let’s see more family reunification for refuges, OK? But don’t pretend that BlackRock or Stonepeak or any of these huge hedge funds coming over and owning bits of New Zealand is going to benefit New Zealand workers, when, at the same time, they dismantle our employment laws and try to reduce the ability of workers to be able to negotiate for better pay and better conditions, and particularly when they completely overlook the incredibly important work that is done in the public sector by front-line workers who are caring for aged people, who are caring for disabled people, and who are teachers and teachers in early childhood education.

Every step this Government makes is about protecting the rich and powerful and then pretending and trying to sell to ordinary New Zealanders the crazy fantasy that by enabling more foreign ownership of things in New Zealand is somehow going to flow through to better wages and better infrastructure.

There is no question. If you look around the world, the countries that actually have decent living conditions, less inequality, decent wages, better democracies—I wouldn’t say many places have thriving democracies at the moment, sadly—what they have done is very, very different; it’s the exact opposite to what this Government does. They have more progressive tax systems. They ensure that they don’t have a concentration of wealth, because the system will naturally concentrate wealth if we don’t have a progressive tax system. If we don’t have things like inheritance taxes, like capital gains taxes, then wealth will concentrate, and concentration of wealth is antithetical to democracy.

I see the Minister David Seymour shaking his head. The truth is that David Seymour is not someone who truly believes in liberty. He is a feudalist. He is here to protect the landed gentry, the powerful corporates. He dresses it all up, and he pretends he’s about liberty. But just look at the very law changes that he’s proposing: they’re all about enabling the very rich and powerful around the world to come to New Zealand and extract more profit at the expense of our environment, our workers, and our people. We will oppose this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the National Party, to rise for this first reading of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As the Minister had articulated before, the importance of having overseas investment into New Zealand and making sure that we have the right settings is not without dispute; what is indisputable is that we do have one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD. That is what has been ascertained from a number of studies by a number of organisations over a number of years, and this bill will help open the door to that new investment. It’s all about growth, it’s all about productivity, and it’s all about higher wages.

The new national interest test is faster and more efficient, and, importantly, it provides more certainty for investors. It aligns—and here we go again for international alignment—New Zealand’s investment regime with global best practice while keeping safeguards for our key assets.

I just want to allude to the fact that getting our settings right is key to getting international foreign investment into this country, and there is no better example than a statement that was sent out by the Minister for Economic Growth, the Hon Nicola Willis, and the Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford, yesterday that was headlined “Flood of interest to invest in New Zealand”. There is interest there if we get our settings right, and they have announced as of yesterday that “Since only April—less than three months [ago]—Immigration New Zealand has received 189 applicants for the Active Investor Plus visa, significantly more than the 116 applications received over more than two-and-a-half years under [the previous administration].” There’s proof there that people are lining up to invest in New Zealand if you get the settings right.

I look forward to this bill going to select committee for further discussion at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I commend the bill.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Mr Speaker, I’m over here, over in the seat called Siberia. We’ve got to get these angles right. You and I both have to adjust.

New Zealand First does support this Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. These are sensible changes. They’re not the apocalyptic version that the Hon Julie Anne Genter was describing before the dinner break or a return to feudalism. This bill does streamline some processes. There is some triaging so that the genuinely sensitive transactions that would trigger a national interest test still go before Ministers, but there is a fast track, if you like, a streamlined process, for those lower-risk investments, and it adds a trusted investor category too, which does make some sense. The process at the moment is ad hoc, it’s bureaucratic, and it is opaque. We do support these refinements.

It does enable us to have a focus on growth. We are absolutely, relentlessly focused on growth. We do have enormous opportunities in this country. We are restrained in many cases by capital. We’ve got an enormous infrastructure deficit that we do need to address. These measures are freeing up the overseas investment provisions, will create jobs, will enable us to add value to the likes of our primary sector—that’s $60 billion of primary exports—and get money for agritech and nutraceuticals and the like. But New Zealand First is cautious about foreign investments. It’s on the tin; it’s in the name. We have looked very, very carefully at this bill.

We do think there is a strong case for keeping control and having some oversight of our key strategic assets. To our cost, we have lost Marsden Point, we have lost control of our banking sector, and we see those dividends sucking out every year to the cost of our balance of trade or our current account deficit. It is not one-way traffic; we do need to keep some guard rails here. New Zealand First had been very clear, and I’d like to thank the Hon Barbara Edmonds for probably acknowledging that—well, she did acknowledge that, but she was right—New Zealand First has drawn a line around farmland, around fishing quota, and, essentially, the stock of family homes. Putting those on the international market and inflating them beyond the means of the average Kiwi is completely anathema to us. The coalition as a whole has agreed to that, and that is protected, and I want to make that absolutely clear in this reading that that is protected within these provisions.

There should be a Kiwi citizenship advantage. We should tip the scales in favour of our own people in areas like that, where it doesn’t actually bring any advantage to us, just inflating a price of an existing asset. We have held firm over that, and we make no apologies. It is core to our values. We do not want to be tenants in our own land. That doesn’t mean that we are “Fortress New Zealand”. We are not North Korea. We do rely, and have always relied, on foreign investment to grow our economy and to build our productive capacity, and, as the Minister said in his introductory speech, it’s not just the capital; it’s the expertise that can be brought in, and it’s the access to the domestic markets for the companies that are coming in. There are some mutual benefits that can be gained through this, but we do go in with our eyes wide open within this bill. We should make it easier. It is far too complex; it is far too bureaucratic.

We will support this bill. We are going to support this through to the select committee and beyond. We think we’ve got it into a pretty good place. We thank the Minister and our coalition colleagues for being sensitive to the ideals that we hold dear and hold firm on, and we have made our way through this to get this bill to this first reading. Thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori e hāngai nei ki ngā whakaaro o te iwi Māori mō tēnei pire e kīia nei ko te Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party that align with the opinions of the Māori people concerning this bill, known as the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.]

I might just open by referencing the Associate Minister of Finance’s statement. He said we’re opening ourselves to the world. This seems to be a fairly common theme in the thinking from this Government—opening ourselves up to the world. Indeed, we’ve seen many bills brought before the House that have suggested that opening ourselves up to the world is the way to go. We’ve already had to deal with the Fast-track Approvals Act, readily opening ourselves up to the world as quick as we possibly can. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill—opening ourselves up to the world again—lorded over the New Zealand public for more than a year, exhausting many of us. Now, we have the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) aiming to do the same thing. It’ll open us up to the world, and not just any part of the world, e te whānau: the corporate part of the world. You know, whai mai [follow along]: it stands that following these few, we’re going to have to deal with a review of 28 pieces of legislation, taking Te Tiriti o Waitangi out—one of the last and longest-standing vanguards for the protection of Aotearoa against the corporate interests of the world. But, here we go, let’s get rid of that one too!

Now, here we are with the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Minister is happily and openly promoting the idea that we need to open ourselves to the world for foreign investment and that exports are the things that we need to fix our country. Well, in my 46 years—but probably only 30-odd of paying attention to these things—it seems that exports haven’t managed to save us yet. Neither has foreign investment. All it’s done is managed to entrench the people who live in the lower end of society—all of the New Zealanders out there—into their category.

As we all know in this House right now, we are living through some of the most extenuating times that our country, and people of this country, have ever had to deal with. All of the economic wizardry of decades and decades and decades of Parliaments and Governments come and gone, come and gone, come and gone, hasn’t seemed to address the issues but only entrenched them even further. Here we go again: a bill with no regard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi—a common theme amongst many bills in the current iteration of New Zealand Government—the removal of protectionary measures that are there—they’ve been there for a long time, but let’s strip them out to make the accessing of natural resources and the opening up of ourselves to the world easier to do, quicker to do. The benefit test has been stripped down to one protection that a single Minister could make the call on. We’re just continually faced with this set of circumstances and these types of propositions that have consistently failed us, decade in, decade out, so why should we possibly think that they’re going to fix things now for ordinary New Zealanders?

A condensed time frame—it seems again that te iwi Māori have been quite conveniently left off the groups of people who will be consulted with bills such as this. When we’re talking about opening up our natural resources, I’m sure te iwi Māori are still a partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That had a blanket caveat across all natural resources of the country and yet was left out again—owing to, of course, a short time frame. Well, we know that the bill was part of the coalition agreement, so it’s been around for at least two years, so I don’t know how you haven’t had enough time in two years to consult with any iwi Māori groups out there. And I’m sorry, but Te Arawhiti and Te Puni Kōkiri don’t count as iwi Māori groups. But we are getting used to seeing this—getting used to seeing this. All these things are left out of a raft of bills: the fast-track Act; the Treaty principles bill; the RSB; the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from 28 bills, as promoted by New Zealand First; and the Overseas Investment Bill—all taken out. And so, man, where can we turn to?

What we can say is that Te Pāti Māori are committed to strategies that enhance te taiao, strategies that protect the country’s natural resources for future generations, and strategies that are committed to the wellbeing of our mokopuna. These are the things that we will support, but unfortunately for this bill, we do not commend it to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to speak on this, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it’s good to bring it in context with another bill which will be coming through today or tomorrow in its third reading, the Invest New Zealand Bill. Of course, my colleague referred to the Active Investor Plus visa. As you start to look at these things in context, it’s starting to say New Zealand is open for business. We can’t survive by selling things to ourselves; we need to open ourselves up to more investment to get things done. Federated Farmers agrees and says that, as a small nation, capital and investment from overseas can help New Zealand to fix infrastructure and drive industry development. I commend this bill.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that exemplifies the cracks in the coalition. This is a bill that exposes that, on one hand, you have the ACT Party that want to sell everything off and, on the other hand, you have a deeply conflicted New Zealand First, who are agreeing to something that they know is not right.

Now, let me be very clear: Labour is and has always supported high-quality, strategic investment that delivers benefit to New Zealanders. That is without debate. That is something that, throughout our history, we have supported and will continue to support. Do we believe there should be no guard rails? The answer is a categorical no. What we believe is that when it comes to foreign investment coming into New Zealand, we need to ensure that this is of benefit to New Zealand, and this is our problem with the bill that is in front of us. What it does is it removes the benefit to New Zealand test.

Now, I do acknowledge that New Zealand First have looked for carve-outs in some areas—in farmland, in residential housing, in fishing quota. But I put to you: what about our health system? What about our education system? What about these other parts of things that we own here in New Zealand where we must always be asking ourselves when someone seeks to invest in them: is this of benefit to New Zealand? The fact that we have a piece of legislation in this House that is removing that question is of great concern to Labour and the reason why we cannot support this bill.

Now, making these decisions is not easy. It is complicated and it is complex. I myself, as a former Associate Minister of Finance, have been a deciding Minister, along with my colleague Damien O’Connor; we were deciding Ministers in the last Government around this. It is always a decision that weighs heavily, needing to ask that question of whether this is of benefit to New Zealand and whether or not it is something that we should be doing.

Now, one only needs to look through the regulatory impact statement that has been tabled with this bill to understand why there are concerns. Although this section is heavily redacted in the regulatory impact statement that has been tabled with the bill, this is what is noted: “While the potential benefits are clear, foreign investment can also pose risk. New Zealand[ers], like our partners,”—heavily redacted section. It then goes on to say, “Reflecting this the UK, Canada, Australia and the US have all tightened their own investment screening regimes to protect essential security interests in recent years.” What we have here is removal of that fundamental screen of whether or not this is of benefit to New Zealand.

Now, on this side of the House, do we think that processes around making decisions around the Overseas Investment Act could be faster? Certainly. Do we think there are ways that we could have tighter time frames? Certainly. Do we need a bill that removes the benefit to New Zealand test in order to do that? The answer is no. We can make changes to make a more efficient, more streamlined Act that does, actually, make sure that those that seek to invest their capital here and invest in our country can do so and they can get an answer quickly, because everyone I’ve spoken to is after that. They want to know whether it is yes or no, and they want to know it within a reasonable time frame. We believe that is an entirely valid argument to put up.

But do we need to remove asking that fundamental question about whether or not this is of benefit to New Zealand? The national interest test is a different test than the benefit to New Zealand test. It is possible to still have those safeguards, those guard rails for New Zealand’s interest within this legislation. That is why, despite being a party that absolutely believes that we do need to attract foreign investment in New Zealand, we need to have the appropriate guard rails so that we can put New Zealand first.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): There are three things needed to grow an economy, according to Robert Solow, who was a Nobel Laureate in economics. The first is human capital, the second is physical capital, and the third is financial capital. The bill that we’re debating here today deals with improving the financial capital of New Zealand, which, as the Minister spoke about earlier, also has knock-on effects to our physical and our human capital, and all of these in turn improve our economic performance as a nation.

Other, more prosperous, countries around the world understand this, and that is why they welcome foreign direct investment. They also make it super easy to get foreign investment into their countries. I welcome this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I can only conclude that members of the Government have not actually read the regulatory impact statement associated with this bill. It’s probably worth them taking a little bit of time with it, because the solutions in this bill don’t necessarily address the problems that are raised in the regulatory impact statement.

Let’s just start with some of the obvious things in here. Now, we all agree that the Overseas Investment Act has gotten really complex and difficult. I just want to draw members’ attention to something that has been said—if I can find it. I can’t find it exactly, but it acknowledges that, in actual fact, the current regime is complicated and difficult to negotiate, that there could be ways of making it better, and that, in fact, something could be done in that space. It could have been done, but, in fact, you’d need to do it from a first-principles sort of basis.

If we go to paragraph 46 of the regulatory impact statement, it says that instead of doing a fuller first-principles review, it couldn’t be completed within the time required—in other words, that the Government has imposed some kind of artificial time constraint on getting this right—and it was broader than necessary to meet the coalition requirement. Now, it just strikes me that we shouldn’t be doing things just because they are coalition requirements; we should actually be doing them because they are the right thing to do for New Zealand. That is what Governments are supposed to do. It is a shame that they haven’t taken the opportunity to do a proper review of the Act and to streamline some of the processes, which we all agree could perhaps be done.

Then I want to look at some aspects of the regulatory impact statement—and, members, if you need to find it, it’s on the Table there. I’m going to draw members’ attention to paragraph 43. It talks about the objectives that “effective foreign investment screening regimes must balance”. It’s things like the “Management of risk”, the “Provision of flexibility”, and the “Retaining Investment Attractiveness”. But here’s the difficulty: those are put in an order, and the first one is “Retaining Investment Attractiveness”, the second one is “Management of risk”, and the third one is the “Provision of flexibility”. I suggest that the proper one to go first, in terms of thinking about overseas investment regimes, is actually the “Management of risk”. Why is that not being given priority? When we’ve managed the risk, then we can look at some of the other aspects.

Then there’s the final set of information that I found sitting in this regulatory impact statement, which suggests that we should actually reject this bill because it simply is not going to deliver some of what we were told it would deliver. In the regulatory impact statement, it says, “New Zealand’s approach is one of the most restrictive in the OECD”—that’s New Zealand’s approach to overseas investment. It says, “There is evidence New Zealand’s approach does not balance these objectives well”—the objectives around screening foreign investment—and, “In particular, the OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index shows New Zealand to be highly restrictive of overseas investment. In earlier iterations … [it] was found to have been the most restrictive foreign investment policy in the OECD. Recent methodological changes find New Zealand is no longer the worst”.

We’re actually better than a couple of countries now, in terms of openness to foreign direct investment. Do you know who those two countries are listed in here? They’re Canada and Australia. Our rules at the moment are pretty much the same as Canada’s, but they are way less restrictive than Australia’s. I don’t know what problem this bill is trying to solve. We’re actually sitting alongside our OECD and our Commonwealth peers. We could do things better, but I think this is an overblown solution to the problem. Something could have been sorted. Perhaps we should have gone for that proper full review of the Overseas Investment Act. Perhaps we could have sorted out procedures in the office. Perhaps we could have funded the Overseas Investment Office better so that it could process applications better. There were all sorts of avenues that were available and simply weren’t taken.

NANCY LU (National): I am so glad that I am the final speaker to speak in support for this first reading so that we can go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that great select committee—and we can actually pass this bill. Do you know what? I’ve been on the user side of the office and this legislation, as I was working as a consultant trying to bring in good, healthy foreign capital to help New Zealand companies to grow. But guess what! The problems are the uncertainties with the waiting time and the huge legal costs and compliance costs that come with the uncertainty of waiting and waiting and waiting, and, essentially, companies just say, “Guess what! If you don’t want our money, New Zealand, I’ve had enough, and I’ve had enough of the opportunity cost.”

I am so supportive of this bill, and I know that it will deliver for New Zealand some really good, healthy capital that can help New Zealand businesses to grow and, in return, grow the economy for all New Zealanders. I support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2025.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, and the Invest New Zealand Bill; the remaining stages of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill.

It doesn’t give me any pleasure to move urgency today. However, we are a busy Government with a big legislative agenda. There are limited hours in ordinary House time to get things done. I would point out to the House that the Government is moving urgency not to skip select committees and, sort of, ram things through without select committee scrutiny; in fact, some of the bills that are in this motion are broadly supported across the House. It has been taken purely for the purposes of essentially extending—taking more time, going through to midnight tomorrow night, and using the mornings in order to pass some bills.

We are dealing with a couple of first readings—in fact, three first readings—and third readings, some of which have time limits on them; they need to come into force by 1 July. Or, indeed, they are Budget commitments, and they are bills that we didn’t get quite done through the post-Budget urgency stage. Some of the bills I think are quite broadly supported across the House, although it is true that there are a couple that are perhaps a bit more controversial. But this is largely an urgency motion in order to take more time. It’s not an urgency motion that I move with great pleasure, but I do commend it to the House.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): I present a legislative statement on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I move, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 November 2025.

Immigration is integral to New Zealand’s economic and social prosperity. It plays a key role in supporting this Government’s Going for Growth agenda and delivering the skills our businesses need to compete globally and to grow. We want to enable a smart, responsive immigration system that attracts the skilled people that New Zealand needs. Since taking the immigration portfolio, this Government has made changes to the regulatory settings to get them right and to deliver on our priorities. We’ve targeted key skills gaps and ensured sustainable and efficient visa processing while effectively managing risk.

Settings are more attractive to migrants and more workable for businesses, the Accredited Employer Work Visa targets high-skill migrants and mitigates exploitation concerns, and we have significantly improved processing times. The new parent boost visa will help unite families and enhance New Zealand’s appeal to bring in highly skilled migrants. Our investor visa settings are now more simple and flexible, and they are delivering results. From November, we’re making it easier for people to visit New Zealand from Australia. Chinese and Pacific Island Forum nations will no longer need a separate visa. This trial will make it faster, cheaper, and simpler for our second-largest tourism market. Also, we’ve adjusted the fee and levy rates to reduce the taxpayer burden of administering the immigration system. I’m proud of the improvements we’ve made to the immigration system, but there is more to do to ensure our legislative settings are fit for purpose and designed for the future.

The geopolitical context of the world is changing, and New Zealand is not immune to risk. This bill will improve the immigration system’s integrity and responsiveness by tightening settings in response to risk. More instances of migrant exploitation can be prosecuted, and there will be stronger consequences for resident class visa holders who commit criminal offences or who pose significant risk.

The bill also introduces appropriate safeguards in the system for vulnerable people. It implements legislative recommendations from two independent King’s Counsel reviews of the immigration system. Those were Victoria Casey’s 2022 review into the detention of asylum seekers and Michael Heron’s 2023 review of immigration out-of-hours compliance activity. The bill’s changes also ensure that the system is flexible to unusual events and enables immigration funding to be fairer and more sustainable into the future.

The bill makes 10 targeted changes to the Immigration Act. Firstly, the bill addresses a gap in New Zealand’s migrant exploitation settings by creating a new offence, which is to knowingly seek or receive a monetary premium for an offer of employment. Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation, and it causes real harm. Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars. Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer. This change makes it even clearer that this behaviour is not tolerated in New Zealand. It will enable us to prosecute more instances of migrant exploitation and hold exploitative behaviour to account.

Secondly, the bill amends the definition of a “mass arrival group” to better respond to changes in international people-smuggling trends. The current definition excludes people who have arrived on a scheduled international service, such as a commercial flight or a cruise vessel. This change will ensure that New Zealand can appropriately and humanely manage the potential arrival of a large number of irregular migrants at one time, regardless of how they travel into the country.

Thirdly, the bill will reinforce the expectations of resident class visa holders. It will clarify that deportation liability is a consequence of criminal offending rather than solely on a criminal conviction. Currently, if a judge orders a resident class visa holder’s discharge without conviction, the person cannot be liable for deportation, even if they’ve pled guilty or been found guilty. This undermines the integrity of the good behaviour bond for new resident class visa holders. It also advantages migrants over New Zealand citizens, who cannot seek to avoid a conviction on the grounds that it could lead to their deportation. This change means that a person is liable for deportation if they plead guilty, are found guilty, or are convicted of a criminal offence. Decisions about the deportation liability of individuals who have committed triggering offences will be made within the immigration system, rather than in the criminal courts. The existing humanitarian appeal right to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will remain unchanged.

Fourthly, the bill improves our ability to respond to the very rare situations where a migrant poses a threat or a risk to the security of New Zealand but cannot be deported, because, for example, there is a credible chance that they would be subject to torture. In those situations, the Minister of Immigration will be able to cancel the person’s resident class visa. The removal of resident class visa status will facilitate deportation in the future if circumstances in the person’s home country should change. In the meantime, an individual will be on a temporary visa. They will no longer be able to vote or purchase a home, and they will lose the ability to sponsor friends or a family member to come to New Zealand. This approach is consistent with the international human rights law and the principle of non-refoulement.

The fifth amendment builds on operational improvements by requiring immigration officers to obtain a judicial warrant prior to conducting out-of-hours compliance activity. While most compliance visits can be effectively undertaken in hours, sometimes out-of-hours visits may be the only realistic option for contacting a person subject to deportation. This will ensure that when such an action is necessary, it is scrutinised by an independent body, protecting individual rights and providing confidence in compliance action. This was a key recommendation in the 2023 Michael Heron review.

The sixth amendment in the bill establishes a separate, higher bar for the detention of asylum claimants. These groups of people are in New Zealand under very different circumstances and have particular needs which New Zealand is under an obligation to respond to. This change responds to a recommendation in the 2022 Victoria Casey review and long-held concerns from stakeholders.

The seventh amendment will increase the range of tools available to manage immigration risk and ensure that compliance measures are proportionate. At present, judges have only two options when someone is subject to restrictions of movement under the Act: they can either detain the person, usually in a prison, or release them on the condition that they comply with a residence and reporting requirements agreement. The bill establishes electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention where a person is subject to deportation. This change responds to concerns from judges and stakeholders that the existing compliance options are not always appropriate. It also responds to a recommendation in the 2022 Casey review.

The bill’s eighth amendment enables flexible responses to challenges to the immigration system to more effectively respond to unusual events. Currently, the Act requires an individual to submit a visa and a decision maker to individually determine the outcome. This individualised approach doesn’t allow for the efficient management of large numbers of visa applicants, such as visa holders like the visitors who were stranded due to an airline disruption, which we saw in May last year. The system also struggled to respond to the collapse of Air Vanuatu, which temporarily stranded hundreds of Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers in New Zealand, and the volcanic explosion which caused Tonga’s airspace to close, which meant that many visiting Tongan citizens were stuck here. This change will enable the Minister of Immigration to make decisions on visas in the absence of applications only in situations where this would benefit a group or an individual.

Finally, the bill will support the immigration funding system to be fairer and more sustainable, through two amendments. The bill provides an option in the future to expand the immigration levy - payer base so that immigration system costs are more fairly shared across people who benefit from, and create risks for, the immigration system. The bill also creates a new immigration levy - making power to expand the purposes that an immigration levy can be used for. While there are no immediate plans to undertake a fee and levy review to implement these changes, the bill futureproofs the system should such changes be needed in the future.

These are important, sensible changes to the Immigration Act that will ensure New Zealanders have confidence in the integrity of the system. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment consulted with key groups, including immigration experts, businesses, unions, and the legal profession, on the policy proposals drafted in the bill. Their feedback has helped to strengthen and improve this bill. With that, Mr Speaker, thank you, and I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s Labour’s view that the purpose of our immigration system is for New Zealand to attract, welcome, and successfully settle the people our country needs and—importantly, we believe—to treat people with dignity, respect, and fairness. This is a wide-ranging bill that makes a variety of changes to our immigration system. Labour supports some of the changes made by this bill, such as those recommended by Victoria Casey KC and Michael Heron KC. We have questions about other aspects of the bill, and we look forward to exploring those at select committee, such as the increased levy powers and the changing of the definition of a “mass arrival”.

There are important principles that underpin the discussion here. The first, I think, is that people have a right, under international law, to seek asylum, enshrined in international law and commitments that we have signed up to. The second is that the integrity of the system must be protected to keep the public’s faith in asylum being just for those fleeing war and persecution. The third is that the primary risk, we must always remember, when people flee their countries is to the lives of those asylum seekers, not from asylum seekers.

Let’s walk through some of the key provisions of the bill. I want to start with the provisions that have arisen out of Michael Heron’s 2023 review of out-of-hours immigration compliance activities. It was a concern to a lot of people, including to us when we were in Government, that immigration officers were turning up unannounced at homes in the middle of the night or in the very early hours of the morning. Given the scars that the Dawn Raids of the 1970s left on this country, clearly that compliance activity needed guard rails put around it. I’m glad to see the provisions in the bill do that.

Secondly, in relation to the conditions around warrants of commitment and the provisions around the detention of asylum seekers—the background on that is that about three years ago, Amnesty International published an investigation into the jailing of asylum seekers in New Zealand and alleged that this was going on. They provided some very harrowing examples, and they said it was happening in contravention of New Zealand’s international obligations. As Associate Minister, with the support of my senior colleague, I arranged for Victoria Casey, then QC, to do the investigation, and she did an excellent job. She entirely vindicated Amnesty International’s report. Asylum seekers were being jailed in New Zealand, not in large numbers, but decisions were being made by junior officials in Immigration New Zealand, in the absence of any proper process, to jail asylum seekers—indeed, in contravention of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. Immigration New Zealand has since then implemented a raft of policy and operational changes. These legislative changes are the final piece of the puzzle, I think, and Labour is very glad to see them before the House tonight.

Third, creating an offence for people who seek a monetary premium for an offer of employment—also, this is something that we’re very happy to support in the House. No one likes to see the kinds of migrant-worker exploitation cases that pop up in the media with alarming frequency—corrupt overseas agents, effectively, selling visas, seeking premiums for offers of employment, and working in cahoots with dodgy employers in New Zealand. It has to stop, and we strongly support this particular initiative to do that.

On the fiscal-sustainability provisions, we’ll be interested to see who exactly the Minister wants to target in relation to that. On the mass arrivals, I’ve run out of time to talk in depth about that, but we will be exploring that in detail at select committee, along with the special powers that are being granted in relation to how you deal with someone who’s a protected person but is deemed to be a risk to public safety. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. I know that this bill actually covers a lot of different aspects of the Immigration Act 2009, but I think I actually want to first pick up on something that is on the first page of this bill, which is “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest … and the rights of individuals”. Although this looks great, I think it’s also a key reminder for this House that the Immigration Act is one of the few Acts that is exempted from the Human Rights Act. I’ve seen that we are able to discriminate against a person who is seeking immigration status on the basis of their disability. We have seen that over and over again in recent years and even in recent months. It is important to note that while this is the purpose and the right of individuals, we do not see it in practice or in other parts of this bill.

I just wanted to leave that there for now, because this segues really nicely into the first part of this bill, which is around the immigration levy. I think it is a genuine concern. One of the things we have seen that’s been announced by the Government so far is the idea of the parent boost visa etc., but let us be clear: there are very few people whose parents or who themselves—if they are one person with two parents, like a lot of the people from China—have $250,000 just tucked away in cash in their back pocket to be eligible for that particular visa type, as well as, or alternatively, their parents having superannuation in their country of origin that matches the level of superannuation here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That is simply not feasible for most of the people.

The reason for that, as the Minister said, is to strike a balance between people here—migrants who pay their taxes, who are contributing to Aotearoa New Zealand, who bring diversity and vibrancy to Aotearoa New Zealand. But what we’re telling them is that they need to meet this really specific criteria in order for them to be eligible to bring in their parents, on the basis that their parents might add burden to our healthcare system. But let us be very, very, very clear: what is the definite proof that migrants, or even migrants with additional housing needs, who are sometimes not eligible for our public health system anyway, are responsible for the systemic underfunding of our healthcare system and also our education system?

This first point: allowing immigration levies to be charged on visa applications, which is already exorbitant and outside of some people’s reach—for example, the application now for residency is, roughly, I think, up towards $5,000. On top of that, we’re asking for the charge of additional levies on employers and migrants to fund the public health and education system. That then is no longer a levy. We are adding an additional immigration tax. Levy implies it is for the operations of Immigration New Zealand, which we acknowledge, but it is not for migrants who want to apply for visas to come here and support the lack of funding that this Government has given towards health and education. Something like this is something that the Green Party absolutely will not support.

In saying that, there are other worthwhile elements in this bill. Like the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, said, they expanded the special direction of power. There are certain areas in here—some of the aspects around stronger restrictions on out-of-hours immigration rates; these are good things to see, because we have seen our migrant community being harmed as a result of over-the-top treatment towards them in the form of the Dawn Raids and others. But there are other elements of this we’re interested to see in the select committee, like the cancellation of resident visas—what would that actually be? The Green Party will not support this bill, but we’re keen to see what happens during select committee.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, I think, when he read that statement on the first page of the bill, completely forgot that the statement also says that it is to take into consideration the interest of people—those who are already here in New Zealand. So, yes, of course this bill is to provide that balance, and that balance is needed when we look into our immigration system so that it is fair and just for people, those who are looking to be here in our country, whether it is just for visiting, for studying, or for wanting to make New Zealand their home. But then it has to be fair for people, those who are already in our country as well. And these two things which this bill addresses—fiscal sustainability and enhancing integrity, by making several changes that the Minister has already talked about—are really important, because, in this very complex global landscape that we live in, immigration systems are really important. It is not only about looking at one side for people, those who are coming into our country, but also to ensure, for the interest of people who are already here in our country and who are calling New Zealand home, we are able to be fair to them as well.

In this bill, yes, fiscal sustainability is important, and this provision which will be in the bill—as the Minister said—is not going to be implemented straight away, but this will be there so that, if needed, this can actually be implemented. This is to expand the immigration levy - payer base, and it is very, very clear in the bill, that it will have to be justified which groups this expansion can be done to. These kinds of levies, through regulation that the Minister can make, will have to be justified on the basis of the link; as it says, if other people are benefiting from that, then they will be included in that levy-payer base—for example, if an employer is bringing somebody from overseas and that person comes on a temporary work visa, that person can become that expanded group; or if it is some education provider, those who provide education, those who are signatory providers providing education to international, fee-paying students, they can be included in that group. The Minister will have to justify the linkage before that expansion can be done.

Coming to other issues, this bill is making several changes, and I want to touch on only a few in the limited time that I have. Migrant exploitation is a very, very big issue. It’s a very serious issue, and it happens in so many different forms, and some of the forms are visible; some of the forms are still invisible. We become aware of these different forms of migrant exploitation only when somebody comes forward. I really want to commend each and every individual who has come forward and shared their stories of migrant exploitation. It’s because of those stories we are able to make the changes we are making through this legislation.

Just two years ago or so, we were seeing so many stories of people coming to New Zealand, packed in a small house, like 10 to 15 people packed in a house. They landed here in New Zealand, and straight away, they were told that they didn’t have any employment. It wasn’t that they had a dodgy employer, but the employment didn’t exist. Many of these people shared the stories that they paid money to get this employment here in New Zealand, which doesn’t actually exist. This kind of situation, we know, is migrant exploitation, but, now, what this bill does is it takes cares of people who are doing this kind of activity offshore for New Zealand - based employment offers, and also takes care of any kind of premium that is charged before the employment commences. These changes will ensure that people understand that we are taking it very, very seriously. This is going to be introduced as a new offence through this legislation.

We also know that sometimes, when the applications are processed, people come into our country, and we believe that they are going to be the kinds of citizens and residents we want in New Zealand. But sometimes we may find, later on, that these people are actually a risk to the security of our country and that actions need to be taken. If these individuals have a residence class visa, then the Minister having the ability to revoke the residence class visa is actually going to send a really good message—a strong message—to such individuals if they decide to take up activities which pose risk to our country. Very clearly, it has been said that if we consider that there is going to be a threat for them in their own country, they won’t be deported straight away, but they will lose the rights of being residents here, with the Minister revoking residence class visas for such individuals. With that, I would say that this is a good bill, and we support this bill and commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Immigration): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This bill delivers on a key component of our coalition agreement and party values in strengthening protections that ensure our immigration system serves the needs of our country and the needs of those who are migrating to New Zealand.

This is a complex piece of legislation, in that there are a lot of moving parts, but at its core it is a simple recognition that we can do better. It respects the importance and value of immigration to New Zealand and our economy, it respects the contribution that our migrant population pays to New Zealand, and it does this by providing some fundamental protections around the area of exploitation, which is an area I have worked significantly in and recognise the incredible harm that it does, not only to the individuals but to our reputation as a country. The more that we can do to make this legislation workable, practical, and fiscally sustainable is really important as we move forward to achieve the targets we have as a Government for our economy.

The bill creates a number of changes and arrangements, but I would applaud, most importantly, the priority that it has given to Victoria Casey KC’s and Michael Heron KC’s recommendations. These have taken some time to be fully addressed and worked through, and I think the bill does an enormous service to ensure that those key recommendations are addressed through this piece of legislation.

I’d also recognise the tidying-up around the “mass arrival” definition. There has been some debate previously around mass arrivals in this House, and I think it’s important to recognise that having a robust definition as well as a process for managing mass arrivals is, again, actually about protection. It’s about protection for those that are vulnerable. It allows us an opportunity to provide some support, some services, and to ensure that no matter how you arrive—which is what this is trying to address—whether it is through, you know, illegal means or whether it’s through commercial services, we have the ability to manage those arrivals and do it efficiently and effectively.

The bill, as has been mentioned, also provides the ability to cancel resident visas for security risks. Again, this is about the credibility of our immigration system, to ensure that New Zealanders can have good faith in our immigration system, and that when there are security risks and when there are vulnerabilities created, in order to protect the reputation of those enormous number of immigrants that are now calling New Zealand home, we aren’t allowing their place in our society to be in any way discredited, because we have migrants we are unable to manage when security risks occur.

I think there are a lot of moving parts in this legislation. It will be an important piece of work for the Education and Workforce Committee to work through. I think there is an enormous benefit to us as a country having these legislative changes that make sure that our future in immigration is supported by really good, robust legislation and that we have the ability to manage any risks that arise in this space but also have the ability in balancing that to ensure that we have all the protections in place for those who may be victimised through the very immigration system that we have introduced into this country. I have no hesitation at all, on behalf of New Zealand First, to commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I’m taking a short call on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m rising on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, not just as a lawmaker but as tangata whenua, as kaitiaki of this land and of the people who seek refuge upon it.

While there are some positive elements in this bill, including protections against migrant exploitation and the requirements for the judicial warrants before immigration officers can enter people’s homes after hours, ultimately, we cannot support it. The bill, while dressed up in the language of fiscal responsibility and system integrity, reinforces a two-tiered immigration system—one rule for the rich, another for the poor. On one hand, we have the “golden visa” scheme fast-tracking residency and citizenship for the wealthy. On the other hand, the bill introduces harsher deportation powers for refugees—people who arrive with nothing but hope for a better life—by allowing the Government to cancel resident visas of refugees even if deportation would result in them being tortured in their homeland. This is not an immigration policy; this is class warfare disguised as legislation. Let’s be clear: in the past 10 years, no one has been certified as being a national security risk under section 163 of the Immigration Act 2009.

Te Pāti Māori leaves no one behind. The law reinforces a class system for migrants and reinforces the mentality that refugees pose a risk, when they do not. While billionaires can buy their way into Aotearoa, refugees’ whānau, who carry nothing but hope, are treated like political pawns. Yes, there are some good provisions in the bill, and we acknowledge those, but let us be absolutely clear: these small wins do not undo the deep injustice at the heart of this bill. The message remains that wealth equals worth and poverty equals suspicion. It is hypocritical, it is elitist, and it is a breach of our values as a nation grounded in manaakitanga. We call on the Government to rethink immigration policy in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and with the values of fairness, manaakitanga, and rangatiratanga. Te Pāti Māori leaves no one behind, and we do not support the bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. This bill is making targeted changes to do just as the title suggests: improve the integrity, responsiveness, and sustainability of New Zealand’s immigration system. A couple of things that have already been highlighted and that I think are really important are creating an offence for charging for jobs in New Zealand and, also, requiring a warrant for out-of-hours enforcement actions. These are very important changes, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As members clock up mileage in this House, they’ll reflect upon their careers and look towards the events that they experience in their time here. For myself, there are two in particular that I’d like to speak to, with respect to this bill.

The first one is of course the tragic incident that took place at the New Lynn shopping mall. I was in Cabinet at the time, and, as decisions were being made with respect to that individual and the tragic circumstances that led to that individual doing what the individual did, we acknowledge that this bill looks towards special powers that would allow the Government of the day to look towards ways to remedy the situation that we found ourselves in during that tragic event. Mr Speaker, you can imagine how difficult it is, as lawmakers and as the Cabinet leading the country at the time, how, often, through pieces of legislation—often obscure, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle—you can find yourself hamstrung in the ability to make effective decisions to make sure that the community is kept safe. Now, in that particular instance, we didn’t have the powers, which is why we acknowledge it in this bill.

However, of course, with great power comes great responsibility, and the ability for the select committee to make sure that we can interrogate the checks and balances on the power that Ministers do have with respect to immigration cases is going to be important. We’ve seen cases with respect to immigration across multiple Governments over decades fall foul of the rules in one way, shape, or form. It’s important that those checks and balances can continue to make sure that those who do come here with a special status and those who do come here with the hopes and aspirations that their new home will be a home that they can call their forever home for them and their family can continue to do that.

The second part that I reflect upon in my time here in this institution is of course the Dawn Raids apology that was made under the Ardern leadership. I was fortunate to speak at that ceremony in Auckland, and I recall just the weight of burden, the weight of anxiety, the past trauma, and the way that our people who come to this country and call New Zealand home look towards immigration settings and immigration laws to make sure that they and their whānau get a fair go.

When we look at this particular bill, as I already stated, there are some really good parts in the bill, but there are some that we will look to interrogate as it goes through the select committee process. We know that there are a large number of interest groups in our community—community groups, family groups—who are looking towards this particular bill and will, no doubt, make submissions on this bill, and we encourage those voices to come through in this process in order to make this bill robust and something that we can all look back on our time in this House as a progressive and smart move moving forward.

One of the other parts is of course mass arrivals. My colleague and friend the Hon Phil Twyford spoke to this particular matter before his time ran out, and that was about the definition of “mass arrival”. We’ve heard from the Government that there are instances where organised travel has been utilised to bring illegal immigrants, or those who wish to travel to this country under what would have been formerly termed as “mass arrivals” under the old legislation but is being proposed for a change in this particular bill. In changing that definition, I think it’s important that we look toward what those definitions mean in a modern context and in today’s times. Once upon a time, it was only ever seen as the arrival of “boat people”, and that’s because we live here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and it was thought that that was the only way you could have that kind of an event, which was voyage across the sea. But we know times have changed, and we will look towards that particular definition to make sure that it gets the kind of interrogation that ensures that it’s evidence based, that it’s fact based, and that, actually, the good policy in the bill that we’re debating here will be robust. That’s all we can ask as we look towards the progress of this bill.

I do want to make a quick point to some of our whānau that might not be supporting this bill. We can’t lose hope in the democratic institutions that we uphold in this place, and that means that the select committee must be given a chance—and I implore the Government to remember this—to make this bill better.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great honour that I stand to rise in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill in this first reading. I think probably a great way to sum up this bill is it is really to manage immigration in a way that balances our national interests with the rights of individuals. I think it’s really important that this bill introduces measures to combat migrant exploitation by creating a new offence for seeking or receiving monetary premiums for employment offers. It also strengthens any consequences for someone who commits criminal offences or poses a risk—the ability to respond to individuals who threaten our national security. It just gives us—and it’s been previously mentioned—a few more powers in the immigration space, once again to kind of balance our national security with the rights of individuals. It addresses the recommendations from a number of independent reviews. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by saying—similar to my two colleagues who spoke on this bill before me, the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill—that Labour supports this bill. Madam Speaker, as you’re about to take the Chair, we support the intent of this bill. We agree that our immigration system should be sustainable and that it should be fair and robust. We agree that those who benefit from, or create risks for, our system should contribute to its costs, and we agree that system integrity is essential for public trust.

One of the most commendable aspects of this bill is the decisive action that it takes on the issue of migrant exploitation. As the ethnic spokesperson for the Labour Party and also as a person who has so many thousands of migrant folks who live in my electorate in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, in South Auckland, this is actually a huge issue for our community. I would like to commend the Minister and the ministry of immigration for ensuring that migrant exploitation is one of the things that this bill addresses.

The new provision makes it explicitly illegal for employers, agents, or recruiters to charge employment premiums, regardless of whether the fees are charged or collected offshore, before the employment begins or whether the worker is ultimately hired. That is an aspect that we absolutely agree with on this side of the House. However, values matter, and we should not allow fiscal discipline and technical fixes to come at the expense of equity or transparency or the fundamental rights of our migrants, who actually contribute so much to Aotearoa New Zealand.

The bill proposes changes to expand the immigration levy base so that it now includes employers, education providers, and visa-waiver visitors, who will now share the cost. But this Government’s own departmental disclosure statement reveals a glaring lack of analysis of how these costs could possibly flow through our economy. For instance, will our small businesses, who are already under pressure, be able to absorb these new proposed costs? Another question: will our world-class tertiary institutions be forced in the future to raise their fees, making New Zealand possibly less attractive to international students; or will these costs be passed on to the most vulnerable—our migrants and our students—who are some of the least able to bear these costs? Fiscal sustainability should not become a euphemism for cost shifting on to those with the least power.

This bill also grants the Minister of Immigration really broad new powers to be able to set the levies to determine who actually pays and how much they pay. This is only with periodic consultation and a five-year review. We should be careful when we look at centralisation of power in the Minister’s office that it should not go unchecked.

There are some useful aspects, though, in this bill. Of course, we absolutely support the bill—for instance, judicial warrants for enforcement, electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention, and protections for asylum claimants. But the power to cancel residence-class visas, even in rare cases, sets a rare and dangerous precedent.

The Minister’s statement earlier framed this bill as a technical fix for efficiency and for fiscal responsibility and discipline. But where is the acknowledgment of the lived realities of our migrants? Where is the recognition that New Zealand’s strength lies in our diversity and our openness and our commitment to justice? We urge the Government to work with us to strengthen this bill to ensure that it reflects the best New Zealand values, those of fairness, openness, and respect for all. Let us build an immigration system that is not just fiscally sustainable but one that is socially just, an immigration system that is not just technically sound but one that is also morally strong. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure I rise to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill in the first reading. I look forward to working with members across the House on this bill to once again strengthen our immigration system and through the select committee process.

A couple of aspects of the bill really appealed to me—particularly the one focusing in on the whole process of people who exploit our immigrants. As someone who moves around the electorate, you hear these stories of exploitation, so anything we can do to really make it quite clear that that is totally unacceptable in our society is a great thing, and I look forward to working through those issues.

The other one that actually hasn’t really been touched on much is the concept that people who are facing deportation will actually be monitored on electronic bail as opposed to being in a jail. I think that was highlighted through the KCs’ reports. I think that is a really important part of it. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to

Education and Workforce Committee

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Immigration): I move, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 November 2025.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider this bill, and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to limit whole-farm conversions to exotic forestry from registering in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS). The bill delivers on the action in the Government’s second emissions reduction plan and action 24 of the quarter-two action plan to introduce this legislation to the House. The bill takes a balanced and practical step towards protecting our most productive farmland while still supporting our climate goals. It’s about preserving choice—the choice to farm, the choice to grow, and the choice to sustain rural communities for generations to come.

The primary sector is vital to the success of our economy. Our farmers feed New Zealand and the world. I also acknowledge the significant role forestry plays in contributing to regional employment and helping us meet our emissions targets. But the current settings in the emissions trading scheme have tipped the scales too far. We’re seeing entire farms converted into exotic forests under the ETS, from Invercargill to Ruatōria. These are not marginal lands; these are productive farms supporting families, communities, and local economies. Once they are planted into exotic carbon forests, they are, effectively, lost to food production for decades, if not permanently so. This is not balanced land use, it is not sustainable, and it is not fair to the rural communities who bear the brunt of these conversions.

The bill introduces targeted, sensible limits on whole-farm conversions into exotic forestry under the ETS. It does not ban forestry. It does not undermine our climate commitments. What it does is protect our best land for food production while still allowing farmers to diversify and to participate in the ETS where it makes sense. There is still a great deal of land that can be utilised for forestry, of course.

The bill introduces four key changes to the ETS forestry planting in New Zealand: (1) restrictions on exotic forestry ETS registration on actively farmed land-use capability (LUC) classes 1 through 6, our most productive land; (2) an annual ballot allowing 15,000 hectares of exotic forest on class 6 land, providing planting opportunities while managing planting scale nationally; (3) a 25 percent cap allowing farmers to plant up to a quarter of their land in exotic forest for ETS purposes to maintain flexibility and income diversity; and (4) temporary transitional protection for those who invested in good faith before December 2024.

These changes are grounded in the land-use capability classification system, a well-established tool that reflects the productivity of our land. By focusing restrictions on the most productive classes, we ensure that on low-quality land, native-forest planting and planting on certain types of Māori land remain viable options. To support those who made legitimate afforestation investments before this policy was announced last December, the bill includes temporary transitional exemptions for new restrictions. In order to qualify, a potential ETS applicant will need to provide evidence that a qualifying forestry investment, as specified in the bill, has been made in relation to that LUC 1 through 6 land they seek to register in the ETS. This will both allow for affected investors to proceed with planted forest projects, recognising investments already in train, while also ensuring qualifying forest investments demonstrated genuine investment in relation to a specific piece of LUC 1 through 6 land.

For instance, the purchase of land and ordering of trees together would be an example of proof of a qualifying forestry investment, as long as it took place before 1 December 2024, whilst each of these actions alone would not demonstrate that. Investment must also have been made between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024 so that we are only allowing those exemptions for recent investments and real intentions. These exemptions will be assessed on a case by case basis by the regulator at the point of ETS registration, but the conditions for transitional agreement arrangements have been published previously and are clearly set out in the legislation.

This is not about pitting farming against forestry; it’s about maximising land use for our whole rural sector. Both agriculture and forestry can coexist in a way that is sustainable, strategic, and fair. Whole-farm conversions don’t just affect landowners; they affect entire communities. Schools, local businesses, and services all depend upon the steady year-round activity that farming provides. Exotic carbon forestry, by contrast, offers short bursts of economic activity, often decades apart. These bursts can be significant, especially when spread across a region with staggered forest ages, but they cannot come at the total expense of our farming communities.

Let’s not forget that this is also about New Zealand’s global reputation. We are known for high-quality sustainably produced food. That reputation is built on the back of our farmers. If we allow productive farmland to disappear under a blanket of trees, we risk undermining that brand and the livelihood that depends on it.

We as a Government have publicly committed to the legislation taking effect in October 2025. Forestry remains a vital part of our climate response and rural economy, providing jobs, carbon sequestration, and export value, but it must be integrated in a way that complements, not replaces, our food-production systems. By continuing to provide planting pathways, we are offering a balanced approach to maximising production on farms. This bill is about balance, it’s about choice, and it’s about protecting the future of rural New Zealand. Let us back our farmers, let us back our regions, and let us preserve the right to farm for future generations. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Labour Party will offer very cautious support for this bill through to the select committee. It is cautious because of the very short report-back date, because we think some of the issues that need to be worked through are quite significant, and it is cautious because, in some ways, this bill just doesn’t go far enough; in some ways, it maybe goes too far. There’s a whole set of issues that we need to work through very, very carefully.

So let me, first of all, tackle one way in which the bill may not go far enough. This bill will limit the amount of land that can be converted to forestry for emissions trading scheme (ETS) purposes, but there is a huge question around whether or not we should have forestry in the emissions trading scheme at all—a question that was really highlighted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recently in his report on examining the drivers of forestry in New Zealand. This is an issue that needs to be examined in depth and considered. Of course, this particular bill starts to work around some of the issues in forestry but by no means all of them. That sort of issue we do need to have a look at.

In the Labour Party, we are fully cognisant of the effect on rural communities, of the impact of afforestation, of the extent to which particularly remote rural communities are being affected. We’ve spent a bit of time with Federated Farmers recently. A lot of us went to Fieldays, and we heard some of the stories about what was going on in rural communities. This is why we do actually support some of the intent of this bill, because we do recognise the need to protect those communities. We’ve heard that and do that. Nevertheless, there are, as I said, questions that need to be worked through.

Let’s just talk about some of them. One of the things that’s sitting in the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—which was, incidentally, quite hard to find, because it’s not actually on the website yet—is the assessment of the options that have been chosen by this Government. There has been a whole lot of consideration of the costs of the preferred option on ETS forestry participants—good people to consider—on farmers, obviously; on foresters; on Māori land owners; of the effect on the regulator; of the effect on others. What we haven’t got is an assessment of the cost or the impact on the emissions trading scheme. This will introduce some distortions into the scheme. Now, maybe that’s a good thing, but we are going to need to work through that very, very carefully at the select committee as well. There’s a whole set of questions around that.

Then there’s something which I’m just trying to puzzle my way through—and again, it needs to be examined—and that is the ballot system for category class 6 land. Under this bill, as it’s come to the House, land categories 1 through 6 will only be able to have 25 percent of the land planted up in forestry. But category 6 land—there’s a special category in there to say that more than that can go for forestry: you can do whole-farm conversions or significant amounts of forestry conversion, up to 15,000 hectares per annum. Whose 15,000 hectares? Well, it turns out that’s going to be decided by a ballot. Everyone who wants to convert some of their farmland over and above that 25 percent will need to go into a ballot. That, of course, means that their land, by virtue of a ballot, may become more valuable for the purposes of sale. I’m going to want to understand whether the permission to plant forest applies to the land or to the farmer and if it’s transferable. That’s a set of issues that, in the short time we’ve had the bill available to us, we haven’t been able to work through, but I’m sure that we’ll find that out in due course. Nevertheless, using a ballot like this has its advantages and disadvantages. It’ll be interesting to work through that as well. There’s a lot to work through in terms of this bill.

The Minister introducing the bill spoke of the need to balance and complement our productive farming, our food production systems. I agree. We need to do that, but we also need to balance what we are doing with respect to climate change as well. It’s not just to do with the ETS or with our Paris commitments or with our emissions budgets; it’s to do with the real existential threat that climate change poses for us and our farmers, and that’s an issue we most definitely need to examine.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a major challenge in this country, in that we are losing vast hectarages of farmland to pine forestry, and this is because of a distortion through the emissions trading scheme whereby it is cheaper to offset emissions to pine forestry than to actually cut gross emissions. For understanding that, in the climate change context, the only meaningful way for us to deal with climate change globally is to cut gross emissions, which is real-world emissions. The fiction of offsetting has the same practical impact of an alcoholic paying somebody to drink water and thinking that they have solved their drinking problem. That is the distortion that we have in this country to this day, and what’s more, the person who’s drinking all the water is making a lot of money and thinking that they’re doing something about alcoholism, but they’re not at all.

The worst effect of it is that we are not solving climate change but, actually, we’re sacrificing some of our least-emitting farmland, because a sheep and beef farm produces about a quarter of the emissions of your average high-intensity dairy farm. It seems like the effect we got with He Waka Eke Noa, in which sheep and beef were thrown under the bus to protect the dairy industry. That is the distortion that still exists. To give you an example of one of the worst effects of that, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did modelling on the current settings, which showed that by the middle of this century that we’re presently in, we could face a situation where land use was dominated by only two types: pine forestry and dairy farms.

Now, that is a major challenge for us in terms of our resilience. It is a major challenge for us in terms of the fact that many of those pine forests in the high country will become the tinder dry fuel for future forest fires as the impacts of climate change hit. Let’s be clear, the major threat to humanity in terms of climate change is in large part how it impacts our ability to produce food. Globally: erratic seasons, prolonged droughts, greater floods, extreme weather events—these are the things that farmers are, on the front line, being impacted by. It’s a sad denial on the part of the farming industry with some many years of climate change as a problem, and it has, actually, really undercut farmers and undermined farmers’ longevity.

We think it’s important that the Government is acknowledging this problem. I think, however, this bill isn’t biting the bullet. The Green Party policy is to remove forestry from the emissions trading scheme to stop that distortion. That is the actual solution to the problem. The risk with this bill, whilst it is a step in the right direction—and, Minister, we will be supporting it to select committee because we want to see it developed more thoroughly and we would actually like to see it given the proper time it deserves because there are some real risks with it. One is that there’s a risk that you actually get with the ballot system, a continued loss of that high country land. I note that Kate Acland from Beef + Lamb said that “Land Class 6 is the foundation of our breeding farms … 15,000 hectares every year coming out of this will add up over time.” Toby Williams, from Federated Farmers, said there “is a huge amount of land … going into pine trees … that’s what farmers will currently be using as breeding country—we can’t afford to lose 150,000 hectares in the next decade.”

The other distortion that we risk is that we have adjacent bits of land, one that might be dominated by land class 6 where you won’t be allowed to plant pines except through the ballot, and another dominated by land class 7. It could be that you invert the value of those land areas whereby the land class 7 becomes higher value because you can now plant pine trees on it. That’s another unhelpful distortion. What is more, farmers—and we hear this all the time—need the ability to have long-term planning in their land use. Being in a lottery to know whether they can plant a forest is the opposite of giving certainty to farmers in terms of how they can plan their land use.

The other exciting thing that’s happening in the sector is the likes of agroforestry and silvopasture and tree intercropping. These things are not recognised for their valuable use of combinations of diverse mosaic landscapes where you’re planting trees and you’re raising livestock and you’re producing crops and food.

I don’t see that this bill addresses those challenges. I look forward to debating it at the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Mark Patterson.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: Andrew Hoggard.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sorry! You’re in the wrong seat.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: No, he’s down there.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Yeah, I know. Sorry—the Hon Andrew Hoggard. My apologies.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): He’s got sheep; I’ve got cows. OK, thank you, Madam Speaker. Yeah. Look, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill. We’ve had some challenges about it, but I do think it is an elegant solution to quite a complex problem. This problem has been around for about six-odd years now; people have been debating it and talking about it and proposing solutions. We need a solution, and I think, you know, this is the solution that is here now. It is a solution we should be backing because it will create change. Now, you may argue it doesn’t go far enough, it goes too far, or whatever, but let’s get started with something, because if we do nothing, like what happened with the previous Government, then more land will keep going out of farming.

I want to talk about what the problem is here—we’ve sort of missed it to a degree in terms of some of the speeches. The problem really has been identified by rural communities in terms of large swaths of land being moved out of farming and into forestry and communities being decimated—a point that’s well known to me. A neighbour of mine had moved here to my area recently. They had previously been out farming on the East Coast, and, basically, they had to leave because their entire valley up to their property had been planted out, all gone into forestry. They were the last farm left in the valley. There was not going to be a school to send their kids to. Quite frankly, they were worried about their lives if it ever caught fire, because how were they going to get out of the valley. This is the challenge that’s been recognised by rural communities, and this is what we’re trying to solve.

In terms of the solution, as the Minister of Forestry mentioned, farmers really have a problem with anyone telling them what to do on their land—usually, much more unparliamentary language is used than that—but then they also want to tell their neighbour what they can do with their land, and we run into quite a conundrum there as to how we balance that up. This is why I think it’s a very elegant solution: we’re not telling anyone what they can do with their land, but we’re saying, “If you make this choice, I hope the log prices are good, because that’s how you get the return.”, and people will not be getting the emissions trading scheme credits. So, basically, it’s not telling people what to do, but it’s removing an incentive that’s creating this distortion as to farming moving into that. This is, I think, a really elegant solution.

I have heard concerns from the rural community around the transitional measures. I don’t know how true it is, but I’ve heard concerns raised that some forestry companies are diverting seedlings that were going to be replanted into land they’d bought after the ban. Hopefully, that isn’t the case. My suggestion to anyone thinking they’re going to try and weave their way around this is that you might find out the hard way that you can’t actually get around it and you might lose out in money.

I fully commend this bill to the House. It’s been a long time coming, and I thank the Minister for bringing it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Mark Patterson—take two.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you—yes, it is I! Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I could not be more pleased to be rising to support this bill, which is the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, and I thank Minister McClay for progressing this. It is part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement. In my view, in having the honour of being the Minister for Rural Communities, this is the most consequential bill to come before this House in this term of Parliament for our rural communities. Whole-of-farm conversions of some of our most productive land, if left unchecked, are in the process of shuttering large swathes of rural New Zealand. Action is both necessary and overdue.

The emissions trading scheme creates a mismatch of profitability for land-use options. The current pricing for a tonne of carbon—it’s around $59 a kilo—is somewhere near five times more profitable than sheep and beef farming, and sheep and beef farming is going pretty well at the moment. It is now estimated to be competitive with dairying. I know: I planted some myself; I’ve taken advantage of this scheme. Why would I not? It would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. This is not about vilifying forestry. It is $6 billion worth of export earnings. It is a legitimate and valuable land use, and we do have large areas of less productive land that we can plant in forestry and utilise the scheme. It’s very much a right tree, right place strategy that we’re trying to get back to here. It does create opportunities to integrate forestry in with sheep and beef farming primarily, in a mosaic-type approach, and it can help cash-flow farm succession. It’s not all downside, by any means, for our rural communities.

When whole farms are planted out, livestock are culled—some 2 million stock units estimated since 2017 that’s here, is gone. Farm labour is gone. Stock agents, gone. Food and seed reps, gone. Vets, gone. Contractors, gone. Truckies, gone. That’s families gone. That’s the viability of our rural communities, our schools, our local pubs—wide-ranging impacts. It is flowing into our provincial towns. The closure of Smithfield meatworks in Timaru and the loss of some 700 jobs is the canary in the coalmine, and there will be more. If we’re doubting the consequences of what we’re doing here, when Governments are pulling levers like this, this week’s Farmers Weekly, I think, shows it all. There is a quote here from Bayleys Gisborne director Simon Bousfield, who estimates the average value of hill-country farmland has dropped by $5,000 per hectare on the current market, in relation to, and as a direct result of, us bringing these measures in.

Decisions we make in this place do have consequences; we’re not doing them lightly, but we are doing them for good reason. They are inflated values, and what we’re looking to do is return farmland value to its productive value as both sheep and beef and forestry land. We need the sheep and beef sector, which is doing really well at the moment and has great potential—and I’m so focused on the wool for this reason. We need to get sheep and beef farming profitable again so that they can be a competitive land use. But they do deserve a fair fight. We can’t plant our way to net zero. The burden is falling disproportionately on rural New Zealand and our sheep and beef sector, and we will not allow them to be collateral damage.

This bill is sensible. It rebalances the drivers of land-use change. It seeks to protect the viability of rural New Zealand. I do take note of some of the Opposition speeches. I do think, within the select committee—it is quite a complex bill—we should be open to sensible changes around some of the settings. But New Zealand First strongly commends this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei e pā ana ki ngā pae āhuatanga e hono ana ki te taiao.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to us in the House. I stand to convey the statements of the Māori Party tonight regarding the features connected with the environment.]

Te Pāti Māori note that this bill provides for exemption of certain Māori lands from emissions trading scheme (ETS) restrictions in this bill, principally Māori land held under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, Māori land in which the status was changed to general land under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, and land to a Treaty settlement.

Te Tari Whakatau and a small number of Māori stakeholders were consulted on identifying the types of Māori land that fall within these categories. Officials conclude that the exemptions provide, certainly for Māori land owners, an opportunity for Māori to exercise rangatiratanga. In developing the policy for the bill, Ministers and officials considered the interest and effects of the proposal for Māori throughout the analysis. Māori and iwi stakeholders were also consulted alongside the public on this policy as part of the second emissions reduction plan. The Māori entities that were spoken to were in favour of this exemption and in agreement with specific exemptions included in this bill.

However, Te Pāti Māori considers also the concerns: placing certain restrictions on farm conversions, limiting the volume of hectares available for conversions per year, also setting out provisions for farmland planting and ensure flexibility and choice, setting out protections for Māori-owned land in line with the Treaty obligations, also creating time-limited exemptions for certain people who were in the process.

Also, protections for Māori land do not outweigh the negative impact on taiao and reduction of the broader environmental protections. In fact, Māori land only accounts for a very small number of land-use activities in Aotearoa. In that context, Te Pāti Māori considers the bill to also undermine the integrity of the ETS and weakens it further by removing methane, which only limits the scheme further.

We support efforts to assert kai sovereignty, but we are not totally convinced that this current proposal is effective enough in providing and ensuring that all our whānau in Aotearoa have access to kai. Nō reira, tēnā rā tātou.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise to support this bill tonight. It’s great to see some cross-party support on this, and I am looking forward to it coming to our Environment Committee, where we can navigate it further. Look, it’s heartbreaking to see some of our large Hawke’s Bay stations absolutely blanket covered in pine trees. This is a huge issue for the East Coast, where I am from. These sheep stations used to be the jewel in the crown of Hawke’s Bay. We are now seeing them blanket covered in pine trees. This is our good, fertile soil, good land—good food-producing land—that’s been gobbled up in trees in the race for carbon credits. Well, this is ending under our Government.

National campaigned on putting a stop to this, and this bill is going to put a stop to blanket covering our beautiful, fertile, food-producing land in pine trees. Enough is enough. This bill is a practical approach—it’s a right tree, right place approach. It’s good to see that farmers are diversifying. Fine. Plant the really, really steep stuff, but not the good, fertile, food-producing country where we see our sheep and our stock numbers going down. We’re seeing our rural communities being decimated. I’ve been out visiting the meat works in our community, and they are seeing the stock numbers going down, so they’re not processing. We’re seeing shifts getting less. This is jobs and opportunities for many of our families in our rural communities. We cannot stand by and watch this good food-producing land being blanket covered in pine trees. I am really pleased to see our Minister acting on this and delivering on it, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Noting how the last speaker, Catherine Wedd, said that enough is enough and that this bill will fix everything, I think that’s slightly ambitious, but we’re all agreeing there is a problem that needs some fixing. We think that some more fixing will be needed in addition to this bill.

The problem is that we have too many carbon emissions and we have too much pollution from carbon and also methane, and this is a problem, so, some time ago, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was established. It was thought that it was better to give people an avenue to offset rather than to really focus on that decarbonisation. Rather than changing our vehicle fleet from oil-based, petrol-based cars and trucks to electric or hydrogen, the focus became about planting these pine trees, that people could make money from. Of course, that focus on offsets has made people make sensible financial decisions. We heard the Hon Mark Patterson speak before about a piece of farmland that he owns where he planted some trees because that is what the economics were telling him to do. He didn’t have to do it, but it made good financial sense, and people will follow the incentives.

That is a problem with the ETS and with our focus always on these offsets. Of course, that is why we’re interested in this change to disincentivise these carbon forests on farmland—farmland that, as the Minister said, is good food-producing land. I think it’s important to also note that, here, we’re talking about carbon forestry and only exotic carbon forestry. These are pine trees that are planted to stay put. They might be harvested once, but then they’re going to stay in the ground. It’s different from plantation forestry whereby foresters are out there planting the trees and then planning to cut them down and to make other things out of them or to export them.

That’s an important thing to note, as well as this: offsets versus decarbonisation, the net versus the gross. The bill is interesting. It sets up some things that I wasn’t expecting to see in a bill like this—like the ballot system that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has talked about. A lot of the bill—maybe about half of the bill—is about that ballot system. There’s also a lot in the bill about mapping. Mapping is something that I probably was expecting to see in a bill like this.

There’s also a lot of regulatory powers in here as well. These are all things, along with the transitional provisions—and we heard the Minister say, “Well, we made the statement back last year that we were going to stop whole-farm conversions to carbon forestry.” That feeds into the transitional provisions that are found right at the back of the bill, but it does seem that these transitional provisions are not nearly as clear as they could be, and that is something that we will want to explore in the select committee.

I want to, here, speak briefly on the fact that it is going to the Environment Committee, and that is good—the Environment Committee normally deals with climate change issues. However, the report back is only 30 August, which is not much time, but it is better than all stages under urgency, which, of course, this Government likes to do. I’m not sure why there is so much need for a rush at this stage of the process when the bill is going to be at select committee. That is because we see, in the appendix to the regulatory impact statement, that there was a regulatory impact statement in October of 2024. I acknowledge that Cabinet made decisions later in March 2025, but this has been in development for some time, yet the select committee is only going to get it for a very short period of time so that it can come into operation by October 2025. I think that speed is problematic because it is more complicated than it might sound at first.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the saddest things I’ve had to experience driving around the electorate of Northland and the rural parts of it is seeing all the beautiful rolling hill country that has been converted into carbon forestry. I want to make a quite distinct difference here. There’s production forestry, which we fully support—it’s an important part of the Northland and New Zealand economy. It’s the carbon forestry that’s been causing the problems. It’s the carbon forestry on good, easy country that has led to rural communities quietly disintegrating as more and more schools end up closing as people move out because of the carbon forestry.

This was an issue that was highlighted for a large number of the last few years—highlighted by members on this side of the House, particularly the National Party. We highlighted this issue. And what did the Government of the day do—the Labour Government? They did nothing. They ignored it. They let it carry on. Consequently, we are dealing with the issues here now today. The only party in the last—

Hon Damien O’Connor: That’s bullshit!

GRANT McCALLUM: —campaign that stood up and said, “We will do something about this”—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s rubbish!

GRANT McCALLUM: —was the National Party. I’m proud of that and, believe me, I look forward to taking it to select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Now, before I call the next speaker, can I just remind members about the unparliamentary language coming there on my left. I know it’s an emotive topic for some, but just maintain it.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I was about to make a comment about peace almost breaking out in the House tonight until the speech from the previous speaker, Grant McCallum, where he quite inaccurately claimed that the previous Government had not taken steps on this. I do just want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Damien O’Connor, who has been very passionate about this issue and has done a lot of work on it.

I want to take some time to talk briefly about the bill, but before I get there, I just want to reiterate some of the position that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell laid out at the beginning, which is that we will be supporting this bill to select committee but there are some concerns around aspects of the bill. The particular concern that we have, which I’m sure we’ll get to when the next debate comes along, is actually having a short report-back time on this bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. It does have the potential for significant unintended consequences. Actually, I think, from the discussion in the House tonight, everyone that has been part of this debate tonight accepts there is an issue, but, actually, the role of the select committee is to drill into what are the unintended consequences of any legislation and to make sure those get addressed properly. I do just want to put on record my concern around the short report-back time frame on this bill.

Just to get to the crux of it, there are two essential issues from whole-farm conversions that we’re seeing, and that is where we’re seeing the conversion of productive sheep and beef land, particularly, being converted for the purpose of carbon forestry in order to participate in the emissions trading scheme. There are two issues around that. The first is the inaccurate use of land, essentially—I say inaccurate, but it’s the changing land use from using land in a productive way that supports the growth of our economy but also continues to support a really important sector for New Zealand. There is that part of it, and the second part is the distortion with the emissions trading scheme.

Now, I want to talk about that a little bit, because, on the whole—and I think my colleagues have made these points very, very well—there needs to be a greater focus on actually reducing emissions. That needs to be the bigger focus for our nation. However, there are also appropriate times when increasing the use of things like forestry in order to create alternatives for activities that create more carbon actually is helpful, so we have to be careful that we also don’t make so many changes to the emissions trading scheme that we end up actually undermining what we’re attempting to do. These are the kinds of things that need to be discussed in the select committee process.

I do just want to point out that it’s interesting hearing the ACT Party saying that they’re not taking away choice; the party that likes to promote private property rights above all else are making in their—and even nodding when I say that. This is an impairment on private property use. It is, essentially, banning carbon farms and stopping carbon farms, so there is an anomaly here from the ACT Party that I thought would be useful to point out to the House tonight.

The point is that we in the Labour Party do agree that using productive land in a way that takes away from its ability to support key sectors in our economy, particularly food-producing ones, is something that we should be turning our minds to, and we do support the House turning its mind to this particular issue.

In my area of Nelson and the wider area of Tasman, we have seen these issues presenting themselves—which I’m sure you will be aware of, Madam Speaker; just bringing you into the debate briefly—not only turning productive land into carbon farms but also turning productive land—and I’ll get this word in tonight—into large swathes of housing across urban—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Swathes!

RACHEL BOYACK: —yes—around some of our most productive land, is something that has concerned us as well.

I do commend this bill to the House. I do hope that the select committee will be able to get into some of the details of the bill and have the appropriate amount of time to ensure it comes back to the House in a way that will support our communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is such an important issue for the part of the country that I come from, Tairāwhiti, East Coast, home to forestry, farming, and fishing. I am delighted to stand in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. It absolutely makes sense for us. We in Tairāwhiti depend on forestry and farming, and the balance needs to be found. The balance is found through this bill, and I am delighted that now all of the farmers in Tairāwhiti who keep asking me when this bill is coming and when we are doing this and when we will get it through the House can now stop asking me, because it is happening.

I also just want to make a point that in 1988, after Cyclone Bola, we mass-planted pine trees everywhere because we thought that was the solution. That’s been found to not be the solution, and this bill now follows up on that.

I just want to say that it’s ironic that the Opposition has finally realised that the rural economy is the backbone of this country and that they have finally realised that it was their policies that ruined rural communities in the East Coast and ruined the schools. I am so pleased that they’re now supporting it and they’ve figured that out. I’m just so pleased that the 3 percent of farmers who said they supported them will be very pleased with that—good luck with that. National is the party for farmers. We campaigned on this, and we have delivered. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

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

Ayes 102

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

Noes 19

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to Environment Committee

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The committee will consider the bill for seven weeks. This reflects the urgent nature of the bill to limit whole-farm conversions of exotic forestry in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) that are negatively impacting rural communities and the economy. The policy has been well signalled to the public through the second emissions reduction plan and our announcement on 4 December of last year.

We acknowledge the bill necessarily adds some complexity to the emissions trading scheme registration, and, therefore, we value the scrutiny of both the committee and the public of the bill.

We’ve made a commitment to the public to have the legislation in force from October 2025. As part of the process to meet that deadline, we require the bill to pass through the House with sufficient time to establish the associated regulations and the IT system to manage new registration processes in the ETS.

Delivering this legislation on time will also provide certainty for foresters on land-use capability rules and their ability to plant for the next season, reduce regulatory uncertainty for the forestry sector, provide certainty for farmers seeking to plant parts of their farm and diversify income, and continue to support confidence in the emissions trading scheme.

As a result of the announcement last year, a number of companies and others involved in forestry have not been able to make considered decisions about what they would do for this season. The reason we are to get this in place so quickly is so that they, too, will not lose another season next year, given that when people make a decision, they can’t plant straight away. I commend the bill to the House, and thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just get the Minister to clarify, please. I didn’t quite catch it. Was the report-back date 13 August or 30 August? I didn’t quite catch it, Minister, I’m sorry.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): Thirteen—13.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are under urgency with a bill that’s—to be honest—been on the boil for a while, as the regulatory impact statement shows, and the Minister has now just moved that the report-back period be truncated, with a series of other restrictions. I think that the Government throws those in just out of an excess of caution, and it’s sort of belts and braces. For example, he has moved that the committee is authorised to meet at any time that the House is sitting, other than question time, and I just can’t see why that needs to be included.

Also, I honestly don’t see the urgency for this. On this side of the House, we see the policy reason for this bill, and I note that that’s been very clear in the speeches, but this is a problem which has been well identified and which has been thrown around. Even whilst we were in Government, I know that we were looking at issues like this, and to suggest that there’s going to be some kind of rush and, in the next seven weeks, our hills are going to be filled with pine seedlings just doesn’t hold water.

The other thing is this, and this is really important: this Government, or at least one of the parties in this Government, is big on regulatory process, and, once again, we have a regulatory impact statement which identifies flaws in the regulatory impact procedure. I want to identify them because it just shows that this Government says one thing and does another, and we know what that is.

It says in the regulatory impact statement, under the quality assurance section, that “The costs and benefits of the preferred option are qualitative, due both to the final design decisions not [being] known and lack of public consultation”—so there are two things in there. First of all, when they say that the cost-benefit analysis is qualitative, they mean that they haven’t done quantitative work, and we need time so that people who care and who want to speak to the select committee can have a reasonable length of time to look at the proposals and provide evidence to the select committee.

I want to say that I’m always impressed that within the usual six-week period for submissions, parties come with very well-thought-out analysis, often of a detailed nature. Here, that is what we need, because there has been a qualitative cost-benefit analysis, which means that they’ve talked to people, but there’s been no genuine Treasury-style cost-benefit analysis, and we need time for that.

Then there’s the big one—the so-called regulatory principle that the people who are affected by a change should be consulted on it. That’s actually a good principle. I agree with that principle, and one of the main tools in this House for implementing that principle is the select committee process. But in a seven-week period, it’s inappropriate, because you’re only going to give—how many weeks are you going to give? You’ve got to get a briefing, you’ve got to call for submissions, you’ve got to analyse the submissions, maybe hear from the submitters—hopefully, we’ll hear from the submitters—and how long are they going to get to get those submissions in? Two weeks, if you’re lucky. That’s not long enough. That’s not long enough.

These are rural communities you’re talking about. These are not beltway Wellingtonian bureaucrats; these are rural communities, and I hope you’ll go out and tell your rural communities to have their say. They deserve a lot more than two weeks to submit on it. They’ve got their cows to milk and their sheep to milk, as well, so that’s an important point.

Look, I really want to say this because in the regulatory impact statement here—it’s on the Table. Grab a copy. I know you won’t read it, but it says that there’s a lack of public consultation, and those are the words it uses: “decisions are not yet known and [there’s a] lack of public consultation, which could have contributed [to] further information.”—which isn’t available—“While it is noted that some consultation is planned, through both targeted engagement and the select committee process”. This regulatory impact statement says there hasn’t been enough consultation and the fix is a select committee process, and it’s the select committee process which you’re now seeking to truncate, and that is, yet again, a bad thing, because people do need to have their say.

This is an important matter, as the ACT Party well knows. You’re now taking away this bill when we want to look at it with a critical eye. There’s an important thing that people need to be consulted on, because if you’ve just gone out and bought yourself a large rolling bit of country that’s category 6 land, thinking, “I’m going to plant a whole lot of carbon trees on that”, that right is being taken away from you. Your property rights are being impaired. I wonder if those people who will submit to the select committee—if they get a decent chance—will say that they deserve compensation, because that’s the ACT Party’s policies. Now, they deserve to have their say because this is a significant change. This is a very significant change in the ability to use land in the way that you choose.

Now, we want to have a good look at it. That’s the other thing—the period of time available to MPs—because this regime is not straightforward. It is a complicated regime, and fast law is not usually good law. We need not only time for submitters to write good, fulsome, and thoughtful submissions but also a period of time to read those submissions—properly read them—and not read them at 10 o’clock one night and turn up at 9 o’clock the next morning, but to read them and reflect on them, to actually reflect on what’s in those submissions, to let the information sort itself out, and come with some genuine reflections.

There is something this Government’s not particularly good at, and that is doing justice to submissions. We know that they didn’t even look at most of the Treaty principles bill’s submissions. I think, here, that this is a bill which deserves every submission to be properly read—and, hopefully, read by MPs from both sides of the House—because it is an important bill.

The thrust of the Minister’s first reading speech here was about protecting rural and remote communities. That’s great. That’s why we are looking to support this bill, to see whether we can contribute to it so that that outcome is actually achieved, but, once again, you need to engage with those rural and remote communities, and that’s not something—

Dana Kirkpatrick: We have.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, you haven’t. Read the regulatory impact statement. To the member who says, “We have”, here’s a wee heads-up: the purpose of a regulatory impact statement is to give an independent view of the pre-introduction work that has been done, and it says that there has not been adequate public consultation—a C- is what you get. This regulatory impact statement says the legislation partially meets the quality standard. This place here is the final quality check on legislation, and a seven-week process for what is clearly a complex piece of legislation, touching on both property rights and community values is socially complex, economically complex, and legally complex. Yet here we go. We’re like, “Don’t worry, I’ve talked to my policy advisers.”, and you ram it through, and it’s just bad process once again.

This is a situation where the select committee absolutely needs to have a full—well, not even a full process; I’m going to table an amendment. I accept that you want to get it done, but at least the minimum is the four-month process.

Then, once again, you say the committee has all these special powers to meet on Fridays, to meet when the House is sitting except at question time, to meet outside of Wellington, and all that stuff. It’s foolish to put it in, because it’s unnecessary. Now, if you want to have a truncated process, fine, but you don’t need those special powers. You certainly don’t need to meet whilst the House is sitting. What select committee meets after 7 o’clock at night? What select committee meets at 3 o’clock, other than the Business Committee and what have you. No, subject select committees have never met whilst the House is sitting in normal sitting hours, so those sorts of things are just ridiculous. We simply can’t support this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Before I call the next speaker, I’m not confident that I got the question out before the point of order, so I’ll just put the question again. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I am deeply concerned by the very short report-back period that has been proposed for this bill by the Government, by the Minister of Forestry, just now. Originally, when the Minister spoke in his initial speech, I thought he’d said 30 August, and I thought, “Hmm, that’s pretty short. That won’t do justice to this bill. But, OK, that’s close enough to two months, I guess we can do it.” Then it turns out that I had misheard. I asked for clarification, and it turns out to be 13 August, so about a seven-week process for this bill.

I want to explain why that’s really deeply problematic and why we actually ought to have a longer report back. Let me quote some words—actually, I’ll have to paraphrase them because I didn’t write them down at the time, but I do recall the words quite clearly, from a New Zealand First Minister, from Minister Mark Patterson, when he spoke to this bill. What he said was something to the effect of either the most significant—or, I think, maybe he said this was the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament. I thought, well, that’s a big ask, to say it’s the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament. Then he qualified it; he said, “for rural communities”. That’s quite significant—the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament for rural communities. A key member of the Government regards this as an incredibly consequential piece of legislation. A consequential piece of legislation like this deserves full consideration from the Environment Committee.

Now, let me talk about that in a couple of moments. As my colleague Dr Webb has alluded to, we are talking about rural communities who are affected by this, and many of them live in remote areas and so on, so many people who perhaps don’t have as easy access to Parliament as city dwellers will be affected by this bill. I have family members myself who are sheep and beef farmers out around Ōhura, the back blocks of Taranaki, in that dissected hill country—they’re not great townies. For people like them—and this is going to affect them—it’s a huge ask to come and submit on this sort of bill. Even though this is the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament for rural communities, I find that shortened report-back period does not give sufficient weight to rural communities.

That is not the only problem with this very shortened report-back period and why we actually do really need the extra time. I want to speak here, too, to some of the experts that we would hope would give us some feedback on this particular piece of legislation. By the way, I’m talking about people who are absolutely expert in the workings of the emissions trading scheme. Now, as I noted in my speech on the bill in the first reading, the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t—and I couldn’t find it anywhere in this—have any analysis of the impact on the emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme is horrendously complicated in terms of understanding the economic impacts of what’s going on there. It sounds like a simple scheme until, as I’ve had to do of late, one starts trying to really get to grips with it to understand the complexity of it. The subtleties of it take a great deal of understanding. Frankly, I rely on some of the experts to point out where some of the issues are and so on.

Now, we want experts to come and speak to us about this piece of legislation, to tell us what the impact is. Dr Christina Hood would be a great person to come and talk to us. I’d like to hear from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on this piece of legislation. Given his enormous report on forestry, that I’ve already referred to, it would be useful to know whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment can add anything to the analysis. I would hope that the Climate Change Commission would do so. Here’s the problem: we’ll be asking experts for their well-considered and expert opinion on this piece of legislation, and yet it has come to this House very abruptly and without time for them to even track down the regulatory impact statement. When I was corresponding with Dr Christina Hood earlier today, she said she had been unable to find the regulatory impact statement anywhere, and I took quite an effort to find it. Even on the day that the bill was first being debated, it was hard to find the analysis. We need to give those experts time, actually, to consider the legislation—to work their way through the regulatory impact statement, which is a pretty dense piece of writing there—and to actually come to a considered opinion. That all takes time. We absolutely want that kind of time available to the select committee.

There was that sort of thing. I do want to read exactly something that my colleague Dr Webb said, and it’s on the regulatory impact statement, and I’ll direct members of the Government to pick up a copy from the Table. It’s on page 17, right down the bottom, under “Public consultation”, and it says, “Ministers have chosen to proceed with legislative change without substantive prior public consultation.” Now, I heard members of the Government, in response to my colleague Dr Webb, saying repeatedly that, in fact, there had been consultation, they’d talked about it for years, and they had run on it in an election campaign, and so on. That is, nevertheless, not the formal consultation that a Government is expected to undertake. Consultation has not been undertaken. In particular, if the select committee process is in some way to mitigate that lack of consultation, then we do need to have a much longer period of time available to the select committee.

We hope that the Environment Committee will be able to meet on Thursday and to make a call for submissions, but in the meantime, the chair of that committee is going to need to consult with the leads from other parties as to even the appropriate length of time to open submissions for and how the process is going to be managed. I think this whole process needs more time. To this end, I will absolutely be supporting my colleague Dr Webb’s proposed amendment, where he suggests that instead of this quite frantic seven-week process, at least we go to a four-month process. I just invite the Minister to reflect on the fact that had he opted for an at least plausible four-month process, then we wouldn’t have needed to have been having this debate right now. I urge the House to consider a much longer select committee process, even if it’s not the full six-month process.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 24 JUNE 2025

(continued on Wednesday, 25 June 2025)

Bills

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Environment Committee

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good morning. When we finished last evening, we were debating an instruction to the Environment Committee on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also wanted to weigh in on this particular referral motion to the Environment Committee by the Minister Todd McClay. I think, like what the speakers mentioned last night, there is a particularly concerning trend where we’re looking at an incredibly truncated select committee stage. In this case, we’re looking at even just the default, and even if you’re looking at the lower end of that select committee process of being four months, instead of the full six months, what we’re seeing is a drastically truncated select committee process of seven weeks, which, to be perfectly honest, doesn’t give the public a lot of time to submit on it.

Now, I know that there are people who may be, potentially, looking at ways of amending the motion, but I just want to speak more broadly to the motion itself at this stage. One of the things that we do see as being the rationale for the truncated select committee stage going to 13 August 2025, as indicated in the motion, is the fact that according to the Minister, “The policy has been well signalled to the public through the second emissions reduction plan and our announcement on 4 December of last year.” But I think one of the things we need to be very clear on is that signalling to the public is very different from hearing from the public and consulting the public as part of our democratic process.

I think that particular positioning of just signalling at the end of last year doesn’t really stand, because there hasn’t been an opportunity for the public to submit on this bill or even to see this bill and the context of this bill. Indeed, the Minister himself has acknowledged that the bill adds some complexities to the emissions trading scheme’s registration. So there are a lot of details in this bill that are very technical by nature and will take time for the public to actually submit on it. Again, I don’t think that it is appropriate for us to have the truncated select committee stage of only seven weeks.

Additionally, the Minister commented in his address last night on the commitment to have the legislation in force by October 2025. There are a couple of things with that. Number one is: what is the issue? Like, for example, when we’re looking at a select committee report-back date of 13 August, from October 2025, if the legislation itself is dated that it will come into effect the day after Royal assent, that’s still a month and a half—seven weeks—in fact, between 13 August and October 2025. There’s more than enough time to extend the select committee stage, if the Government really cares about this bill, to actually put it on the Order Paper for the second reading, committee stage, and the third reading to be conducted within a two-week period, and particularly you could find any of the two sitting weeks in August to actually do something like this if you want the bill to be implemented in October.

Alternatively, you could actually push it out, for example, from 13 August to even just a few weeks later to give a few more weeks of time to, let’s say, 13 September—oh, maybe not 13 September, because there’s two recess weeks then, but the beginning of September—and you will then still have two sitting weeks at the beginning of September to be able to complete the bill for it to come into effect. Or alternatively, if you’re looking at it coming into force from August, August is a long month; there are 31 days. If it’s referring to any time in August, you can actually push the select committee and report-back date to the first sitting week of October, and there’ll still be sufficient time for us to do this and give the New Zealand public a little bit more time to consult on this bill. So I think it’s not impossible for us to delay it and give more time.

The other question I also have is: in this case, when we’re looking at the date of October 2025, why October 2025? What’s the rationale? What is hoped to be achieved before the end of the year, between October 2025 and December? Because again, if we’re able to look at having the legislation come into force, even just a little bit later, if it’s not a significant delay, we can actually push out the legislation date and also push out the date for the select committee stage as well. Because at the end of the day, this is an important bill that the Greens have supported to select committee stage because we wanted to see what the potential impact of the select committee process is. We also don’t think that having a seven-week select committee stage is appropriate for us to get as much information as possible from the officials about the fish-hooks to do with this legislation, bearing in mind that in those seven weeks not only will there be a submission period, a hearing period, but it will also require Parliamentary Counsel Office and other officials to help support drafting any amendments to the bill, which will also take weeks.

So, in fact, there are very little—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Everybody knows that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: If that particular member thinks that everybody knows that, then why do we need a truncated seven-week stage and to add additional pressure to the select committee? It is, frankly, insulting and idiotic. This is the issue with this particular Government, because this Government claims they seem to know what the democratic process is, with some very senior members in this very House who have been here for ages. But, frankly, they seem to not understand the very basics of what a democratic consultation is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, you do?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: And being a first-term MP, I seem to know what it’s like better than some long-term members in this House.

I actually do think that this is actually a really worthwhile debate. [Interruption] And I’m really glad, to the member, that I’m hearing a little mosquito buzzing in my ear, giving me additional things to talk about for the last three minutes of this particular contribution. So I very much thank that mosquito.

In terms of this, like I said, we would like to have a longer select committee stage, because we would like to be able to ask officials—this is complex—because we do want to hear from various ministries on this that are relevant to this, not only the Ministry for Primary Industries but the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and other officials as well. I do think that it is worthwhile—and I’m sure that other people will have contributions and will have amendments—for us to really look at the motion and particularly the report-back date of 13 August 2025. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise. I move, That the report-back date be a period of four months. I do so because that gives effect to some of the previous contributions that have been made by members on this side of the House last night.

In relation to this bill, for the benefit of those tuning in at home early this morning, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, they’re tuning out.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, they might be tuning out as we get to the Rt Hon Winston Peters later in the morning. I think he’s here because he knows that the Racing Industry Amendment Bill is on the list and he’s wanting us to get to it. But he will just have to wait until we get to that point.

It was really interesting. I was not in the House last night, but I did listen and watch the contributions of members, so I want to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with what is a shortened report-back date. There was some confusion last night, and, thankfully, the Minister was able to clarify what date he actually meant. Members on this side of the House thought that he said 30 August as opposed to 13 August. The amendment that I have proposed is slightly longer than that, but does give somewhat of a runway for the community to engage in this process.

I think it’ll be over, obviously, to the Environment Committee to work through the submission process, but I think it’s also very, very important that when the House issues an instruction to select committees, it is followed through. Despite what members in this House might say, it is the resolution of the House that specified direction that is what is important. I say that because we have had, in the past—in the recent past, actually—a situation where a Chair has been questioned about the decisions taken around the time frame that seemed to be at odds with what was, effectively, a referral period from this House. So that’s a matter for the Environment Committee.

However, in seeking a four-month report-back date, I would hope that that provides a little bit more certainty—well, it will provide certainty, because it’s specified—to the community to be able to engage in this submission process. Now, the good thing, of course, is that this is a bill that is going to go for a submission process. Unfortunately, we often see the modus operandi of this Government, which is that when bills are introduced under urgency, there is actually no select committee referral process. So that is helpful.

But this is a bill that is complex, and I don’t say that because that’s my own view around that; that is the view of Government Ministers that are responsible for shepherding this bill through the Parliament. In fact, New Zealand First Minister the Hon Mark Patterson indicated that in terms of the impact on rural communities—and he is the Minister that holds the rural communities portfolio—this is a significant issue. So one would have thought, actually, that if it is a significant issue, and that’s not, perhaps, a word or a descriptor that that particular Minister uses from time to time, but if he is saying that it is significant for rural communities, the ministerial warrant that he holds, then I would have thought that being able to engage with the rural and non-rural community for an extended period of time, albeit a shorter period than the normal six-month report-back process, would have been a no-brainer. So it is concerning that we are looking at 13 August in relation to that complexity.

It’s interesting, because last night I received an email from a constituent who was interested in the progress of this bill through the House. I indicated that it hadn’t actually made it through the House yet. What that demonstrates is that there is quite a level of interest in this. While fundamentally this might limit the amount or the quantity of land that could be basically used or converted to forestry for the purposes of the emissions trading scheme, this might impact on rural communities directly but it also has an indirect kind of relativity to a whole range of different community members. So this debate is about what is the appropriate length of time that this House would set aside for this matter to be looked into.

It’s interesting, because what the House heard last night from some Government members, by way of interjection, is that the public already know about this. Well, there are a lot of things that the public already know about; what’s really important, though, is: what are the parameters by which this House sets to allow for the public to engage in that process? Yes, we are in urgency, but I’ve looked at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and there are a number of matters in there. What I find really interesting—and this goes to the point around the haste with which this Government seeks to truncate or shorten the report-back period of time—is that we have a RIS, and, again, that’s good, because sometimes this is a Government that doesn’t actually want to put a RIS up for some of its bills.

The other thing I’d say—and the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has indicated our cautious support for this—is that we are not in opposition to this bill receiving its first reading; in fact, we’ve actually already voted in favour of it. But what we want to make sure of is that there is adequate and ample time for the community to engage. When I look at the regulatory impact statement, what I find quite interesting is that this is something that was completed—the initial regulatory impact statement—in October of last year. There had been some amendments; Ministers had taken decisions, as we understand it, in March of this year, and so the analysis comes here. This is not something that, as Opposition members might say, you know, the public have not been aware of—yes, they have, and I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that the Government has given a public commitment that they want to see this enacted by October 2025. I think that is the driving reason behind the shortened report-back period that this Government seeks for the House to entertain.

Now, this was a piece of work, or a suite of changes, that was in the pipeline for some time. You know, what we’re starting to see is there are a number of things that are in the pipeline, but, for some reason, the Government wants to truncate what is a really important scrutiny aspect when it comes to particular bills. So let’s not forget that part of the purpose of the select committee process is to allow the committee time to work through not just the submissions but also what the responses are going to be in relation to the specific submissions that are received, and also the advice that officials and officers of the committee may provide. So my amendment of a four-month period I think strikes an appropriate balance between not the full period of time but also not a shortened truncated period of, you know, 13 August or thereabouts.

The final point I wish to make is that the regulatory impact statement does raise a few issues around—and my colleagues have touched on this, and I’ve delved into it a little bit—the qualitative versus the quantitative sort of response. What is really clear in the RIS is that this is a suite of changes that has not had the opportunity for public engagement, and we know that, because when we have a look at that time frame from October of last year right through to March and April, and as recently as last night, the Government obviously has been working on it.

So we would like to see that this is something that is given the fullness of the House’s attention, and we think that a four-month—well, I think—period is an appropriate report-back time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Members, the question for the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion. Vanushi Walters.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you for the ability to take a call and to support the proposed amendment by my colleague Tangi Utikere. I must say that having returned to the House, one of the things that I am very disappointed with is the sense that there is a lack of understanding that the locus of democracy in New Zealand sits with people; it doesn’t sit with Parliament. The role that people play and the voices that they have and their opinions must be taken into account when we’re making legislation. It’s simply not optional.

It’s important because, in my view, democracy is an experiment in trust; it’s not a given. To show that we are using that trust responsibly, we must take legislation through an appropriate process. I think what we’re seeing in terms of some of the data that’s coming out in terms of trust, we’re seeing a real lag in trust for our democratic institutions. We saw a report come out from the Helen Clark Foundation earlier this year that said that only—[Interruption]

The Government members may laugh but, actually, it is important what the public think. On the basis of data, it is important what the public think, and what the report found was that only 42 percent of people believe the Government acts in their best interests most or all of the time. Civic engagement is low. People aren’t participating because they do not believe that their voices will be heard in Parliament. And it’s a trend we’re seeing. It is a trend that we’ve seen over a number of years as well, that we’re simply not seeing engagement with parliamentary systems and we’re seeing a significant lack of trust in Parliament. This data is important.

This is a Government that clearly doesn’t believe that it’s important to go through the proper processes of lawmaking, because sometimes mistakes can be made. We certainly saw that through the use of urgency a few weeks back through the Budget debates, where we debated the Invest New Zealand Bill as one of the bills coming through Parliament. We’ll see it up in the House later today as well. But during committee stage, it was very clear that the intent of the bill was to name the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as the individual who could be appointed as a special visor by the Minister. However, the bill did not state that. The bill did not state that, not because that wasn’t the intent, clearly—the Minister did speak to that. It simply wasn’t in the bill. So we must ensure that we provide time for us to catch those mistakes. That’s entirely what the select committee process is for. Going from six months to six weeks does not give us the time to be able to do that.

What’s more, and colleagues have spoken about this, but this Government had the time to allow the public to digest this information. They had the regulatory impact statement in October last year. These have been issues that have been around for years, but people are being given six weeks to engage. There was an option to, and they’ve chosen not to. They’re demonstrating the truth of what we’ve heard many times over in the Justice Committee over the last several weeks as we’ve been discussing the four-year-term bill. One, that there isn’t trust. But there’s also a sense that many parliamentarians are treating the select committee process as a tick-box exercise, not a true space for listening to people’s views, for being open to the ability to change provisions within a bill before it’s finalised, and for the select committee to truly recommend changes. That simply isn’t happening.

Last night, Dr Duncan Webb spoke about who would be able to respond, and he made the excellent point that the rural communities who the Government often refer to as serving would not be necessarily able to reprioritise work, engage with the bill, actively digest reports that ought to be coming to the table to be considered by select committee. Those communities are busy. Those communities are hard-working communities and deserve the right—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, really? When did you discover that? When did you find that out?

VANUSHI WALTERS: They deserve—Mr Peters—the right to engage with these issues just as much as is the Wellington Beltway. They are not. I went to Laingholm School in West Auckland as part of the parliamentary outreach with colleagues from across the House who, in good faith, were there to talk to young people about the value of them engaging with the parliamentary process as well.

Now, to truly get young people engaged on issues that are coming up in the House, we also need to provide them with the time to be able to digest the reports, with the time to be able to speak to teachers and parents, and, for many of our submitters, the time to be able to muster up that sense that they can be heard too and put their views forward. We should not be going the other way on the basis of the data that we have that New Zealanders aren’t trusting our parliamentary systems. We should be looking for better ways to engage rural communities, better, more engaging ways to include young people’s views as well. If this Government truly did care about what New Zealanders thought, they would be taking the time to hear from New Zealanders.

Now, last week, we had scrutiny in the House, and I had the privilege of questioning the Hon Judith Collins in her role as Attorney-General in her responsibility for PCO—the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Another thing that the Government appeared to have a disregard for is the people who work in the role of preparing and drafting and proposing amendments in relation to the legislation that we produce. They are under the pump. You can go back and listen to the hearings. They are absolutely under the pump. The reports that we received talked about the stress it puts on the system when Government—any Government—takes a big mandate of bills through urgency or shortens the period of time that PCO have to actively engage, not just with what the Government have proposed and want to do, but also what the people have suggested as amendments.

We need to be respectful that there are layers of process, including drafting layers, that must be adhered to if we are to get legislation that truly sticks and is lasting in New Zealand. New Zealanders are frustrated by Governments and Parliaments that pendulum swing back and forth because legislation hasn’t adequately been considered in Parliament, and this has to change. It must change.

I started by saying that democracy is an experiment in trust. It’s not a given; it’s an experiment in trust, and members will see what has happened globally when Governments have been irresponsible with the democratic processes, the procedures that both sides have put into place to ensure that we’re making sound law, not for ourselves, not for our egos, but for New Zealanders, and that we are making sound law and that we are actually providing New Zealanders with a fair and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This is a Government that is not doing that.

Once again, I would call on Government members—thank you for your silence at this stage; I hope that means you’re listening—to support the amendment that was proposed by my colleague. It doesn’t go as far as six months, but we believe that it is a reasonable, fair opportunity for New Zealanders to be heard, and a reasonable, fair opportunity for PCO and the advisers engaging with this important legislation to help us get it right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): At this stage, I’ll take another speaker, but we’ll be looking for very precise and new material pertaining to both the amendment and to the original motion.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do exactly as you instruct, but I would, if I may, please move, That the motion be amended to change the words “13 August 2025” to “25 November 2025”.

The effect of that is that—the motion being debated currently is that the submission process move out to four months. The effect of my amendment would be to move it out to five months. This is recognition that if it were to be six months, the closure of the submission process would be Christmas day—that is too long, but the current proposal would mean as little as 10 days for people to compile their submissions and evaluate this piece of legislation so that it would be completed by 13 August. That is vastly too short a time.

I want to recognise what members on the other side of the House said last night in the debate, and remind everybody—and for your clarity, Mr Speaker—that we are in unanimity about the need for us to address this big problem of loss of productive land to pine forests. So we are all in agreement this is a step in the right direction, though a tentative step, but it is a very significant piece of legislation. One of the members from New Zealand First—Minister Mark Patterson—said last night that he believes it is one of the most significant pieces of law to be passed through this House in this Parliament, in this term.

Andy Foster: For rural communities.

STEVE ABEL: For rural communities. Why, therefore, has there not been given sufficient time for those communities most impacted by this, who are at the coalface of understanding the extent of what pine conversion is doing? They are expressing very clearly that there are real challenges with this legislation as it is currently drafted. Surely it is appropriate that we have a fulsome submission process. We need to hear from the likes of Beef + Lamb New Zealand, who are concerned that the foundation of our breeding farms will be diminished by 15,000 hectares a year—this is Beef + Lamb speaking to the flaws with this bill as currently drafted. Why shouldn’t this House do the right thing by those farmers that this Government purports to represent and allow them time to bring the case for what would be the appropriate amendments to this legislation?

We want it to go to the select committee so that we can truly address the number of challenges and distortions potentially created by the bill. One such distortion is that by permitting class 6 land to have 15,000 hectares go into a lottery, there is a risk that farmers will be, one, unable to plan for what they intend to do, and, secondly, that 150,000 hectares of land will be lost over the course of a decade—that important, vital land that Beef + Lamb point out is the foundation of their breeding farms.

Why wouldn’t this House and the Government allow a substantial submission process for us to understand the distortions created by the bill and the risks that this bill brings in terms of actually making the problem worse and the problem more complex? As my colleague Vanushi Walters pointed out, this issue has been an issue for a long time, and on 4 December, the Minister made announcements at a Federated Farmers event in Gore about this legislation being on the way. Why is it now being rushed at the last hour, when it should be thoroughly prosecuted through a select committee process?

Our proposition of five months would mean we are done by Christmas. It would extend the number of days that the submission process could be open for to five weeks. That would give time for people to actually make substantive submissions and for the committee to take the time to take those into account and get thorough advice from officials on what the impacts of this bill are. If this legislation, as the Government claims, is so significant for rural communities—it directly impacts on private property rights that the Government purport to be deeply concerned about—surely we should give the time for those who are impacted by the legislation, who are having their private property rights restricted in terms of what they can do with their planting of pine trees, and surely they should have a right to respond to it in a thorough amount of time. We risk, under the current proposal of the Government for a 13 August closure—only 10 days for submissions to be sent in. That is all too little time, and is an insult, frankly, to rural communities and landowners and farmers who will be impacted.

Importantly, one of the clauses in the bill speaks to the exclusion of Māori land from the legislation. That is a good thing, that is a sensible thing, because a lot of that marginal land that Māori are putting into forestry is out of necessity because it is the only means for them to make a living from it. Discussion on how that is thoroughly dealt with is an important part of the process and we are putting, once again, the onus on another impacted group—tangata whenua Māori and the various iwi and representatives of Māori—to come up with a submission in the space of a mere 10 days.

I am moving my motion that we make that submission process a closure on 25 November, therefore allowing five weeks for submissions and a decent amount of time for the committee to fully evaluate and understand the legislation and to hear from officials what the core issues are and how we deal with them to make this an effective means to deal with a very serious problem we have in this country: loss of productive land to pine forests. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debateable together with the motion.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the ability to take a call on the various motions around when this bill should be reported back. Of course, we’ve had my colleague Tangi Utikere put up a four-month time frame. We’ve had Steve Abel put up a five-month time frame, pointing out that the six-month time frame, which is the standard time frame for bills in the Standing Orders, would result in a Christmas report-back date, which is obviously problematic. So we all accept that we don’t need a six-month time frame for this bill, but the seven weeks that the Government has put up is too short. And, of course, there is a recess coming up and then we’re sitting again and then there’s another recess week before 13 August, which is a sitting day—a sitting Wednesday—that the Government has suggested that we report back on this bill. That is too short.

I want to take us to a point that the previous speakers touched on, and that is the lottery system in this bill. Actually, I want to focus on the ballot requirements; it’s the ballot that is talked about in this bill. The Government has said a number of times, “Look, people have been aware of this issue; we put out a press release on 4 December 2024.” That is true, there was a press release put out on 4 December 2024 in the names of the Hon Todd McClay and the Hon Simon Watts, being both agriculture and climate change and, I believe, Todd McClay is also forestry. But the thing that I want to point out is that this press release—and I’ve read some subsequent media articles that picked up on this issue as well—does not mention the ballot as far as I can see. So it says, “The farm to forestry changes include: A moratorium … An annual registration cap of 15,000 hectares for exotic forestry registrations on LUC 6 farmland.” Then it goes on: allowing up to 25 percent to be planted, the ability for landowners to have their categorisation reassessed, excluding specific categories of Māori-owned land, and transitional measures. I have not, obviously, gone into all the detail there reading out that press release, but there is no mention of the ballot that I can see, and this is important because a lot of the bill is about the ballot.

So we see on page 11 of the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): You’ll be wanting to context this—very much so—now that you’re digging into the details of the bill itself.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, the point is, Mr Speaker, that the ballot requirements make up quite a significant part of the bill, and this is something that I believe was—I’m happy for the Government members to take a call and explain how everybody was well aware of the ballot requirements. This bill now has a number of pages—it’s quite a short bill—around the ballot requirements—

Hon Louise Upston: It’s about the report back; it’s not about the policy.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —that were not signalled. Minister Upston is saying that I should be speaking on the timing of the report back, and this is entirely related to the timing of the report back because the Environment Committee is being given seven weeks to report back on issues that have not been signalled to the public. These are new issues that different groups need to get their heads around, and it includes requirements here for the EPA—the Environmental Protection Authority—to administer a ballot. This would have been useful to know at the scrutiny week, when we could have asked the Minister for the Environment, who has the Vote for the EPA, to say, “Well, how is it that this ballot is going to be funded?”

These are real questions that we need to ask officials and the EPA about, whereas seven weeks—this is not signalled. A lot of the bill is about the ballot, and that is in addition to all of the other matters that are not apparent when you just read a press release that says, “Farm conversions are going to be stopped.” Because if you just heard that—“Farm conversions are going to be stopped”—of course there are going to be some transitional provisions around that. There’s this 25 percent, there’s going to be a lot of mapping required, and there are a lot of regulations that need to be made under this bill as well. But then we see the bill, and it’s actually a lot more complicated, which is why the select committee needs more than seven weeks to report back.

We’ve had the suggestions—we’ve had the other motions—saying four months or five months, and those are much more realistic time frames. Four months is a time frame whereby this House does not get the opportunity to do a debate like this because it is accepted that whilst four months is shorter than the normal six months, there is enough time for some scrutiny for the advisers to come and tell the select committee what the bill is about and for the submitters to make submissions. I acknowledge that most of the people who will be making submissions on this bill are likely to understand both the emissions trading scheme (ETS)—and it’s a fairly small group of people in New Zealand that can say that, but I’m sure those people who do understand the ETS will be making submissions and that these people are busy and they won’t have very many weeks in which to make the submissions. If you take the seven weeks, obviously the committee has to have time to hear those submissions well before the end of those seven weeks. So when is it that the people will be able to make submissions, these highly sought after people who know about the ETS?

Also, there will be farming groups who want to make submissions as well, and landowners who will be trying to get to grips with—they have this Land Use Capability class 6 land—what this ballot means for them and how the ballot will work or not work and whether the regulations that go with the ballot and also the EPA will be sufficient or not.

So the point is seven weeks—13 August—is very soon. The Government promised in December last year to have some legislation in place by October of this year. So that press release I read out was on 4 December. They had a regulatory impact statement before that in October of 2024. Yes, the Government made some further policy changes in March, but it is now the end of June. So if this is really that important to this Government, if it is the most important thing for rural communities ever, and I acknowledge that it is a very important issue, the Government had a choice to bring this piece of legislation to the Environment Committee many moons ago. It has chosen not to do that and, as a consequence, people who know about the ETS, people who know about the forestry sector—of course it’s very relevant to them as well—people who have this land, landowners, are going to miss the opportunity to have their submissions and their concerns properly addressed. That is just not good enough, which is why I am standing in support of my colleague Tangi Utikere’s motion that it should be at least a four month—well, it should be four months, that is what he has put up; it should be four months for the reporting back of this bill, not seven weeks.

We need to hear from these people. We need to consider it properly because if we don’t, then we will have unintended consequences from a complicated new ballot system that I’m fairly sure—I’m happy to be corrected by members on the other side, but I am not aware of the Environmental Protection Authority having an existing ballot system for any of the different jobs that it does. The EPA has many different functions across many different pieces of legislation. It’s quite an interesting organisation: it regulates for hazardous substances; another role is that it administers the ETS, so the emissions scheme, the computers that do the ETS calculations, they are all housed with the EPA.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I call Lawrence Xu-Nan—noting that you have spoken in this debate and any discussion will be around amendments and will be very tight. It’s just quite hard to imagine there will be much more that can be said at this stage. Don’t see it as a challenge, but I’ll be listening very carefully.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to delete the words “at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House” and “196.”

I think one of the things that hasn’t been discussed in terms of the referral motion so far, although there’s been a number of contributions around the date, and I will only speak to the two amendments later on, because I have not spoken to the two amendments. But the first thing I want to address is the broader, I guess, deviation from the Standing Orders and specifically Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. I’ll also speak to the rationale behind my amendment of only ruling out one of the Standing Order exemptions, 196, and not the other two.

Speaking to the other two amendments in terms of the four months and five months first, I think we have heard from the previous speakers on the rationale behind the two. However, noting that in this case I will support my colleague—actually, I support both of them; I support both Tangi Utikere’s amendment to change it to four months and Steve Abel’s amendment to change it to five months, and I do genuinely implore the Minister to consider these two amendments. Now, the reason for that is, should there be additional requirements to get things done before the end of the year, the four months makes logical sense because there are three sitting weeks in November for which the House is able to do the second reading, committee stage, and also the third reading.

I have not spoken on the two amendments and I’m speaking on the two amendments specifically. Should everything be done in November, it still gives December for officials, etc., for implementation. However, if that is not a consideration, the reason I will support Steve Abel’s five months amendment is that there are still two weeks in December for there to be the second reading, committee stage, and also the third reading.

Now, the reason I’m focusing on the exemptions of Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196 is that should there be an absolute requirement that, you know, there’s something that needs to be done within seven weeks, I actually think that the meetings on a Friday under Standing Order 193 makes logical sense and meeting outside of the Wellington area during a sitting—Standing Order 195—is particularly important.

As we heard from the previous speakers, this is something that affects rural communities in particular. So I also then look forward to the opportunity maybe for the Environment Committee to actually go to some of these areas within those seven weeks to actually make it easier for rural communities to be able to submit on this as well and do more public hearings as a result of the truncated time period. I think it’s only fair for the people of New Zealand, and particularly for our rural communities, to be given those opportunities for more of a public hearing in their community as opposed to having to just come in or Zoom into the select committee hearing. That is something that I think is important.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Filibustering and wasting time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I really do think we need some bug spray in this House because there are just a lot of insects buzzing around that I’m hearing.

To be fair, the reason that I’m looking at Standing Order 196 in particular is I do not believe that the select committee should be given the authority and the mandate and the exemption to be able to conduct while the House is sitting, and also particularly in the evening. If it’s just for the official elements, etc., possibly that makes sense. But I think it does, as we’ve seen previously, put an enormous burden on submitters, particularly for those in the evening and those in the morning as well. Also, there is a lot of housework—as we see because we’re currently under urgency—to get through as well. So I don’t think that Standing Order 196 in particular should be exempted as a result of this.

So I would ask other people, and I particularly would ask the Minister, to consider, yes, keeping Standing Orders 193 and 195 as it is in the motion, that makes sense, but 196 is something that I’ll ask the Minister to seriously consider removing from the motion or deleting from the wording of the motion. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Tangi Utikere be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report-back date be a period of four months after the date of the first reading.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Steve Abel be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended to change the words “13 August 2025” to “25 November 2025”.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended to delete the words “at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House” and “196”.

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

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 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to begin by reiterating some key points about this bill. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act to enable regular reviews of some benefits. It establishes a process for the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to regularly review people’s circumstances to ensure that they are receiving the correct entitlement. The changes are expected to create savings to the Government. The full automated decision-making budget package is expected to return $158 million of savings over five years, net of operational costs.

In my final speech, I want to touch further on the processes that will support clients. Firstly, some clients will be engaging with MSD throughout the year to provide updates on their circumstances. The bill provides the review would not be required until 52 weeks after the previous time they confirmed their circumstances with MSD. This process ensures that their engagements confirming a client’s circumstances reset the 52-week period, which is more efficient for MSD and, of course, less onerous for clients. All specified benefits a client is getting will be reviewed together at one time, and MSD clients will not need to seek additional medical certificates as part of the review.

I am aware that, through no fault of their own, some clients will either not be able to respond to the review at all or respond within the required time frame. To support delivery of the policy, the bill will introduce exceptions and exemptions to the process, and MSD will be able to grant some clients an extension of time to respond.

I acknowledge that there’s been concern recently about the use of automated decision-making within the welfare system. However, MSD has a rigorous oversight mechanism for its use of automated decision-making. The automated decision-making standard is required by law and provides safeguards for MSD’s use of automated decision-making.

The changes come into force on 2 March 2026. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, we have another bill that’s been rolled out by this Government that is, sadly, really going to affect our communities. We’re seeing a policy designed to be obtuse, designed to confuse, designed to catch people out so that they can be penalised further.

We see a Government that feels like they’ve given up trying and are now implementing more bureaucracy to ensure that the very people they they’re supposed to be serving are too frightened to ask for help. It’s a real concern for myself, for our communities. I know that Joseph Mooney is concerned about it. He hasn’t been particularly vocal on this, but I’m sure he’ll be a bit vocal later on to denounce what I think is a very, very negative bill for our communities. Beneficiaries shouldn’t fear their Government, but that’s exactly what it seems that this Government wants. It’s a Government that is putting the fear of God into some of our good people at the coalface.

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) admitted during scrutiny week that they’re already under pressure as their front-line operational capacity has remained broadly unchanged and there have been over 700 cuts to their backroom staff. The rise in main benefit recipients now means they must serve an additional 30,000 people, and we’ve already seen a decline in accurate assessment with a quarter of beneficiaries not receiving their full entitlements. Now, the Government has heaped more pressure on MSD’s operational capacity, essentially doubling the amount of jobseeker applications MSD must process in any given year, notwithstanding the forecast rise in jobseeker numbers.

This is on top of other requests the Government has heaped on MSD such as implementing the traffic light system, increasing the amount of job seekers eligible for case management, increasing the amount of sanctions imposed on beneficiaries, and increasing the amount of meetings job seekers must attend. The pressures on our community are endless and people don’t know whether they’re coming or going. There is a line that shows the Government should not have proceeded with these changes, and that’s just from what we can see because a lot of this report is redacted. Why is the Government so afraid of showing us what this policy will really do?

The short period of time between MSD recording a discrepancy and suspending housing allowances will generate more homelessness, and the Government doesn’t have a problem with rolling this out. We heard the Minister this morning give maybe one of the shortest third reading speeches we’ve heard for some time. Rolling out a third reading speech with a bill of such significance is worrying for our communities and for this country. This is going to have an immense effect on our communities, but this Government doesn’t care about the damage they’re causing with these new harsh sanctions because they’re focused, like Mr Seymour is, on their rich mates. That’s what it’s all about.

Never mind the vulnerable who are struggling at the moment. To get a Budget across, you make a sacrifice, and the sacrifices here have been beneficiaries, have been workers, have been women. It’s just a constant strategy from this Government. It will get this Budget through at any length and the sacrifice has been beneficiaries, workers, Māori, Pasifika, our rainbow community, and our disabled community. This is about getting something through at any cost. So this legislation is just another sad example of how this Government bashes beneficiaries.

Joseph Mooney: The Opposition doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, do you think so, Joseph Mooney? Oh, it’s a surprise to hear that from you! No, we do know what we’re talking about because everything is pointing to the—

Grant McCallum: Filibustering.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No filibustering here. Everything is pointing to the communities rising up. This Government does not care about the poor. They do not care about the vulnerable. They have the audacity to pretend that harsh measures are for the benefit of the job seeker, when nothing can be further from the truth.

The regulatory impact statement (RIS) highlights, as I said earlier, that one of the consequences may be that MSD will have to direct more resources towards compliance and therefore away from employment initiatives. They will literally have to put less resources into helping beneficiaries into work, and surely that is not what any reasonable Government should be doing. Research cited in the RIS highlights that sanctions—and that’s where we’re heading, even though they might be denying it—may increase mental and physical health problems, including substance abuse and poverty. But that’s acceptable. That’s acceptable collateral damage for this Government.

Nothing in this legislation is a helping hand for job seekers. It’s a closed fist used to punch down on them. The Government should be ashamed of their cruelty, pretending to care, because our communities are seeing through this. They are seeing through this ACT Party. The ACT Party leader is currently embarrassing himself as the Deputy Prime Minister, attacking good people out there. I don’t mind him attacking me; I enjoy him attacking me. I quite like it. I quite like the Acting Prime Minister attacking me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sounds like an offer, but we might come back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I might be diverting a little bit. But, Mr Seymour, you attack me—I enjoy it. But stop attacking great people like Professor Anne Salmond. These are great people. These are pillars of our community. Show some courage, Mr Seymour, and just attack me. I enjoy it. Anyway, back to the bill, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This bill is not, if we’re being honest, an effective way in terms of supporting our community—to deny people welfare and make the process as frustrating as possible so that people give up. This is not how you build a society; it’s how you tear one down. The Labour Party opposes these amendments. We can see no value in harassing job seekers any more than they currently are. And we have deep misgivings about some of the aspects in terms of some of the automation, although we understand AI, but, you know, automation at the expense of workers who know the job and who are equipped to do the job is a worry.

We want to see policy that helps people find work, not punish them for seeking help in the first place. I want to wrap up here, but I remind our communities that Labour will continue to respond on their behalf. We will not put Budgets out at the expense of workers, at the expense of women.

Andy Foster: Yes, you have. You did it for years.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no, we haven’t. We won’t sacrifice our communities. We won’t sacrifice our women for landlords or the rich mates of David Seymour. We will not attack good leaders and good people in this country and have a little fun because it suits us. We will always advocate on the behalf of our people, our constituency, and our community, and we are absolutely opposed to this bill. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to strongly oppose this bill, because this is a bill that is continuing this Government’s agenda to punch down on the poor, to create more blue tape for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, and, to be perfectly honest, to a Government that loves cars so much they want more people to live in them. To start with, it is, frankly, insulting to have a Minister who makes all of these sweeping changes to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, to put this bill under urgency, but could not even muster the courage to give a third reading speech that was longer than even three minutes. That is, frankly, insulting.

Now, when it comes to this bill, let’s start with the committee stage. We spent some time in the committee stage yet we’ve got very little out of the Minister other than her hot takes and her one-liners and party positions and political statements, but not genuine responses to people’s questions. This is a bill that is brought to this House under urgency. We expect there to be, at a minimum, good-faith engagement from the Minister on this and we saw none of that during the committee stage. What we do see is a Government whose agenda is to reduce or cut $200 million of cost into the people, into beneficiaries, and, you know, when we are looking at this $200 million in savings over the next five years that they’re trying to do, but instead giving $2.9 billion to landlords in exchange.

We still haven’t seen, to be honest, any significant decrease in rent in here. We have seen, however, increased stats on homelessness, which this bill will only exacerbate. The Government would like to paint a beautiful picture about how there are fewer people in emergency housing. Well, it’s because they’re on the street. This is a trick. We know that this is the Government’s trick; the New Zealand public know that this is the Government’s trick. They’re making their stats look pretty, and this bill will also be a justification—another example—of that trick, which is: “We want to make sure that people are not eligible to apply for things in the first place, as a way of creating an illusion that we are somehow bringing the stats down.”, when, in fact, when we talk to community organisations, when we talk to City Mission, everyone will tell us—everyone will tell the Minister, if the Minister dared to show her face in front of those organisations—that things are getting worse.

This is the reality: you can’t make the stats pretty in a way and ignore people’s existence altogether, because these are New Zealanders. You can’t. They will be here regardless of whether they are in your stats or not, and you will have to find a way to address them, eventually.

In terms of, again, going back to this bill, there are a couple of things I want to pick up on that are really important discussion points during the select committee stage. I think the first one is around the automatic decision-making. The first thing is, during the select committee stage, we have yet to hear from the Minister what the algorithm is that is going to be used as part of this decision making and this automatic decision-making. Because if we look at the regulatory impact statement, page 3, it says that “assumptions”—assumptions—“that [an] ADM will create more positive outcomes for clients.” There is no actual data. The Minister can stand there all she wants and say like, “Trust us, we’ll make sure that it’s correct.” But trust is earned; it needs to be based on evidence.

Again, without a select committee stage, without hearing from the officials, there was very little clarity during the committee stage around the algorithm that is going to be used and the robustness of the automated decision-making system (ADM). Instead, what we’ll see is that when the automatic decision system fails or gives incorrect data or an incorrect decision, people don’t know when they’re going to hear from an actual person. Because there’s been more than 700 staff cuts in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), it is already a department where the front lines are struggling with the workload and with their capacity. There’s no guarantee about timeliness—when a staff member will actually get back to them.

So this leaves the question for those in those inaccurate situations, and these are genuine New Zealanders who are, like, “Am I going to be homeless because my benefit has just been sanctioned, has just been cut by MSD, and I don’t even know why, other than a system has told me that I am no longer eligible.” That is an appalling decision to be made under urgency.

Other things we also discussed that deserve some highlighting are: when we’re looking at Section 310D, one of the things that we see not only in this bill—and it could have been a stopgap for the potential error that we’ll see with the automatic decision-making—is the requiring of information from MSD. This is just one example of that: when MSD or other agencies require information from people, there’s a genuine attempt that they receive a response before triggering any decisions. Because, yes, although there are some people who may be overseas who may not wish to respond—but we also understand that people are in precarious situations. Sometimes, you know, in certain areas they do not have access to internet. In certain areas, they may not have access to letters or to a regular accommodation. If MSD simply just sends information out into the ether, hoping that the person will read it and if they don’t hear back then they will make decisions, it actually puts more people at risk because we are not addressing—through that clause, alone, it shows a lack of consideration and in-depth thinking that the Government is doing towards the most vulnerable of our communities.

Another point that we addressed in the committee stage is around Part 2 in terms of the regulation-making power by Order in Council, and this is section 438A. I think one of the reasons why this was so important is because they are able to add on, by Order in Council—i.e., as a secondary legislation of the kind of regulations or the changes to the specified benefit or specific benefit that is named. Part of the concern around that is—and, again, we didn’t hear from the Minister exactly what some of the details are over here—exactly what is going to be the scope of that regulation-making power? What are, if any, the potential changes or additions of different kinds of benefits as a result of that particular section, that might be included as a result?

So there are a lot of things that we didn’t hear from the Minister during the committee stage. We’ve seen a lot of redactions in the regulatory impact statement and, to be honest, if we’re going to be having this under urgency, the Minister is able to waive any sort of legal privilege and be able to present the House and also the New Zealand public the full comments that were made in that regulatory impact statement. But we also didn’t see any of that.

So we saw very little in this bill that is going to address the concerns of the most vulnerable of our communities. I agree with my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March when he said that this Government has a rotten heart and wants people to suffer in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the reality that we are facing. What we are seeing is a Government who is desperate—despite Treasury’s very conservative estimate—to keep our debt at 20 to 40 percent, and without making meaningful investments to decades of underfunding in our public services, in our infrastructure. Poverty is a political choice. This Government has chosen to do harm to our communities and that is the reality. So the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill.

First, I would like to respond to two speeches that I heard just before, one from the Labour member the Hon Willie Jackson. That member believes that this bill is going to punish those who are on a benefit, and the member who just spoke before, Lawrence Xu-Nan, believes that this is about reducing or cutting benefits. Actually, this bill doesn’t do that. What this bill does is ensure that the information of clients that is held by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is up to date. It puts that responsibility on MSD to ensure that information is updated. By doing that, what happens is they can decide what the level of assistance is that these clients need. It’s not about cutting. It’s not about decreasing. It’s about ensuring that the right level of assistance is provided to people—those who are receiving a benefit.

We know that people’s situations change. Sometimes the number of boarders they have will change. Sometimes their income will change. Sometimes their family situations will change. All these things are taken into consideration when a benefit is decided. That is what this is about. Sometimes, people forget to update their information and proactively call MSD. Yes, there is an obligation that they should be calling MSD and updating information about any changes in regard to their income or family situation, but sometimes they forget. That is why we are putting this responsibility on MSD to ensure that the information is updated. This is done every 52 weeks, but if it has already been updated, through any other mechanism, MSD doesn’t need to chase these people. And there will be provisions for exceptions, exemptions, and also extensions. What we require is these people to actually communicate with MSD and inform MSD of what their circumstances are, and then MSD can decide if an exception is needed, an exemption is needed, or an extension is needed. But that information is really crucial to decide what level of benefit people should be receiving.

It’s a really good bill, because this actually puts more trust in our welfare system. We are really proud of the way our welfare system works, and we want to see it continue to deliver for people—those who really need the system. That’s why the ACT Party supports this bill and commends this bill to the House. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to stand in support of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. Now, I stand on behalf of New Zealand First, a party that does in fact have a big heart, not a rotten heart, from a Government that have big hearts. As much as I like the member opposite—Lawrence Xu-Nan—what he said before wasn’t very becoming, unfortunately, and it did spoil his speech somewhat. But, no, we do have big hearts.

One thing that I would like to compare is a speech given by a fellow member, actually, during the last sitting week on this particular bill. it was a very endearing speech, and she made the comment, “Now, what would Jesus do?” and it got me thinking, well, Jesus is someone with a big heart. So what I think Jesus would do is he would help feed others; he would help feed as many as he could, but another thing that Jesus would do, because he’s got a big heart, is he would teach them how to fish and catch their own fish. He may not supply rods; I don’t think they had rods back in those days, but he would supply nets. And he would teach them how to fish.

So New Zealand First, we really do believe in personal responsibility, and whilst we really agree in ensuring that everyone gets a leg up and a hand up, to ensure that in some way we help them to find that greatness within so that they can then make the decisions to move up in life themselves and say, “Hey, I can do a little bit more for myself.” I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. This is the third reading, and so I recall taking a first reading call—might even have been the second reading, I think, when we were doing this work over the Budget, in urgency. It’s interesting observing, this morning, the first reading speech from the Minister. She opened up her discussion with the amendments. These amendments will, despite the circumstances of families, bring some savings in, which I think is not a great thing to start a speech with, when you’re talking about savings that are made on the backs of beneficiaries, made on the backs of the most vulnerable. I think it’s in bad taste. It was possibly a mistake, the way in which she opened up the discussion, but I do think there’s something telling in the opening comment.

I’m just going to read some of these reviews to begin with: supported living payment—right?—emergency benefit, accommodation supplement, disability allowance, and New Zealand superannuation. Now, all of those spaces are tough spaces to live and exist in. They are tough, and they have certainly been a whole lot tougher in the last 18 months. It concerns me greatly that this is where the Government has decided “Let’s make some savings; let’s go there. Let’s go to beneficiaries.” Sanctioning beneficiaries only increases poverty and homelessness. It increases poverty and homelessness. Why do I know this? Having worked in the sector. It is one thing to write a pretty fancy English policy and then a bill, but when you come to apply it, it is completely different, because you’re applying it with and to people, and to people that are already suffering, that are already vulnerable, and not by their choices. They are there under a range of circumstances, which many here just could not imagine. I want to make those points, as I provide the third reading call for Te Pāti Māori.

Sanctions do not help people find jobs—despite the kōrero; you know, “Get off the couch.” Of course get off the couch, but who will be there to help make that happen? The majority of people that I know, having worked in the sector, are not lying on the couch because they’re hopeless; they’re lying on the couch because they are disconnected and they do not belong. Many feel they do not belong. This is not a “Boo Hoo!” statement that I’m making. These are real circumstances for real people who would want circumstances to change but just cannot get there, for whatever those reasons are. I think amendments and ideas like this might sound reasonable on paper, but when you come to apply them, they are completely harmful. They are harmful to a space and a reality in which people exist, where they’re already feeling they’ve pretty much had it. I do want to make those statements, with compassion and kindness, added reality. It is one thing to write a policy, but it’s another thing to apply it in reality.

I want to close now. I received an email this morning from Te Rangitukiwaho Edwards. Now, he emailed me this morning. He’s going to be gracing this House when the rangatahi MP programme comes into play in July, and he’s going to be standing, hopefully, right where I’m standing. He’s a mighty young Māori man with the power of both languages: te reo Māori and te reo Pākehā, adequate as. He wrote to me saying a number of things, but he went on to say there is a future—what he observes—and, you know, he understands what’s going on. To think that young people, particularly young Māori, don’t know what’s going on in this political space! They absolutely know. He writes, among other things, “A future being carved out without us and, at times, against us will bring us harm.”

What I want to proffer and put to the House today is that amendments like this, which sound reasonable, are completely unreasonable when they hit the ground, and Te Rangitukiwaho understands that. These comments were not specifically to this bill, actually; it was the range of things that he’s seen as a young Māori—about to join this House shortly—and telling his truth as a young Māori man. I’m linking these because—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just draw the member’s attention to her time.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: OK. I can only commend this not to the House but probably to the wharepaku.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. E tika ana te kōrero i ō tātou tūpuna “Mā te manaaki i te tangata e tū ai te mana”. Engari kore he take kei konei kei roto i tēnei pire.

[Madam Speaker, thank you. The saying of our ancestors is true that “It is through care and hospitality for others our reputation is enhanced”. But there is no purpose here within this bill.]

The whakataukī that I have just shared is “By providing care, hospitality, and support to others, mana is enhanced.” I don’t believe that the essence of this whakataukī is seen in this bill.

I rise with a heavy heart to speak at this third reading. At this final stage, I want to speak directly to the truth of this bill, in that it completely ignores the advice of experts, including that of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s advice was the advice that was based on thousands of submissions, lived experience, and years and years of robust analysis. In fact, this bill does the complete opposite of what they recommended. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group comprised non-partisan experts chaired by Dame Professor Cindy Kiro. It told us clearly in recommendation 11 to remove the requirements to reapply for a benefit every 52 weeks. Their reasoning was simple: this requirement adds unnecessary stress, disproportionately harms disabled, Māori, and rainbow and Takatāpuhi people, and creates more work for no good reason. It’s costly, it’s inefficient, and, most importantly, it’s harmful.

Instead of removing that 52-week burden, this bill entrenches it. It mandates these reviews for every person on the supported living payment and disability allowance, people with long-term, often permanent, disabilities. What the experts called cruel and unnecessary, this Government is now making mandatory and routine. That’s not evidence-based policy; that’s ideology at the expense of our community’s wellbeing. Disabled communities, sole parents, carers, and mental health advocates have been telling the Government for years to stop making them prove their disability again and again. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group heard them. They put that voice into policy recommendations, recommendations that should have been taken seriously by this Government. But instead of listening, this Government has chosen to double down, to stay within the same broken welfare system that the Welfare Expert Advisory Group said must change. We heard this theme consistently in other welfare bills, such as the sanctions bills passed just a few weeks ago.

The Green Party believes in a welfare system built on manaakitanga. We support the full implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations. We believe no one should have to fight a system that’s meant to support them. We believe the experts, the advocates, the whānau, and the disabled communities who have already said loud and clear: this approach is dehumanising and it must stop. To support this bill is to say the voices of our community don’t matter, that expert advice doesn’t matter, that kindness and dignity don’t matter. The Green Party refuses to support this bill. We will vote against this bill and stand with those that this Government has chosen to ignore.

Let this be clear: the evidence says this bill causes harm. The experts said don’t do it, and this House should have listened—“Mā te manaaki i te tangata e tū ai te mana” [“It is through care and hospitality for others is our reputation enhanced”].

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to bring the House back to reality rather than the fantasy that members in Opposition live in who don’t actually read bills.

This bill is very simple. It amends the Social Security Act to enable an efficient and proactive welfare system where clients receive the correct entitlement and ensures that every year—every 52 weeks—there is a requirement that the Ministry of Social Development must review a client’s eligibility and the rate of a specified benefit to ensure they’re getting the right amount. That’s all this bill is about rather than that nonsense that the Opposition’s been on about. It’s a great bill and New Zealand will be surprised it’s not already in place. I commend it to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call to speak against this bill. I’d just like to start my contribution more or less on the same theme as I made my last submission, and it’s in regard to the lack of good process. We heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment in her third reading speech be extremely brief in terms of her contributions, and I just wanted to express concern about that.

I see that there are lawyers on the other side of the House. As a lawyer myself, one of the things we refer to in terms of understanding the scope and the intent of a bill is the third reading speech of the Minister in charge. It’s in fact one of the first things that we go to, to best understand the Government’s intent. The reason we go to the third reading speech is that the expectation of this House is that we look at legislation that’s introduced and then we better it. We listen to the critiques, and we make amendments. So the best reflection of what the final intent is is the final reading, the third reading speech of the Minister. My concern is that the brevity with which that was delivered is demonstrative of the Government’s lack of intent to genuinely listen on many of these bills.

The problem is not just a problem for us; it is a problem for the people of New Zealand. We must be able to trust that this Government is listening. We must be able to trust that the committee stage is respected and that amendments are legitimately considered. I just have a real concern that this is the state of things as they are, and are to come, that we’re not treating those third reading speeches with the respect that our democracy demands.

Other members have commented on the substantive issues in this bill, including its focus on punishment and compliance. The fact that over that period of 52 weeks, for many people, changes wouldn’t have occurred in their lives, and it would put them under needless stress and pressure, as well as the risk of automated systems in decision making, which I’ll speak further to in a moment.

The chief concern I had in relation to how this bill is considered I did want to speak to. It’s in relation to some legal advice that was given to the Attorney-General on 15 May in regard to whether the bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). So the advice concludes that the bill does appear to be consistent with the rights and the freedoms affirmed in the BORA. In reaching that conclusion, the justice officials looked at section 14, which concerns freedom of expression.

So the first point or question that I’d ask is whether within the BORA there is a right to privacy. So, interestingly here, while there isn’t a fulsome stand-alone right to privacy within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the interpretation of section 14, which affirms that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” is also interpreted as including the right not to be compelled to say certain things or to provide certain information.

Now, the legal advice to the Attorney-General acknowledges this point, that it’s quite broad in its scope. It also acknowledges clause 4, inserting new Subpart 3A of Part 6, of the bill in front of us, which requires a beneficiary to provide the Ministry of Social Development with information and answers to questions for the purpose of a mandatory review. Now, what’s interesting is the way in which this requirement is framed within the bill. It’s framed exactly as I’ve set it out—so very, very broadly and generally in inserted section 310C with reference to inserted section 310D.

What’s surprising in terms of the next part of the opinion is that the advice recognises that the bill doesn’t specify the limit on the information that could be sought or could be asked for. So there’s no statutory limit on what can be asked for. The other surprising thing is that in terms of the interpretation of whether something is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not, as section 5 says, limits must be no more than is reasonably necessary for sufficient achievement of the objective.

Now, presumably the objective here is to make an assessment on particular facts. Therefore, my assumption would be a reasonable limitation of the right to privacy—that I’ve just referenced—would be written into the bill by specifying only the information that the person needed to provide. The advice from the Ministry of Justice is that the bill complies with that section 5 requirement because there would be “an expectation that when applying the law, the only questions that will be asked are regarding information related to the purpose of the review.”

I don’t believe that it’s sufficient for us simply to have an expectation that that’s how it will be interpreted. My firm sense is that where it’s possible to specify within legislation the limits of a right, that is the preferable option in a democracy that is being true to the rights that people hold. This was a question that was considered in the authority on this point, which is Hanson—it’s the interpretation of the key clauses in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In that case, it was spelt out that limitations must be set out in an Act of Parliament or in subordinate legislation or the common law. It’s unclear in the advice that was provided by the Ministry of Justice to the Attorney-General where that guidance is set out. It’s actually simply not there. So the advice, in my view, appears to be flawed. That’s the first issue.

Now, I’m not saying that—you know, errors do happen. This is part and parcel of why we have the parliamentary process as it is. To enable us to have good legislation, we must open the door to questioning advice like this and asking questions like whether the Government should have specified a limit on the information that could be required—required—from these individuals who are being subjected to review. Right now, we have a bill that I hope will not pass. Again, I hope that members of the Government have followed the argument and will see that this is clearly a prima facie breach, yes, but potentially a complete breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I implore you to consider this because, again, we have a limited budget in terms of Crown Law’s capacity. Do not let bills pass through this House that create litigation risk for the Government.

My final point is in relation to the artificial intelligence, or the automated decision-making, that will be used to make a number of decisions in this space. In my view, there’s a connection between the inappropriate demand of information that appears, to me, to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and inputting any and all of that information into an automated system that looks fairly questionable still, in my view.

The common response to concerns raised about automated systems are she’ll be right if there’s a person involved at some stage in that process. But many of us will recognise that there is a spectrum of when a human individual can be involved in a process and therefore a spectrum of risk. If the human is involved in the middle or toward the end of a process, that decision is made on a pile of bias. We’ve seen that play out in many systems errors or systems biases that exist through our current day systems, including where decisions are made in the justice space. We have to treat this with caution. We have to ensure that we’re doing this checking system and setting up an appropriate system where if we are using automated decision-making, human decision-making front loads that process rather than falls towards the end.

In my view, this bill creates litigation risk for the Government. This is your opportunity to look up and to stop that from happening. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Much has been said about the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill and what it is not. But what it is is a structured approach, an annual check-up, an opportunity for beneficiaries to be able to check and confirm their circumstances, and to update their entitlements. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a contribution on this Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. As previously stated, we on this side of the House oppose this bill.

It’s often said that a true measure of society is how it treats its most vulnerable; this bill certainly looks to treat some of our most vulnerable people in the most callous and depersonalised way. The reason for that is that it introduces a framework of mandatory 52-week reviews that require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to look at a number of different benefits to see if there is still eligibility. Now, interestingly, the power of MSD to look into whether there is eligibility for a particular benefit already exists. So this is already power that is held by the Ministry of Social Development. The thing that is not currently in place, and what this bill intends to do, is to make that review mandatory.

I disagree with that for a few reasons, and I’ll outline why that is. It seems to me that if this power already exists, there is little value in introducing a mandatory one-year review when it is already within MSD’s power, in theory, to themselves decide on a discretionary basis to review any benefit within these categories of benefit that they want within that period of time. The thing that this bill introduces is a degree of anonymity and, also, a degree of, essentially, box-ticking, which I think is inappropriate for the type of support that this particular bill looks to target.

So one of the particular—and I don’t have a long call today, Madam Speaker; as you said, it’s a split call—injustices of this bill is the fact that it applies to the disability allowance. Now, I have worked—like my colleague Vanushi Walters, I was previously a lawyer. Disability is a permanent state. So why is the bill looking to review the fact that someone is entitled to a disability allowance every year? This seems cruel, it seems unfair, and it seems like a waste of time and money. Not only will this apply to the disability allowance every year but the reviews—and this bill empowers this—will be done on an automated basis: so not through thinking, feeling, understanding human beings, but through an AI-generated review which, I think, we know what the result of that will be. It will be that some people who should be entitled to a benefit—especially talking about those on disability benefits, but it does cover a number of other benefits—will be assessed by the automated decision-maker and they will be found to not be entitled to a benefit and they will lose entitlement to that benefit.

And that is actually the point of this bill: it is to take benefits away from people and make people have to prove their eligibility rather than assuming, in good faith, that they are entitled to it, like people who have a permanent disability and are unable to work, who deserve our support. I believe that all of us in the House would agree that those who can’t work due to a disability do deserve Government assistance when they’re unable to provide for themselves separately. This will, essentially, mean that there are a number of people in that particular category. And if you want to push back on this, it’s all on the beneficiary. It’s all on the beneficiary to prove a case and to say the automated system is wrong. That is a very—very—high threshold to put on people who are already, in many cases, marginalised by the society, not engaged with our society, and may find it more difficult to respond to a Government document in a timely manner. That is the reality of some of the people in this situation. The reality of this bill is they will lose their benefit.

Just briefly before I end, we heard some of the other speakers talking about what Jesus would do, as if they could speak to that. That is a separate issue. I think I would like to draw the attention of the House to the comments of the Salvation Army, who actually have a history of service within our communities and are respected across the House. They do not support this change. They say that this change is going to be bad for New Zealand.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Although I didn’t get to speak much on this bill previously, I do commend it to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This is an outrageous bill that involves beneficiary bashing and is a really good illustration of the attitude of privilege that comes from the other side of the House. They are completely out of touch with the situations that many New Zealanders find themselves in. The reason I say that is because of the two crucial elements that this bill introduces, which are sanctions and automation, effectively making people just numbers in a machine. But also, and more disturbingly, is the insidious and sneaky way that this change has tried to be brought in. I say that because it wasn’t presented to the House as the first bill in a tranche of bills. In fact, the accommodation supplement bill was introduced first, and this bill was promoted as being an enabler of that legislation.

In fact, what it does is it very clearly puts sanctions on those who cannot prove their entitlement to a benefit after 52 weeks, even though they may have had that entitlement for years and, in fact, be permanently entitled and should be—such as, for example, people who have Down syndrome, disabled people, people with certain conditions in their senior years.

This bill has just been a sneaky, sneaky attempt to do that, and part of the reason is because of the way it was introduced to the House, the urgency, but also the fact that the benefits that are alluded to are really by exception. There are some benefits that are carved out and held out in the primary legislation; everything else is up for grabs in the secondary legislation. When we look at the urgency, clearly the Government just wanted to get this over and done with because they did not want to face the scrutiny and the wrath of the population groups that are most impacted.

Well, I’m proud to say that we dragged out the debate so long in the committee stage that they could not bring themselves to try to get to the third reading. They completely underestimated the level of feeling from the Labour Party on this bill and the other suite of bills that they introduced under urgency after the Budget, and that is why we are sitting in urgency again today—extended sitting—because they could not get through their timetable. They had just assumed that we would roll over, but no.

This is, as has been stated, probably a fundamental breach of human rights. It is an outrage, and it is beneficiary bashing, and it makes them look nasty. When we think about the population groups that are involved, we’ve heard about disabled people, but what about seniors? What about those many seniors who are on benefits or accommodation supplements who need to now re-establish their entitlement every 52 weeks? I know from the many, many conversations I’ve had around the country with seniors that some of the smallest things are really difficult for them: getting transport, going down, finding somebody to speak to, using a computer. This is just more anxiety and headache for them, and they have not been considered, and they will not be considered because there was never a committee stage. They did not get the chance to raise their voices. Neither did the disabled community. Neither did people on the accommodation supplement. Let’s not forget that the accommodation supplement also goes to people who are working, so why it is being dressed up as a benefit is beyond me and, again, it shows the paternalistic and arrogant attitude of this Government.

When we look at automation, the discretion that has gone in the bill—and I will come to that soon, in terms of some of those key clauses. The discretion that a human being could apply when it is clearly obvious that somebody needs to be able to maintain a benefit is completely gone. All the words “may” in the bill have gone to “must”, and now, to add insult to injury, we have automation as the first line in which our beneficiaries will interact with the system.

We had a really patronising speech, I have to say, from Tanya Unkovich from New Zealand First, who talked about what Jesus would do, and assumed that everybody is in a situation where, with a little bit of help, they can help themselves to earn a living. I don’t know what reality she is living in, but we have a huge number of people who will never meet that threshold, and to suggest that they can is utterly patronising and out of touch.

Let’s think again about the benefits that this impacts: the disability benefit, New Zealand Super, the supported living benefit, the accommodation supplement. Let’s look at the crucial clauses that bring in these very vindictive sanctions. New section 310C(4): “If the beneficiary fails to comply with a requirement under this section, MSD must suspend”. There is no “may”. There is no discretion. How long do they have? How long before the deadline, how many days? The Minister, in the committee stage, would not answer our question.

The automation is stigmatising, and it poses risks that could increase hardship. We did not hear any mitigation about those risks and, as Vanushi Walters and Camilla Belich said, everything depends on the beneficiary being able to prove that mistakes were made.

We’ve heard about the Salvation Army, who said that “automated decision making cannot account for the complexities we often see in the individuals we support, such as financial hardship, addictions, mental health issues, or unstable living conditions”. What about the Law Society? “This raises significant concern about how the use of automated systems will apply where the sanction provisions involve some form of evaluative judgment, for example, those relating to money management and community work”. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) 2019 made the recommendation, on page 95: “The requirement to reapply for a benefit every 52 weeks should be removed”.

Let me talk about some of the particularly problematic provisions in this bill. For a start, to even understand or read the bill, one has to go from the primary amendment bill on a bit of a rabbit chase through to the principal Act, the Social Security Act 2018. Then we’ve got to go to benefits which are defined in the principal Act, then we come to exemptions, and then, finally, when you can piece all that together—if somebody can piece it all together—it becomes clear that there is a big, fat, wide open door for further changes to be made, for further benefits that are not specified in the primary legislation.

When we queried the Minister about the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), she said categorically, “Oh, no, no, I’m assured that it passes it.” Well, my colleague Vanushi Walters has raised significant issues regarding fundamental human rights. In Part 1 of the LDAC, it says that matters of significant policy, matters significantly affecting fundamental human rights, and the granting or changing of appeal rights should normally be in primary legislation. We did not get adequate answers to the queries that have been raised in the very rushed committee stage that could have gone for weeks had we been able to have a select committee hearing.

When we look at new section 310C(4), why is the accommodation allowance even listed as a benefit when it is a subsidy? We did not get adequate answers to that. We had wording on the printed copy of the bill that we received within 24 hours of reading that had changed significantly on some of the crucial clauses, and we were not given an explanation as to why the wording had changed. When we look at some of the provisions about “must” and “may”, there are previous provisions where the words “may” have been amended into “must”, and there was no entertainment by the Minister that perhaps just changing a single word would enable a humanising of this bill.

Finally, I think the attitude of the Government and the clear signal of beneficiary bashing is summed up in new section 310B: “The purpose … is to ascertain whether the beneficiary—(a) is, or remains, entitled to receive the benefit, or the rate of benefit, that is being paid to the beneficiary;”. That clause should have stopped there, but, no, they insisted—even when we asked them to remove it—to add these words: “or (b) was not entitled to receive the benefit, or the rate of benefit, that was paid to the beneficiary.” This is a clear signal that the intention of this bill is to beneficiary bash, to save money, and to kick the most vulnerable to the kerb.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The only people who are out of touch with New Zealanders in this House are the Opposition. Most New Zealanders—most reasonable New Zealanders—appreciate that this bill does three things: it ensures that people are receiving the benefits that they should be receiving, it gives them more if they should be receiving more, and it says, “Actually, now your circumstances have changed, now you should be receiving less.” Most reasonable New Zealanders appreciate that. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Bill read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Rates Rebate Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank the House again for considering this bill under urgency and for the contributions from members that have brought us here to this stage. New Zealand is still in recovery mode from the economic damage caused from the COVID period and we know that many Kiwis are still feeling the impact. This is especially true for our seniors on fixed incomes as the rising cost of living is taking a significant toll on them. Now, seniors have worked hard throughout their years and deserve to enjoy their retirement without added financial stress. That’s why this Government is committed to growing the economy in order to lessen some of that financial pressure. By focusing on economic growth, we can bring down the cost of living and help those Kiwis—and all Kiwis—get ahead.

While we acknowledge that this process will take time, our plan is making a difference. Inflation is under control, tax relief is putting more money into Kiwis’ back pockets, and initiatives like FamilyBoost are helping with the cost of childcare for families.

We know that rates are rising and this is putting extra pressure on many of our seniors. Couples on New Zealand Superannuation, with limited income, are facing increasingly high rates bills as a percentage of their income. The disparity between growth of household rates and the adjustment to New Zealand Superannuation underscores the urgency of this intervention. No senior should be forced to choose between essential needs and unaffordable rates. No seniors should have to move out of their homes away from friends, families, and their communities. They deserve peace of mind in their retirement, which is why this Government is stepping up to ensure that all Kiwis receive the support that they need.

For the last time today, I want to highlight the significance of this bill for our senior community. The bill proposes amendments to the Rates Rebate Scheme, introducing a new income abatement threshold set at $45,000 per household. This change provides additional financial relief to 66,000 more SuperGold card holders. Furthermore, due to the structure of the abatement threshold, individuals earning over $45,000 may still qualify for a partial rebate if they hold a SuperGold card.

These changes, worth over $154 million over four years, will come as relief to those seniors who are on fixed incomes and are dealing with rates increases. It is no secret that I believe in limited government, but limited doesn’t mean being constrained in our vision; it means having a laser focus on what Government is meant to do. Many people throughout this country are capable of making their own decisions. What they want from us is action on the things that they cannot influence. Our elderly community on low incomes with fixed costs deserve the opportunity to live out their lives free from the creeping burden of higher rates that they cannot afford. That’s why it is important we consider this bill under urgency.

For years, the local government sector has been crying out for more support from the Government. It is also a key priority for this Government. I want to thank and acknowledge my colleagues in New Zealand First. The National Party and New Zealand First in their coalition agreement included a commitment to enhance local government rates rebate schemes for SuperGold card holders and to maximise the benefits of the SuperGold card. It has been a great pleasure working on this policy, and I know that many seniors will be thankful to know that more financial support is on the way. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I rise as the Labour spokesperson on local government and, in doing so, it will come as no surprise that the Labour Party will be continuing our support for this piece of legislation, albeit under urgency today.

I reference the fact that this bill has been progressed under urgency with a tinge of sadness, because what would have been really helpful, I would have thought, would be to hear about the impact that this would have on households out in the community—but perhaps, actually, the impact that it would have if the threshold had changed, the impact that it may have had if some of the other components to the criteria that’s been proposed in this bill would change as well. It’s likely that this would have gone to the Governance and Administration Committee, and that committee would have been able to hear from affected individuals, but also from councils as well. And I’ll touch on that later in my contribution.

We’ve heard the Minister acknowledge the New Zealand First Party because it is accepted that, yes, this is part of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, but that’s been the case for quite some time. The question that needs to be posed is why has it taken the Government so long since they have addressed that as part of their negotiations—to actually deliver on that commitment.

Whilst households have had to wait for this commitment to come into place under this Government, the pressures that they have been facing have continued to grow, and so that’s rather unfortunate. It would have been helpful to hear from seniors about the fact that they have worked their whole life, as the Minister has said. And he says that they’ve worked really hard and that they deserve to have some rebate or recognition of that.

The question I pose to the Government, of course, is: is an extra 58c, which is the increased amount over the last 12 months for this rebate, per fortnight, the sort of alleviation of cost pressure that seniors who’ve worked so hard actually deserve? This is a piecemeal form of support for households and seniors who are doing it so tough right now, who are facing those cost of living pressures for their households. A senior citizen simply needs to go to the supermarket to see the rising cost of butter, of cheese, of milk, of bread. An extra 58c a fortnight is not going to cut much of that. So it’s disappointing that we didn’t have an opportunity to hear—the Government didn’t have an opportunity to hear—from superannuitants exactly what this will mean to them.

We hear a lot from the sector as well in local government around the rhetoric that this Government seems to have about requiring councils to get back to the basics. The question that the Government needs to really answer, I believe, is what are the basics? Is it just the rubbish, the recycling, the water, the roads, the footpaths? Where do community libraries, where does community development, where does funding for those vibrant community events that take place fall within that? So this is from a Government that is talking about getting back to the basics, but failed to, I think, understand what vibrancy means in our community.

Yes, affordability is absolutely important, but let’s also reflect on the fact that superannuitants and other households are facing increasing costs, whether it’s rates, whether it’s insurance, whether it’s other costs of living pressures. This will go some way, but I think not far enough, perhaps, as others would suggest that we would have heard from people out in the community around what this might mean.

We’ve also heard, as this bill has progressed through the Parliament—well, we actually haven’t heard, but we have become aware that there were five councils that were consulted about what this would mean for them. How much would it cost? Because the regulatory impact statement (RIS) identified that in some circumstances it would be a $200,000 cost to implement this. Now, in scrutiny week last week, we put that to the Minister, who indicated that there was some work being done around that. You know, it would have been helpful if that information was made available to parliamentarians as part of a formal select committee process. We have not been able to have the benefit of that. So we don’t know what the actual cost is going to be for councils for implementing this particular regime, and that is a rather difficult thing to stomach.

But of course, this is fast becoming the modus operandi of this Government: simply whack on additional costs to others in the hope or the expectation that this change would come. This is exactly no different in that regard. This is a policy position that has been taken. It will be worked through by way of legislation when this bill will pass—and it will pass, you know, today. Those additional costs will be borne by councils around the country. Yes, I accept that for some smaller councils, perhaps the costs will be much less. It is a cost none the less, and there is an opportunity cost around that as to what that money could be spent on in local communities.

So this is fast becoming the modus operandi of this Government, and it actually extends into other areas. I want to just cite through, briefly, one example, and it’s in the Ministry of Education space when it comes to rural buses. In my local community where the local council, recently Horizons, have made the call not to actually accept the need to fund things that fall within the purview of the Ministry of Education. I congratulate the council on doing that.

But the message I send to this Government—the question I ask to members opposite and to the Ministry of Education—is: what is the Government doing to ensure that communities like Rongotea and Ashhurst are able to utilise bus services and routes?

Andy Foster: Point of order. My point of order is that this is not relevant to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And the point of order is not a point of order. The call about relevancy is mine.

Andy Foster: Well, I’m alerting you to that. This is not relevant to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you very much—appreciate it.

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s interesting that Government members want to take a point of order to try and stifle this issue from being aired, because it does relate to this bill. This is about forcing additional costs on to councils, and this relates to the track record of this Government in basically saying, “We want councils to pick up the tab for doing all of the things that we asked them to do, but we’re not going to provide any funding.” The fact of the matter is that they don’t like to hear the fact that they have an issue with buses in rural communities. And, Madam Speaker, you’re very familiar with communities of a rural nature yourself, so you do know this. I want to know what the Government is doing to address that real, real need in my community and other communities all around the country. So this is a Government that gets a bit tetchy when it comes to being challenged around their expectation that councils are going to pick up the tab for doing things.

So, yes, we do support this bill because it goes some way to addressing some of the concerns, but it is far short. You know, it would be irresponsible, actually, if we did not support this, because at a time when households are doing it tough, when the Minister, in his own words, talks about acknowledging the fact that senior citizens have worked so hard over many years—yes, they have—yes, they have. And they deserve to go to the supermarket and buy a block of butter without having to think about prioritisation and what it’s going to mean for them. They deserve that. So any little bit that’s going to help them in terms of rates costs is a good move.

I do think one of the things that councils will be forced to turn their minds to, of course, is how they are going to make the community aware that this scheme exists, because the RIS identifies, and I think the Minister himself said, it was around 66,000 households that will become eligible. If the increase in uptake is such that that goes over and above that, well then that’s an issue the Government will have to—that’s a good thing. But it does come with a few issues the Government will need to turn its mind to. But in terms of the councils needing to have a process around making sure that they are engaging with the community so that the community know that this is actually an option available to them—that those who hold a SuperGold card do have this as an opportunity—is really, really important.

The Minister, in his contribution, talked about this being $154 million over four years. That’s the cost of the commitment. That pales in comparison to the amount of money that this Government has set aside and basically allowed for landlords and tobacco companies. So I think superannuitants in our community will detest that comparison because it will make a huge difference for them if the money that this Government had prioritised for landlords and tobacco companies was actually redirected into the households and back pockets of those that hold a SuperGold card. So I think that’s an important point to note as well.

As I said, we will support this amendment bill because it does provide a very piecemeal level of support and assistance to those who have worked hard. It is unfortunate that the Government has decided to ram this through under urgency when they’ve known that this was coming. They have not wanted to hear from the community, because I think that, actually, the community would send them a very strong message that this is not enough to support the cost of living pressures that they are facing right now.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the third reading of the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill.

Just for context, again this is one of the bills that was introduced under urgency, which meant that it had very little public consultation. We do have a regulatory impact statement, which is at least the minimum that the Government could be doing when we are introducing a bill under urgency, but what we did hear from the Minister during the committee stage was that there were no other policies that were considered as a part of this. This was the only thing that was considered simply just to fulfil a coalition agreement.

Now, we will talk about the broader context in a bit, but I think I want to first address a couple of points that we’ve heard during the committee stage. I think, first of all, one of the things that we did question the Minister on—and, yes, one could consider that was outside the scope of this particular legislation, which also, again, questions the fact that this is a bill that has an incredibly narrow scope. We’ve heard that this is going to cost $154 million over four years for something that is, frankly, quite ill-thought-out and very narrow.

The first threshold of this bill is you must be a SuperGold card holder, which immediately we are ruling out any migrants who are on temporary work visa conditions who happen to be over the age of 65.

Andy Foster: Who own a house and pay rates.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: We’ll also—because it’s a rates rebate. The very foundation for you to have rates in the first place is you have to be a homeowner. So, immediately, it rules out everyone over the age of 65 who rents or who is in a precarious or vulnerable situation. So the question remains: is this a bill that genuinely wants to address the seriousness of our senior population and the vulnerability, the genuine vulnerability, that presents to our senior population and the trajectory of some of the key concerns and crises we’ll be facing in Aotearoa New Zealand in the area of seniors in the near future? We shall unpack those things

The first thing that we do see in the bill, and we did question the Minister on, is the threshold of $45,000. Now, there are two parts to that. First of all, there’s been a split of the threshold. There is a threshold for ratepayers who are on the SuperGold card, as we see in section 5. There is also a threshold for any other ratepayers. The commencement date of this bill is, rightfully, when—let’s see—the Rates Rebate (Specified Amounts) Order 2025 comes into force, which also increases the other threshold from $31,800 to $32,210 as a response to that as well, and we see this drastic increase for ratepayers.

A couple of questions around that which we didn’t get clarity from the Minister on during the committee stages: number one is: why split it? Why not just increase it overall? What sort of evidence is there for people who are under the age of 65—and, by the way, this is considering total household income, not individual income; we’ll come to the household income part in a bit. So we’re looking at household income of $32,210. We didn’t get any clarity on, like, what is the proportion of people who are on there in the first place. Why don’t we introduce and increase the threshold completely overall to a higher rate? That’s the first question, which we’ve got no answer for.

The second question is—$45,000. Now, in the regulatory impact statement, we see that the gross income for a couple who are on superannuation for the 2025-2026 year is almost $47,981, to be exact, according to the regulatory impact statement. So if the purpose of the bill is that we are lifting the threshold to $45,000, we think it creates an anomaly where people over the age of 65, their household income if they only have superannuation as their sole income will not be eligible for the full rebate amount—45,000 is also $3,000 short, which means that they have this extra $3,000 where abatement will be taken into consideration as well. Why create that anomaly? Why not increase it and boost it to $48,000, in which case the entirety of a couple’s superannuation income will be considered?

The Minister did not want to take up our Green amendment, which increases the threshold to $56,000 for both, because it also creates a bit of leeway if, let’s say, a couple over the age of 65—we know that more and more people over the age of 65 are still working—there’s an abatement amount in terms of superannuation as well. But creating that $8,000 buffer will actually mean that people who additionally do some cover work, like if they are a reliever at the school, if they are a teacher over the age of 65, but want to relieve here and there, they will get some extra income—all of that is factored in.

So, from the very essence, the Government likes to paint a beautiful picture of how much they’re doing to seniors. But what we’re seeing is they’re trying to say they’re doing a lot, but actually doing very little; in fact, doing less than what they’re even saying within a very restricted limit of this bill of homeowners who are SuperGold card holders. I find that funny, but also disappointing. Disappointing to see from the Government that they couldn’t do the minimum for seniors on this very restrictive bill.

The other thing that we did talk about as well is this idea that a lot of the things that we are seeing—and this could be superannuation, and this is, to be honest, when we’re looking at benefits in general—is we’re still tying people to household income as opposed to individual incomes. The Government, again, didn’t take up our amendment where we wanted to split it out: you can halve it and have, let’s say, $21,000 or $22,500 per person. It is still the $45,000 threshold, but it also means that it allows people to have financial autonomy and not be subjected to what their spouse potentially is earning. That, I think, is something that is grossly missing.

It’s a problem that we have seen in our benefit system and our superannuation system for decades, and we have seen couples or individuals within the relationship who are being harmed as a result of this, who have to be, essentially, subjected to potential coercion by their spouses as a result of the fact that they’re tying things into their household income. So, again, we are seeing some really not well-thought-out policy positioning within this 1½-page bill. And if we’re able to take apart, in such a state, a bill that is only a page and a half, that is, frankly, an indictment of this Government’s ability to introduce a bill into the House.

But in the broader sense of things—and I did mention at the beginning that this is something that is quite restricted and quite limited in terms of its scope. Now, the Green Party—we did actually talk about this bill a lot within our caucus—landed on the position that we will not support this bill on the basis of the fact that what this bill does is not actually, genuinely support our seniors.

I mentioned at the beginning that one of the things we asked the Minister during the committee stage is whether other things have been considered as a part of this package, and the Minister said no; this is the only thing that was considered, again, because it was a coalition agreement requirement. But what we are seeing is that homeownership above the age of 65 is plummeting. It will continue to plummet because people can no longer own their own homes. We are seeing that the most vulnerable population, the most vulnerable part of our communities over the age of 65, will not be eligible for this particular bill, despite the fact that the Government paint a really beautiful picture that it is all about seniors; it’s not.

We want to see legislation introduced in this House that genuinely has the vulnerability and futureproofing in mind when we’re looking at our senior population. That includes things like increasing public housing, the number of public houses, looking at the priority order for how our elders are going to be looked after, and then for them to be able to—in situations where they can—actually live in dignity and live autonomously. We should be funding things like home and community care. We should be doing all of this, but this bill does none of that.

So we will not support it, because there is so much more that we could be doing, this Government could be doing, and they chose to do nothing. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party for this third reading of the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. It is a bill which is giving financial relief to SuperGold card holders on their rates, but all ratepayers deserve relief. Respecting ratepayers and their money when councils are spending that money is the only real way for ratepayers across New Zealand—the people who have been mentioned by the Opposition—to get real rates relief. Cutting waste, focusing on core spending on basics like roads, clean streets, and value for money is the only way this can be achieved. The light show that we have seen masquerading as a toilet block down in central Wellington is a prime example. Councils need to focus on services and infrastructure that can only be delivered locally, not duplicating roles that are the purview of central government.

In this Government, we are doing our part on focusing spending on outcomes, not just spending as a good in and of itself as the last lot of speakers seem to think is a good idea. Inflation, because of the actions of this Government, is down to 2.5 percent. Stats New Zealand says that rates and payments are increasing at 12.2 percent per year. This is a sign of waste. Councils need to get focused. It’s time for new faces and values around the council table so that councils get the message to stop treating their ratepayers like ATMs and focus, like this Government is, on delivery.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): This is good news. It is delivering on another campaign promise that New Zealand First campaigned on. It’s delivering on part of our coalition agreement with the National Party. This is New Zealand First and the Government looking after our senior citizens who need a bit of assistance, and our SuperGold card holders.

We know in the last three years that rates have increased dramatically—stratospherically, in some cases—and this is a real concern. I’m hearing a lot of concern from a lot of people about angst, anger about this, but for senior citizens in particular, they are really concerned that they might be priced out of their own homes—not their houses; their homes. This is about this Government looking after those people.

We want people to own their own homes—a property-owning democracy is really, really important to our economy and to our society. We know that our superannuation system will not cope if most of our superannuitants are not in their own homes. This bill is good news for SuperGold card holders.

We heard from Tangi Utikere that it is about 58c a fortnight. No, it’s not. What it is about is changing the amount that you can earn before that rates rebate starts being reduced—from 32,000 to 45,000, which is roughly the level, give or take a little bit, of superannuation. That makes about $600 a year difference, or $11.53 a week—not 58c a fortnight. So the Labour Opposition should get their facts right.

The Opposition quite regularly lambasts the Government for looking after the so-called rich. Last year’s tax cuts were not about the rich; they were about from the bottom up. These rates rebates are also not about the rich; they are about the people on $45,000—that is not rich. What is rich is some of the complaints from the Opposition.

Finally, just to echo what my colleague Cam Luxton has just said, this will help some ratepayers, but the other thing that needs to be done across the board is councils have the monopoly ability and statutory ability to rate; that comes with responsibility and that means the responsibility to use the money that they get from ratepayers wisely, carefully, and to deliver good value for money. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei kaikōrero mō Te Pāti Whare i te rangi nei.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand as a speaker for the Māori Party today.]

Te Pāti Māori stands to offer support for the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill because we understand that the bill will put more money into the back pockets of our kaumātua, and this bill instantly reminds me of all our kaumātua who follow us around, to the more than 38 poukai across Waikato and throughout the country. So we support the intention and effect of this bill, which is to provide financial support for low-income SuperGold card holders who may otherwise face financial hardship due to high rates bills. Te Pāti Māori considers this to be one of the only areas of the Budget it can support, but questions why the income abatement threshold was not raised across the board.

Our view is that all households who are earning less than $45,000 are struggling and deserve to be supported. The Rates Rebate Act 1973 uses income as the primary threshold for eligibility. The current income abatement threshold of $31,510 per household, which will increase to $32,210 on 1 July 2025, excludes many SuperGold card holders from receiving the full benefit of the Rates Rebate Scheme. We welcome increases due to kick in this winter, at an extreme time when the price of butter, milk, and essentials is very hard. We note that the full effect of this scheme will not reach all kaumātua. Rebates are calculated according to a formula that includes the gross income and number of dependents of the ratepayer and their spouse or partner if accepted, and their rate amount.

The level of rebate available decreases for every dollar earned above the income abatement threshold. Those households face significant rates bills that are, on average, rising at a higher rate. Nō reira e te Pīka, Te Pāti Māori supports this bill. Tēnā rā tātou.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. This bill is a bit of window dressing. It addresses one very small part of the cost of living crisis. Does it address the housing shortage? No.

New Zealand First talks about “homes”. It only means owner-occupied homes. Some people call their rentals “homes”. Other countries have got some security of tenure; places talk about “renting for life”. This is seen as very much a second-rate option in this country. This amendment bill entrenches that difference and promotes the needs of property owners over renters. Often, the renters are much more vulnerable.

I’d like to look at how the private rental sector is likely to increase in importance. Already, about 30 percent of superannuitants rent and it looks likely to be an increasing proportion. Some people say people who pay rates should get some help. Well, I’ve got news for you: the landlord’s not paying the rates; the renters are paying the rates as part of their rent. Unless there is an extraordinarily philanthropic landlord, it’s the rent you pay every week, every fortnight, or every month that pays the council rates—the regional council rates, and some of us still think regional councils are important, and the local authority rates.

I also would argue that this bill does not address other people who are in more need. It doesn’t address students. It doesn’t address disabled people under the age of 65. It doesn’t address families with young children, whether they own their own house or not. Mind you, maybe they’re not so likely to vote for certain parties. It puts continued pressure—continued pressure—on local government. While the rebate itself comes from central government, from taxpayer funds—from all taxpayers to quite a narrow group. While the tax money goes to that group, it is also another impost on local government because it increases the administration requirements and it also doesn’t really go to the root cause. It’s a small band-aid on a big issue of: why are rates rising? Because there has been under-investment, there has not been use of depreciation—and this is, of course, the whole sector. It’s despite some very positive reports, whether it’s from chief executives, whether it’s from the Office of the Auditor-General, who—until recently so many councils got absolutely stunningly perfect audit reports, and now they’re going, “Oh, maybe that wasn’t quite”—

Andy Foster: Quite so.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: I’m delighted to have New Zealand First agreeing with me for once.

OK, so we’re going to oppose this bill. I also want to address the issue of how this Government has not helped a particularly vulnerable group, and that is women who are either single or widowed and they’re over 65. They are the larger portion of the over-65s, but they will live longer than their counterparts. You might say that that’s unfair, but they do. They have fewer savings because of the continued gender pay gap. And the women that are going to retire with all of those 33 pay claims dismissed, those women are going to find retirement tougher than their male counterparts. So we will be opposing this bill. It’s a band-aid on a small part.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Speaker, did you hear that? Every superannuitant should be listening to that. The Green Party is opposing this bill, as is the Labour Party.

Camilla Belich: No, we’re not.

CAMERON BREWER: Labour is not? OK. Well, let’s just put it down to the Green Party. Sixty-six thousand more seniors will now be eligible for more support. The rebate increases to $805. I commend the bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been interesting being in the House for this debate, where there’s been a lot of comments made as a running commentary from the other side, but very, very few substantive contributions to this debate. Actually, it shows that the other side of the House has not actually been listening to this debate, where a number of speakers, not only in this debate but in the committee of the whole House stage and in the second reading and the first reading said that, indeed, Labour supports this bill. So I’m happy to clarify that for the member, who obviously hasn’t been taking any account of what’s been going on in the House or listening to any of the arguments that this side of the House has been putting forward.

Carl Bates: You’re the party of no. Why would we not think that you were going to say no?

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, Mr Bates, the reason that I would suggest that you would know the correct position of our party is because it has been said numerous times in the House, and that is the role of people in the House; to be part of the debate and listen to those who are taking part in it.

So we are pleased to support this bill. We will be outlining why that is and actually looking into this bill in some detail. I think it is important to note, as other speakers have noted, that this bill was announced as part of the Budget changes and has gone through under urgency. So as the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, who would have welcomed the opportunity to have received submissions on this bill, to hear from people affected by this bill, to hear debates around this bill, to hear if there are any issues in this bill, we have not been able to have that opportunity. We did have a session with the Minister in the committee of the whole House stage. There were a number of questions that were asked; a number of questions were left unanswered. So I think it’s important to note, as this is the last opportunity for this House to comment on this particular bill, that this process—although we support this bill and this bill is a good start—around bringing this bill to the House under urgency, without a select committee, has not been what we would expect in respect of good lawmaking.

This particular bill is one that would have really benefited, I think, from a select committee process and being able to have that scrutiny. I say that because when I look at the departmental disclosure statement, I can see the people who were actually told that this bill was going to go ahead. It was said that not many people were able to be consulted because it was Budget sensitive. It’s hard to know really why exactly it’s Budget sensitive. I know that there’s a lot of secrecy surrounding the Budget, but in terms of the people that are affected, these are mainly people who are on low incomes, who have a SuperGold card—so are elderly New Zealanders—and it’s hard to imagine that there would be any specific change of behaviour that would have resulted from wider consultation. Obviously, that could have been done confidentially as well.

But we do see that a number of councils have been consulted in the departmental disclosure statement: Auckland Council, Christchurch Council, Tauranga, Manawatū, and Clutha District Council. However, hearing from those people who would really benefit from this particular rates rebate bill or those on the cusp of that as well—that’s often what we hear in select committee. We often hear of people who maybe fall just outside of the entitlement, who believe that they have a good argument about why they should be included, and we weren’t able to do that. But we did see that some of those councils were actually included in that as well.

So, as has been said, we support this bill. But the reason that we support it is because we recognise what a difficult time it is for New Zealand, and especially elderly New Zealanders. We are facing some of the hardest economic conditions that I can recall in my lifetime. And certainly in the time that I’ve been in charge of my own family and household, I have noticed in the community very, very, very struggling people within our community—unable to afford groceries, unable to afford rates, unable to afford their mortgage payments. We have seen this get worse under this Government. So it is pleasing to see the Government recognise that there is a cost of living situation in New Zealand that deserves to be addressed.

We haven’t seen a lot of action. In fact, a lot of the actions that we’ve seen have made the situation worse. We’ve seen affordability and the cost of living really ramp up under this Government. We’ve seen loss of jobs. We had a hearing this morning with the Minister for the Public Service, but across the country we can see tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost. Some of the people who have SuperGold cards do also work. So it is relevant to them and it is relevant to their affordability of rates whether there are jobs that they can particularly go to. That hasn’t been a focus from this Government. Jobs have not been a focus of this Government; in fact, we’ve seen them go backwards. That’s why these types of measures, like rates rebate schemes, are needed, because people are struggling so much.

Will this go far enough towards addressing some of the cost of living pressures that people have? I don’t think so. I think we’ve heard a lot of evidence today from this side of the House, who have been taking substantive calls on this bill, around things that have got a lot worse and have raised the cost generally for households as well. It is good to see the Minister and others reflecting on the fact that we do have people who are superannuitants in New Zealand who are making hard choices around what they can spend their money on. They’re making choices about food, they are making choices about bills, they’re making choices about heating. That is not the type of society that we want to be living in. We agree with that, but we don’t think that the measures that the Government is putting into place go far enough and we don’t agree with their choices that result in tax cuts and subsidies for those who don’t need it and not enough for the people at this end that this bill does touch on, who deserve to have more. So that is very problematic.

We also see that this is a slight recognition of the terrible situation we are in in relation to the affordability of rates for local government organisations. The House is well aware of the steps that the last Government made in order to try and address the fact that there were unaffordable rates rises that would be necessary for New Zealanders. That was, unfortunately, scrapped by this Government. We’re seeing them take small efforts to try and corral local councils into getting together in relation to water and to try and get them in a scheme that would not be as helpful as the one that was proposed by the last Government. So we hope, for the benefit of New Zealanders, that we are able to see a more sustainable rates framework that is affordable for councils to be able to continue to do their work and for New Zealanders.

This bill is a little bit of a help in that, but it, as I said, does not go far enough. That is because of those dual things: the cost of living crisis and the fact that we do have rates which are so unaffordable for New Zealanders. It is regretful that we didn’t have a select committee process, but also that in preparing the analysis for this bill, there wasn’t really able to be any consultation with a number of people affected by this, because I think some of those wider issues around rates affordability, around the role of local government and the role of councils to be able to provide things that are needed, would definitely have arisen with that too.

At the same time as we see this small benefit for some elderly ratepayers in New Zealand to address the skyrocketing cost of living in this country, we also see cuts in other areas—for example, the cuts to the pay equity scheme. Many of those, specifically care and support workers, are near retirement, and many of those people will actually be covered by this scheme. So it will be cold comfort for them to see the fact that their earnings within their lifetime would be gendered earnings that were much lower than they should have been paid if they were in a male-dominated field, but they were unable to continue with their pay equity claims, and then they enter into retirement, and they get this tiny rates rebate.

So this is about choices—Budgets are about choices. This is a bill that was brought in through the Budget process. The choice that the Government’s made here is to give a small amount of money back to some elder New Zealanders who are desperately in need of some relief. At the same time, we’ve seen much larger cuts in other areas. We’ve seen their cost of living rise. We’ve seen mortgage prices rise. We’ve seen food prices rise. We’ve seen fuel prices rise. We’ve seen the amount that they spend on heating rise. And we know that and I’ve been getting emails just this week from people talking about the choices that they have to make in relation to fuel. I met someone yesterday who lived, actually, near my colleagues Ingrid Leary and Rachel Brooking in Dunedin, who was talking about the amount of money that they had to spend on fuel.

So this is a good start. This is a bill that the Labour Party will support, but it doesn’t mean that the work here is done. There is much more work that needs to be done to address the cost of living. There’s much more work that needs to be done in relation to the challenges that our seniors face, and my colleague Ingrid Leary has been doing very good work advocating for that. There are other challenges that people have. But from our side, we believe that the proper work of Government is really to ensure that people have well-paid jobs, that they have a healthcare system that works when they get sick, and that they have homes that they can live in—whether those are rented or whether those are owned homes—that are warm and safe, and that is the right of every New Zealander. So we believe that that should be the focus of this Government, but we support this bill.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I’m so pleased to stand. Sixty-six thousand seniors will be better off. I’m going to repeat that: 66,000 seniors will be better off with this bill—one of many cost of living relief payments we’re doing. I commend this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Madam Speaker, thank you so much for this opportunity to contribute to the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill. I would like to remind the House that Labour strongly supports this bill for a number of reasons, but can I also remind the House that the original rates rebate law in 1973 was led by Norman Kirk of the Labour Government at the time. It was created to recognise that local taxes, rates, can weigh heavily on low-income homeowners. We’re proud of that kaupapa and it is great that it has endured for 52 years. I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters for including this bill in his coalition agreement and for ensuring that this Government actually supports this bill.

The Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, at its heart, is about something simple and deeply meaningful because we are helping our seniors to continue to live in their homes with dignity; a home that many of them have spent years and years working hard to pay off. Right across Aotearoa New Zealand, our elders, our kaumātua, have spent their lives working hard, raising their families, and building up our communities. They deserve more than just a thankyou; they deserve real, practical support, and this bill moves us modestly in that direction. By lifting the income threshold for SuperGold card holders to 45,000, this amendment provides long-overdue relief to many New Zealanders—many who are asset-rich, but, unfortunately, income-poor who are increasingly struggling to meet their basic needs and their costs. It is the right thing to do and for that we also acknowledge the Government and the Minister of Revenue and officials who’ve been working on this legislation.

However, while we support this bill, we cannot ignore some of its limitations. Because I rise to speak not just for our seniors who own their own homes; I am from Parliament to represent South Auckland, Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, where we have just over 75,000 people, many of them who are struggling, from South Auckland. Many of our Māori, Pacific, and many thousands of our ethnic migrant community live in multigenerational homes. Many of them, even with the numbers of jobs in those multigenerational homes, are still struggling. This bill gives some help to some people, but, unfortunately, it gives no assistance to many thousands more.

So just to give you an example—and this is just an example—if you’re a 70-year-old couple who own a home in Remuera, you may qualify for support under this bill. But by comparison, if you are a 40-year-old solo mum who lives in Ōtara, you work a job, possibly another part-time job, but, say, you earn under the threshold—and you are of course still young—you do not qualify to be supported under this bill. In my opinion, that is not fair. What about a Samoan grandmother in Ōtāhuhu who is raising her mokopuna? Or an Indian auntie in Papatoetoe who owns her apartment but earns, say, $39,000 or a little less than $39,000? There is actually no support for her either. If you are a Filipino worker who works night shift and you also have a part-time job during the day just to make ends meet, you’re still struggling, and you don’t get any assistance under this bill either.

That is a gap in support. That is why so many in our communities in South Auckland feel forgotten and left behind, unfortunately, by this Government. Because this bill, as well-meaning as it is, is built around the assumption that help should only go to seniors who own homes. But in our community—Pacific, Māori, ethnic community—who make up close to 50 percent overall of the total population of Aotearoa New Zealand, many of them won’t be able to get support from this bill.

I do want to be clear: Labour supports our kaumātua and our seniors who are receiving rate rebates under this bill. We honour our seniors. We know that many of them are struggling to stay in their own homes, and we are glad that this bill will actually go through. But if we are to build a fair Aotearoa, a kind of Aotearoa where everyone should have a safe, affordable house to call home, we should support everyone.

NANCY LU (National): I appreciate that the speaker before me, the Hon Jenny Salesa, addressed the need of particularly the 66,000 seniors in New Zealand, who would appreciate the support from this Government—and relatively soon, actually. But I do also want to emphasise that the Green Party oppose this bill because they believe it’s either everything for everyone, all at the same time, from money falling out of the tree—or nothing, for everyone. And that is absolutely impractical and, basically, just living in la-la land. But, anyway, this Government, the National Government, is about targeting the relief and delivering for people who need it, so I commend this bill.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to reflect on Government members who make a number of interesting comments about our communities, especially when we get into the weeds or the nitty-gritty. I want to come back to the bill. This is an important bill for our community. We, as Labour, do support it; however, I do have the opportunity to point out some of its shortcomings. The intent of the bill is a good intent for our superannuitants—for some of our superannuitants. We’ve heard this side of the House point out that there are 66,000 across the motu, across Aotearoa, who will benefit. That is always a good thing when you receive emails and visits from superannuitants that can’t even afford to turn on their hot water to have a shower but they need to be clean.

Coming back to the bill, we’ve heard that it is a good bill, in terms of the intention to provide financial support for the low-income SuperGold card holders who will benefit, who face financial hardship. Whilst we’ve heard, on this side of the House, some of my colleagues point out the increasing costs to councils, one of the things we believe, in terms of Labour’s offering, is the importance of having consultation, not just with the community, not just with some councils, but with all councils across the motu. We know that those who will be eligible for the rates rebate amendment have to be SuperGold card holders, but not everyone will be receiving the full rebate. Because of the way the formula is set up, you have to meet that formula.

In the committee stage, I did raise with the Minister at the time that it’s one thing to have a new system, and some of the financial benefit; the communications to the community are another thing. There is a major assumption that councils will just pick this up, run it through their systems, and, basically, inform the community member superannuitants how you can apply, what your income is, what the rebate is that you may qualify for, whether it’s a partial or whether it’s a full rebate, and to have the accessibility to do so. There’s an assumption that everyone drives a car. There’s an assumption that superannuitants are computer literate. There’s an assumption that superannuitants have got all the trappings of a modern household. Well, you’ve heard my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa point out that that’s not always the case. Some of the SuperGold card holders in our society, in our community, are really, really struggling.

They must also know where to go and how to qualify if they are entitled. I’ll just give you a very quick example. I come from Māngere, in South Auckland. It’s a very diverse community. Not all superannuitants and community members access the library service, the excellent three public library services that we have in our local community. English is not always the first language that is known, so we have a number of platforms where people can communicate with public services.

The other thing I wanted to point out was that the public needs time to digest when there are changes that are made in this Chamber. There are many changes, there are many bills that come out, and one of the things I did ask at the committee stage was how our people in the community will know that they can apply for this rates rebate and that they can get some financial relief because they qualify. Those are the things that I wanted to reflect on.

The other thing, when I did read the regulatory impact statement, which came out when we went through the process of the first reading and the second reading, is there were limitations and constraints on the analysis. I appreciate that the Minister did say it went through urgency, and there’s a process when we are making the laws of the land. The problem is the risks that come with that analysis, and then we have to look at who benefits. Sixty-six thousand superannuitants may be eligible because they are SuperGold card holders, but, as you’ve heard from this side of the House, those risks are real risks, particularly for our superannuitants who are on limited superannuation that they receive every fortnight.

I want to continue to raise that, because the cost of living crisis is very, very real in our communities, across the motu, particularly with those on very limited incomes, and many of the superannuitants are writing to members of Parliament about the unaffordability of the basics. Whilst we’ve heard some comments about things like butter and those things that people like to purchase, it’s actually the things you need to run a household.

One of the things that I also raised was the nil discussion that has been had with the community, because, when you don’t have a select committee process that the public can consult and make submissions on, members of the select committee don’t have the opportunity to ask questions. Members of the community don’t have the opportunity to actually tell us how their real life is, whether they’re from South Auckland, Invercargill, Christchurch, wherever. They don’t have that opportunity. So it’s very unfair on New Zealanders, superannuitants who have worked—and we’ve heard this from Government benches—all their lives. They may not necessarily be entitled to the full rates rebate that they’re entitled to.

This amendment bill—yes, you’ve heard us, and I hope all of the Government members are listening. In terms of Labour, we are strongly supporting this, but it only goes part way, and it’s important that, if we are going to be genuine in our contributions and we value the work that superannuitants—just because they’re retired, it doesn’t mean that a number of them don’t volunteer for community organisations in our community or continue to work because they just can’t afford their insurance, they can’t afford their petrol. I’ve had a couple of superannuitants write to me this week. They can’t afford a shower. They’re only having one shower per week. That’s shameful. That’s shameful if we are living in our society and some of our seniors can’t afford petrol, can’t afford to have a shower every day and they’ve limited it to once per week because of the health conditions they face.

The last point I wanted to raise was around the assumption that many of our seniors speak English. Well, some of them don’t. It’s either their second language or their third language, for diverse communities. When you know that you qualify for something like a rates rebate, actually, “What do I do? Where do I go?” Do I wait for my child to come home when they come to visit me, so I can speak my Mandarin or I can speak my Samoan or I can speak my Tongan, to ask my child how I qualify, where I go? There are services in our community.

It’s a good bill; however, it does not go far enough. There is always an opportunity for our Government Ministers, as they are directing the officials, in terms of consultation, to have the select committee process that is really important. Sometimes, rushing things through urgency is not the way to go. Not everybody watches Parliament TV. I can tell you now, in my community, I have to remind them that, if you’ve got Freeview, Parliament TV is the opportunity to see what happens in Parliament, because this is your Whare. This is the Whare Pāremata.

It’s helpful to make a contribution on the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, and I do want to thank the Minister, the officials that worked on this, the Government members, but I also want to remind you that you have an obligation, just like we do, to continue to work hard for our community, and if we’re really serious, if we’re really serious and genuine about looking after our seniors, our superannuitant community, we have to do better. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): As the last contributor in this debate, I just want to say that I’m the last person that is standing in the way of 66,000 senior gold card holders getting rates relief. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 106

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Racing Industry Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): We have presented a legislative statement on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and move, That the Racing Industry Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We must continue to invest in our horse racing industry if we want to double its value to the economy, create more jobs, and match leading racing countries like Ireland. This bill is a big step towards achieving this goal. We’re, therefore, pleased to see this bill moving into its final stage in the House. It was introduced in December last year, and we have moved at a pace to get here, but not at the pace we should have been to get it through Parliament a long, long time ago. However, better late than never.

This bill amends the Racing Industry Act, which established TAB New Zealand and its legislative purposes, such as the provision of funding to the racing industry. The bill extends TAB’s existing land-based monopoly on betting to online. This is about protecting returns to the racing industry and adjusting our legislation to the online betting environment. This bill will make sure that betting revenue stays in New Zealand and contributes to the industry as the Act is set up to do. We recognise that there will need to be checks and balances on TAB to ensure it continues to operate with integrity and is fulfilling its statutory duties to the racing industry. For example, the Minister for Racing and the Department of Internal Affairs will have the power to require TAB to provide information for transparency. There are also regulation-making powers for harm minimisation and consumer protection, should further constraints be needed.

This bill received excellent input in the select committee process, and I thank the committee for that. There was excellent input in the select committee process from a range of stakeholders and individuals who care about the success of our racing and sports industries, not to mention some passionate punters. We’d like to, again, thank the Governance and Administration Committee for rigorously considering the bill and reporting it back to the House with thoughtful recommendations to improve it.

Additionally, the committee of the whole House agreed to move the Governance and Administration Committee’s recommendations on when TAB New Zealand can refuse a bet from the Act and into the regulation-making powers. This change gives us time to get the consumer protection policy right and to prevent any unintended consequences for TAB New Zealand and consequential risks to the financial sustainability of the racing industry. This bill is better for these changes. We look forward to seeing the racing industry and sports thrive as a result of this bill. We commend this bill to the House.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Meitaki maata. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call, as Labour’s racing spokesperson, on this bill this morning.

We will continue to support this bill. We have supported this bill at all stages, from first reading right through the committee stage through to third reading, today, because it continues the good work that the previous Government had started in this space. The Minister talks about this being a belated approach to this, so I guess we’ve got to ask the question: what’s taken the Government so long, given that there’s been support from around the House on this particular bill? But we are here, today, and we are going to pass it none the less.

The sustainability of the racing industry is so important. This is a really important industry, and I acknowledge that the Minister himself knows firsthand the importance of this industry to our economy. I’m sure many of us would have, in our communities or in other communities around the country, at some stage, been part of a race meeting. Whether they are some of the high note race meeting opportunities—if we think of the Karaka Million or the Golden Kiwi—or whether they are in smaller rural communities like Winton or Waverley, they are all experiences that we should have.

I know that what’s really important in this space is the real difference that this will mean for participants in the racing industry. If we think about that value-add to our economy—and I know the Minister has floated this figure around—it’s just shy of $2 billion. It’s $1.9 billion of value-add to the New Zealand economy. When we think of the breeding operations in this country, of the opportunities that that presents for economic development, and of the advantage there and the fact that we are a global leader in that space, that is worth a significant amount of financial capacity for New Zealand—so too is the opportunity that presents for those who work in the industry, whether it be in paid employment or whether it be by way of volunteerism. Many of the racing clubs throughout New Zealand rely on the voluntary nature of hard-workers and members in their communities who are wanting to simply give back.

When we look at those numbers and if we take into account the number of volunteers and everyone else, there are more than 40,000 people involved in this industry. If we’re looking at the actual FTE—fulltime-equivalent—figure, it’s around 14,000. Many of us may actually just turn up to a race meeting without full awareness or understanding of what the industry looks like—from the people who might assist in parking your car through to the hospo staff that are involved at a venue, through to the active participants, whether they be drivers or jockeys, whether they be trainers, whether they be owners, and whether they be stable hands. Whether it’s the officials that are there from the club or, indeed, from the integrity perspective, as stipendiary stewards or racing adjudicators or course officials, this is a huge operation. Of course, TAB operations and operators are a huge part of that as well. This will make a huge difference, I believe, to the sustainability and future focus of an industry that is so vital to New Zealand’s prospects domestically and, also, further abroad.

I want to join the Minister in acknowledging the work of the Governance and Administration Committee that spent a lot of time processing submissions and listening to people. I was able to sub in on that committee from time to time. What we’ve got in front of us, I think, is a bill that reflects the submissions that were received but also reflects the desire of members of this House to ensure that we are able to support an industry, as I said, that makes a huge contribution to New Zealand’s prospects domestically and abroad.

What this bill will do is, effectively, create a legislative net for turnover for betting operations here in New Zealand. The value of that net, based on the advice that had been provided by the Department of Internal Affairs officials, is around about $180 million annually. What this bill will do is it will, effectively, retain that $180 million here in New Zealand for utilisation by the TAB, which will then go into the employment and volunteering opportunities that I’ve just referred to not a moment ago.

One of the changes that was made by the committee of the whole House was around the way in which the TAB would be able to refuse a bet. Now, this is a real issue. I was surprised to learn, during the select committee process, that the level of communication that the TAB is required to give to someone who they refuse a bet to is actually probably not at a standard or a level that members of this House—and certainly not members of the committee—would have liked to have seen, so the committee turned its mind to that. We have supported the Minister’s amendment as part of this process to move that change from this legislation into secondary legislation through regulation. We have no issue with that, as we said through the committee stage. However, what we would like to see is some assurance—and I appreciate that can’t be achieved through this process—from the TAB and officials that they will be working with appropriate haste to give effect to what was the select committee’s desire. The Minister, to be fair, has given an undertaking that, yes, it’s his expectation that the officials would be working on this to give effect to that particular change.

One of the things that I think it’s unfortunate that the bill does not provide for—and this will not come as any surprise to the Minister—is an opportunity, I think, to look at the class 4 gaming licences that are currently retained by the TAB. Given that there would be an influx of dedicated revenue of around $180 million for the TAB that could be offset, I think, by relinquishing the class 4 licences that the TAB holds. Now, I know the TAB has said that they believe they are a gold star, gold standard operator, but I think, from Labour’s perspective, that that would have been a fair compromise in exchange for what was the legislative net. I know that won’t come as any surprise, and I understand my colleagues will, perhaps, refer to that in their contributions as well.

One of the things that I think that the Minister absolutely needs is some provision expecting that the TAB will provide them with a level of information so that they are able to exercise their duties. We absolutely support the changes in this bill that will provide for the Minister or the Department of Internal Affairs to require the TAB to provide specific information so that the Minister or the department is able to undertake their duties and exercise their responsibilities with the information at hand.

I think that this is a bill that will seek to signal to New Zealand’s racing industry that Parliament is 110 percent behind their endeavours. That is what’s needed. This is a unique industry. We have a unique position on the global stage in that we are seen by many other countries around the world as world leading in terms of our breeding within the equine code, and that’s something that we need to maintain.

Now, being able to ensure that there is an ability to have this dedicated legislative net for monies to be circulating within the industry—and I certainly expect that the TAB will be utilising that money for industry good. I mean that’s what it should be about; it should be for industry good. Now, yes, we can talk about harm minimisation and what that might mean, and that’s an important role that needs to be taken on board as well. If there is this money that’s coming through to the TAB that is being captured onshore, it needs to be spent onshore, and it needs to be for the benefit of the racing industry. It needs to be for the benefit of the more than 40,000 volunteers who, every week, go around various racecourses all around the country because they are passionate about that, which is important as well.

At third reading, albeit in urgency, we are supportive of this bill. I want to acknowledge all of those who have taken the time to be a part of this process, whether it’s the officials who have been involved, whether it’s the Minister or his office, whether it is the many submitters who had taken time to share their thoughts and experiences—and that’s an important thing, the experiences that were shared by submitters to the select committee. I think this has meant that we’ve landed at a piece of legislation that is going to make a huge difference. I commend it to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Regarding the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, the Green Party, like all parties in the House, is supporting this bill. The legislation supports the New Zealand racing industry by making TAB New Zealand the sole provider for sports and race betting, both on land and online. This ensures that gambling profits are returned to the racing industry.

The bill makes several other changes, including new oversight powers for the Minister to seek information from TAB New Zealand and regulatory oversight for the prohibition on other operators, and extends regulation-making power for harm prevention and minimisation to online TAB platforms. It creates regulation-making powers to specify circumstances in which the TAB can exclude customers from using their online platforms and to prescribe consumer protections.

The net profit of the TAB is distributed to the racing industry through grants to supporting organisations. Minimising competition protects gambling revenue for the racing industry. I think around $185 million was being repatriated offshore under the present state of affairs, and this bill will ensure that more of that money is retained by New Zealand.

In terms of the Green Party position, we have a phalanx of policy writers in our membership who very diligently go through policy and make us the party with the most sophisticated and deepest portfolio of policies of any party in this Parliament, and the party policy—[Member applauds] Thank you. Thank you, mate. I appreciate that.

The party policy of the Greens requires us to prevent new forms of gambling that are associated with harm and to regulate all existing forms of gambling to prevent or minimise harm. We see this bill as being consistent with that. It does prohibit online betting services by offshore operators, and online gambling is one of the riskier forms of gambling due to its easy access and easiness to conceal. Offshore operators are also not covered by New Zealand law and the protections provided by regulation. We see that as an important step in the right direction to ensure that online gambling is covered by regulation that takes into account the significant harm that gambling can have in our society. It is a pernicious addiction for some, and this has to be dealt with seriously. We see the powers of the Minister to address that and the regulation-making power for harm prevention to be an important part of that.

Our position on opposing forms of gambling that cause harm might be a challenge for us, regarding the Government’s legislation to put class 6 land into a lottery for pine tree growing, that I hadn’t considered, in terms of another piece of legislation the Government is trying to push through the House right now. We previously supported legislation back to racing in 2019 to introduce offshore betting charges with revenue distributed among the racing codes, which we determined was sensible, given the current racing industry provides a service to offshore vendors for no compensation. The same justification applies to prohibiting offshore betting.

The primary point of the bill is to protect the financial sustainability of the racing industry. There is some question over whether that sustainability is a good thing for some people who are concerned about the impact on animals used for entertainment and about animal welfare across racing codes. However, just for clarity, it is the Green Party’s policy to seek to regulate racing, not to explicitly call for its abolition other than, in this instance, greyhound racing. We acknowledge the Minister’s clear indication that it is this Government’s intention to phase out the greyhound racing industry, and we obviously support that position as well.

There is the risk that protecting TAB’s monopoly and limiting competition will increase TAB profitability at the expense of betting consumers. This was an issue that was canvassed at the committee somewhat, and I know some submitters directly reached out, expressing their concerns about the loss of competition and the monopolistic nature of this new regime. That is something that I think we, as a Parliament, need to keep a close eye on because we do want to make sure that there is not a monopoly restriction of people’s ability to gamble where they’re doing that in a safe manner. We think the expanded regulatory-making powers to protect consumers offer some protection for that. In summary, the Green Party is supporting this legislation. We see it generally as a step in the right direction, and we will be commending it to the House. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to give our support to this bill. Issues raised about the monopolistic abilities and the further undertakings by the Minister, as raised by Tangi Utikere, give some confidence that this will be done in a diligent way that respects punters and respects the industry. Really, what we’re here to do today is make sure there is a long-term successful and viable racing industry, because while it may have once been known as the sport of kings, it is the sport of Kiwis. We’re an egalitarian society that enjoys these sorts of activities, which are the legacies of our forebears. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Now, we’re away and racing. Giddy-up! It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill. One of the things I just want to touch on very briefly—the Minister for Racing did cover it—is the change to regulation-making powers in terms of how much money goes to sporting codes. Of course, it’s not just the two horse racing codes that will benefit from the more than $100 million that this bill will deliver to revitalise the racing industries but also other sporting codes. It is important to me that we see suitable money going through to that.

Also, I think one point, just for future consideration, is around virtual and fantasy sports. We’ve got students here from Kaingaroa School today in the gallery. It’s great to see them. I’m sure that will be something they’ll be interested in in the future. We should keep our eyes open for that. For now, I commend the bill to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe. We support this bill. It was a pleasure to actually be in the Governance and Administration Committee and to hear the submissions. I do think it’s unfortunate that this Government goes through the process—when we do actually avoid urgency and go to select committees, it seems extraordinary that we ask people to submit on several complex bills in January. It doesn’t seem likely that we would necessarily get the best input from people, but, in this case, we’ve got a wide range. I’d like to thank Rachel Boyack for chairing that select committee.

It is quite unusual that—maybe we’re in a six-horse race today—we’re all supporting the establishment of a monopoly, which is an interesting place for this House to be in. I’d like to note that some of us have more interest in equestrian and equine matters than others, but, as somebody has already mentioned, it’s not only about supporting the racing industry—over 90 percent of the racing code’s annual income comes from the TAB—but it’s also a whole range of sports, from boxing to tennis, from rugby to many other sports.

It would be quite interesting to know—it is quite opaque—which sports benefit to what degree. Should the benefit be in proportion to their “betability”? I’m not sure if that’s a word, but perhaps it is now that it’s been said on Hansard—“betability”. Are there other sports that, perhaps, do more for the economy or do more for people’s physical or mental health than the ones that are easiest to bet on and most popular to bet on? I do think an ongoing discussion with Sports New Zealand would be useful for looking at that issue. Let’s not assume that everywhere in the world does do betting on sports codes. There are 28 sports codes in New Zealand that received some funding. What about the ones that didn’t? I’ll just use an example here of the cycling brevet Tour Aotearoa, where you can take from 10 days, for the superhumans, to 45 days, for some of us, to go all the way from Cape Reinga to Bluff. I’m sure there is plenty of spending on food and accommodation on the way. You don’t bet on that, so there will be, presumably, no support for that kind of participative support.

How is the visibility of that distribution going to be dealt with in the future? This is not just about whether it’s the right sports that is funded. At the moment, every sport that receives funding, I believe, has to sign a confidentiality agreement, so it’s quite difficult to see externally whether there’s a fair division. In order not to infect all of you with my cough, I think I shall finish by saying we support this, we support the regulations change, and it’s a pleasure, for once, to be supporting something across the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): In the words of the Minister in charge of this bill, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, this has been a long time coming. I’m really keen to see it proceed and be passed into law as of today. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While everyone’s in a hurry to get out of here, we might just settle in and have a good hard talk about something quite important to the country. I congratulate Minister Peters on an important piece of work. For anybody who loves sports, they will actually look right now and see that the Auckland City FC has just drawn with the Boca Juniors one-all, which is an absolutely huge thing. The reason I raise that is because, if you look across three betting sites, the odds are different across all three. The interesting thing is that if you had put your wager on Auckland City to either draw or win that game, you would have come out a very rich person at the end of that game.

This is a bill that looks towards making sure we can protect the sports betting industry here in New Zealand but also making sure that we can look towards the kinds of codes that Mr Costley has already spoken to, which can allow a far more inclusive betting sector, if you will. You can bet on almost anything around the world, but in New Zealand, this bill is something that will make sure that we set the foundation for a better future in this particular space.

Just finally from me on this matter, because my colleagues have touched in it, there is an important matter around harmful betting and making sure that we can continue to protect people. There are provisions in this bill that say that the TAB has the ability to stop certain bettors, and there’s a framework to allow them to do that, but, ultimately, we know that the best way to stop people from falling into gambling harm is to stop them from gambling in the first place. In communities that many of us know and represent well here in the House, this is an important issue, and I take the words of my colleague Mr Tangi Utikere about the opportunity to, once again, have a look at pokies in communities.

While that may be somewhat of a missed opportunity in this particular bill, we do support it. We look forward to an ongoing discussion with the sector as the sector evolves. By the time this bill started its gestation period and got to this point, the sector has already changed multiple times. There are far more online gambling platforms that have started in that period of time than most people in this House can fathom. On that note, we congratulate the Minister on a piece of work that he’s worked hard on, as I know we did, certainly, in my time in the House here. We commend this particular bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I too, on behalf of the National Party, want to commend this third reading of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I also want to acknowledge Nick Roberts, Chief Executive of TAB New Zealand, and his team up there—no doubt they are waiting for this to come through—and commend them on their good work. I wish them all the very best as TAB New Zealand extends its monopoly on race wagering to include online betting. I commend the bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This next call is a split call between the Labour Party and the National Party. I call Lemauga Lydia Sosene.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for bringing this to the House in the third reading. It is pleasing that we are supporting such a vital industry to Aotearoa. I just want to quickly mention, in terms of the pokie machines and class 4 gambling. that it could have been a missed opportunity, as my colleague Peeni Henare has talked about. In our community in South Auckland, there is a real problem with the gambling on those pokie machines. They’re just too prevalent in our local community, and it does not reduce in terms of gambling harm behaviour. That is part of this legislation, and I did want to raise it.

I do want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee, I do want to thank the submitters and also the TAB industry—they still have an obligation to those who struggle to manage their gambling behaviour, and sometimes the proliferation of pokie machines in local communities is a real problem. There needs to be that balance. Congratulations to the Minister for this Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I commend the bill to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support this bill on behalf of the National Party. TAB New Zealand is the financial backbone of New Zealand’s racing industry. I would also like to extend the support and advocacy for the TAB New Zealand team to Jason Fleming and to Matt Smith for their tireless advocacy for the racing industry in New Zealand, which, of course, contributes over $2 billion to our economy and creates 13,000 jobs. This bill is about continuing to support that very important industry, so I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. It was a real pleasure to chair the committee for most of the process. I do want to acknowledge the chair who took over from me, Camilla Belich, who oversaw the final stages of the select committee process as this bill made its way through the select committee and, now, to the House for its third and final reading today.

We are really pleased to see this bill proceed and to support this bill. This was work that began under the previous Labour Government, and I do note that there are some concerns, from our side, around some elements of the bill that we think are missed opportunities. I’ll just talk to that briefly. We heard from a number of submitters, and one particular theme that came through was from national sporting organisations, who also will benefit from this bill. Those sporting organisations made really compelling submissions about how the proceeds from sports betting are distributed to their organisations. I do just want to point to some commentary in the select committee report, because there were two specific things they asked for and, I guess, some—I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as saying—push-back. I would just note that, actually, some of the things they asked for are already addressed in the Act. The committee did note in its report that they’d like to see the Government look at this a little bit further.

The two things that were specifically asked for was an amendment to section 82 of the Act to set out an accounting formula to determine how profits are generated from sports events and distributed to our national sporting organisations. The reason they asked for this is so that they have, I guess, more involvement and certainty around ensuring that the appropriate amount of profit is then shared with those sporting codes. What the committee did hear and note, though, is that section 128 of the Act does provide for regulations to be made to prescribe methods, and so there would be the opportunity for this under secondary legislation. The sporting codes asked for it to go into the body of the Act, and, actually, I don’t believe that’s the appropriate place for it; I think a better place would be to have it in secondary legislation. The committee, I think, correctly noted that those regulations could be used to address the concerns of those organisations, as opposed to writing it into the primary legislation.

The second big call that the groups made was having a requirement for representatives of national sporting organisations or Sport and Recreation New Zealand to be represented on the TAB New Zealand board. It was useful for the committee to hear from the TAB board and hear about the expertise of many of them, who have actually come from sporting codes or have come from Sport New Zealand. While we appreciated the suggestion of putting a requirement in, there didn’t seem to be a problem in reality, and I note that section 56 of the Act provides that Sport and Recreation New Zealand must be given at least four weeks to make nominations to the selection panel that recommends appointments to the TAB board. On balance, I think the committee made the right decision by not writing requirements into the Act, but it did state that that they encouraged the Government to investigate these issues further. I would support that. While this bill is about ensuring the certainty of the racing industry, obviously the TAB has a really important role in overseeing betting and, then, the proceeds of betting in the racing industry and our sporting codes, which are very important to who we are as New Zealanders. I wanted to take some time just to note those comments from the select committee process, because I thought they initiated a useful conversation. I also wanted, I guess, to reassure the sporting codes that I think there are things in the Act that do go some way to addressing the concerns that they have.

The final comment I just wanted to make—because I think most of us would like to see this bill passed, if we can, before 1 p.m., particularly the Minister—was noting, in the report, the differing view from the Labour Party and the Green Party around class 4 gambling. There was supposed to be more work undertaken, and that would have removed TAB’s class 4 licence. I think that some of my colleagues, like Peeni Henare and Lemauga Lydia Sosene, have made some very good representations around the concerns that we have as a Labour Party about the impact of gambling products like pokies. Gambling products like betting on horse racing are far more regulated, are far safer, and cause significantly lower levels of harm for people. There would have been an opportunity here to take some steps and take some action around reducing the harm that comes from the use of class 4 pokies, which I’ve certainly seen in my community—some examples of significant harm that it causes to people in communities. We feel there’s a missed opportunity there. But, look, we are keen to see this bill, hopefully, passed before 1 p.m., and I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. We commend it to the House.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of this bill, a bill which goes a long way to supporting the racing industry in New Zealand, which is a big part of our DNA. I commend it to the House.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise just to say well done to all of those involved. This is a great bill. I did my time on the board of Hawke’s Bay Racing, and I know all of that team will be very pleased. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Invest New Zealand Bill

Third Reading

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) We’ve presented a legislative statement on the Invest New Zealand Bill.

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

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That the Invest New Zealand Bill be now read a third time.

Firstly, can I congratulate the Minister for Racing for the successful passage of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, unanimously, in the House.

I want to thank members for their contributions in the debate so far over previous weeks to this important piece of legislation. By establishing a dedicated agency, the bill helps to deliver on the Government’s growth objectives to attract more high-quality investment to New Zealand that is good for New Zealand and good for New Zealanders.

Invest New Zealand will streamline investment processes and provide a tailored support to international investors. This will deliver greater capital investment and infrastructure, help foster more innovation in key sectors, and attract world-leading talent to our shores. New Zealand produces world-class businesses with huge export potential. They’re looking for domestic and global partners to help them grow and compete, and international investors who have plenty of choices about where to invest around the world need to increasingly see global viability of opportunities in New Zealand, and for New Zealand to get on the radar with these investors.

This bill is about creating a smarter, more targeted approach to international investment attraction in New Zealand, streamlining processes and ensuring New Zealand competes for the best people, best ideas, and best capital to join New Zealanders—who also are the best people, have the best ideas, and best capital—to produce more together than we could by ourselves. Overseas experiences, notably in Ireland and Singapore, demonstrate the value of a focused investment attraction agency dedicated in achieving just that.

The objectives of Invest New Zealand include attracting foreign direct investment in high-potential sectors such as agritech, fintech, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing; attracting new research and development investment in New Zealand by multinational companies and encouraging global companies to expand their own R & D footprint here, individually and collectively in partnership with New Zealand companies; encouraging skilled professionals to enhance domestic capabilities and global connections; and identifying opportunities to streamline processes and to increase the capital available to invest in new and existing projects and enterprises.

The creation of the new agency is critical in stepping up New Zealand’s effort to attract investment, and we need to supercharge our economy. It will also boost the impact of the Government’s other economic growth initiatives, including reforms to the Overseas Investment Act and changes to the Active Investor Plus visa settings, which we have seen, this week, delivering significant investment into the New Zealand economy already.

Together, these initiatives will help unlock tens of billions of dollars in global investment opportunities and make New Zealand a more attractive and predictable destination for investors to grow our tech sectors, to grow our innovation and our R & D, and to help New Zealanders grow where they currently are restricted and unable to.

I want to recognise the officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, as well as the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work in supporting the passage of this bill through the House. I’d also like to recognise and thank New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and all of their staff for their ongoing work as the bill has moved through, in looking at the structure and supporting the creation of Invest New Zealand.

During the debates previously we heard much about concerns from members opposite, and I’m sure the next speaker from the Opposition will raise questions around whether or not Invest New Zealand is going to sell various things. This is a country that has always welcomed investment. We do best on the world stage when we cooperate with others. Invest New Zealand will do nothing more than that. Invest New Zealand is called invest; it’s not called sell. So I say to members opposite that, actually, the opportunity to achieve things that are good for New Zealand and good for all New Zealanders is something that we should be celebrating together. It is not too late for the Labour Party to show they support investment to grow the New Zealand economy by supporting this bill. Nevertheless, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much. People listening to the Minister’s speech may be sucked into thinking that this is going to be all good for New Zealand. Let’s put on the record that Labour has always supported good foreign investment into our economy and into our country; in fact, our history’s built on that. But we’re in a new world, and we say that Invest New Zealand is a glorified real estate agency selling New Zealand and New Zealand intellectual property (IP) and opportunities—it’s not the right time for something like this. The passage of this bill under urgency—remember, this is under urgency without proper parliamentary scrutiny, and it will be passed today at the end of these speeches.

But we have in the House as well, introduced yesterday, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. What that bill does is take away the requirement of a benefit to New Zealand test for many overseas investment propositions into our country. They have been previously scrutinised by the Overseas Investment Office, but the Government is now going to move to shift responsibility for some of those tricky decisions and put them in the hands of officials, making it easier for investment to flow into New Zealand.

Now, historic times would have said that that would have provided better benefit for New Zealand when we needed the capital. We are living now in a world where there are trillions of dollars floating around the world looking for a place to park. Our ancestors and, indeed, us in recent times have worked hard through COVID times, through difficult times, to build a reasonably secure economy, systems with integrity, reasonably high trust, and a place where people can invest their money with some certainty. New Zealanders have saved. In fact, we’ve saved to the point through the superannuation funds, KiwiSaver, ACC—these are initiatives put in place often by Labour Governments to build the level of savings within our own economy, to have a level of capital that enables us to invest in our own future. That has not always been the case. So setting up Invest New Zealand to just bring more money into this country, without the proper tests, checks, and balances that we’ve had in the past does open the door for the scouring out of opportunities for future New Zealanders.

Whether we sell businesses, whether we sell IP, whether we sell land or homes is a critical component of the future prosperity of our country. We have a low productivity economy. There are claims that we haven’t invested enough in some areas of technology. I accept that and we have to work on that. The question is: who should do the investment and for what reasons?

Setting up Invest New Zealand is a broad objective just to bring more foreign investment into our country. Without the safeguards that the Minister refers to, he hopes—and there may be, but there’s no guarantees—that there will be benefit for our country. In fact, if you go to the regulatory impact statement, there are a lot of qualifications written in there by Treasury that say that money in itself doesn’t guarantee the progress that many people might assume might happen. In fact, the Minister assumes it will happen.

This Invest New Zealand agency is being paid for by, firstly, shutting down Callaghan Innovation; secondly, taking $11 million from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—a Government agency that has been tasked with developing enterprise in New Zealand, assisting them with trading and selling those wonderful products around the world, and also attracting, where necessary, investment into those enterprises. This coalition Government has now disconnected it.

I am astounded that New Zealand First has approved this. It’s been a party that for a long time has talked about protecting New Zealand’s sovereign rights, talked about protecting New Zealand businesses and enhancing their opportunities, and now is prepared to sell them out to make it harder for New Zealanders to compete for the IP, to compete for the properties or the businesses, enabling foreigners to come in, outbid them because they have access to cheaper capital, and to make it difficult for young New Zealanders to get ahead in our own country. That’s indeed why we see 191, every day, hopping on a plane and going to Australia—because this Government is not offering them any hope.

Invest New Zealand—this piece of legislation is opening the door to more foreigners, more competition from foreign capital to develop a better future for New Zealand and for New Zealanders. If you read the regulatory impact statement, the statement in there—

Hon Member: It’s good.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —you’ll see—oh, the member says this is all really good. Well, he may not be so happy when his children hop on a plane and go overseas because they don’t see a future for themselves in our country. We want to see New Zealanders invest in themselves, and I think one of the questions that should be asked, had we had a proper select committee process, would be: could we use our superannuation funds, our KiwiSaver funds, in our own country to invest in the businesses that require the capital—and I accept that that is necessary—delivering us a better long-term alternative than foreign investors, where people bringing the money in will have the rightful opportunity to take the returns on that money through dividends and indeed sell on to whoever they like.

The issue of ownership and its importance to us as a country, to individuals, as business owners or homeowners, is a critical question that needs to be asked and answered. Does ownership matter? Do we require high levels of foreign investment without the checks and balances that we’ve previously had in place? Do we need that money to develop a better future for New Zealand? The Labour Party has always advocated for smart foreign direct investment in our economy, developing greenfields projects, assisting us to grow our businesses, but not simply bringing capital in to inflate the values of farmland, of business, of homes. All of this will occur unless we have proper checks and balances.

The piece of legislation that sits alongside, as the Minister referred to it, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is one that is going through; it is going to a select committee, and we welcome the opportunity. We’ll be asking the questions there, but this Invest New Zealand piece of legislation that we’re dealing with at the third reading, which is going through the House today, heard under urgency, without checks and balances, without an ability to ask the hard questions, is simply opening the door to unchecked foreign investment in our country.

I urge people to take the opportunity to submit on the piece of legislation that will go to the select committee to, hopefully, make some changes to bolster the checks and balances that will be needed to protect the rights of New Zealanders now and into the future. We understand the value of capital, but capital in itself, without a highly skilled workforce, without the proper regulations and environmental protections that we need, will not deliver a better New Zealand for New Zealanders into the future.

I say that, once again, Labour is a party that has assisted to develop New Zealand, will continue to welcome foreign investment, but not through the through the set-up of an agency without the checks and balances, which I fear will be the reality for Invest New Zealand. This is a real estate agency that is set up to sell New Zealand, to sell New Zealand ideas and businesses without the checks and balances, to ensure that our sovereign rights, our sovereign objectives of building a better, more sustainable country into the future are kept in place. Labour doesn’t support this bill, because it has not ensured that protections that we need around foreign investment will be in place through this process.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Visitors

Malaysia—Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I’m sure that members will want to join me in welcoming the delegation from the Public Accounts Committee of Malaysia’s House of Representatives, who are present with us in the gallery today.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s actions to provide certainty to the energy sector by repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration, and being prepared to co-invest in exploration projects. In many ways, the latter policy is one a Government wishes it didn’t have to have. However, it’s been made necessary by the flagrant, reckless—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —irresponsible ban under the previous Government.

SPEAKER: Let’s make it very clear that Ministers answering questions who today choose to have a flick at the Opposition in the answer to that question will be leaving the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that working Kiwis aren’t fundamentally feeling the economic recovery in this really tough economy?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I believe that New Zealanders are facing challenging economic times. However, the trajectory is one of continual improvement. When you have a Government that borrows $115 billion and leaves nothing to show for it except for inflation and high interest rates, the recovery takes some time. But since this Government has been in office, we have seen inflation fall from 5.6 percent down to 2.5 percent. We’ve seen the official cash rate fall from 5.25 percent down to 3.5 percent. We are seeing people’s mortgages come down, we’re seeing their rents come down, and we’re seeing their inflation come down, and that is what an economic recovery looks like.

SPEAKER: Let me also remind members that question time is for questions to be asked and questions to be answered, not speeches made. So we’ll be curtailing those question answers if that sort of practice continues.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is it his view that the cost of living crisis is over for New Zealand families?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The cost of living crisis is abating with every positive move taken by this Government. But the fact is that you can’t be the guy that dug the hole and then complain it’s a long way to dig out of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think it isn’t the Government’s job to figure out whether its policies are delivering for Kiwi families, as he indicated yesterday, given both Nicola Willis and the IRD haven’t been able to find a single family that’s receiving the full $250 a fortnight this Government promised them?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And I ask the member: has he found anyone sitting behind him who still supports him?

SPEAKER: I think the Acting Prime Minister could do a little bit better than that. And, once again, it’s attacking the Opposition, which is not the form that’s acceptable under Standing Orders. The member’s a very articulate man, I’m sure he can do better than he has.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s very simple: the member has a supposition in his question which misrepresents my position. I reject it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which part of his position is being misrepresented?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, unfortunately, the Speaker is asking me to make shorter answers, so I won’t be able to list them all.

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

SPEAKER: No—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —that cannot be a legitimate answer.

SPEAKER: No—thank you. Good. You can do a little better than that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it’s too long and now too short. The member is misrepresenting my position by saying that I somehow am not concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders or evaluating the effectiveness of the Government’s policies. I can tell him that we are deeply concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders and deeply concerned about the effectiveness of our policies. The good news is that those policies are very effective and it brings us great joy to show concern in them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept the Government’s decision to cut early childhood education subsidies in real terms will increase fees for Kiwi parents?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is a nonsense. We have increased the amount of money that goes into early childhood education by a very similar amount as it’s been increased year on year, over the last decade.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is increasing early childhood education subsidies by 0.5 percent when inflation is running at 2.5 percent not a real-terms funding cut?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, people may recall not so long ago when inflation was running at 7.3 percent. And did that member, as Minister of Education, increase the funding by 7.3 percent? No, he did not. New Zealanders up and down this country were on the treadmill trying to keep up with the out of control inflation that these turkeys foisted on them.

SPEAKER: No—now hang on. No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that last remark.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if, now that he’s got that out of his system, he could perhaps address the question that I asked him, which is how increasing early childhood education subsidies, as this Government has decided to do, by 0.5 percent when inflation during that time is running at 2.5 percent is not a real-terms funding cut. Because, in his previous answer, he indicated that they haven’t cut the funding, when they have.

SPEAKER: No, no—you’ve got to think carefully. I listened to this because of the expectation around questions about how the exchange would run. So the question was, as you said, asked. The member then spoke about the overall increase that had been put in place. It was established, and previous Speakers have established—not actually from my political persuasion; from another—it is appropriate to reflect on a previous Government’s performance, which I think is what he’s done. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to say he’s got to answer more.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept the Government’s order to hike public transport costs will drive up bus fares by as much as 50 percent from next week?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government has made no such order.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Depositor Compensation Scheme and when does it start?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Starting next week, 1 July, a new scheme will protect New Zealanders’ deposits at banks, as well as at building societies, credit unions, and finance companies who take retail deposits. The Depositor Compensation Scheme will guarantee a person’s deposits of up to $100,000 per institution in the unlikely event of a failure. The implementation of the scheme, which has been many years in the making, will give Kiwis peace of mind that if something were to go wrong at the institution they have entrusted their money to, that money will be safe.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What types of accounts will be covered?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Depositor Compensation Scheme covers money held in standard banking products like transaction accounts, savings accounts, and term deposits. The scheme starts automatically next week, and people don’t have to do anything to be covered. People should check on their bank, building society, credit union, or finance company website, or give them a call, to see exactly what is protected by the scheme if they are unsure.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the scheme funded and administered?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Depositor Compensation Scheme will be levy-funded. Banks, building societies, credit unions, and finance companies will pay the levy, based on the riskiness of their institution and the total deposits they hold that are covered by the scheme. The levies collected from institutions will build up over time in a fund so that money is available if compensation needs to be made—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Desperate today that you’re having to talk about a Labour scheme.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just said that it is “desperate” for me to be talking about a scheme which will guarantee New Zealanders’ deposits, and I would put to them that, actually, that is meaningful to everyday New Zealanders, and possibly more meaningful than the semantic games he prefers to play in question time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Good. We’ll take the—we’ll stick to the rules, sorry. Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is the scheme being introduced?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It turns out that New Zealanders are interested in their financial security and whether or not the savings that they have can be guaranteed. If a bank looks like it could be in trouble, people typically want to take their money out of it. Such withdrawals can trigger a whole series of unpleasant events in the financial sector and across the economy. Depositor protection gives people confidence that their deposits are not at risk and is international best practice. New Zealand is now getting in line with that best practice. In addition, and importantly, I expect the scheme will improve competition, because New Zealanders are more likely to consider switching if they know their deposit will be protected. New Zealanders can be assured: the guarantee exists whether or not you’re with one of the “big four” banks or you are with a credit union, a building society, or another financial service provider. I think this is important for those who may have been reluctant to switch their banking services due to a sense that their funds may not be secure. The Depositor Compensation Scheme, I hope, will be a spur for greater competition in our financial sector.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When was the scheme referenced in the Minister’s answers passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I welcome this turning-around of events, in which me talking about the scheme was initially “desperate” and a terrible thing to do, and it’s now something the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take credit for. Well, that is “Flip-flop Hipkins” for you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question. The Minister was asked when the scheme was passed into law and who the Minister of Finance was. It wasn’t an opportunity to attack the Opposition; it was an opportunity to answer the question. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Some of you will be leaving in bulk if you interrupt a point of order. Make your point of order again so that those who were talking through it can hear it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was very simple: when was the scheme passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

SPEAKER: Yes, I heard the question. We’ll just get a straightforward answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think that the Leader of the Opposition already knows the answer to that question, but I’m very happy to spoon-feed him, and I’d suggest he probably needs a bit more of it. It was introduced by the previous finance Minister Grant Robertson, and has the rare attribute that it was actually one thing he did that was helpful. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t out-balance the absolute mess he left the New Zealand economy in, which that member aided and abetted at every step.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, there are several members on the front bench of the Opposition who have put themselves in danger of leaving early this afternoon—not particularly looking at anybody, but just scanning the entire front bench.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ruling that you have just made right now is very much the same as the ruling you made regarding Ministers at the very beginning of question time. If you stuck with the first ruling, you probably wouldn’t have needed to make the second.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much for your advice. I look forward to you putting that in writing and sending it to the Standing Orders Committee so that they can record the wisdom of the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: is she telling us that it’s taken 19 long months for Mr Hipkins to find something commendable about Grant Robertson’s time?

SPEAKER: No, no, no—that’s not a question that the Minister can answer, much as she may want to. Moving now to—[Interruption]. Urgency—urgency just turns the place upside down.

Question No. 3—Minister for Oceans and Fisheries

3. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does he stand by his statement, “The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless”; if so, are current levels of bycatch acceptable?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: A range of management measures are in place to manage fisheries by-catch while enabling sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources. We continue to monitor the effects of fishing and assess whether additional management measures are necessary. The Government works in a number of ways to prevent and minimise by-catch from fishing. This includes restrictions on fishing in areas which overlap with particular habitats, as well as longer-term plans to prevent and minimise captures.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is it harmless that nearly 1,000 seabirds were captured by commercial fisheries in the first three months of this year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the seabird capture is down dramatically because of changed methods of fishing, but it’s an ongoing matter which crosses, of course, a whole lot of countries, not just New Zealand, and we’re in international discussions to ensure that we’re following best practice to minimise that occurrence.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he think it’s hypocritical that last year Aotearoa pledged $16 million to the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, yet this year we’ve had the largest coral by-catch event in 15 years, dredging up to 6 tonnes of ancient coral from the seafloor?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such pledge was made by any such country as named by that questioner.

Tākuta Ferris: Are you sure?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, I am positive. Unlike you, you dickhead.

Hon Marama Davidson: OK. Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I wonder if the member can ask that question again, because there was interruption on my right.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Hang on, the House will be quiet while a question is asked.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, both those figures are totally incorrect.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he stand with the 80 percent of New Zealanders who agree that the Government should ban bottom trawling on sea mounts and protect these biodiversity hot spots?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The bottom trawling is an ongoing consideration by the New Zealand Government. Of course, the procedures have dramatically improved, but there are some stock which cannot be caught any other way—orange roughy happens to be one of them at certain parts of the country—so that is why it’s an ongoing discussion, ensuring that we follow best practice.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he stop insisting that bottom trawling is harmless when clearly the indiscriminate method is causing wide-scale death and destruction of our native species and ecosystems?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, we reject the premise of that question. Again, it is stated on assumptions which have not been proven and are not of the best and latest science that we have available to us.

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order. I’ve witnessed many times in this House disparaging comments being made between sides, and I’m quite sure that being called a “dickhead” would fall in line with that tikanga of the House, we might say, Mr Speaker. So if Mr Peters wants to call me a dickhead across the alleyway here, I think that we should consider something for him.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting point of order. Until the member brought it up, I had no idea that that was the allegation being made against him. But if he has obviously found it offensive, I’d ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, he hasn’t found it offensive, has he?

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. It’s not something—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did not raise the matter of offence.

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

SPEAKER: Wait on, wait on—hang on. We’re about to get terribly excited.

Tākuta Ferris: I take personal offence to the comments made by Mr Peters over here calling me a dickhead.

SPEAKER: On that basis, I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the basis that when I was trying to get my thoughts together on the answer to Marama Davidson’s questions, he was interrupting me. I apologise for calling him what I said he was.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that now an acceptable way of withdrawing and apologising? Because the House will have a lot of fun if that’s the case.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. While there was a point of order being taken by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, there was a lot of noise, and I did not hear everything that he said. I heard the last part, which was “on that basis, I apologise”. So—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, hang on, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m not going to take this any further. I’m going to review the Hansard and come back to the House tomorrow. Simplest way through it.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I wonder if you might also reflect on your earlier rulings with relation to political motifs on T-shirts and badges in relation to anything you may have seen in the last few minutes.

SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly will.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many New Zealanders are homeless now, compared to when the Government was elected?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Any response to that question is influenced by how I define homelessness, but I’ll use two data sets for the purposes of this question. If you mean those households living in emergency housing, in October 2023, there were 3,402 households living in emergency housing; in May 2025, there were 510, a drop of circa 3,000 households. If I use those persons living without shelter, in Census 2023, as we know, there were 4,965, quite a bit more than Census 2018—3,624—and, today, there’s no formal comparative figure to the census stats.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why, when front-line providers are telling him consistently that his policies have contributed to unprecedented increases in homelessness, does he refuse to admit that homelessness has increased under his watch?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Following up from earlier discussions and kōrero between the member and myself at the scrutiny session, there are a range of observations; there are a range of views as to the causes and the contributors to emergency housing. There is not one single cause or reason why people become homeless, live without shelter, or end up in emergency housing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Who are the “some providers” that he says don’t link rising homelessness to his policies?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I refer to the Homelessness Insights report, which I’m sure the member has had access to and pored over vigorously in the last few weeks. That report states that there may be—from the providers, that may be attributable to changes, but there are also a range of cost of living, health, drug addiction, and a whole range of other factors that can contribute to homelessness.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why did he claim that the census was the “single source of truth” when it came to measuring homelessness, when the census was abolished by his Government the very next day?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It has been the single formed source of truth for these numbers. However, we continue to seek and have proffered to us and furnished to us a range of reports, including the Homelessness Insights report, which is due shortly.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he, now that the census will be abolished by this Government, finally listen to the front-line providers who have told him that his policies have made homelessness “the worst it’s been in living memory”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve said earlier, there are a range of observations and views not just from providers but also from iwi and Māori organisations like the Ōwhata 2B and 7D trust, which I recently attended to celebrate the opening of various housing developments that they had, and commit to funding for further housing that they can build and go to. There is no one conclusive view right now across those various sources of information.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister considered pledging, as previous Ministers have, to shelter all homeless people within four weeks of coming to office, or does he judge that there are often complex reasons for people’s homelessness that Jacinda Ardern should have realised before she made that broken pledge?

SPEAKER: Look, how many times have I warned about that? I’m telling the Minister that’s the last time—this week, next week, the rest of the Parliament—that a question is used to attack the Opposition. Unacceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Dr Ang Jury from Women’s Refuge, who said, “The refuges are having a huge amount of difficulty getting emergency housing support for our clients. It used to be really easy to access, to be honest, if someone arrived at a Work and Income office with a Refuge advocate then it was a done deal. But it’s not like that any more”; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The allegations and assertions that the member made last week in scrutiny in relation to these related matters are serious and, as a result, I have called the member to ask for further evidence and attribution around the claims that were made at scrutiny week. I’m still awaiting specific info—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, quieten down.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —because Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development, has told me as late as this afternoon that there is no evidence to show that emergency housing has been declined to anyone on the basis that they contributed to their housing need as a result of being a domestic violence victim, and I still await that specific information.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and asks: does he stand by—

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on.

TODD STEPHENSON: —all of his Government’s statements and actions?

SPEAKER: No, wait—wait. Questions have to be heard in silence. Please ask the question again.

5. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s announcement welcoming the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Plan. It’s a tribute to members of the Government, including Chris Bishop, also people like Simon Court, who are addressing a major problem with our infrastructure planning, which can be summed up as the political cycle being far too short compared with the project cycle. When Governments change and priorities change, major projects stop and start, capacity is built up and built down, and not enough gets done at a competitive price. This plan will deliver long-term infrastructure planning, smarter funding and financing, efficient delivery of critical projects, and better maintenance of assets so that all New Zealanders can get around and get homes more affordably, at better quality.

Todd Stephenson: What announcements has the Government made about access to new medicines?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many. This Government has taken the view that if something is good for New Zealanders and there is no reason to prevent them having it, then they should have it. We’ve done it with pseudoephedrine; we’ve done it with melatonin. We also take the view that funding medicines is a critical priority for any Government. Not only did we fill in a major fiscal hole to the tune of $1.776 billion upon taking office; we added another $604 million, which has allowed dozens of new medicines to help over 200,000 New Zealanders get access to new medication. Then we extended the prescription time frame to 12 months for some of the most important things that people need to get for their health. Altogether, this Government has a fantastic record, allowing Kiwis to access medicines better.

Todd Stephenson: What announcements has the Government made about GP funding?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they say that a stitch in time saves nine. Getting to the doctor is not only critical to health but it has critical benefits to the rest of the healthcare system—ensuring, for example, that emergency departments are not clogged up. So I’m so proud to be part of a Government where our health Minister, Simeon Brown, has just announced a 13.89 percent uplift in GP funding so that people are more likely to get into their GP, taking pressure off the hospitals and improving New Zealanders’ health.

Todd Stephenson: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the following statements in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill: “principles that pretty much anyone should support” and “Those principles are incontrovertible. … as my colleague Lianne Dalziel said, [they] are the basis on which [any] legal system rests”?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something you can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question.

Todd Stephenson: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with any statements that he’s recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I do, as a matter of fact. I have seen statements that say the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill are something that anybody should agree with and, in fact, are incontrovertible.

Hon Peeni Henare: Sounds like David Seymour’s playing a victim.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And it may interest people across the other side of the House, like Peeni Henare, to know that those statements were not made by me. They were made by a very wise man, a lawyer, and a member of the Labour Party when it had some intellectual heft.

SPEAKER: No.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Those statements were made to this House by Charles Chauvel.

SPEAKER: Good, OK. While I’m tempted to pull the member up for misleading the House, I want to make it very clear that you cannot use supplementary questions to amount any kind of attack on the Opposition.

Hon Chris Bishop: That wasn’t an attack—no, it was praising him.

SPEAKER: And you might think that’s crazy, but, unfortunately, I know the man.

Question No. 6—Statistics

6. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Statistics: How will he ensure that scrapping the five-yearly Census will not magnify the problem of under-counting Māori and Pasifika populations?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Statistics): We’re not scrapping the census; we’re adopting a new approach that first uses administrative data already collected by the Government. This will then be supported by smaller annual surveys and targeted data collection, particularly for underrepresented communities. This new approach builds on successful models previously used by Stats New Zealand, where admin data has helped ensure that Māori and Pacific population undercounting is reduced. It also gives us the opportunity to continue working with these communities on an ongoing basis to develop tailored solutions and ensure Māori and Pacific populations are being accurately represented in data collection.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will the Minister uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori data sovereignty under the data collection framework that is set to replace the census?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: In 2019, Stats New Zealand entered into an arrangement, the Mana Ōrite arrangement, with the Data Iwi Leaders Group, which describes the umbrella and the activities that Stats New Zealand will have in their engagement with iwi Māori and how they’ll take those considerations into account.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his Government’s commitment to closing the Māori data gap, if any?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We do have commitment to closing that gap. We’re working constructively with Te Kāhui Raraunga and seeking their advice and counsel as to how we can do a better job representing underrepresented populations in the data sets.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will the Government be able to identify communities of need when administrative data will only be collected from those who engage with the Government services, and our most marginalised people do not engage with these services?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That’s exactly why the community attribute surveys, which will encompass roughly 3 to 5 percent of the population with their annual surveys, and the targeted surveys will be looking to go out and seek information from those underrepresented populations.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What impact will the scrapping of the census have on the revitalisation of te reo Māori?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’ve already commented that the census is not being scrapped; that we’re taking a new approach, but what’s also true is that we are aware that te reo Māori is a variable that we need to pay attention to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister address the earlier question from the questioner, which was where in the Treaty of Waitangi does it reference the Māori population being counted?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Under the wider Mana Ōrite agreement, how Stats New Zealand engages with iwi Māori around Treaty of Waitangi discussions and issues are covered.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Will the Minister commit, therefore, to fully funding the Māori data governance model laid out by Te Kāhui Raraunga to close the Māori data gap, to accurately identify communities of need, and to uphold Māori data sovereignty?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We’re working with Te Kāhui Raraunga as we speak, and I’m encouraged by the constructive suggestions that they are actually bringing to that consultation.

Question No. 7—Infrastructure

7. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on New Zealand’s infrastructure sector?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Today, the Infrastructure Commission released the draft National Infrastructure Plan. It’s an independent view on the current state of our system, what we need in the future, and the projects and policy reforms that will bridge this gap in the most effective and value-for-money way. It’s been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission. As I said this morning launching the plan, this is not the coalition Government’s infrastructure plan; it’s New Zealand’s plan.

Rima Nakhle: Why is having a national infrastructure plan important?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the things that I’m sure all members will have heard over the years is what we really need in this country is a long-term plan that transcends political cycles.

Hon Ginny Andersen: That someone doesn’t cancel.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government—are you not in favour of that?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Not cancelling it, no. Fifteen thousand construction workers—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh righty-o, OK.

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Just answer the question. Don’t engage with comments across the House. Those who are commenting across the House risk leaving the House early.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the points the Infrastructure Commission makes in the draft plan is that our system is not performing well. There has been near systemic neglect of the underlying institutional settings and policy frameworks over successive Governments. Contrary to popular perception, the Government spends a lot on infrastructure. We’re in the top 10 percent in the OECD for investment, but the bottom 10 percent when it comes to getting quality and bang for buck from spending. So there are a range of very sensible recommendations in the report that the Government looks forward to advancing.

Rima Nakhle: How will the National Infrastructure Plan help build consensus on infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The plan is a conversation starter and it’s a draft plan, but it’s built on robust evidence, data, and analysis. It’s not as simple as everyone getting into a room and agreeing with each other. We need strong systems and institutions, robust investment frameworks, high-quality evidence, and advocacy for policies and projects from a better-informed public. As part of the Government’s response to the plan, I will be engaging with other political parties in Parliament—that work has already started. I’m also intending to ask the Business Committee to hold a special parliamentary debate on the plan next year. We need to move away from the rhetoric that we need greater bipartisanship on all projects and instead build consensus on the idea that Governments of all flavours should use best practice to select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after our infrastructure.

Rima Nakhle: What does the plan recommend?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m encouraging all members to read the plan. It makes 19 important recommendations—in draft form. Many of these recommendations align with work the Government has under way—for example, making better use of pricing and user charging to fund infrastructure investment; adopting spatial planning, which I know the previous Government did a lot of work on through the resource management reforms; relaxing land-use restrictions, which, again, I note the previous Government did some work on; reforming our transport funding system; prioritising infrastructure through the resource management system; and drastically improving asset management, which has been a 30-year problem for New Zealand. There are serious recommendations in this report for a serious country and I’m looking forward to advancing these reforms.

Simon Court: Has the Minister seen reports that three consortia have qualified to bid for the Northern Corridor public-private partnership (PPP), and what does it say about the sector’s confidence in this Government’s refreshed approach to PPP procurement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, indeed I have seen those reports, largely because I released it. We have three consortia bidding for the Northland Expressway—very important project—that will unlock the economic potential of Northland. It’s very heartening to see that all three of the international consortia bidding had representatives at the New Zealand Infrastructure Investment Summit earlier in the year. I think that would have given them greater confidence to participate in this very important project.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by statements made on her behalf that high inflation and high interest rates were main factors in job losses in the construction sector?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. Unfortunately, the economic conditions that we inherited, including high inflation and high interest rates, created the environment for increasing unemployment. Under our Government, interest rates have come down, inflation is within the target band for the first time in over three years, business confidence is at a 10-year high, and construction costs have stabilised. Our work to grow the economy and the investments in Budget 2025, including our Investment Boost package, will see more businesses have the confidence to grow and hire more people.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many jobs were lost because her Government cancelled approximately 3,500 Kāinga Ora home builds?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I’m really proud of our Government’s National Infrastructure Plan and the work that’s under way, both in terms of hospital rebuilds, new classrooms, as well as State housing buildings. But what I’m more proud of is that this Government has got high interest rates down, inflation under control, and stabilised the costs of building. So, actually, we can build more with less.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister was how many jobs were lost as a result of those houses being cancelled for builds. I don’t believe the Minister got anywhere near addressing that question.

SPEAKER: Well, it depends on how you view it. The Minister might like to have a look at it, but I do need to say that asking how many jobs are lost on a cancelled project is kind of a double negative. The projects are cancelled, there were no jobs. So let’s have another crack at the answer.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sure. A project is a project when it’s funded, and so if the member would like to think about funded initiatives, then actually there’s no change.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did her Government cancel the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, if the member would like to ask the appropriate Minister that question, then I’m happy for her to do that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Employment—employment!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, it’s about looking at delegations, looking at who’s responsible for what, and I’d invite you to do that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What is her plan for engineering students who are unable to complete the required 800 hours of work experience in New Zealand because there is no work available here?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I say, it would be really useful for the member to put the question to the relevant Minister because I think that would be useful, in terms of tertiary education, in terms of vocational education. But, look, I’m proud of our Government’s plan around infrastructure, our investment in hospital rebuilds, school classrooms, and housing. We are a Government that is investing in growth, which is exactly what Budget 2025 was all about.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What workforce planning is under way to ensure construction companies will be able to get back the workers who left for overseas after major construction projects were cancelled by her Government?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, a project can’t be cancelled if it wasn’t funded in the first place. But as I say, the Minister beside me, the Hon Chris Bishop, has announced today the National Infrastructure Plan, and Budget 2025 is filled with investment projects that our Government has committed to and funded, which is where jobs get created.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that there is approximately $3 billion to $4 billion of construction of infrastructure projects starting in the next six months, including the Melling Interchange project, the Ōtaki to north of Levin project, and the Brougham Street State Highway 76 programme down in Christchurch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can indeed, and I can also say proudly about the industry partnerships that the Ministry of Social Development have under way with organisations like Downer—who were here in Parliament a couple of days ago—who have got 1,600 job seekers off the benefit and into work because of infrastructure projects.

SPEAKER: Just wait for 30 seconds. Can I just say that a commentary about the appropriateness of Ministers answering are covered by the fact that it is the Government of the day who decides what Minister can answer any particular question. So while the pick and choose might be something that’s fun to speculate about, it’s not reasonable.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the fact that there are 15,000 fewer jobs in the construction sector evidence that her Government strategy to cancel 3,500 Kāinga Ora builds, scrap the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineers, and axe workforce development councils has failed, and National is just making life harder for Kiwis?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I absolutely refute the numbers that that member referred to. We know she’s not good with numbers; that’s more examples of that just now. I’m really proud of our Government’s record when we have come into economic conditions where unemployment has been rising since 2021. Unfortunately, high interest rates and high inflation lead to recession and higher unemployment rates. Instead of putting our head in the sand, we are focused on getting job seekers into work, and our work exit rates show that what we are doing is working.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston—[Interruption] The Rt Hon Winston Peters and no one else.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister learnt of the good news of the significant number of home and unit do-ups, additions, renovations, extensions in Auckland Central?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, I’m really proud of our Government’s focus in Budget 2025 around improvements and funding for bringing older social homes and State houses up to scratch, which is one of many measures in Budget 2025 around infrastructure and building and construction.

Question No. 9—Climate Change

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): To the Minister of Climate Change: does he stand by his statement that “it is our expectation that we will”—

SPEAKER: Just hang on, hang on. I don’t know what’s going on today, but the amount of conversation going around the House while questions are trying to be asked is unacceptable. Chlöe Swarbrick, please start your question again.

9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he stand by his statement that “it is our expectation that we will remain an associate member” of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I stand by the statement in the context in which it was given last November, which was that the Government’s intention to repeal the offshore oil and gas ban did not necessarily mean New Zealand would not be able to remain a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Subsequently, the New Zealand Government made the decision to withdraw, in good faith, our associate membership, and informed the alliance of this decision on 21 June 2025.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does a $200 million taxpayer-funded subsidy for new fossil fuels, which the Government’s own advice says will take at least a decade to produce new gas, help the energy transition, as he said in his statement today?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, while loosely connected to the primary question, the reality of the situation which this Government faces is that due to a shortage of gas in the electricity sector as a result of prior decisions by prior Governments, we are now dealing with a critical situation in the context of needing to ensure that we have more gas available to keep the lights on, and, as climate change Minister and energy Minister, I make no apology that my primary focus is to ensure that we can keep the lights on for New Zealanders.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister stand by his statement, also from November, that our membership of the coalition to phase out fossil fuel subsidies “fits well with New Zealand’s leadership of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Group and our role as Chair of the recently signed Agreement on Climate Change Trade and Sustainability,”, and, if so, how exactly does that align with his Government’s $200 million taxpayer subsidy for new fossil fuels?

SPEAKER: Look, I’m just going to suggest that the member needs to reflect, in supplementaries, either on an answer that’s given by the Minister or the content of the primary question. The last two have barely done that. The Minister may answer if he is able.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I stand by the statements in the context in which they were given last November. The New Zealand Government remains in the position that we will undertake a just and orderly transition away from fossil fuels.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is “just and orderly”, in terms of a transition away from fossil fuels, about the Government’s commitment to $200 million in a new fund for fossil fuels that will begin production in 10 years’ time?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can be very clear about is, “just and orderly” is not repealing oil and gas and causing significant uncertainty to New Zealand industry in cutting off the fuel that actually powers New Zealand industry and produces a huge amount of economic value, including the majority of our primary sector.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the value of our international reputation, or our commitments to international agreements, if this Government continues walking away from and breaching them?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I reject the premise of that question, but what I can comment on is that the importance of the New Zealand relationship in the context of our global partners has never been more important than now, and the importance of the fact that our Prime Minister is currently overseas doing significant positive work on behalf of this country to double the value of our exports by 2035 and ensure that we are open for business should be something that we should all be very proud of.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that this is the first time as climate change Minister he has ever been asked a question from the Greens’ climate spokesperson?

SPEAKER: Well, that’s so far wide of the primary question that it probably is not fair.

Question No. 10—Agriculture

10. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why is the Government banning full farm-to-forestry conversions on our highest quality productive land?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): The Government is concerned about the effects that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has on our most productive land, with whole farm-to-forest conversions harming rural communities. When farms are planted in trees because of the carbon market, we lose the ability to produce the high-quality, safe food that consumers demand. We lose rural jobs, export earnings, and the families that go with them. The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading in this House last night, will preserve our most valuable land that grows food for exports and that sustains rural communities.

Miles Anderson: What effect has full farm-to-forest conversion had on the rural economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: A significant effect. The number of farms converted to forest amounts to more than 300,000 hectares since 2017. The primary sector has said that has resulted in the loss of more than 2 million sheep and beef stock units. Exotic carbon forests offer short-term economic boosts, through activity often decades apart. These boosts can be significant in the short term, but they cannot come at the total expense of farming communities that contribute each and every year. This legislation will address the harm that has been done to many regions around New Zealand, through the interaction of the emissions trading scheme and conversion of farms to forest.

Miles Anderson: How will the bill protect farmland from full farm-to-forest conversion?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The bill puts in place restrictions—a moratorium—on the planting of trees to go into the emissions trading scheme, on land-use classes (LUC) 1 through 6, with farmers being able to choose to plant up to 25 percent of their own land. On LUC 6 land, which is some of our hillier sheep land, there will be an annual quota of 15,000 hectares to go into the emissions trading scheme. The legislation has exemptions for classes of Māori land so that they will be able to continue to plant. The bill also includes temporary exemptions where an investor can provide evidence of a qualifying forestry investment between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024, which is when this policy was announced and will take effect from. For instance, the purchase of land and ordering of trees prior to 4 December 2024 would be an example of proof of a qualifying investment, whilst either of these actions alone would not be.

Miles Anderson: What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We’ve seen entire farms converted into exotic carbon forests under the ETS. Whole-farm conversions don’t just affect landowners; they affect entire communities. Schools, local businesses, and services all depend on the steady year-round activity that farming provides. Three hundred thousand hectares of conversions is not sustainable for our food production, and it’s not fair for the rural communities who bear the brunt of these conversions. From Southland and Central Otago, to the East Coast, across the King Country, and as far as Northland, schools have closed, services disappear, and rural businesses are struggling. The bill is about finding the right balance. It preserves choice: the choice to farm, the choice to grow trees, and the choice to sustain rural communities for generations to come.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by statements made on his behalf that his proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 would “include provisions for repayments but not mandate them”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): If the member is asking that pātai by reference to a Northern Advocate article published earlier this week, no—fake news. Fake news. That statement imputed to me was not made by me or on my behalf. The journalist has now corrected the article, and I recommend that the member follow up with some light rereading of that article in due course.

Ingrid Leary: Will he commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I, unfortunately, missed seeing who was speaking during the asking of that question, but I’d advise them not to interrupt it again. Ingrid Leary.

Ingrid Leary: Will he commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration.

Ingrid Leary: What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That is quite a broad and open question, but what I can say is this Government is responsibly reviewing a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks that are living in retirement villages.

Ingrid Leary: Why does he think operators here wouldn’t survive a mandated repayment period when parts of Australia have had one for 26 years, where no operators have gone bust as a result?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are some very loose comparisons that are being made, but we are really focused on ensuring that we understand fully the implications of some of the issues that are being raised and we will take policy decisions in due course.

Ingrid Leary: Will he support a law change which requires operators to give residents their money back within three months, or has lobbying by the big operators convinced him that only incentivising them and not mandating will somehow magically fix the problem?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that. What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as Associate Minister of Housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine Chamber.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements have been made for the assessment and prescription for people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Good question. Yesterday, the Ministry of Health and Pharmac announced that, from February 2026, GPs and nurses will be able to diagnose and start treatment for adults with ADHD. For those under 18, the change will allow nurses working within child health or mental health services to diagnose and start treatment for ADHD. The Ministry of Health will work with sector representatives to develop a clinical principles framework for assessment and treatment to ensure there is quality and consistency for patients with ADHD. This is a common-sense change that will make a meaningful difference in many lives of New Zealanders.

Tom Rutherford: How will the changes benefit people with undiagnosed ADHD?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Too often, I’ve heard stories of people with ADHD who have been unable to get a diagnosis and treatment in a timely manner, due to long wait times and costs associated with seeing a specialist. This change will help break these barriers and improve access to support. It will lead to faster assessments, fewer delays, and lower costs for those seeking help, and will be life changing for many people. The Ministry of Health estimate that these changes will improve access to treatment for 7,000 Kiwis in the first year and a total of over 50,000 new people accessing treatment in five years’ time.

Tom Rutherford: How do these changes reflect feedback from those with lived experience and advocates for those with ADHD?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I want to acknowledge the many advocates with lived experience, and others, who spent years advocating for this change. This decision is based on the recommendations received from both healthcare professionals and patients who have been through this before. I’m pleased their feedback has been heard loud and clear. I hope they know the positive impact this decision will have on many people’s ability to access what is often life-changing medicines. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick, and the mental health cross-party group, all advocates for this important change.

Tom Rutherford: What support from the public has the Minister seen for this change?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve seen numerous messages from members of the public and the ADHD community supporting these changes. Luke Bradford from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners said it will help people access diagnosis and treatment, make it quicker and more affordable. ADHD New Zealand’s reaction was one of excitement—completely welcomed the change, noting it had been 25 years in the making. Tash, who messaged me, said, “Thank goodness, great news. It makes access so much easier and will take some stress off the specialist.” Brilliant to see so many messages from people impacted by ADHD welcoming this common-sense change.

Bills

Invest New Zealand Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose the Invest New Zealand Bill. Now, for context, this is, again, one of those bills that was introduced under urgency. I think, from the Greens’ perspective, the biggest concern we have with this bill is, because it was introduced under Budget urgency, there was no consultation and, effectively, we’re creating an entirely new Crown entity with no consultation and no genuine advice given. And we will talk more about that advice as part of my contribution.

First of all, one of the things that we do see in terms of the regulatory impact statement is that there is no guarantee that this particular Crown agency is going to work. There are a lot of assumptions and there is a lot of hope. Now, during the committee of the whole House stage, we did engage with the Minister, as well as during scrutiny week; we also engaged with the Minister, on this particular thing. One of the things that we asked consistently is how many one-stop-shops do we really need? Because there has been far too much time and energy and, to be fair, taxpayers’ money being wasted creating entities such as this one-stop-shop, when there are other one-stop-shops. There was no clarity that the Minister was able to provide, for example—and also advice that was given by Education New Zealand being, essentially, the advertisement agency on promoting New Zealand education internationally, and also potentially looking at drawing that. Yes, I agree that—and that might have to do more with what New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) is currently doing. But even if we’re looking at Immigration New Zealand, there is no advice that was being asked of Immigration New Zealand in light of all of these changes the Government is making in terms of investment visa types. I find that lack of consultation concerning and appalling.

During the committee stage, we also didn’t hear from the Minister—and we asked consistently, over and over again—what was the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). Because, apparently, according to the regulatory impact statement, MFAT advice was sought but it wasn’t included because they didn’t respond in time. We asked the Minister in the chair, what was that advice, and we didn’t get any response, other than political statements. That was, essentially, our experience of the committee stage, and the only opportunity that members of this House have had to question anyone about this particular bill.

The other concern that we have is according to the regulatory impact statement itself, that they were looking at paragraph 4 on page 6: “New Zealand ranks 26th out of 37 OECD countries in its per capita spending on research and development.” Now, the fine print of this is that this is looking at per capita spending by the Government, predominantly. Again, the Government could be like, “Oh, look, with hope, inshallah, that Invest New Zealand may be able to draw in foreign investment, who then may spur on New Zealand innovation and enterprise, who may fund for some of the things.” Again, like a lot of the things this Government does under urgency, we are looking at simply thoughts and prayers. There is no empirical evidence to suggest this is something that will work.

What we do know is that we rank 26th out of 37 OECD countries on per capita spending on research and development. And the bulk funding for this particular Crown agency comes out of the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation, which is one of the main funders of local and domestic innovation and entrepreneurship. That funding—that $40-odd million funding—is gone. And not only do we see this huge defunding in the arts and humanities space, but leaves a huge gap for the STEM subjects here in Aotearoa to source Government funding. I don’t think that our stats in the OECD are going to improve as a result of this bill. In fact, I think that concern that is in paragraph 4 of the regulatory impact statement will only exacerbate as a result of this.

In terms of other areas of this bill, I think one of the fundamental concerns that we have is while going through the committee stage, there’s still a lack of clarity in terms of exactly what is going to be the performance measures and the outcomes being sought. Yes, we understand, Invest New Zealand—it is in the title. Although I would more accurately call it “Divest New Zealand”. But there is no benchmark; it’s a complete unknown quantity when we’re looking at performance measures of this. All we do know is that, again, we’re taking a huge amount of money out of New Zealand. The price, in some ways—OK, I get it, you want New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to focus on trade and enterprise and, basically, export in many ways, whereas you want Invest New Zealand to look at export and import. You want Invest New Zealand to look more at pure overseas investment. That’s fine, but at least the minimum is to have some sort of performance measures that we’re able to say, “Is this particular agency”—this new particular Crown entity that’s going to take up $86 million—“actually going to meet any form of target?” We don’t have any such stats or data.

We’ve heard that, on one hand, the Government want to draw foreign investment but, at the same time, we don’t address the fact of why aren’t we promoting local investment and domestic investment. As part of the scrutiny week last week, we were told by officials that there are $438 billion—I think was the number that we were given—in foreign investments from New Zealand going out to other places; the New Zealand Superannuation Fund being one of the biggest ones when we were looking at that. Actually, from a New Zealand Super Fund perspective, very little of that is looking at domestic investment. If we’re asking overseas investors to invest in New Zealand, why aren’t we looking at our own investment structure first; for local and buy local, right? That was supposed to be the aim of some of these. At the same time, when we were looking at wanting to attract international talent, we want to attract all of these things, but, in just this week alone, we have seen a new immigration bill being introduced where the Government is going to place another tax on people applying for visas to come here in Aotearoa New Zealand because, and I quote, and unsubstantiated, they’re going to put education and health burdens on our already failing system.

So there are a lot of contradictions in terms of exactly what the Government is looking for when they are talking about investment, when they are looking at growth. But, at the end of the day, when we are looking at the Invest New Zealand Bill, through the hearings in scrutiny week, and also through discussions we had in the committee stage, fundamentally it sounds like what the Government is looking for is for overseas investors to bail New Zealand out of the slump that we’re currently in. But in all honesty, there are better ways to do that. Overseas investors are going to be taken along anyway. They are going to invest in New Zealand because there is investment and there’s profit to be made. Why aren’t we giving those opportunities to people here?

We have mentioned in terms of the Treasury’s very conservative estimate of the upper threshold of 90 percent before we get into risk of defaulting. If we factor in 40 percent for shock in the event of an emergency, that still leaves us a debt ceiling of 50 percent that we are able to do. But the Government has chosen, as a political choice, to limit our domestic investment and our domestic debt to 20 percent. We could invest locally, but we choose not to. So the Green Party will not support this bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Fortunately for New Zealand, the ACT Party and the rest of our coalition do support this bill. What does it do? People say, “Why do we need Invest New Zealand?” We’ve heard, from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: “Why do we need Invest New Zealand?” Well, because New Zealand has historically lacked a dedicated agency, a front door for investors. Responsibilities were fragmented across the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and regional development bodies. Invest New Zealand brings them all together in one place.

We need access to capital to power economic growth. We need lots and lots of capital—billions and billions of dollars—coming from overseas investors to support the delivery of major projects, like Christchurch Men’s Prison public-private partnership (PPP). If three strikes means that more people are going to be locked up for longer, we’re going to need to build more prisons. It would be very helpful if we had long-term capital to assist us. We’ve heard the Northern Corridor highway project—another public-private partnership—has attracted three international consortiums, partnered with Kiwi companies, design and construction firms, to deliver a major highway. That’s going to take billions of dollars in overseas capital on the table to pay for contractors, pay for materials, as the project gets built. We can only do that kind of thing if we have other people’s money to help supplement our own capital.

Invest New Zealand is a pillar of this Government’s Going For Growth agenda. It’s part of our economic strategy. It’s part of a transformation agenda aimed at improving productivity and improving national resilience—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Sell everything!

SIMON COURT: —Damien O’Connor—via additional capital and innovation—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Sell your grandmother!

SIMON COURT: —Damien O’Connor, I’ll get to you in a minute—global best practice in the way that we triage and test whether people’s investment intentions are good for New Zealand. Ireland and Singapore got it right, Damien O’Connor. They have benefited from focused investment attraction agencies.

Dan Bidois: Are they richer than New Zealand?

SIMON COURT: They are richer than New Zealand, Dan Bidois. For New Zealand to compete globally, it must offer, Damien O’Connor, a predictable and appealing place to invest, an environment that investors aren’t worried about sovereign risk. Invest New Zealand is also highly complementary to existing policies and new policies this Government is introducing—amendments to the Overseas Investment Act which will stop treating investors like terrorists and start treating them like a taonga, because the treasure they bring to New Zealand is a taonga, Damien O’Connor. It makes New Zealand a more attractive place, for more people.

We’ve heard from the Opposition—ideological Damien O’Connor; incoherent, anti-growth, anti - foreign investment. That previous Government wrecked investor confidence in New Zealand. By cancelling oil and gas exploration, they undermined energy security and capital growth. This bill is a corrective measure. You could think of it like New Zealand being a patient that has been in ICU because of the previous Government’s abuse of New Zealand. This is going to revive confidence. It’s going to restore economic momentum. We’ve heard O’Connor say that Invest New Zealand is a glorified real estate agency selling New Zealand and our intellectual property (IP) and opportunities. Do you know what? I think it’s fantastic that New Zealanders who come up with bright ideas get to sell them. They get to take them, maybe, to overseas stock markets, they get to raise capital through initial public offerings, and they actually get to go out there and prove why New Zealand is a good place to invest. Our IP is a taonga too, and we should be allowed to make money off of it.

We’ve heard this fearmongering about foreigners buying New Zealand assets. That is emotional and ideological; it’s not practical. It’s not going to help us. We’ve also heard the incoherency. Today, Labour’s infrastructure spokesperson, Kieran McAnulty, said he was at the Infrastructure Symposium—

Ryan Hamilton: Is he the new one?

SIMON COURT: He is the new one; that’s right. I don’t know what happened to the last one. She spoke at the infrastructure investment conference and, the next thing you know, they’d stripped the portfolio off her. Maybe it’s because she started to make too much sense!

Cameron Luxton: Shepherd’s hooked off the stage.

SIMON COURT: “Shepherd’s hooked off the stage,” says the former dairy farmer from Murupara. Today, we heard Kieran McAnulty say that, actually, Labour would support public-private partnerships, which means inwards foreign investment, Damien O’Connor. What we hear, in the House, is that certain MPs are absolutely incoherent, maybe haven’t got the memo that New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly for a change of direction, for a Government that is rational when it comes to inwards investment.

This is a welcoming and respecting approach to private capital, institutional capital. Those banks, those insurers—they might be from Canada. They might want to build us a light rail. Who knows, they might want to build us a highway to Northland and unlock jobs and investment and growth and better homes and better education opportunities. That’s what infrastructure does. That is why ACT supports this bill. We are going to pass it this afternoon, and New Zealand, New Zealanders, our businesses, our future is going to be assured. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thanks, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First will also support this Invest New Zealand Bill. Actually, it is a pretty simple bill. It’s setting up separate Crown agencies. It’s a very functional bill. Invest New Zealand will be a one-stop shop—

Hon Damien O’Connor: What happened to the old New Zealand First?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: No, I’m going to get to you, the Hon Damien O’Connor, in a minute because I do think there are a few scores that need to be settled here. But this is, essentially, a one-stop shop that facilitates overseas capital investment into New Zealand.

We have a massive infrastructure deficit. We are needing to drive growth. We do need that access to expertise and to foreign markets—which I think we established in last night’s bill—that New Zealand does need and that we are chasing, as a Government. It already exists, this particular entity; it just sits within New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE). So this is an issue of just getting NZTE focused on growing our exports, and the outward-facing Invest New Zealand very much a shop front for the overseas capital looking to enter New Zealand.

Damien O’Connor will be pleased because, actually, the stuff that he’s been talking about was in the national interest test bill that came through last night, and he will be relieved to know, I’m sure, that the national interest test is retained—it has been streamlined, but it is retained—for those sensitive strategically important national assets. We have ring-fenced farmland, we have ring-fenced fishing quota, and we have ring-fenced the family home, so there’s no need to catastrophise.

But I’m actually very pleased that he has taken an interest in this particular issue. It is a bit belated because he was nowhere to be seen—he talked about selling his grandmother, or he was accusing Simon Court of selling his grandmother. Well, I do recall that in the last term of Parliament that I was here, the Westland dairy co-op under his watch, which was a family owned company on the West Coast that I know that both he and yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker O’Connor—your families had an interest in. That is now under Chinese ownership with the Yili Co., so it is a belated interest in this, actually, because he was nowhere to be seen, or he was certainly not effective in stopping that transaction. I can recall quite vividly that the Provincial Growth Fund and Shane Jones did try to get a rescue package to that particular company, but that’s now in Chinese ownership. So people in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones on this particular issue around foreign investment.

But we are digressing. This is actually a very simple bill. It sets up the structure of Invest New Zealand, the board structure, and the details that sit below that. It will help to facilitate sensible foreign capital investment in New Zealand that will help us grow our economy and build infrastructure, and New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter—a five-minute call.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): At risk of repeating myself in previous speeches on this bill, I have to say that the whole idea of Invest New Zealand is like an episode of Utopia, which is a satirical Australian show about the Public Service—and it just reminds me, like I can just imagine Christopher Luxon coming up with this, and maybe the officials who advised him: “I know. I’ve got an idea. I know how we can grow productivity here in New Zealand. Let’s set up an agency and I’ll call it ‘Invest New Zealand’, and it will go around the world and attract all those wonderful, benevolent foreign investors who will come build our infrastructure for us”—

Hon Phil Twyford: Free money.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Free! It’s the magical money tree that they’re always saying doesn’t exist, but they do think it exists; they think it’s foreign investors, but they are so ridiculous and confused in proposing an agency called “Invest New Zealand”. Virtually all of the Government speakers on the third reading of this bill have referred to public infrastructure projects that this is meant to be a gateway to attract foreign investment into. And yet less than a year ago, they set up an entirely separate different agency called NIFFco, whose express purpose is to be the shop front for investment, private investment, into public infrastructure.

Even when I asked the Minister for Infrastructure at select committee, “Wait, where do the investors go? If they’re foreign investors, do they go to NIFFCo, or do they go to Invest New Zealand?”, and he made it very clear: “No, no,”—the Minister for Infrastructure said—“go to NIFFCo.” So it’s almost like the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of trade are competing here, setting up separate agencies to be the shop-front for foreign investors. It’s a big competition, where we’re setting up multiple bureaucratic agencies and spending tens of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars?—on people who are going to go out and court these foreign investors, rather than investing that money in capacity and capability, in science and research, in housing, in education, in the things that actually make a nation productive and actually grow our own capability to develop the things that are good for New Zealand.

This is the nature of this coalition Government, that they have no imagination—well, actually, it’s not so much imagination, although they probably are lacking imagination. But they seem wilfully ignorant about what actually supports economic development and productivity, because it doesn’t match their ideological preferences and the preferences of the people they represent: their donors, who want to continue milking the various ways they can sit and make money off of real estate, for example, just owning a bunch of houses and renting them out and charging a fortune in rent—not actually improving the facilities—and being able to kick out tenants any time they want.

They want to create—they want to continue to develop a New Zealand that is basically an oligarchy. It is; it’s like a feudal oligarchy, where there’s a small percentage of people at the top who get all of the money, and then there’s the workers down there at the bottom who don’t have any rights and who they can exploit. And then, somehow, the foreign investors are going to come to New Zealand and give us money. Never mind the fact that we’re going to have to pay back a higher return to any foreign investors than we would if the Crown itself was borrowing for productive infrastructure.

Then the other big talking point I hear from the Government side is how we have an infrastructure deficit. Well, one thing’s very clear: not a single person over there has read or understands the Infrastructure Commission’s draft National Infrastructure Plan that was announced today. Because what it says is we’ve been spending too much money on roads, and it says we need to spend less money on roads and more money on maintenance and renewals of our infrastructure. That’s what that report says. And it looks at other countries—says we’re not spending enough money probably on rail compared to other countries we would compare ourselves to.

All of this is like basic common sense to anyone outside of New Zealand right-wing commentators. If you go to any other country in the world, the centre-right parties actually understand that it makes sense to invest in our urban infrastructure that moves people and goods, not just cars. They understand that you invest in social housing, public housing, we invest in education. Lots of countries that we’d like to be like—they actually spend money on pure science, research and development, not trying to make everything a commercial model, not trying to make their universities commercial models for making money but, rather, actually investing in research, development, education of our people.

Because if we have educated people, it’s a risk to the right in New Zealand, because educated people tend not to vote for the right-wing parties, don’t they? Because they actually understand and care about how the world works and aren’t simply trying to prop up a failed Ponzi scheme where the 1 percent get all the benefit.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): The first bit of money that Invest New Zealand can find is to dig the second tunnel through Mt Victoria, the same tunnel that that member for Rongotai goes to Seatoun and suggests that she’s all for the second tunnel through Mt Vic, but when she’s in Island Bay she’s against the tunnel. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Labour Party opposes this bill and has done so right from when it was first introduced. I want to remind the members of how this bill was introduced and the process since then, because it reveals something. This bill was introduced under urgency—under urgency. What that meant was that on 22 May—because apparently it was very urgent for this bill to get passed all the way through as soon as possible—we had the first reading of this bill. Then we had the second reading of this bill. Then we had the committee stage of this bill. Then—well, apparently it wasn’t urgent anymore.

Now, we argued, extensively, that there should at least be a short—even a short—select committee process for this bill. But the Minister for Trade and Investment and the members of the Minister’s party and the people on the other side of the House assured us we had to get this through under urgency. We got to the end of 22 May—as I recall, by then it was about Saturday, 24 May in the real world—got to the end of Budget urgency, the House rose. We had not had the third reading of this bill; they had elected to defer it. So I thought, oh well, they did say it was urgent. I get that urgency was coming to an end. Then we were back in this House in the week beginning 3 June. A sitting week, legislation going through this House. Was this bill on the Order Paper, the third reading of this bill? Nope.

So from 22 May, right through to the end of May, through early June, waiting, waiting, waiting, right through until now. In terms of this bill, which was apparently so urgent that it had to go through in Budget urgency, crickets.

Vanushi Walters: We could have had a select committee process.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, we could have had a select committee process in that time, even a short one, to iron out some of the difficulties in this bill. We could have had a select committee process to examine some of the policy motivations for this bill. It turns out there was time for a short select committee process because this bill has not reappeared in this House until today—a month and three days after we were first told that it was incredibly urgent and it had to be done right now.

That side has abused the urgency process, and this bill is an example of that. The crickets, the nothing doing, the nothing happening shows exactly why, on this side of the House, whenever they move urgency, we oppose it, and we fight it all the way, because that was an abuse of process.

We have solid reasons for our opposition to this bill. On the face of it, the idea looks good—that we want to drive investment in this country. You know, that seems on the surface—of course we want to do that. Of course we want to see our country growing. Of course we want to find mechanisms by which we can finance the projects we think we all need to engage in. But I do not think that this is the way to do it.

Even if we look at the Government’s own regulatory impact statement and looking at the policy options they put up, here was the problem. They said, “We would like to have more foreign direct investment in New Zealand.” Now, leaving aside whether or not that’s a good thing in itself, if you’re going to do that, then how could that be achieved? Well, they said, “You could just stick with status quo.” That’s the counterfactual. “You could make some improvements to existing institutional arrangements.” Seems fair enough. “You could focus on the general business settings and try to improve the attractiveness of New Zealand as an investment destination.”, or “You could establish a dedicated foreign direct investment agency.”, the preferred option.

But looking at the analysis of that, it’s quite clear that the only advantage of the Government’s preferred option is that it sends a strong positive signal to the international market. It’s an advertising gimmick. They are going to spend $86 million of our money, taking money away from science, and spend it on an advertising gimmick. That’s the only advantage that their option has in the regulatory impact statement.

They do say, as well, that other countries—around about the same size as us and so on, which want to have foreign direct investment—do have dedicated foreign direct investment agencies. The comparators they give: Ireland and Singapore. Ignoring that Ireland is part of the European Union. Ignoring that Ireland is an island country, like us, but sits just offshore from the European continent. Ignoring that one of the reasons that Ireland attracts so much foreign direct investment is its extraordinarily low corporate tax rate, which has some countries describing it as a tax haven. That’s why a comparison with Ireland is not such a flash one.

Then when it comes to Singapore, the analysis that just compares us to Singapore ignores the fact that Singapore has a very low-waged class of indentured workers; ignores the fact that Singapore provides large amounts of State-subsidised housing to its citizens; ignores the fact that Singapore, for all the surface detail, is not a democracy. It is not a straightforward combination to compare us to Singapore.

So the regulatory impact statement itself does not lend strong support to the Government’s preferred option. In fact, the extraordinary thing is that the Government’s preferred option of a dedicated foreign direct investment agency has been tried before, and it failed. They couldn’t remember, didn’t have the institutional knowledge to be able to tell us about it. But those of us who’ve got friends who worked in the agencies at the time know that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise used to have this separate agency, separately funded outside. There was an entity called—wait for it—not Investment New Zealand, but Invest New Zealand. But it wasn’t achieving what it needed to achieve and, eventually, the Government of the time realised that it would be better folded back into New Zealand Trade and Enterprise itself. You know, this strategy has been tried before, and it failed. They cannot tell us why we should try it again.

So then, in terms of this particular entity, I think there are some serious, serious concerns about the nature of the foreign direct investment into New Zealand. Now, we might be rolling out a welcome mat—could be a good idea, might not. But in actual fact, the member from ACT, who spoke just previously, pointed to one of the huge dangers. He said, “We’re going to put lots of poor people in prison; therefore, we’re going to need to build a bigger prison. What a great place for foreign direct investment.”

It is appalling to think of private investment in prisons. Prisons represent us locking up people and taking away their freedom. It is the hardest punishment we can hand out in this society. We should be extraordinarily careful about the conditions in which we lock people up. The punishment is not harsh living. The punishment is not hard work. The punishment is loss of freedom—the punishment is loss of freedom. It does not need to come with the sorts of practices that we know are prevalent in private prisons overseas. That’s the kind of foreign direct investment they want. They should be ashamed of that.

Then the particular member who spoke talked about, he said, “Oh my God”—this was verging on hysteria, really, talking about sovereign risk, that “New Zealand had become as synonymous with sovereign risk.” What a ridiculous thing to say. This is a country with a strong rule of law. This is a country with a really rigorous and highly respected court system. This is a country with a good, solid currency. This is a country which has all—all—the factors that make it attractive for direct and foreign investment. Why? Because people know that their investments here can be secure. So to say that we have a high sovereign risk here is just absolutely ridiculous.

So in terms of getting foreign direct investment into this country, it could be a good thing. We think it’s a worrying thing because of the nature of the investments that might come along. But in terms of this particular policy, this policy has failed once before. This policy fails the analysis and the Government’s own regulatory impact statement. This policy simply will not work. It’s $86 million down the drain. That Government should be ashamed.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): This is a great bill, and all I’ve really heard from the Opposition—I think deep down they want to support it, but I’ve heard from Damien O’Connor calling it a “real estate shop front” and Deborah Russell calling it an “advertising gimmick”. But I look forward to, in two years’ time, when we start to get some of the infrastructure rolled out and deployed across this country, coming back and reminding them that they voted against it. I commend this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Five-minute split call.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill and this debate in the House this afternoon are very revealing about the true nature of the National Party and their coalition colleagues, the ACT Party.

There are two, I think, significant concerns that we have on this side of the House. The first is that what this bill does is establish a new agency and, on the face of it, nothing is wrong with that, but how is it being done? It’s being done by plundering the budget that is there for research and science and technology, by taking money from what was Callaghan Innovation and also really carving out a whole lot of resource from what is a high-performing organisation with a fantastic track record—New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—in order to fund what, on the face of it, looks like a vanity project that’s set up to promote sales.

I think this says a lot about the National Party. They are the sales department of New Zealand. They’re taking money away from organisations that are there to improve productivity through investing in science and innovation, and plundering a high-performing organisation that has a track record of actually attracting high-quality investment for New Zealand firms and helping New Zealand firms tap into global markets, to create a sales department. That is the mentality of the modern National Party.

I think if it wasn’t because of those things, and if it wasn’t for all the other information that’s available—including the content of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill going through the House, or having gone through the House—we probably would feel that setting up this new shop front to promote New Zealand as a destination for foreign direct investment wouldn’t be so obnoxious. But, actually, when you look at what this Government has done and is doing and is talking about in relation to foreign investment, it is cause for alarm.

They’re infatuated with the idea that if we attract rich people to come to New Zealand, somehow we’re all going to get wealthier. You can see this in the main media announcements made by the Government, by Erica Stanford, for example, for the new so-called active investor visa. They’ve dumbed it down so an investor only has to be here for one week a year for three years. They’ve dumbed down the requirements to make active investments that might generate jobs and exports for New Zealand firms. Foreign investors can buy residence now, thanks to this Government, by simply parking $3 million in a managed fund, and then, once they get their residence after three years, they can tutu off with a residence visa in their passport and they never have to come back again, unless, of course, they’re wanting a bolt hole in New Zealand for their retirement. They are so absolutely infatuated with trying to get our rich people into New Zealand, as if that will boost our economy.

We’ve seen in the Budget $200 million of corporate welfare for mining and gas companies—$200 million to promote the very kind of extractive petrochemical industries that we should be trying to get out of in order to meet our climate change requirements and commitments. The palpable enthusiasm on that side of the House for getting rid of the ban on overseas buyers of residential property so that New Zealanders when they’re buying a home—whether it’s a modest three-bedroom home in the suburbs or whether it’s a $5 million home on the shores of Lake Wakatipu—will have to be competing in a global market. The Ministers have made it quite clear that’s what they want to do and that they are talking with coalition partners to try and achieve that. So I say to the members: don’t look so shocked and innocent, but it’s actually your Ministers who are talking about that policy.

Time and time and time again in this debate, we’ve heard Government MPs stand up and say that the great benefit of this is that we’re going to have foreigners coming here to invest in our infrastructure, our transport infrastructure, oblivious to the fact that it’s not a financing problem that we have; it’s a funding problem. There is a tonne of finance around, but when you access it privately, you pay more than if the Government borrows it. The problem is the funding to pay back those loans, and foreign direct investment doesn’t help that at all. That is the problem that we have.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): To put it on record: foreign investment is a good thing and it helps grow our economy. If we can’t agree on that simple fact across this House, then I’m sorry, this country’s future is screwed. New Zealand has a woeful rate of foreign direct investment, and this bill seeks to turn that around. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): I rise to oppose this bill. I must say, it is a privilege to return to this House but sometimes it does feel like I’ve wandered down the rabbit hole in terms of how law is being made and how the rationale is being set out. I think the committee stage of this bill truly felt like I’d wandered down the rabbit hole because there were so many questions left unanswered. I do wish that the Government had listened to the many, many, amendments that were proposed—very sensibly—by this side of the House, and taken them on board, but they didn’t. I want to walk through some of the concerns I had at the end of that committee stage, when my questions should have been answered—when members on this side’s questions should have been answered.

The first was, I think, the odd governance arrangements for the statutory board that we discussed at committee stage. I am going to spend a little bit of time on this because I think, on picking up the bill, what first struck me was that this is the creation of a Crown entity under urgency. Crown entities are rather special things in terms of our democratic architecture because there’s a need to ensure that the boards are kept independent; governance structure is extremely important.

So why don’t we start with the governance structure of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), where the current Invest New Zealand is being incubated, because that gives us more of what I would say is a traditional model for what governance architecture would be. We have section 19 of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Act, which allows the Minister to appoint a special adviser to the board. Section 19(2) sets out who those special advisers can be. It can either be the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the chief executive of the Ministry of Economic Development, and it could be both of them at the same time. Now, we’ll notice there that the legislation is actually very specific about which chief executives can be appointed as special advisers. The reason is, you would not want to appoint the chief executive officer of the entity itself as a special adviser to the board of that entity. That would create two issues: one, it would mean that the Minister would, in effect, have almost a governance shadow in the boardroom, which would be inappropriate; the other thing that would be inappropriate about that would be that it would muddy the waters of the governance relationship between the board, who appoint the chief executive, and the chief executive who’s there to report to the board, not to be there as the Minister’s adviser. OK? So this Act has it correct. I think the governance arrangements are absolutely fine.

The problem we have with the Invest New Zealand Bill is it also has powers to appoint a special adviser. These powers are different. It is currently contained in clause 13 and reads that “The Minister may appoint the chief executive as a special advisor to the Board” and “The special advisor must not give directions”—but they can just appoint the chief executive. Now, the interesting thing to note here is that there is no specific chief executive who has been appointed. The language in clause 13 is very general. So what you’d do then, of course, is you would go to the Interpretation section where chief executive is defined, and it says this: “chief executive means the chief executive of the department.” Which department? This is a question that came up in committee stage. It’s a question that Dr Deborah Russell and I both asked the Minister in the chair, and we raised concerns about a governance system where you would have the chief executive of that entity—so, of Invest New Zealand—also being appointed as the special adviser, for the two reasons that I set out earlier.

The Minister in the chair then responded advising that it would be the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I was so perplexed by this that I went back and checked the Hansard, and it was the Minister’s response on 4 June, her fourth response to Part 2. She says: “I will respond to that question because it is … pertinent … to confirm … appointing a head of [a] 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 … who will be appointed as a special adviser to the board of Invest New Zealand.”

So here’s the problem: we’ve either got a situation where the Minister is correct that it will be and it should be the chief executive of MBIE, which would be more appropriate in terms of the governance function. But we then have an error in the law; we’ve got an error in the bill because it simply doesn’t say that. That’s our first problem. The alternative gives us our second problem. Let’s say the Minister in the chair was wrong and the bill sits as is. We then have an unacceptable governance situation, in my view, in terms of the Crown Entities Act, which doesn’t allow independence of the board. It puts the Minister’s shadow in the room, and it muddies the water in terms of the governance relationship between the board and the chief executive.

Now, this all sounds extremely dull, but it is incredibly important when you are allocating $80 million to create a new Crown entity at a time when the Government are telling us that we need to make hard choices, at a time when the Government are telling us there are a number of things that they can’t do. I’m sorry, but you do need to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. This is a prime example of a piece of legislation that should not have gone through urgency, and it looks to me like rather a serious mistake has been made.

The second problem I hit during committee stage was that it felt, to me, like a process of backwards lawmaking. The documents themselves acknowledged the fact that key decisions had been made before an analysis of the options was taken. There was a decision that this was going to go ahead before there was true analysis of the four options that were set out in the spreadsheet. I think that is extremely problematic. It’s extremely problematic generally, but it’s also extremely problematic in light of the fact that we heard the Government introduce that they were incubating Invest New Zealand within NZTE in, I think, December or January. There was plenty of time to be able to start that process to allow for consultation with people to rectify governance issues within the body of the legislation, and ensure that—if the intent was to have the CEO of MBIE, the Secretary of MBIE, in that special advisory role—that was specified in the legislation. The Government simply did not do that.

The third problem—and colleagues have mentioned this but I do think it’s important—is that within the course of committee of the whole House it was very clear that the problem statement identified hadn’t sufficiently linked itself to the solution that this Government have chosen. Essentially, the problem statement is that there isn’t sufficient investment in particular things that we want investment in. Now, that could be infrastructure; it could be other things as well. But the fact of the matter is that the legislation doesn’t direct investment into particular things; it just opens the door. I’m sorry, but if the intention is to direct investment, to truly direct it, then there’s an opportunity to do that within the body of good legislation. Again, my big beef here—I do have ideological problems with some of this, but my big beef here is that this is a Government who are not using the processes that are available to them to get us to a state where we have legislation that can stand and stay responsibly on the books.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there seems to be a problem, on the other side of the House, accepting that foreign investment can lead to jobs. A very quick example: in the great electorate of Northland, there’s a township called Mangawhai. There are three golf courses there, and guess what! They employ over 300 people, more than anyone else in the Mangawhai area, and that was built through foreign investment. So I respectfully say to the members opposite: take your heads out of that bunker sand and accept that foreign investment is good for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Invest New Zealand Bill be now read a third 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 third time.

Bills

Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the independent monitoring of the children’s system and make it crystal clear to children who their advocate is. These changes intend to build public trust in monitoring and advocacy and improve governance of the oversight of the children’s systems. This bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, and I’d also like to put on record my gratitude to the members of the public and the organisations who provided both written and oral submissions to support the select committee process. This bill was informed not only by the recent submissions but by extensive consultation from the recent changes to the oversight of the children’s system that was made in 2022.

Feedback on the 2021 Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill raised concern about the monitor’s independence, suggesting that a departmental agency may not be seen as fully independent of political considerations. To respond to these concerns, this bill will change the institutional arrangements of the monitor to be an independent Crown entity to further strengthen its independence. Feedback on the 2021 bill also emphasised the idea of having a single individual acting in the role of advocate: in other words, having a clear Children’s Commissioner. So this bill addresses that concern by disestablishing the current five-member board model of the commission and, in its place, establishes a single Children’s Commissioner.

The recent submissions on this bill were broadly supportive of the intent to strengthen monitoring and oversight of the children’s system. The most widely supported change was the decision to make the monitor an independent Crown entity, which submitters viewed as vital for the monitor to effectively fulfil its monitoring function of the children’s system. This has been called for time and time again, including in previous feedback, and also in the final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. The report called for robust independent oversight and monitoring of care as a critical way of ensuring that care providers fulfil their duties to people in care.

Some submissions expressed concern that reducing the board of the commission would result in less diverse perspectives in the governance of the entity. Having a sole Children’s Commissioner, however, does not preclude diversity and there are measures to ensure that wide-ranging perspectives are considered, including collaboration with Māori, which is set out in the bill. There are also clear functions that require the commission to promote the interests and wellbeing of children and young people, and encourage their participation on decisions that affect their wellbeing.

These changes to the commission and monitor must be viewed within the context of the entire monitoring and oversight of the children’s system. By creating more independent entities, the commission and monitor, along with the Ombudsman, will be better positioned to ensure diverse views are considered and address any gaps that may arise. Some of the submissions expressed concern about the timing for these changes given the current system came into effect in 2022. I do want to say, though, that these changes are structural changes rather than fundamentally changing the functions of the entities, which desperately needed simplification and clarification, which the previous legislation did. This was supported by the latest independent review of the legislation, which found that the functions and changes introduced in 2022 are working as intended and didn’t recommend making any significant changes at this point, given it will take time for the oversight system to mature.

To minimise any disruption to the two entities’ work, which are so important, the bill provides that the chief executive of the monitor will continue as chief executive of the new independent Crown entity for one year from the commencement of the bill, and the current Chief Children’s Commissioner will also become the first Children’s Commissioner for one year from the commencement of the bill. These continuations will balance the need for stability during a period of change as they go through these transitions over the next year.

Finally, some of the submissions asked to see clear consideration of Māori perspectives by the oversight entities. This is provided for in the current legislation by requiring the monitor to collaborate with a Māori advisory group and to make reasonable efforts to develop arrangements with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations for their monitoring. A similar provision also exists for the Children’s Commission by maintaining and building relationships with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations as part of their advocacy role. In addition, the responsible Minister must consider expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi when appointing someone as Children’s Commissioner, and these provisions will be retained under the new legislation.

During the committee of the whole House, an important addition to this bill will be made to strengthen accountability for agencies that are the subject of specific reports by the monitor. I want to also put on record my appreciation for the time and consideration that all members of this House have taken to strengthen this particular step.

This bill will amend the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act to require agencies and contracted non-Government organisations who provide care for children to complete additional reporting on their progress to improve their compliance with the Oranga Tamariki National Care Standards (NCS) regulations. These progress reports will be required four months after agencies provide their initial response to the monitor’s annual report on the NCS regulations. So, as I say, I appreciate parties in the House for their support on bringing this amendment at this time.

The bill also covers consequential and transition arrangements for the monitor and the commission to ensure smooth transition of these functions.

Overall, this bill strengthens the independent monitoring and oversight of the children’s system and makes it crystal clear to children who their advocate is. I see this as the next step in how we better protect and support children in care. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I, first and foremost, want to acknowledge all of the submitters who submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee on this bill. I also acknowledge that, Madam Speaker, you were a member of the select committee that heard the submissions on this bill. Our tamariki are our greatest taonga. Each and every one of them deserves to feel loved, connected to their family and communities, and proud of who they are. Unfortunately, our systems are falling short for our children, which is why this bill is so important. We need strong oversight mechanisms that advocate for children and keep track of where there is work to be done and where there is progress, or, as we just heard, where there may not be sufficient progress. I will come to the tabled amendment later on in my speech.

Can I say here that Labour supports this bill but, in supporting it, we do so with some reservations, and I’ll just outline what those reservations are. First, we are concerned about the return to a single Children’s Commissioner. When Labour established the Children’s Commission board, it was to provide greater diversity and advocacy and representation for our children. In the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s statement, we heard her address those issues and concerns, but I want to make it clear for the record that collaboration with Māori is not the same as having direct representation of Māori on that board. So we still hold the position that we would have preferred for the Children’s Commission—that it be made up of a board which has that diversity for advocacy and representation at that level.

We did this because we know that our tamariki and rangatahi would benefit from having people with a broad range of backgrounds and experiences advocating for them. And we know from the time that we have had this in place—and acknowledging that it is only a short time that it has been in place—there has never been any doubt or confusion, or lack of clarity or certainty, that when the Children’s Commissioner has presented those views, who that is and where that is coming from. So I believe that it is an unnecessary change to go back to a single Children’s Commissioner and that we are, unfortunately, after such a short amount of time, getting rid of something that could have enhanced the system even more. We know Māori children and children with disabilities disproportionately end up in State care, so strengthening the Children’s Commission with up to five commissioners was a way to bring wider representation to children’s diverse experiences in this country. On that note, can I encourage our current Children’s Commissioner, who I am pleased will be continuing for another year after this legislation has passed: kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui [be strong, be bold, and be stout of heart].

The second issue that I want to talk to is that we believe that the Independent Children’s Monitor, within the Education Review Office, had the independence required for such a crucial monitoring entity. When we asked these questions in the select committee process, it was clear to us that there wasn’t an issue of the Independent Children’s Monitor being able to do their work without being influenced or interfered with by anybody else—they have diligently carried out their work. So I hear what the Minister is saying: that through the consultation process and submission process in 2021, there were significant concerns about it not being fully independent, and therefore that perception does impact on the trust that people have on the organisation in its important role. What I hear from the Minister’s speech this afternoon is that these changes are more about its structure, not its substance; more about its form, not its function—because in terms of substance and function, it was able to do that and has produced useful reports about the children’s system. But in order to address those concerns raised in 2021 regarding pure independence, these changes are being proposed and being made and we support them.

Thirdly, I would like to point out, though, that there were a number of submissions which made reference to the royal commission’s report on abuse in State care and the recommendations that that report made, and the disappointment of many that the Government did not take this opportunity to address those recommendations and respond to those recommendations. So, as we heard, from the 2021-2022 time, there was information available then, but we’ve also had information since, and this legislation is perhaps a missed opportunity to have responded to the royal commission’s report into abuse in State care. In particular, recommendations 85, 86, and 87 of Whanaketia talk about these monitoring and oversight entities and what should happen in terms of those. One I’ve got highlighted here is “consolidate the existing care and protection and youth justice independent monitoring and oversight entities into a single entity.”

So, as it is, we currently have the independent Children’s Commissioner, the Independent Children’s Monitor, and the ombudsman all performing different functions, all in their separate spaces. I think that what we heard from submitters, and what I am sharing with the House this afternoon, is, unfortunately, this bill was a missed opportunity to address those recommendations. One of the things that the royal commission found was that there was a disjointed nature of our systems and that contributed to harm in care, and children and perpetrators fell through the oversight gaps. So the recommendations in Whanaketia were designed to join up the system and to close those gaps. So while I appreciate that the bill has a five-year review provision, five years is a long way off, and the timing of this bill was close enough to the tabling of Whanaketia for the royal commission’s recommendations to be given greater consideration as this bill progressed. The Government’s refusal to do this is indicative of their general approach to the royal commission: to do as little as they can get away with.

The conditions that the royal commission highlighted in their report still exist today. Last year, 519 children were harmed in State care. The children’s monitor and commissioner and ombudsman have played a crucial role in alerting us all to this fact and seek accountability, but this Government must also properly consider and implement the recommendations in Whanaketia if we have any hope of changing the system so that this harm stops.

I want to use the last minute or so to talk to the tabled amendment. We also just had a session with the Minister on the Independent Children’s Monitor in select committee where we asked questions about how we can monitor the progress that entities within the children’s system—many agencies, eight or nine agencies—make on the issues that are identified in these reports. I think that the message I want to leave here is that these reports do their work—their important work—they identify the issues for us, but once that’s happened, action is needed. So that accountability mechanism, I think, is an important addition, because what is the point of having a report if we can’t see and hold those agencies accountable to progress in terms of addressing the issues raised within it? We commend this bill to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I rise today in support of this bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. But I also remind the House that while this is a step forward, it is only a step and it cannot be the last. It cannot be the only action we take, because if we are serious about the safety, wellbeing, and mana of our tamariki, then we must be serious about the systems that fail them, the structures that oppress them, and the history that brought us to this point.

This bill makes necessary changes to enhance the oversight and monitoring system of our care system by establishing the monitor as an independent Crown entity. It responds to issues that should never have existed in the first place—issues that have harmed generations of our most vulnerable. While it is right that we act to strengthen protections for tamariki, of course, we must not pretend that this bill alone will fix the deep systemic failures within Oranga Tamariki.

For the Greens, the existence of Oranga Tamariki itself is an admission of failure. It is an admission that our systems do not adequately support whānau to stay together; that we have built structures that intervene rather than structures that prevent harm in the first place. The tamariki of New Zealand deserve for us to do everything we can to prevent harm from happening—harm that is happening through no fault of their own.

Our country has allowed a State agency to take children, disproportionately Māori children, from their families rather than supporting those families with the resources, the care, and the wraparound support they need to thrive. The monitor’s work is a critical part of exposing these failures. Its latest report, Outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the oranga tamariki system is yet another stark and scathing reminder that—and I quote from the report—“tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau are over-represented in the oranga tamariki system and the system is letting them down.”

Further to the monitor’s report, Experiences of Care in Aotearoa 2023/2024 is yet another stark reminder that our care system does not even meet the bare minimum of care required by law. The National Care Standards were meant to set a baseline, a promise to tamariki in State care that they would be safe, supported, and cared for, but the monitor has found that tamariki and rangatahi are still not even receiving that. My colleague previously reminded us that, in the previous year, over 500 tamariki and rangatahi were abused in State care. That is a system that remains broken. That is the State failing the very children it claims to protect. That should be unacceptable to every single person in this House.

The monitor is not just an oversight body; it is a mirror held up to the Government, to Oranga Tamariki, and to every agency responsible for the care and protection of our tamariki. It tells us year after year what tamariki in care are experiencing and what we are still failing to do. But a mirror is only useful if those looking into it are willing to change. Strengthening the monitor’s independence is a necessary step, but it cannot be the end goal because oversight alone does not protect children. Transparency alone does not create safe and thriving whānau. We must act on what we see in that mirror. We must ensure that the monitor has the power and resourcing needed to go even further to investigate, to make binding recommendations, and to drive systemic change. The work does not stop simply at documenting failures. It must lead to real reform.

My colleagues in Te Pāti Māori and Labour have rightly raised concerns about this bill, and the Greens stand alongside them in recognising that we must go further. The failures of Oranga Tamariki are not just failures of policy; they are failures of colonisation, of racism, and of an entire system built on the idea that the State knows what’s best when it comes to tamariki Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal has told us this. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care has told us this. Māori communities have told us this for decades. The independent monitor told us this just last week, and yet we are still here today debating incremental reforms rather than transformational change.

We cannot talk about protecting children without talking about the material conditions that drive families into crisis, without talking about poverty, housing, food insecurity, and underfunding of kaupapa Māori solutions. If we were truly serious about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of tamariki, we would be investing in a future where Oranga Tamariki is no longer needed, where no child is taken from their whānau because of poverty, when no family is left without support, where Māori solutions designed by and for Māori are fully resourced and embedded at every level. We must remove poverty from the home, not children.

This bill is an improvement, and that is why we support it. I acknowledge that the Green Party welcomes and supports the Minister’s amendment to this bill set out in Amendment Paper 292. These changes introduce new clause 6A, which requires chief executives to prepare progress reports on how they are responding to the monitor’s findings—reports that explain what’s changed, what’s to be actioned, and what remains outstanding. This is a necessary strengthening of accountability. It closes a loop that has too often remained open, and we thank the Minister for listening to advocates during the select committee. Hopefully, this will mean that the monitor will no longer issue report after report with little to no action being taken. Agencies must not only respond to the criticism but report back on the progress clearly, publicly, and on time.

These amendments would also require the monitor to publish these progress reports by the chief executive within 10 working days, which ensures transparency and timely scrutiny. This bill is an improvement, and we do support it, but let us not mistake legislative change for true transformation.

The work does not end here—it cannot end here, because if we truly want to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, if we truly want to build a future where all tamariki are safe, we must be willing to make bigger, bolder, and more radical steps.

The Greens will continue to fight for that future, a future where tamariki are safe not because the State intervenes but because we have built a society where they never needed intervention in the first place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker—I see you’ve got a bit of a cold there still; hope you’re doing well. I rise in support of this bill. Currently, we know that the monitor is part of a departmental agency, and this piece of legislation aims to make it an independent Crown agency—to really give the agency some teeth. Why is this important? Because we do know that the State is a terrible parent. We know this. Report after report after report highlights the failings of the Government, and it’s really important that we do have an independent monitor that is able to come out and say where these failings are, and I do actually think it’s really important that we have some mechanisms in place to see how the Government is tracking and how the agencies are tracking to remedy these things, and that’s something that I fully support.

What I don’t support is other members of the House saying that this is all the State’s fault.

Hon Judith Collins: Complete rubbish!

LAURA McCLURE: It’s completely and utterly rubbish. It’s not the State’s fault. If a child has ended up in the care of the State, society has failed. We have all failed; society has failed. New Zealand’s got a horrible track record. Those things are not going to change by this House. These radical changes are going to change out there in the real world, and with people taking accountability for what happens in their communities and in their homes.

I support this bill, and I commend it to the House, and I urge those members to look around them in their communities and take action, as well.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill, in this second reading. I want to acknowledge all of my fellow committee members, most of who are in the House, and also the many who have submitted on this bill. One of the things about our committee is that we do get many bills—and I’ve mentioned this before—where there is a lot of passion in the discussion, because we are speaking about our most vulnerable in society. That is, our children, who we must care for. That is why I always stand in the House and speak in favour of the family and nurturing the family, because when we nurture the family, then the children are nurtured, as well.

So this bill—a lot of technical things here: it provides a structural change which will provide more accountability, hopefully a bit more effectiveness. It will ensure, also, that expectations are highlighted so we know what to expect, and that there are adequate processes to ensure that outcomes are received. That’s actually all I want to say on the bill; I will speak a little bit more in the third reading. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori mō te pire e kīia nei ko te Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party regarding this bill called the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.]

This bill is only a slight improvement to a dangerous system of care that filters in and flicks out our tamariki Māori and mokopuna Māori. The bill shall not be taken nor understood in isolation of the current Government’s dystopian policy agenda. It will realistically do little to improve outcomes for the lives of mokopuna Māori in State care. I’m sure you’re all aware that the percentage of mokopuna Māori in State care is beyond 70 percent—might be clue number one. So this shapes the position we take today in opposing this bill.

One of our deepest concerns rests in the fact that the Aroturuki Tamaraki do not, under this bill, maintain the right to effectively enact the true intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We know when entities are granted any form of power whereby they are not obligated to act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our mokopuna and our people suffer. This is a historic fact. It’s a reoccurring reality for Māori communities and this was a very clear finding within Whanaketia. Therefore, without meaningful engagement in the embedding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi into this bill, our mokopuna and tamariki Māori are at risk of continued unmonitored abuse, something that has gone on unchecked for far too long.

This leads me into another area of concern. The recommendations in Whanaketia highlighted the need for significant structural changes in the child protection system. Yet the bill will not recognise this or its recommendations that would review independent monitoring and oversight entities and combine existing care and protection and youth justice monitoring entities into a singular body. This would simplify and streamline a process that, let’s face it, needs a severe revamp.

Our tamariki deserve clear and direct pathways for help. This bill will not make any significant headway in achieving this for our tamariki. In fact, the bill directly contradicts the voices of Te Whare Mōrehu, the findings within Whanaketia. To combat these concerns, the bill should mandate for collaboration between Māori and Te Whare Mōrehu in the development of the oversight system, while the bill should also indicate a clear commitment to the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations for monitoring and oversight.

Engagement is needed with Māori and survivors of abuse in State care in order to develop comprehensive amendments that actually serve the communities that this bill will impact the most. As I’ve indicated, more than 70 percent of these tamariki are Māori. Such amendments must include recognition and obligation to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi before the bill progresses any further. It is our strongest recommendation that a halt to the progression of this legislation is put in place until the latter occurs and until the recommendations of Whanaketia are recognised.

I find it somewhat alarming, but not unusual, that there’s a persistent view amongst members of the Government that somehow this is all the families’ fault and that personal responsibility is the answer. If they had spent any time researching or engaging in the history of these take [matters] that have been on a revolving door, in and out, in and out, in and out—no change; Oranga Tamariki reviewed, failed reviews, review after review after review—there may be a different attitude amongst them and more of an appetite to deal with the actual history, the actual facts, and find an actual solution. Nō reira kia kaha rā ki a tātou.

[Therefore, let us be strong.]

Tēnā koutou. We do not support the bill.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Our mokopuna deserve to be embraced in the warmth of their whakapapa. They deserve to be seen, heard, and loved. But more importantly, they are entitled to safety and protection from the harsh cruelties of this world. Tamariki in care and in custody have been brought and born into circumstances outside of their control. Children with nothing in the cupboard to eat, with no shoes to put on their feet, forced to look after their own siblings as children, struggling to understand the world while being challenged by disabilities and learning challenges, struggling to understand why they have been dealt such a cruel hand, and struggling to be understood as a whole person and, indeed, as a child.

This bill sets out to tighten up the rules and oversight of Oranga Tamariki and was instigated by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, which brought into daylight the abuse of a quarter of a million tamariki from the years 1950 to 1999. There is no greater case for intentional and carefully considered guardianship of our future—our mokopuna—which is why we support this bill and welcome a cross-party approach. Children are truly the last human beings that deserve to be caught in the crossfire of politics.

This bill is about tamariki in care, of which seven out of 10 are Māori. When we look to tamariki in custody and youth justice residences, we can see that eight out of 10 tamariki are Māori. If we look at the proportion of under-19-year-olds in our youth justice system, we know that nine out of 10 of those tamariki suffer from serious learning disabilities. Tamariki in care and in custody are extremely vulnerable. They have not escaped the worst consequences of colonisation, cycles of abuse, discrimination, and poverty, and although many tamariki who entered into State care have gone on to become their ancestors’ wildest dreams—like Ihorangi Reweti-Peters or Karah Mackie or Eugene Ryder—it is also easy to become ensnared in the justice system in an endless cycle, from youth justice residences into being arrested, into being in prison, and the cycle continues.

That’s why it’s so important that this bill establishes an independent Crown entity, which is preferable to a departmental agency because they cannot be directed by Ministers and operate under statute that explicitly provides independence from ministerial direction. I have been actively critical of this Government’s policies around boot camps and around youth justice residences. We have called for boot camps to end and for youth justice residences to be closed down. Sadly, this is not a trend that we have only just seen this term. Moral panic around youth delinquency has existed since at least the 1950s, when the Mazengarb report was delivered to every single household in Aotearoa. Imagine if we sent a copy to every household of the report into abuse in State care and faith-based institutions. That’s why independence is critical for tamariki in care to be free from political point-scoring on all sides. In Ireland, there is a degree of consensus around youth detention: their sentence centres are not managed by Government, which allows far more flexibility. So I applaud the components of this bill that provide for that independence.

We also know the importance of the Independent Children’s Monitor and the reports that they put out around the state of Oranga Tamariki, around the state of our youth justice residences—because, unlike prisons, we can’t go in there and inspect the conditions that our tamariki are subject to. We rely on these reports to tell us what is going on; we rely on our Children’s Commissioner to give us an honest, and sometimes brutal, insight into the realities of the most vulnerable tamariki in our country. It is the only robust and fair way for us to know what’s going on. During submissions on this bill, there were recommendations by submitters around an independent Māori monitor to oversee services outsourced to iwi, and we couldn’t agree more.

We have a Government that talks about social investment and removing reliance on the State, and perhaps that’s an opportunity for us to return tamariki Māori to their iwi and their hapū who want to bring them home, so they will know their identity and know that they are valued and loved. They are not just some random tamariki without a face or a name or a whakapapa. They’re not a number, they’re not a spreadsheet, they’re not a KPI; they are ours. They are not simply objects to be played with and discarded to the corrections system when they turn 18. Kia ora.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a relatively simple bill but an important one. It re-establishes the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity. It’s currently a departmental agency within the Education Review Office, but the Government is of the view it is important to strengthen the independence of this monitoring agency, to strengthen the independent monitoring of the Oranga Tamariki system, and strengthen advocacy for children and young people’s issues generally. It will also have the power to oversee about eight different agencies and also other entities that are providing services in this space. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to stand up and give my support to this kaupapa today. I think it’s a very, very important kaupapa, and I’m glad that the Government has recognised this, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment has actually worked in a bipartisan way, which is how we should work, obviously, sometimes.

I got a bit disappointed when I was listening to some of the speeches, and I thought that there was hope for the ACT Party there for a while as they condemned the Crown and the way that previous Governments have operated with regards to Māori. I had some hope there, but then, of course, they started blaming the families for the position that they’re in today, which is disheartening, given this kaupapa has been such a prevalent kaupapa and such a major kaupapa within te ao Māori. You’ve heard that from the speeches, and to blame our families—and don’t get me wrong: I do think that our families have to take some responsibility, and I think that all Māori MPs would say that we have to have whānau who take responsibilities. They can’t blame colonisation every time something goes wrong with the whānau. Sometimes, that’s an excuse, as we know—as we know. So I certainly don’t put up with that nonsense, and I didn’t at ground level when I was working at ground level.

But to dismiss what’s happened with Māori families in terms of urbanisation, in terms of the reo, and in terms of what’s happened to our culture is very, very sad. So I found that kōrero sad, and then I found when I was listening to Te Pāti Māori that they’re voting against the bill, and I find that sad, because it brings to the table the different views in terms of incremental change and transformative change. That’s a question that we have to ask ourselves: as Māori, do we accept incremental change when we’re in Parliament?

The reality is that that’s the reality of Parliament. That’s the way that Government works, which is that you don’t get the transformative change that Te Pāti Māori are talking about. They, quite rightly, say that the basis to this kaupapa—there was a call from te ao Māori to totally dismantle Oranga Tamariki. That was a strong call, and if people want to check back in history there, just in the last few years, when we were in Government we made some real effort in getting Oranga Tamariki to reflect a tikanga Māori perspective—and don’t get me wrong: there have been some good people in that agency. But it was going down the wrong track and there were some terrible stories coming out of there, so we certainly have made an attempt in terms of changing the structure. We put Wira Gardiner, who was probably our top Māori bureaucrat, in charge of the kaupapa—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just remind the member that this is the oversight of Oranga Tamariki bill?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It is the oversight; I’m just trying to give some background to this, and I understand what you’re saying. I’m just trying to reflect some of the angst within the community, but I have no problem in coming to a couple of the points, Madam Speaker, where we’re talking about some of our reservations with regards to it.

But one of the major reservations in terms of te ao Māori is the very structure of Oranga Tamariki. There is this view that it should be thrown out. I’m not of that view, and that’s why we, in Labour, will work to improve the situation.

So, in terms of the oversight, what the Minister is suggesting is pretty much what we were talking about when we were in Government. The establishment of the monitor is incredibly important because the monitor will have an independence that is just so needed within that structure. However, Labour acknowledges that the monitor will have so many pressures in terms of that position, and we wonder in terms of this position whether the previous set-up, where we had three people overseeing it, may have been a better position. We recognise there’s a perception that the Independent Children’s Monitor right now is not independent enough, but if the re-establishment of the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity—[Rima Nakhle gives the member a glass of water] Thank you very much. Gee, it’s good to have that service—thank you very much. We’re getting very by the by, so thank you very much.

Hon Nicola Grigg: I’ve got some Strepsils.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ha, ha! Let’s not get too friendly, eh—all right? But the establishment of the independent monitor will strengthen the perception of independence.

In terms of where we go in terms of this oversight, one of other differing views in terms of Labour was the era of survivors of abuse in care, and the ryal commission into the abuse in care’s final recommendations regarding the independent oversight and monitoring, recommendations 85 to 87. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime was very clear that we may have lost an opportunity there to advance the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure that oversight and monitoring of the care system is “coherent and well-resourced”.

So we do have reservations, but we’re pleased that the Government has seen the need to strengthen this area of independence. However, there’s still some way to go when you consider the amount of angst within our communities and when you consider the different views that you’ll see from some of Government and that you see from Te Pāti Māori, who want just a total change—and that is a strong view out there that oversight and just a tweak in terms of structure is not enough. But I do think and I do hope that this change will lead to further changes in terms of the culture within Oranga Tamariki, which has been under pressure for at least the last five or six years.

So I’m hoping that the change in terms of the monitor, in terms of the independence, and in terms of the culture will continue, and I want to talk about more of those changes when we get into the third and final reading. But we’re happy today to say that we support what the Minister has advocated, and we hope that further changes will continue because this is an organisation that needs a lot of support. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The overall policy objective of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is to improve the situation of young people and children in State care in New Zealand. It’s truly a difficult, difficult task, and it is at a point when we who are in Government and who are forced to and who have to undertake the care of these young people and children just have to do our best at it. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s an interesting day to be standing here considering this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, you and I were both on the Social Services and Community Committee last term when the changes were made. In fact, I was the deputy chair of the committee, and I do remember us agonising and being challenged and being asked to look at how we actually address the importance of this role. It’s interesting to come, three years later, and to be looking back at it again. I think that’s actually a good thing, though, that we can actually reflect and look and see how things are working, how things aren’t working, perceptions, and that type of thing.

I remember really distinctly, then looking at the select committee report from the changes this time around, they’re very much what was intended and very much, I guess, the challenge that we still speak of here as the Labour Party is how does the Children’s Commissioner—the board was established to ensure diversity. To ensure that it wasn’t just this one person—that binary one person. But you look back since 1989 with the introduction of the first Children’s Commissioner, and from memory there’ve been nine up until the changes last term. Of those nine, there were six that were male, three were female—and of those nine, two were Māori. I think that was a reason we looked at in terms of how to actually spread this out to work with people. I still stand by that, and I still think that’s something that’s really important.

I also know that there was a challenge about having the oversight sitting within ERO—within the Education Review Office. I felt OK and we had assurances that it would work. Looking at the evidence and looking at what’s been in the report, it actually has worked and it’s given fair independence. But perception has been the challenge—perception has been the challenge in terms of it sitting in ERO and is it independent enough of Government, of the agencies, to actually do its job properly.

We, hopefully, have engaged constructively in the process from this side, from the Labour Party, in the select committee process, and even in the second debate this afternoon that we want to see the best for our tamariki. We want to see the best for our children as they grow and we want to make sure there are checks, that there are balances, and that there are agencies like a Children’s Commissioner, a children’s commissioning board, whatever that looks like, that’s one that is independent, that is caring for the wellbeing, the advancement, but also the flourishing of our young people. There are a few things we’ll probably talk about in the committee of the whole House stage around this legislation around how we can make it better, but at this current point, I want to commend this bill to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): It is good to hear that this bill has the support from the Labour Party and the Green Party. I support this bill because it strengthens the independent oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and improves advocacy for our tamariki. By establishing the monitor as an independent Crown entity and returning to a single, feasible children’s commissioner, we ensure clear rules, stronger accountability, and better outcomes for children and young people across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to talk for a minute, particularly for the people at home, about the value of the role itself, that we are looking at today. We’ve got a woman called Claire Achmad in the role at the moment. She is doing that job fearlessly, so it’s relevant to the issue over independence. The Labour Party took a different view on independence because we believed that that kind of diversity that is possible when you have a group of people from different backgrounds adds something very special, and I think it does. I think I stand by that. It’s a way of leading which is very porous to experience, so it does mean that you will have a range of people who are bringing different experiences in and collaborating on views. But that does not mean that I am not impressed by the work of an independent commissioner.

I just wanted to look at the kinds of things the independent commissioner has talked about recently. I am looking first at a statement that the commissioner made in February of 2025. She said, “There is no evidence that military approaches to youth justice work in the long term, and the government can and must focus instead on investing in prevention and rehabilitation programmes”. She talked about really changing the emphasis, and she did that from her position as an independent monitor. So she really was holding to account the direction of the Government, on behalf and advocating strongly for a group of people who are most impacted—those are our children.

On child poverty, she had some very interesting things to say. When the Budget is produced, they also produce the child poverty survey—they produce an audit of it. This year’s Budget had some pretty devastating impacts. Measures like food security and health access were right down for children—population groups with disabilities; Pacific children were in situations where they were in worse situations. One in two Pacific children—this alarmed me—ran out of food. That is what the prediction was. There was an increase in poverty in children—material hardship: that measure was 0.9 more under this Budget than it had been.

Those are really serious things, so the children’s monitor was able to say, “This report provides more hard evidence showing that the Government needs to make ending child poverty an ongoing project of national significance. Investment and commitment through Budget 2025 [is urgently needed]”—that’s what she had to say about those things, and she had the standing to say them. That’s an incredibly important role.

I’d like to comment on what my colleague Willow-Jean Prime said, however, about, perhaps, the opportunity that is missed here. In the abuse in State care report, there were recommendations that that kind of role that is being played is being played in pockets across our society. So we have an ombudsman who looks at one part, and we have another person looking at children who are in custody. Now, people will recall that there is a real issue around what happens when you haven’t got enough beds for your youth, and that’s been happening: when they’re in trouble and there aren’t beds to put them in, they have been put in cells. Now, that’s because there simply aren’t enough beds. So it’s really important that those kinds of monitoring happen and that people are coming in and monitoring it. But what the abuse in State care recommendation said is that there are gaps between our systems, and so there was an opportunity here to collaborate and look at those groups and try to join up the functions—so there was a full and joined-up focus on children, and we didn’t get children falling between those gaps. So that’s what my friend Willow-Jean Prime is talking when she talks about a missed opportunity. It’s a very real one.

I do note that this piece of legislation has a five-year review in it, and I see that as an opportunity, because I hope we’ll be in Government and we’ll be able to make good the promise to look at those things, like that extra part of abuse in State care recommendations being included. But that’s five years away. I take the point, again, from my friend Willow-Jean Prime—that she makes: that that’s a long way away and that’s a lot of children who will be impacted in the meantime.

So I would urge the Government to look at that again. Having said that, it is obviously a step forward to go through into this legislation and to do what we are doing here today. I disagree with some of my colleagues on this side of the House who have suggested that, perhaps, they should vote against this legislation. I think that’s a step too far. I take the point made by the Hon Willie Jackson that sometimes what we do in this House isn’t perfect, but we have to do it anyway; we have to do it because it’s a step forward, not a step back. So I think that this piece of legislation deserves our support because it is a step forward.

What I want to do is come back to the issue of what that commissioner does and how vital it is that we have people who are willing to say these things to all Governments—not just this one but all Governments—to say uncomfortable things to them. The independent Children’s Commissioner—that’s a person who is actually able to do that. And, actually, we always are going to have a problem with people not being able to necessarily do that because they are too connected; their career is connected to the Government—it is just difficult to do.

So I do take the point: I think that could be the case with the board. I think that has a strength in it that this lacks because you don’t have the depth that you would otherwise have; you have one person and you kind of basically put all those eggs in that basket and hope that you’ve got a person of great strength and integrity. But everybody has parts of their brain that are more impacted than others—three brains are better than one; five brains are better than one. That is basically the difference that we’re standing on in our review which we’ve put into the differing opinion and the report on this—that that is a stronger system of governance and a stronger system than one person. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t absolutely value the contribution that is made by the current person in this role, and the value—the bravery—that must come with this job.

So I just want to make sure that I put on the Hansard very strongly my support for people in positions like this to stand up to us sometimes—to say uncomfortable things, to tell us that the Budget isn’t focused enough on children and that, in fact, they’re going to suffer as a result, and that the Government needs to change its focus; to tell us those things and not be afraid of doing so. That’s an important part of a role when there’s only one of you, because it’s also a role that can be subject to power and subject to pressure.

So I would like to put on the record that I am very impressed by the comments that I’ve seen made by our Children’s Commissioner, and I would like to put on the record that I hope that what happens in this role from now on is that we continue to put people into that position—they will have a team around them: there’s a judge and other people around them who are involved in that process under this system. But I want to make sure they realise that they have the support of this House in doing their job fearlessly, because that’s an important part of our system, and we’re going to be relying upon them, and we do now. So I thank them for this and I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to take the final call on the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a bill that will strengthen the independence of the Independent Children’s Monitor, which is a very important thing. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Amendments to Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022”, Schedules 1 and 2, and proposed new Schedule 1A.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave that all provisions be taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that? Is there any objections? There are no objections. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’d like to open my remarks by thanking members of the committee for their willingness to engage in the next stage of improvements to the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and, in this case, in the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

I thought I would just make some introductory comments. The bill builds on the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which was a significant improvement in the oversight by making the roles of the three entities in the oversight system clearer and simpler so that it was much more easily understood by those interacting and using the Oranga Tamariki system. This bill fulfils the Government commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki, as well as ensuring we have a single Children’s Commissioner to make it crystal clear to children who their advocate is.

I just want to say that these are both changes that there was significant feedback on when the last Government made changes, and this was seen as another step. So I don’t want anyone to think that it fundamentally changes the great work that was done by the previous Government, but the concern was that the Independent Children’s Monitor wasn’t independent enough, which is what we are doing today. And the second, again, was responding to clear feedback about everybody in New Zealand knowing who the Children’s Commissioner is. By having a board, there was real concern that they wouldn’t know who that was and therefore who was their champion, who was their advocate. So that’s why this change is proposed in this legislation, and I’m really encouraged by the cross-party support. As I say, it’s about taking the next level and the next step in strengthening the oversight system. It’s not taking anything away; it is strengthening it.

I will talk shortly about an amendment that is out of scope that has got approval of the Business Committee to come into this, which is another important step in strengthening what we do, because it is clear that every member of this House and, actually, of the country wants us to ensure we have the strongest possible oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. I’m just looking at Part 1 here and looking at clause 4, “Section 8 amended (Interpretation)”. Just wanting to dig into what protections are in place to ensure that the newly defined monitor and its board will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and reflect the voices of Māori, particularly given the overrepresentation of mokopuna Māori in State care.

Just a follow-up to that—and I do have some more questions after this—how will the Government ensure that the new board’s structure does not compromise the monitor’s independence, or enable ministerial influence, particularly when concerns have been raised about the centralisation and lack of community accountability during the select committee phase? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’d like to say a couple of things. Firstly, there is a Māori advisory board which the Independent Children’s Monitor board must consult with. So that is one of the safeguards. You know, it is an unfortunate reality of the number of Māori children in State care. I think another important safeguard is the baseline report that’s just been undertaken by the monitor. I think that will provide really good information so that the board, when it comes in, will have something to start from to then look at what the forward work plan should be.

I want to take this opportunity to stress part of this change is to make it independent so that it is not located in a departmental agency of the Government, to keep it as far as possible away from the Government of the day—which I know parliamentary colleagues of that member’s party were instrumental in getting to this change. We’re very much part of our Government’s commitment to make this change, because we know how important that independence is.

That’s also why, if I can talk now to the Amendment Paper, one of the things that is really important is that when reports are made by the Independent Children’s Monitor, there are time frames by when Government agencies must report back on progress, so that we can ensure progress is being made in a timely manner. So that is why we have included it.

Again, as I say, it is with the Business Committee’s approval that this is an out-of-scope matter that we are also addressing today.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. So now just looking at Part 1, clause 5, “Section 12 replaced (Independent Monitor of Oranga Tamariki System established)”. I’m just wanting to understand the safeguards, or the statutory safeguards, which are included to protect the operational and functional independence of the monitor, particularly in relation to clause 12(3), which allows for exceptions to the Crown Entities Act. If the Minister can just talk about what the statutory safeguards are, that would be awesome.

Actually, I’ll just go on to this next question as well, because it’s just clause 12A, so just moving down from that into 12A “Monitor’s board”. So just wanting to understand the justification for limiting the monitor’s board to only three members, and how this number is determined to be sufficient for robust governance, expertise, and representation. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I want to thank the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for her responses so far with regard to this and the bipartisan approach that has been adopted here, as I said earlier. Can I just, further to that, say that it’s pleasing there is some acknowledgment of the Treaty and the partnership there is with Māori with regards to oranga. I think the Minister will appreciate it has been one hell of a last few years, for whoever the Minister has been. Oranga Tamariki has been incredibly hard, in terms of oversight.

I think the compilation of the board is incredibly important, so I’ll just ask the Minister what types of priorities she is giving to those three members. Will we see someone with strong iwi experience in there, for example? We have talked about diversity. Is that something she would be looking at, given how important the relationship is with Māori? My assessment and the Minister’s assessment might be that the views are divided. There are some who, obviously, still want to get rid of Oranga Tamariki. There are some who want to give Oranga Tamariki a chance. I think, in terms of giving Oranga Tamariki a chance, Labour and National are in the same waka there, and so we would like to help and support the Minister. What type of priority is she giving to diversity?

Can I also ask the Minister—because we don’t have a lot of questions in this committee time—in terms of her kōrero with various Māori, has she been working with hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations? Can she give us some assurances that there has been kōrero at pan-tribal level, in terms of a consultation process? This was always a kaupapa that the iwi leaders had prioritised, so I imagine she has talked with various people. I know that Naida Glavish has been a very vocal person and also an adviser to both Governments. Has that type of person been consulted? I’m just interested in the kōrero and the process that the Minister has gone down. Is she going to transfer some of that information and actually install people on her board who do have, I suppose, the diversity, background, history, whakapapa, and reo to instil the confidence amongst Māori? Just a few questions there for the Minister.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, members, for your questions. Just a couple of things. One that I think is really important to have on record is that the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system is not just oversight of Oranga Tamariki as a department; there are eight children’s agencies that are involved. I want to make that really explicit because, in too many instances, where there are issues that emerge, and when the Independent Children’s Monitor reports have come through in the past, the finger gets pointed at Oranga Tamariki, where, actually, there are eight agencies involved. Often the lives of the children we are referring to have been at greater risk or harm because of other agencies other than Oranga Tamariki. I think it’s really important to put that on record. It is about: how do we ensure the eight agencies are working together to improve the lives of some of our most vulnerable children? So I wanted to make sure that we put that on the record.

In terms of the three board members, it’s a balance of—you can have an independent Crown entity with one board member. I didn’t think that that was appropriate. I think three gives us the ability to get the diversity that we require, the skill set. Absolutely, in terms of appointment of the initial board, it needs to be people who deeply understand the Oranga Tamariki system, who will have the trust and confidence of providers, of iwi, of New Zealanders at large, and of children themselves. They also need to be able to work with the other two parts of the oversight system, which is of course the Ombudsman and, after this legislation passes, the Children’s Commissioner. I was also really careful in drafting the legislation to minimise the amount of change at once, which is why it enables the continuity of the existing monitor and the existing Chief Children’s Commissioner for a period of 12 months. So they’re used to working together. They’ll continue to do that. That is about making sure there is an easier transition.

In terms of the number of the board members, again, I would just say there is a Māori Advisory Board that the three-member board will work with. In terms of the governance, I’m confident that that will be a strong set of governance for the Independent Children’s Monitor.

In terms of the safeguards, they are the standard safeguards that are required for an independent Crown entity. They are the safeguards that ensure it is independent, and that’s that arm’s length that we will want to see it will have.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to ask you to follow up and explain, if you can, the role of the judge in this process, because one of the appointments is a judge on to the board. I wondered whether you were looking at that judge as being someone who’s practising now, which it looks like it is, and practising in those fields that would be connected with this area, or whether that’s going to be a problem, because they’ll be practising. So I’d just really genuinely like to know: do you see that as an asset that that person’s practising at the present time in the field and seeing what they see in that or do you see that as a conflict in the role?

I also can’t see from this whether those board members will be—it looks like it’ll be a part-time occupation. So how many hours would you envisage that the board members would be engaged in this work? Because it looks like it fits alongside other work, and just in terms of the public watching this: the role of the kind of governance of a board—what this board is intended to do in layperson’s terms. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): So in terms of the position of the judge, that’s not being changed in this legislation. But if the member Helen White thinks back to previous Children’s Commissioners, we had Judge Becroft. So when the legislation was changed in 2022, that was taken into consideration. It wouldn’t mean “in future”; it would prevent a judge taking on the Children’s Commissioner’s role in the future. So that’s not something that’s changed. We’re just changing from the board to a single person.

In terms of the time commitment, I don’t anticipate the board roles would be full time, as most Government boards are not full time. I would expect, though, in year one, as an establishment board, there would be a heavier workload in year one than I would expect in the future.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): It’s the appointment of a judge as a board member. It’s a different thing from appointing a judge to the position. Obviously, with Judge Becroft, that was a full-time position. There was a small amendment, which is why I picked it up, I think, in the wording on the judge. I think it said there must be a judge on the board, and then it’s changed the wording. I just wondered what that role looked like. Thank you.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. So just speaking to the experience and knowledge of the board members, this is in new section 12B, inserted by clause 5, “Experience and knowledge of board members”: “When recommending a person for membership of the board, the Minister must have regard to the need for board members to collectively have knowledge … and experience in relation to,”—and these are all great things—“(a) the Oranga Tamariki system”—that’d be good—“(b) quality assurance; and (c) data governance.”

I’m just wanting to explore why new section 12B doesn’t have any requirement for collective expertise in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, child rights, or lived experience of care, particularly given the disproportionate number of mokopuna Māori in State care and also the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions’ emphasis on survivor-informed insight. I think those would have been some good things to have in there for the experience and knowledge of the board members.

Can the Minister for Social Development and Employment clarify how quality assurance and data governance will be defined in practice and what thresholds of competence will be applied in assessing board candidates under those categories? Because I know that we’re all really keen to get this board right and to make those steps forward in te Aroturuki and its independence and, therefore, effectiveness for our most vulnerable tamariki.

Just one more on that new section 12B, inserted by clause 5: why are the required areas of knowledge just really narrowly focused on internal systems expertise and not inclusive of areas such as kaupapa Māori frameworks or child development or trauma-informed care? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Just coming back to Helen White’s question, just in terms of the appointment of a judge, it’s not required. It’s just saying if a judge was appointed as a board member, it wouldn’t affect the tenure of their judicial office. So that is what happened when we previously had a Children’s Commissioner who had been a judge. So it’s just picking that up and saying if a judge was appointed on to the Independent Children’s Monitor board, the same provisions would allow, because what we wouldn’t want it to do is preclude a judge for considering being on that board.

In terms of the requirements of the Crown Entities Act, that covers issues more generally around what we would expect board members who are on independent Crown entities to have. So what is specified here in new section 12B(1), inserted by clause 5, is the additional special requirements specifically related to the Independent Children’s Monitor, and the Oranga Tamariki system. I actually think that reflects some of the broader areas such as care experience and the abuse in State care considerations because that comes into that broader Oranga Tamariki system. And what happens when a new board is created, or actually any board appointments, but particularly a new board, is the Public Service Commission then looks at what are the requirements of the role, and then there is a bit of to and fro in terms of does that set of skills, attributes, capabilities fulfil the legislative requirement of what’s laid out, but also the intention of what the Minister wants to see from that independent Crown entity.

So I’m confident that is covered, including the questions around data governance, and I know particularly with Māori, through Pou Tangata, for example, there is work under way around specific Māori data governance issues that are of interest. So that would be part of the consideration in terms of suitable candidates, and that will be taken into consideration at that point.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see the other side are really keen to take a closure motion on this.

Tim van de Molen: Oh, don’t make assumptions.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh. I don’t know why they would break with the tradition of previous short calls and take one. But, anyway—anyway—we’re being serious here, everybody. I just wanted to pick up on the question that my colleague asked around the appointment of a judge as a board member. I think the concern that we have, and we just want to raise that in the committee, is because they would be able to potentially continue—so they bring over skills, relevant skills and expertise, like we saw with Judge Becroft when he was the Children’s Commissioner. But the concern, I suppose, I want to raise here is: given it is the Independent Children’s Monitor of the children’s system, and courts play a role in that entire system, it doesn’t create some kind of potential conflict there that could threaten the true independence of the monitor and the board. I just wonder if you have anything that you want to say on that for us.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member, and I think what is useful—and it’s a good issue to raise—but just thinking about the three entities of the Independent Children’s Monitor, is they provide advice; they do the monitoring. It’s not advocacy, and I think that’s where—obviously, when the appointments are being made to the board, that would be something to consider, but I don’t see it would be an issue.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Given that answer, I do think we need to note on the record that when we look at the experiences shared in the royal commission and the complaints made, a lot of distrust exists amongst the community of the oversight in the past, and still of the current systems between courts, agencies, and so on. So I just want to note the concern around the fact that a judicial appointment to that board—I understand what you are saying their role is, that we, through this bill, are trying to make it truly independent. Just that those concerns are there, because they are real concerns that have been shared by survivors in the royal commission process, as an example.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member the Hon Willow-Jean Prime for raising that, and my feedback to that would be: this is a board, and I think, at an operational level—so when it is the staff themselves who go in to monitor a facility or go in to monitor and engage with providers—I could absolutely see that survivors would be concerned if they were confronted with a member of the judiciary who is doing that work. But this is at a governance level, and their role doesn’t include any oversight of the judicial system; that would, clearly, be inappropriate. I note the member’s concern, and it’ll now be on the record.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you to the Minister for Social Development and Employment for that explanation. I suppose what I would note here is that it does have a five-year review clause, and maybe if that turns out to be an issue once this is enacted, then that is something that could be looked at through the review process—that it didn’t have any unintended consequences. I think we can see what it is trying to address, but we are also raising concerns about what potential there could be for that perception of real lack of genuine independence. So I do note that we have a five-year review clause in here, which means that that could be looked at if it was an issue.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Mr Chair, thank you. I still do have quite a bit of—not heaps and heaps, not enough to fill the 2½ hours programmed for this committee of the whole House—but I do have some more scrutinising of the bill, just to make sure that we are really understanding it and really getting it right for our most vulnerable tamariki.

So I just want to talk to Part 1, clause 6, new section 16; this is the “(Duty to act independently)”. In here it does say: “Except as expressly provided otherwise in this or another Act, the Monitor must act independently when performing its functions and duties”. So I just wanted to know: what specific legislative provisions, either in this bill or in other Acts, override or limit the monitor’s independence? And can the Minister please provide some of those expectations? And, yeah, just reminding where it is, it’s in that clause 6, new section 16, where it says—so, yeah, some examples would be wonderful.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): So the first thing is the functions of the monitor are no different than what they were previously. It is just them including it here because it now will be an independent Crown entity. But the functions are the same. As part of the legislation that was passed in the previous Government, there is a five-year review. The review of the legislation I brought forward, it has been concluded—the first review—and it deemed that there was no change necessary to the functions in the three entities of the oversight system. So there is no change in those functions. I think the committee and the public should be reassured that the legislative review that has been undertaken already, early of the five-year mark, didn’t highlight any concerns or issues with the division of the functions that are currently undertaken by the three entities.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move, That debate on this question now close.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. I’m just moving into Part 2 now—I know that we’re just taking it as a whole, but I had it in sections, so there we are. So I’m looking at Part 2, “Amendments to Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022”, clause 13, “Section 6 amended”. It’s talking about “when recommending a candidate for appointment as the Children’s Commissioner, to have regard to the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori knowledge, and knowledge of, and experience in, tikanga Māori;”. So I’m just wanting to understand why this amendment only refers to the Children’s Commissioner and doesn’t extend to Tiriti-related appointment criteria to the board members, as we talked about previously, of the Independent Children’s Monitor.

I’m asking this particularly because we know that Māori tamariki are so overrepresented and make up about 70 percent of those tamariki in State care. So we can see that it’s in there for the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner, and just wondering why it was decided not to extend that. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As I said before, the Crown Entities Act already covers these requirements, so it wasn’t necessary for the Independent Children’s Monitor to add that into it. It was just adding, for this particular independent Crown entity, what the requirements were for the selection of the board members.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. Moving into Part 2, clause 15, new sections 11 to 14—and this is the section that establishes the Children’s Commissioner—and we know that we’re moving into that sole commissioner model. I’m wanting to understand what advice did the Government receive on the compatibility of a single commissioner model with the principles of collective decision-making and how will continuity, institutional knowledge, and accountability be ensured in the absence of the previous structure, particularly in the event of a change in commissioner or a vacancy in the role?

Just further to that—so still looking at clause 15, new sections 11 to 14—how does the clause ensure the commissioner has adequate administrative and structural support to perform a wide-ranging mandate under the new section 12 and related legislation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Obviously, if we think about how we got to the recommendation of a single Children’s Commissioner, as opposed to a board, it was absolutely about ensuring there was complete clarity for New Zealanders at large but, more importantly, for children and young people—that they knew who their person was. The Children’s Commissioner is the advocate for children in the Oranga Tamariki system but children at large. So, in terms of the decision to move from a board to a single Children’s Commissioner, that’s why we’ve done that. I got advice at the time about the structure. This is the same model that is in Australia and the UK and also a successful model that we had previously, before the 2022 changes. So it was going back to a structure we had.

Also, the ability to appoint a Deputy Children’s Commissioner, I think, is an important addition in terms of continuity and in terms of having support for the Children’s Commissioner. I’m aware of the importance of administrative support for a Children’s Commissioner, and you might appoint a Children’s Commissioner that is an amazing advocate who isn’t necessarily the best person at managing an organisation, and so I’m clear that the legislation that we are presenting today has the flexibility to ensure the Children’s Commissioner is able to be supported with an organisation, to cover off those skill sets, because the Children’s Commissioner should be first and foremost focused on advocacy rather than administration.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): 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 (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 291 set out on Amendment Paper 292 be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 291 set out on Amendment Paper 293 be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 291 as amended be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is going to strengthen the independent monitoring of the children’s system and make it crystal clear to children and young people who their advocate is. These changes are intended to build on public trust in monitoring and advocacy and improve the governance of the oversight of the children’s system. I don’t want anyone listening, for a moment, to think that there is anything wrong with the current oversight, but this is an opportunity for the House to take it even further and to make improvements to the oversight system. The bill fulfils our Government’s commitment to create a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki.

In 2022, the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system was arranged through two Acts. These set up the monitor as a monitoring agency and it made enhancements to the Ombudsman’s functions to handle complaints and establish the commission with a role to advocate for children and young people who have interacted with the children’s system. As I said, there were some suggestions for improving the structures of the entities which were not implemented at the time and continued to be raised by stakeholders. These suggestions were: establishing independence for the entity that monitors the Government and having a clear, single advocate that children and young people can recognise and approach. Although I’m very pleased with the important work completed by the monitor and the Children’s Commissioner to date, I view their current governance structures were insufficient to fulfil these two requirements and wanted the opportunity to improve them.

This bill intends to amend the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022 and the Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022 specifically to transition the monitor from a departmental agency to an independent Crown entity with a small, multi-member board, and the Children and Young People’s Commission from an independent Crown entity led by a multi-member board to an independent Crown entity led by a single Children’s Commissioner.

These changes are important. Shifting the monitor to become an independent Crown entity has been called for time and time again, including in previous feedback and in the more recent final report from the Royal Commission Of Inquiry Into Abuse In Care. The report called for robust, independent oversight and monitoring of care as a critical way of ensuring that care providers fulfil their duties to people in care. Establishing a single Children’s Commissioner ensures children and young people know exactly who their advocate is. Although the current board is led by a Chief Children’s Commissioner, having only one Children’s Commissioner is a much clearer, simpler way to create this distinction for children and young people. Together, these changes to the governance of the monitor and Children’s Commissioner will improve the trust we all hold in the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system and will allow stronger, clearer advocacy for our children and young people.

During the committee of the whole House stage, an important addition to the bill was made, which will strengthen accountability for agencies that are the subject of specific reports by the monitor. This bill will now amend the oversight Act to require agencies and contracted non-government organisations who provide care for children to complete additional reporting on their progress to improve their compliance with the Oranga Tamariki National Care Standards (NCS) regulations. These progress reports will be required four months after agencies provide their initial response to the monitor’s annual report on the NCS regulations.

This is a crucial step to increase accountability and to provide the public and Ministers with important information about how agencies are tracking towards compliance with the NCS regulations. These regulations focus on whether children in care are receiving the right level of care and support and that a plan is in place to meet their needs. It will give Ministers the ability to take decisive action earlier to ensure relevant agencies are complying and working to enhance the wellbeing of children and young people in care. The additional reporting requirement will take effect from the monitor’s next annual report on compliance with the NCS regulations, which is expected in early 2026.

This is not the end of making continuous improvements to the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, as work will continue to ensure the system is effectively supporting and assisting children. We have included a requirement for the Acts to be reviewed within five years from 1 July 2025 so that we can continue to understand its purpose and be responsive to change. It is great to see when members across the House from different parties are able to work together as we have done with this legislation. So I thank the members opposite for their time, for their understanding, and for their ability to work constructively with us. I think it is really important in terms of an oversight system that there is consistency and that trust and confidence each step of the way we continue to grow it as a country. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in the final reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. As we have this afternoon completed the second reading and have given substantial speeches in that reading, and as we’ve just had the committee stage, it does feel like we are repeating ourselves over and over again in the same day. But, for the record, Labour is supporting this bill, but we do so with some outstanding issues that we still have with what is being proposed here this afternoon.

We did provide the select committee with a differing view, so while we support the bill, we still have concerns, particularly around the disestablishment of the Children and Young People’s Commission board and the reversion to a single Children’s Commissioner. We had hoped that the benefits of having diverse representation on the board of the Children’s Commission would have been given an opportunity to be embedded and for the benefits to be seen, but, sadly, this has not been the case. But, in saying that, we recognise that a simplified version of a single commissioner appealed to some submitters.

Unfortunately, I don’t think, this afternoon, this is totally enhancing what was there, because the Minister has stressed in her second reading speech and third reading speech that this is more about form and structure over function and substance—that the substance and function that was there for our oversight entities remain as it was but that the structure is changing. While we are achieving true independence of the Independent Children’s Monitor, we are losing the board of the Children’s Commission and the diversity that that offered by having that.

Secondly, we believe that the current Independent Children’s Monitor situation, as a departmental agency within the Education Review Office, had adequate independence, and the feedback that we had on the performance was largely positive. But we, Labour, do recognise that the perception that the Independent Children’s Monitor was not independent enough is important and that if the re-establishment of the Independent Children’s Monitor as an independent Crown entity strengthens the perception of independence, then this is a positive thing, and that’s why we are supporting this bill this afternoon.

But I do want to take the opportunity to once again note for the House that it is disappointing that the Crown—that the Government—did not take this opportunity to address the recommendations in Whanaketia, the final report of the royal commission into abuse in State and faith-based care. In there, particularly through recommendations 85 to 87, there were a number of recommendations about how to ensure that the oversight system is coherent, that there are no gaps, that there’s no duplication, and that it is providing the best oversight that our tamariki deserve in terms of the system. And so our concern is that those recommendations have not been responded to by this legislation. While the Minister has mentioned the royal commission in her speech, unfortunately, in the Government’s recent response to the recommendations of the royal commission, they are not addressing those specific recommendations. So this was a missed opportunity to be able to meaningfully respond to those recommendations from the royal commission.

The last thing that I wanted to speak about is the amendment to have reporting on progress, which was supported unanimously across the House and by the Business Committee—noting that it was out of scope and that this had been a bipartisan approach to bringing that into this legislation at this late stage. Listening to the Minister in the committee stage and also in the third reading speech, the only concern I have from what I understand that amendment to be achieving is that it may be too narrowly focused on the care standards. I want to see—and we will have the opportunity once this comes into law—that responding within four months to the Independent Children’s Monitor’s reports, and so on, is not just the report in terms of the care standards but all of its reports that it has been producing.

We had a report recently, the first of its kind from the Independent Children’s Monitor, on what they are seeing in terms of tamariki and rangatahi Māori within the system, and it was a damning report. There are a lot of concerns raised in that report that need to be addressed. We did raise this at scrutiny week with the Minister for Children, for example, because Oranga Tamariki has a lot of responsibility in terms of responding to those issues, concerns, and findings raised in that report specifically for tamariki Māori, who make up two-thirds of the children in care and protection and in custody. But also, as the Minister noted, Oranga Tamariki are not the only agency who are part of the children system—there being eight, I think, she referred to in the House this afternoon.

So ensuring that we see that response and those progress updates in response to those reports from all of those agencies, and where we are going to see all of that brought together—because we don’t just have these monitoring bodies for the sake of having them; it’s to be able to take their reports and address the issues that they raise. What we are seeing and have heard from the Minister is that her view is that previous Governments and this Government are too slow to respond to the issues and concerns and findings raised in those reports. So I hope that this amendment is going to help bring more transparency and accountability in terms of, actually, the responses to what these reports are finding, because that’s the point of having the oversight bodies—so that we can take action to address the issues that they are identifying within the system.

That’s all I want to add in the third reading of this bill. Thanks once again to all of the submitters who took the time to submit to our select committee. We commend this bill to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you. I rise to speak at the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. However, where this bill is a step forward, we cannot mistake this as true transformation that will protect our tamariki. Because if we are serious about the wellbeing, safety, and mana of our tamariki, we must be serious about the systems that continue to harm them: the structures that remain colonial and extractive and the legacy of State violence that continues to disproportionately impact tamariki Māori.

This bill gives greater independence to Aroturuki Tamariki, the Independent Children’s Monitor. That is progress, and that is why the Greens are supporting this bill. But we also know the system remains broken. The monitor’s own reports have told us time and time again that tamariki and rangatahi Māori are overrepresented in the system and are still too often receiving care that falls far short of the National Care Standards. The National Care Standards promise children safety, stability, and love. Yet year after year, the monitor tells us that those promises are not being met.

A mirror has been held up to this Government, to Oranga Tamariki, and to all of us. But a mirror is only useful if those who look into it are willing to change. It must be acknowledged that the Green Party welcomes and supports the Minister’s amendment to this bill in Amendment Paper 292. These changes introduce new clause 6A, which requires chief executives to prepare progress reports on how they are responding to the monitor’s findings—reports that explain what’s changed, what’s been actioned, and what remains outstanding.

This is a necessary strengthening of accountability, and it closes the loop that has too often remained too open, and we thank the Minister for listening to the advocate and all of the people who took the time to submit at select committee hearings, whether written or those who came in for in-person hearings. We appreciate you and you are on record as being there for our tamariki.

Hopefully, this will mean that the monitor will no longer issue report after report with little to no action being taken. Agencies must not only respond to criticism but report back on progress—clearly, publicly, and on time. These amendments would also require the monitor to publish these progress reports by the chief executive within 10 working days, ensuring transparency and timely scrutiny. These provisions give the monitor a sharper edge, and give the public, tamariki, and whānau the information they deserve and need. This is what meaningful oversight requires, not just reporting but follow-up, not just criticism but clear consequences and change for the better.

Again, we thank the Minister for listening to the calls of survivors, advocates, and this House, and for bringing forward amendments that help make the system more accountable. I do want to give a shout-out here to my humble co-leader Marama Davidson for all of the mahi that she has done in this mokopuna space, and also, I have to shout out to previous Green MP Jan Logie for the immense amount of mahi, aroha, hours, and thought and effort that she has put into this moment today. So I just wanted to honour them there and give credit where credit is due.

Now, if we truly want to change the system, then we must change the values that underpin it. That is why the Greens are launching a campaign rooted in simple truth. We, Aotearoa, collectively, have a duty to care for every single child. This means ensuring our Government recognises that children’s safety is not achieved through surveillance or reactionary intervention; it is achieved through prevention, care, justice, and whānau strength—stopping harm before it happens. This campaign outlines core duties of care, each addressing a failure of the current system, and each proposing clear solutions across legislation, funding, oversight, and independent advocacy that is encompassing with the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State and faith-based care, recommendations, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Every child’s whānau and whakapapa must be centred—that means embedding whānau decision-making in legislation, resourcing tikanga-based wānanga, and shifting power to hapū and iwi. Every child must be free from poverty. We must remove poverty from the home, not children. Poverty is the result of political choices. We would replace the broken Working for Families system with a top-up family payment and double the Best Start payment, ensuring that whānau and tamariki have what they need to thrive. Every child must have stable, responsive support before, during, and after care.

Cameron Brewer: Oh!

KAHURANGI CARTER: Were you groaning at children needing care? It really concerns me that that elicited such a response from the Government party. I’ll repeat what I said: every child must have stable, responsive support before and during and after care. I don’t know why that would elicit such a groan—seemingly not everybody in this House cares about children’s stability, safety, and aroha, which will make our country thrive.

Every child must be heard, respected, and placed at the heart of decision making. We would embed children’s right in domestic law, ring-fencing funding for independent advocacy, like VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai and require child impact assessments for every major policy and Budget decision, putting children at the heart of every decision that this Government makes. Every child’s safety must be independently protected. We support fully implementing the royal commission’s recommendations, which includes creating a care safety Act, an independent care safety agency, binding oversight powers and a national care safety strategy. Every child deserves a stable and nurturing home. This means properly supporting caregivers, creating a professional foster care model, and ending the instability that retraumatises tamariki in care. Every child deserves care from a skilled, well-supported workforce. Social workers need fair pay, safe caseloads, trauma-informed training, and long-term funding rounds. We will not achieve better outcomes without investing in people who do the work.

These are not abstract aspirations. They are concrete legislative reforms, budgetary shifts, and by fully honouring Te Tiriti, it would change the care system from the ground up, not just to monitor harm but to prevent it.

In closing, we will support this bill, but make no mistake: this bill is not enough. The Greens will continue to fight for a future where children are not just protected by the State but never harmed in the first place, a future where Oranga Tamariki is no longer needed, a future where whānau have what they need to stay together, a future where tamariki are loved, supported, and free to thrive. That’s our vision, that’s our campaign, and that is duty of care.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, we are up to the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. We are up to call No. 4. It is the ACT Party call. I call the Hon Karen Chhour.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): It is a privilege to be standing here tonight speaking to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This has been a long time coming, and this has been a promise of the coalition Government—to make sure that we are truly making sure that our most vulnerable and those that are part of our children’s system as a whole have the right oversight and have people watching over them, making sure that they are properly taken care of, and that they are held accountable if that’s not happening. So whilst a lot of the conversation was around Oranga Tamariki, this is about the Oranga Tamariki system as a whole, which is not just about Oranga Tamariki. This includes the Ministry for Children, Police, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development, Education, Justice, and the Department of Corrections, and I think there may be a few more. Each Government department plays a role in our system when it comes to taking care of our children and making sure they have opportunities to be the best that they can be.

This bill is trying to fix a problem that has been spoken about long before I even came to Parliament, and that was around a lack of oversight of the system and making sure that children are taken care of and are safe. We saw in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions that in far too many cases when things went wrong, people either didn’t notice or did notice and didn’t act. So this bill is really important, and it does three key things.

It strengthens the independent monitor. It’s truly independent. It’s no longer a part of a Government agency—it’s independent of that, a separate Crown agency, which will give it that true trust from the public that there is that independence. It will have oversight and will be working and making sure that children are being treated properly. It makes sure that the Ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints, like they do, and that still stays. They can investigate complaints from children and families if they feel that something has gone wrong. The bill also reinstates a single Children’s Commissioner. I know this is a little bit contentious, but back when this law changed, when I was in Opposition, I was very concerned at the way that the monitoring, the oversight, and the advocacy was split in such a way that it would cause confusion for those who were looking to who to speak to when things went wrong.

We needed clarity, and having a single Children’s Commissioner will set out that this is the person that children can go and speak to. It will be this person’s job to listen to children and speak up for them and push for changes when needed. But it will be very clear who is responsible for that.

I know that for far too long issues over the years, probably from even before I was born, often get swept under the carpet because they’re either too hard to speak about or nobody actually has the courage to come out and say what needs to be said. So having this independence and having this independent oversight, and also having the extra accountability of the additional reporting—for agencies having to respond to that reporting and having to keep coming back and showing their progress in those recommendations—adds that extra bit of accountability to make sure that it’s not just another report that sits on a shelf and grows cobwebs while people forget all about it.

We cannot have a repeat of history where young people are often invisible, often unheard, and often feel like the very people that are meant to protect them do the very opposite. I’m not going to speak for too long. This bill has been spoken to a fair bit today. But I’m really proud to be standing here and supporting a piece of legislation that will bring some truly independent oversight to the Oranga Tamariki system as a whole.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise again on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, the Hon Karen Chhour, said, we’ve traversed quite a lot over this bill over the past little while, so there isn’t a lot to add. What I do know is that everything needs improvement, including us, but it’s very good to see that this piece of legislation is an improvement. Issues are identified, and the best thing to do is get on top of them straight away and improve them. It doesn’t mean you’re going to find them all; there are going to be more along the way. It was very good to hear the Minister today talking about there being another review in five years’ time. That is encouraging to know. On that note, I’ll commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The next call is a split call.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tū ana ahau ki te whakakōpani ake i ngā whakaaro o te iwi Māori me te Pāti Māori mō te pire i tōna pānuitanga tuatoru i roto i te pō kotahi, mō te pire e kīia nei ko te Oversight of Oranga Tamariki Systems Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to everyone. I stand to conclude the opinions of the Māori people and the Māori Party concerning the bill in its third reading in one night, regarding the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Amendment Bill.]

I truly hope that the adjustments being suggested and considered actually produce improvement in a system that has been broken for so long that it’s managed to fail at least 13 reviews—that every bit of tinkering has been done before.

I stand here to convey our opposition to this bill, because no amount of tinkering, over generations, has produced the shifts required to release the 70-plus percent of children in the care of Oranga Tamariki who are Māori from the clutches of its grip; this is the reality for tamariki Māori trapped in a system that’s failed them decade in, decade out. Tonight, I stand here and just share the sentiments being shared that we really do hope that change comes from what’s being proposed, all the while understanding that when it comes down to looking at the factors involved over long periods of time, we know that the small incremental changes won’t produce the change that’s hoped—that’s the reality—and that the moves aren’t courageous enough.

The fact that we’re here doing it under urgency tells me that we’re probably heading in the wrong direction again. And what’s the fallout of that? Well, the fallout of that is that young Māori children remain trapped in a system—that families remain broken and torn apart by a system. I’ve heard the Ministers, and other Ministers, speak tonight about the fact that many agencies have a role to play and it strikes me that the set of circumstances and symptoms that exist here across the management pipeline of children in State care are not too dissimilar from those in place for managing adults in State care, and that the result of that management of both children and adults in State care continues to deliver Māori the most abhorrent statistics that have been a perpetual nightmare for Māori for generations—generations.

So I do hope that the changes being proposed and that the review in five years produce more results than all of the tinkering that’s occurred in the past. But the thing I want to maybe just say for the Minister, and for those who care to consider, is that dealing with the outcomes of our systems—be they in Oranga Tamariki or be they the outcomes of Māori engagement with police, or the treatment of Māori by police or the corrections system or the justice system—is that the symptoms that te iwi Māori have had to deal with and continue to have to deal with require each of those bodies to take an equal amount of responsibility and not sit back and just say, “Well, this is our area and this is what we do and we can’t help it if that crowd over there—we don’t have any say on what happens over there. We don’t have any say on what happens over there.”

So for the hope and for the sake of tamariki Māori and their families, I really do hope that this House and all of its ministries take the view that they do have responsibility and they have a responsibility to bridge the gaps that are going to produce the better outcomes that are being talked about, because our experience tells us the siloed approach won’t, and if this is a perpetuation of that, then we need to move forward. Nō reira e te Pīka, tēnā koe.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koe e te Whare. I do want to acknowledge the points that my colleague Tākuta was just making, in terms of this bill and the historic, intergenerational harm that has happened via Oranga Tamariki, in its many different names. It doesn’t matter if you give it a Māori name; it doesn’t mean that it’s going to serve the 70 percent of tamariki Māori who are in State care or the 90 percent of Māori children who are in State custody in youth justice residences. I want to acknowledge the many submitters who said this is such a piecemeal approach. I read Julia Whaipooti, who previously worked for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, who now advocates for Treaty rights, who talked about doing it once and doing it well.

Obviously, this is just part of a number of different recommendations that have come out of the Royal Commission Of Inquiry Into Abuse In State Care, but it is a piecemeal approach and we would have liked to see this go further. The reason we are supporting it is because, if we don’t have Oranga Tamariki in the state of the way things are right now, what does mean, particularly for children in custody? Is it Corrections? Even though there is a pipeline from State care into the corrections system. We can’t accept that with the Government that we have and the way they want to take away the power of iwi and hapū to look after their own children, by removing section 7AA. This is the way that it is at the moment. We have Oranga Tamariki; it’s preferable to Corrections, and therefore we must do everything we can to strengthen the oversight of that body, which is what this bill does; it strengthens the independence, it strengthens the oversight. But we don’t want to get caught in the trap of thinking that because we have more reporting and monitoring, it’s going to improve the quality of care, protection, or custody.

We have had endless reports that have outlined the failings of Oranga Tamariki, the abuse that children have experienced. We have had report after report after report, and it hasn’t changed anything. It hasn’t changed anything, and although the royal commission of inquiry covered the years from 1950 to 1999, we know that that abuse still endures to this day. That’s why we, obviously, supported the Minister’s amendments that she brought previously, which strengthened the regularity of that report back and actually makes an accountability mechanism that means we have to say how we’re actually implementing those recommendations. And we support that. But, again, there has to be a cultural shift, and, as I said in my speech earlier, we have a Government at the moment that believes that we should not too heavily rely on the State and that we should have Social Investment. And, if that is the case, why don’t we hand over the power and the resources to iwi and hapū to look after our own?

Laura McClure: That is the plan.

TAMATHA PAUL: If that is the plan, that is great. In my previous speech, I talked about the importance of independence that is outlined in this bill, and I spoke about some international examples where things like youth detention centres are independent of politics altogether and how that works better to build consensus on our approach to youth justice.

In this speech—I ran out of time last time—I want to talk a little bit more about the Aroturuki Tamariki - Independent Children’s Monitor and their reporting and what they’ve shown us and how critical they are. As I have said, we are not able to go into State care facilities, we are not able to go into youth justice residences to see the conditions for ourselves, and the thing that I have learnt with Oranga Tamariki is that it can attract some of the most excellent youth workers who are passionate about children and rangatahi, but, in the same vein, it can also attract people who just want to impose power over young people and who can misuse this power.

Every inch of oversight that we can have and every extra bit of power that we can give to people like Dr Claire Achmad and to her office and to her oversight bodies—to the Ombudsman—means that we can have a clearer idea of the picture, but if we don’t have the courage and the bravery to do anything with those reports, or if we just give out empty, hollow apologies every time we realise the scale of the harm that’s being caused by these systems, there is no point in reporting at all. Those are my comments. I’m glad that we can work through this collaboratively, and I hope that this approach will carry over into other areas like youth justice.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I arise to speak in the third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a very good bill that is going to strengthen the independent monitoring of the Oranga Tamariki system. It literally creates more independence for the independent monitor, and as the Oranga Tamariki system, that includes, without limitation, the delivery of health, education, disability, and other services by those agencies or contracted partners within the Oranga Tamariki system.

The State, ultimately, doesn’t want to have to be in a position to be required to care for children, but, unfortunately, there are parents and their communities who are unable to care for children at particular moments in time. That is where the State steps in to help them. We want to have this bill there to make sure that that job is being done well. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I’m very happy to stand and tautoko this bill tonight. But I want to acknowledge my whanaunga “Doc” Ferris’ kōrero, because this is what I was talking about earlier: the frustration amongst te ao Māori, in particular, with this kaupapa. It always comes down to what “Doc” Ferris was saying, in terms of: is there enough change in this? So we always face this dilemma, in terms of te ao Māori, about incremental change and transformational change, and so for Te Pāti Māori the change is not big enough. And we understand that. I understand that—I understand that. But we’re working within a system where—he should know, and certainly previous Te Pāti Māori people have known—this is not a place where you get transformative change. Sadly, it’s hard yakka, it’s hard work, and we have to pull out of the system, sometimes, what we can, which I think we as a Labour Government were able to do probably more so than any other Government in history, particularly for te ao Māori. This particular Government is not doing the business, and I acknowledge what he says and what the Greens say.

But we have to sometimes grab these opportunities because we have to acknowledge that the perception of independence will be strengthened through the establishment of the monitor as an independent Crown entity. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It’s a positive step. We understand that many people and organisations in the sector—and that came through the Social Services and Community Committee process—want to see the monitor as its own entity. So we want to congratulate the monitor on its work to date and encourage it to remain focused on holding us all to account for what we do for our tamariki.

But coming back to what I was saying, the kaupapa, particularly of Oranga Tamariki, came to the nation’s notice through te ao Māori. So that’s what I want to say tonight. I want to honour some of those people, my whanaunga, and my brother Des Ratima, who first brought this kaupapa up in terms of Oranga Tamariki and brought it to the nation’s attention in terms of the mistreatment of our tamariki. We need to honour some of these Māori tonight.

So we put some of those questions to the Minister for Social Development and Employment earlier during the committee process, where she was questioned about the relationship in terms of Māori going forward, about the panel that will be set up, what priority is going to be given to the panel in terms of tikanga Māori, and what type of expertise is going to come about, because when we traversed this kaupapa of Oranga Tamariki, we, in Labour, knew that we had to bring a strong Māori focus forward. So we had people like Des Ratima, who’s now moved or gone to the other side. Fantastic work in terms of uplifts and, I suppose, embarrassing us or putting the pressure on us as a Government at the time, and rightly so—there was something wrong. What did we do? We brought a whole Māori focus to Oranga Tamariki with people like Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, who was appointed to the board; Dame Tariana Turia, who was an adviser; Naida Glavish, who I think helps and supports the Minister today, she was brought on; Tureiti Moxon; Merepeka Raukawa-Tate—these people of expertise were being utilised by us. Matthew Tukaki became the chair, the inaugural chair. I was proud of the work they did in terms of making it clear to their organisation that there had to be a strong Māori focus because our tamariki were being affected.

So we said to the Minister today, through the committee of the whole House process, and quizzed the Minister in terms of her commitment to te ao Māori, and we weren’t dismayed, because there seemed to be some support for what we were talking about in terms of that continued relationship with Māori and in that continued partnership with Māori, which was pleasing, given that this Government has not shown that same type of commitment over the last year, so it seemed to be out of sorts with what the Government was saying.

But this will not succeed if there is not a strong partnership continued with te ao Māori—a partnership, the foundation that was set down by those people that I talked about. And it is important, it is imperative, that that we bring a tikanga taha Māori side into this, because we have people out there—and you heard from Tākuta Ferris this evening—who have just about given up in terms of the system delivering anything for us. I understand that—I understand that. However, we have to make inroads. We have to show our people that, OK, we’ve got this independent monitor, this independent monitor will be advised by people who are strongly in the tikanga Māori area—there will be a change; there have been changes.

See, one of the strong ideas that came from te ao Māori was that Oranga Tamariki should be just wound up, thrown out, and iwi take over. That type of kōrero was put to us as a Labour Government, and that of course will be put forward to the National Government. What we said was “Give us an opportunity.” We tried; I think we were on course. Now we’re saying to this Government, “Well, what are you going to do?”

This, in my view, is probably one of the most positive steps, if not the most positive step, I’ve seen happen within the system. However, we still have our doubts, we still have our reservations, in terms of what’s happening. We’re not sure in terms of the perspective, in terms of this monitor being a supporter. We’re not sure about that perspective, but we do think that we’re on the right track in terms of independence.

Of course, one of the things that the royal commission found was that the disjointed nature of our systems contributed to harm in care, so children and perpetrators fell through the oversight gaps. So the recommendations in Whanaketia were designed to join up the systems to close the gaps. And we’re not there yet—we’re not there yet—in that area. While I appreciate, we appreciate, the bill’s got a five-year review provision, that’s still a long way off. So the timing of this bill was close enough to the tabling of Whanaketia for the royal commission’s recommendations to be given greater consideration as the bill progressed, but the Government’s refusal to do this is indicative of their general approach—and disappointing approach, I should say—to the royal commission.

But I reiterate: we support the bill. We’re on the right track. But if that partnership is not recognised and supported in terms of Māori and that Māori expertise is not tapped into and drawn on, then we will continue with the failures that we’ve had within this system. But I’m happy to say tonight that Labour will support this bill. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): On this third reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill, we confirm that the object of the bill is for the improvement of the outcomes of young children and youth in the care of Oranga Tamariki. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The next call is a split call. I call Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. The true character of a society is seeing how the society treats its children. That’s something that we must always consider in this House, with even every bit of legislation that we focus on, whether it be one that talks about children, whether it be one that talks about infrastructure, whether it be one that talks about health or housing, education—whatever it is—we should always consider the impact on our children. I could sing a song, but I won’t, but you can imagine where it would go—beautiful, by the way; that the children are the future and are the present today.

What we had in the legislation that is about to change this evening was looking at how diversification—how we had more voices around the table, that children and young people actually saw themselves, because to be yourself, to be safe as yourself, you actually need to see yourself. So the fact of what had been set up in the last term of Government was around how does that diversity look for young people who might be Pasifika, for a young person who might be Māori, for a young person who might be Pākehā, for a young person who might be female or male or non-binary. It was about how do we see—how do they see themselves? So I cautiously support where this is going, but also want to encourage and challenge what the new iteration of the Children’s Commissioner looks like: that they will fiercely guard the diversity, that they’ll fiercely guard the inclusion of all young people, of all children; that they’ll make sure that no matter what creed, what colour, what size, what gender, they are included when it comes to the work of the Children’s Commissioner.

Now, the role of the Children’s Commissioner is important because, again, it’s a reflection on our society. So it’s around advocating for children’s rights. It’s about speaking into policies, into legislation, into the decisions that are made in this place, decisions that are made by agencies outside of this place. It’s around speaking up for the rights of children and young people, speaking up for those who have no voice, and being a point of contact—a listening ear—where they can represent, but also where they can report back to the public about how we are tracking as a society, how we are tracking as a Government, how we are tracking as agencies when it comes to our work with children and young people.

So we say yes to this change in law this evening, but we also encourage the Government to consider and continue to lean in, and lean in strongly, to the recommendations of the royal commission—to lean in strongly to what advocacy truly means, and what’s empowering, and allowing healing and voices to be heard when it comes to the hurt, to the harm, that was enabled through the halls of this building, that we allowed to happen.

I want to finish by thanking those who work, who advocate, for our tamariki and for our young people. I’m talking about those who are passionate advocates, who come and bang on the doors of electorate offices, who speak into select committees, who speak into MPs’ offices and into agencies around the country, and who go to schools. I’m talking about those who volunteer, and those who give their time; those who teach; those who are social workers; those who work in sexual harm; those who work in liberation movements, when it comes to kaupapa Māori spaces, when it comes to ensuring that every child and young person has a voice. I want to say thank you to the caregivers and to those who work tirelessly to protect, to empower, and to build the children of tomorrow—of the future, but they’re our people of today.

Finally, to our tamariki, to our young people: we talk about you being the future, but you are the present as well. Sometimes you might not know what standing up and speaking up means—what it means to advocate, to reveal what is going on. We say: please speak up, please find spaces, please find safe people that you can speak to, to advocate, to make sure that you will thrive and be incredible members of our society. To our tamariki, to our young people: the challenge for us is to be a decent society where we lift you up and treat you at your best.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It is with great honour that I stand to speak in support of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill in this third reading. It’s great that we do have agreement across the House with pretty much most of the parties in this Chamber, because this is a very important bill. It will strengthen the independent monitoring of Oranga Tamariki, and, of course, they look after the most vulnerable in our society.

This bill will return the Children and Young People’s Commission back to a single commissioner, moving away from the current five-member board, and I think it’s very important that these issues don’t fall between the cracks. This will give children and young people a single, visible advocate, and I think this is really important. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. Just to be clear, what we’ve had in recent days is we’ve had a commission where there have been five commissioners, and there’s been a chief. So we haven’t not had somebody who is taking that lead, but we’ve also had others joining in and making those decisions. What we’ve seen is a commission that—and a commissioner, a chief commissioner—that has been prepared to stand up against Government policy. I made that point in my last speech, but I just want to talk about that again because I think it’s really important to the public.

This is a group of people who are focused on the interests of children, and the current chief commissioner came out and said that she was very concerned about this year’s Budget in terms of the impact it had on our children. She was really specific about saying that this Government needed to look at things very differently from the way it was and it needed to allocate resources differently because she had a report that comes with the Budget to look at. She could see that the poverty statistics, the deprivation statistics, were going in the wrong direction as a result of this Budget, and so she was commenting on that.

She also made strong comments about what are often called “boot camps”. She talked about military-style camps in general and she said that there is no evidence that says that they work. She talked about what did work and where the resource should be going and how it would be best going to serve the children of this nation. So it was very interesting—just two of the examples of what she did, and she does a lot of things. She, I think recently, came out with strong comments also about the funding cuts to our community organisations, because that cuts straight across the interests of our children, and the Oranga Tamariki system cut funding to a lot of those organisations.

The Auditor-General has come out with a report too. It’s another independent organisation coming out with a scathing report on that funding cut and its impact on children. So this is absolutely a voice that the Labour Party values. And what the commissioner, the chief commissioner, had with her were five people from variant backgrounds. They were from all sorts of walks of life. It must be enormously helpful in a leadership team—most modern leadership teams no longer rely on one person; they are teams. It must be helpful to the strength of what they say to be able to say it as a team, to have different perspectives and disagreement and come to a consensus over what is to be said, especially when you’re doing something quite scary and brave and it really does matter what the people in power are going to make of it.

So I am hesitant about that aspect of this bill, and I remain so. Nothing that has been said today in the House has made me comfortable about that decision to go back to one person when we in fact had five joining that discussion. I don’t think it’s the end of the world. I think that we have very good people doing this kind of work, and there will still be a board, there will be a smaller board. It won’t be at the same kind of structure, but there is still a board.

I’m sure that those people who are appointed to the board, and the chief commissioner, as she changes her role back into being in the single-leadership position, will be brave and do their best. So I think that the legislation has the upside of looking more independent, and there was a balancing act to be done there. We in the Labour Party have decided to support it because there’s more up-side than down-side in this legislation. There is a small step taken in the right direction.

There’s also a really interesting aspect of this, which is the five-year review. I wish we did more of it in this House. I wish we were humble enough to say, “We might not have it all right. We really need to see what happens next, and we need to start reviewing our legislation.” It just makes sense. We cannot know what the unintended consequences are of everything we do in here, and to monitor like this, to review in five years, makes a lot of sense to me. So I absolutely commend that aspect of this bill.

I just wanted to talk now about the issue over the connection between this and maybe the disconnection between this and the abuse in care inquiry, because we’ve had this enormous effort made. The royal commission is something which was very traumatic for those involved, very worthwhile for us all. We have ended up collating terrible stories from around New Zealand of people who have been impacted, and it was our children who were impacted by what went wrong in our system. While I understand Laura McClure’s remark that it’s not all about Government, we do have a role in Government we can never shirk away from. We have a role to pull the levers that we can pull—and it doesn’t mean that’s everything, but it does mean that we never shy away from our responsibility to amend the system.

What we know in the commission was that there was also an enormous amount of information coming in from ordinary people in New Zealand who had been harmed. All those people fed into a process, and what came out of it were recommendations. There were three recommendations—and they were recommendations 85, 86, and 87—which all went to the issue of our children falling through the gaps of the different kinds of monitoring that we have. The recommendations are all about putting a system together which is more comprehensive so that our kids don’t fall through the gaps. That is the aspect of this that worries me most.

We have done so much work in the abuse in care inquiry, and we have been given the gift of these recommendations. What we could have done here is we could have incorporated those recommendations into the solution that we have today. Unfortunately, we don’t have that. It hasn’t happened. That doesn’t mean it cannot happen, and so it’s very important that I record on the Hansard the suggestion that that’s something that we should look at here.

Yes, I think five years is a long time away for that to happen. So I would hope that that happens sooner, under this Government or under the next Labour-led Government, because it’s so important—and that won’t be five years away—that we do that work, that we actually honour the horrible torture and the stories of harm and trauma that have been shared with us in that report and that have come to recommendations. This was somewhere we could have done that, and we haven’t. So I ask this House to consider its duty to do that in the near future, not wait for five years, because it’s so important. We can talk all we like about how we want a different system and it’s not us, it’s not the Government, it’s every other lever, but actually, this is absolutely in our tool box. We could make that kind of change.

So while I accept that change is often incremental, change is often about just doing what we can all agree can be done, and we should be commended for doing that tonight. Almost every party is supporting this legislation. I also ask this House to be braver about looking at those recommendations and incorporating them as quickly as possible into solutions so our children don’t fall through the gaps. I commend this bill to the House.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take, I think, the last call on this bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s all about improving outcomes for children and young people in New Zealand, and what could possibly be more important than that? I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 4 June.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 15, “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around clauses 12, 13, and 14, which are consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020. Now, the reason I want to ask this question is around the fact that we have so many different forms of schools in this country. We have our State schools, we also have private schools, we have charter schools, we have independent, and we have special character—we have a vast range of different schools there. Now, a lot of these—elsewhere in the Education and Training Act, those schools have separate parts that explain the different rules that govern them in the Act. For example, the reviews of schools for private schools and how they are governed with the Education Review Office. So they don’t necessarily fall under the review for public schools and State schools; they have their own special section around the private schools and how the Education Review Office interacts with them in that purpose.

Now, getting to these particular clauses, this outlines the role of the Public Service Commissioner in the Education and Training Act 2020, with the power to act as the employer during collective bargaining, and it outlines for the schools what the Public Service Commissioner does. Now, the changes in the bill are intended to make it clear that these powers include the ability to make specific pay deductions, including any notices or directions in relation to specified pay deductions and the recovery of partial strike - related overpayments. This is consistent with the approach applied in relation to full strikes and lockouts.

My question is around the fact that I cannot see there how it differentiates or if that is the same for private schools. It seems to me—are they governed by this same clause, or is there an oversight there, or are they then going back to the principal Act, the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strike) Amendment Bill that we’re discussing here? When going through that, I just wasn’t clear. This is a genuine question about whether this governs those schools and this is the oversight for all of those schools, or whether there has been something missed out and something has to be corrected, or whether they go back to the legislation that we’re discussing here this evening.

It’s just a short call that I want to take to ask that question, and I would really like to have an answer, because it has come up with people with me that they aren’t clear about this. So I’d really like to know the answer to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to ask some questions of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on Part 2. There are also a number of amendments that I have made in my name to this particular part, and I wanted to briefly touch on those and see if the Minister would be supportive of some of the changes that I’ve suggested.

The first amendment that I have is in relation to clause 11, which refers to the Wages Protection Act, and clause 10 does, as well. The amendment that I’ve suggested is in new section 6(3)(ba)(i) in clause 11(3), and that particular section covers a slightly unusual situation where overpayments are recoverable when there’s been a specified pay deduction in relation to a partial strike. So that would be a situation where the employer considers that there has been too much money paid to one of their employees and that constitutes an overpayment under the Wages Protection Act, and, therefore, in this particular section, it outlines a process that the employer needs to go through in order to get the money back from the employee.

In this particular clause, as it’s currently written, the employer is given 10 working days to do that, which is actually quite a long time, especially for people on low pay who have been taking strike action, which would be the situation that these particular people would fall under. So I’ve suggested that that is changed to “5 working days”, and that is simply so there is a more immediate onus on the employer to discover when the alleged overpayment has been made and to actually be able to communicate that to the employee within that period of time. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. It’s an interesting situation where you have a situation where this piece of legislation is actually allowing deductions which would normally be illegal without permission under normal law before this bill was passed. But the Wages Protection Act applies to all payments, and, in certain circumstances when there’s an overpayment, they are allowed to be collected by the employer. So that’s my first question.

I also have some questions in relation to the powers of the Public Service Commissioner. The Minister will be able to see that I have suggested two specific amendments in relation to this, and they’re in relation to clause 14. The reason that I’ve suggested these amendments is because when we were looking at this particular piece of legislation in the Education and Workforce Committee, we were actually faced with examples of situations where deductions for partial strikes were allegedly justified due to the reputation of the employer and the effect that negative particular partial strike—especially in relation to wearing certain uniforms—may impact on that particular business.

Now, of course, when we’re looking at the powers of the Public Service Commissioner—and this is under the Education and Training Act, but it’s a completely separate point to the one just made by my colleague—these are people who are working in the wider public sector. They are not organisations that would suffer from a commercial disadvantage from having teachers, for example, wearing T-shirts that might constitute a partial strike, or having teachers wearing badges. Therefore, a lot of the arguments around the justification for the removal of wages from people participating in partial strikes just simply don’t apply to the people who work in the wider public sector.

Also, this particular deletion that I have suggested of new section 587(2) in clause 14(2) is in relation to quite an interesting clause, and I wondered if the Minister could explain why this clause was here—and I’m just aware that I may be running out of time to ask this question. But I just want to indicate that I do want to ask a question about it because it does seem particularly unusual in the bill, and it actually relates to some of the discussions that we were having previously about existing powers that employers already have. So in this particular section, it specifically states that employers are allowed to lock out, suspend, and make pay deductions. That already exists in law. Why is it outlined again, as in this bill?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I thought she was going to stand up, sorry, so I was a bit slow to my feet. But I have a question that’s in relation to clause 11, amended section 6(2), and it refers to the specified pay deduction and having that meaning. I just wanted some clarity from the Minister, as I noted there’d been quite a bit of analysis about the different options for pay deduction. In particular, my question is that there seems to be some uncertainty as to what the actual impact will be. There is no proportionate response available to employers, it’s argued, and that can mean an employer is faced with an all-or-nothing response. But there does seem to be some quite significant concerns that there is no way of trying to figure out the impact on collective bargaining about what this will actually do. That has been noted in some of the analysis.

I’m really interested to hear if the Minister has any additional information that may enable us to understand or predict in advance how employers and unions will respond if employers are able to deduct for particular strikes, particularly given that collective bargaining is impacted by the other collective bargaining legislative settings and the political and the economic context there. There is a reasonably good argument that officials have put forward, saying that there’s a rationale for reintroducing the ability for employers to make a partial pay deduction in response to partial strikes only if the approach carefully balances the impact on employees’ and employers’ bargaining positions. So I would be really keen if the Minister can explain how that will impact upon collective bargaining, given there seems to be no clear understanding of that that’s been stipulated in the analysis.

It was also pointed out that without both sides incurring the costs during partial strikes or at least the potential for there to be no cost, the incentives on the employee and the employer to return to the bargaining table are unbalanced. So that is a concern if there’s not a balance there. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has stipulated that providing the employer with the ability to make a proportionate response would better restore that balance to collective bargaining situations, but I’m interested to hear from the Minister as to why specifically she landed on the option she did and how she understood how that option is going to actually have an impact upon future collective bargaining. I note that while option two has been recommended, it would be really interesting to hear her views on that, because if there is a potential for it to reduce the effectiveness of the change in improving the balance or the incentives for employees and employers relating to industrial relations, I think that’s an important issue for us to be able to consider.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety regarding the consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act; so we’re looking at clauses 12 to 14.

I’m going to start with, I guess, clause 12, in terms of the relationship between the Education and Training Act and what we’re seeing here in terms of pay deductions for partial strikes. I want to check with the Minister, as a starting point, what this relationship between the partial strikes is with the current bill that’s going through the House—the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)—specifically clause 21 of that bill, which extends the notification of the strike days from three to seven. I guess, would the Minister then consider partial strikes being a part of that as well? Because that isn’t quite clear within the definition—at least, not to my reading. The Minister may be able to clarify that for me: whether the strike itself would also include partial strikes in that sense. In which case, do we need to consider that in combination with the other bill?

In terms of clause 14, I guess this is a little bit more on the line of semantics. I hear from the previous speakers regarding some of the elements of collective agreements. Now, the current wording of section 587(2) of the Education and Training Act states that “the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to lock out [employees] or suspend [the] employees.” It creates an either/or situation and it is in some way exclusive to those two particular options.

But what we are not seeing here, in this particular clause, is any sort of conjunction that is being used which limits some of that. I wondered, from the Minister’s perspective, it says, “the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to … lock out employees … suspend employees …[and] make specified pay deductions.” Without any form of conjunction, are we still looking at an exclusive list? As in, does that accidentally expand the scope of this to include other options? Because “the powers referred to” using “include” could potentially be read beyond that, unlike the previous version which limited to an either/or situation, if that makes sense. Are we looking at a more expanded scope because it’s no longer an inclusive list of two items?

So those are my two questions. The first one is around the interaction between this and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), specifically clause 21 around the extended notification of strike days; whether a partial strike would also be considered as part of that. Then number two: I suspect not, but if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying if now, with the new format, the powers referred to in the subsection is still limited to those three options, and it will not go beyond those three options or not be interpreted in a way that could go beyond those three options. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. To Camilla Belich’s question about the time frames—which is also the same clause that Ginny Andersen had a question to—which is the five-working-day time frame for overpayment notices. The overpayment notice requirements—they have 10 days, rather than the five days which were previously in the law, due to concerns that large employers with complicated payroll systems would not be able to comply with these requirements. So that’s 10 days.

To Jan Tinetti’s question on schools with the Public Service Commissioner powers: the bill does not change which schools the Public Service Commissioner can act as an employer for.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. A very quick question I want to ask around clause 15 and that is around “Section 589 amended (Strikes in schools to be notified)”. Of course, we’re talking about partial strikes, and we’ve already deemed in the course of this committee of the whole House that the partial strikes in certain circumstances could be the wearing of a badge or could be wearing of a piece of clothing. I do happen to know that there have been schools in the past in certain regions where they might have worn a T-shirt on the specific day of the week saying something like “Stand up for kids”, which, actually, you want your teachers to be able to stand up for kids. So I think that’s a really good action that doesn’t interrupt the running of the school.

So it’s a quick question that I want to ask: that section 589(2)(a) is replaced with the notification around the strike of the nature of the proposed strike and “(i) whether or not the proposed action will be continuous; and (ii) whether or not the employees will continue to perform some work for their employer while undertaking the proposed action;”. I want to know: does that include or does it have the potential to include the wearing of a piece of insignia that sort of tells the action that teachers are taking at that time? So like those T-shirts, or a badge, or something like that. So I just want to seek some clarification around that, whether that’s inclusive of that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m responding to Camilla Belich’s other part and her question on her amendment about wanting to remove the change that makes it clear that the Public Service Commissioner can act as an employer for pay deduction purposes. The approach in the bill is consistent with the current approach to full strikes and lockouts, and so I will not be supporting her amendment.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I would like to ask some questions about clause 11. My questions are about the relationship between this and various other Acts, one being the Wages Protection Act and the other being the new wage theft legislation. In a situation where somebody doesn’t comply with clause 11(3)—so they don’t give the notice in the correct way and they don’t give the calculation method as they should—would you consider that would mean that they would be coming into a situation which was wage theft, and would you also consider it a breach of the Wages Protection Act?

Also, what if somebody makes a deduction of 10 percent when, in fact, somebody is just wearing a badge? When we last met over this, I talked about how I’d had a real case where people’s strike notice had that they’d go to the toilet. Those were bus drivers who didn’t usually stop, so they were doing something that’s actually lawful in every ordinary situation but, because of those circumstances, they actually gave notice of that as a strike action. So what if they were doing things like that, that you wouldn’t consider—they weren’t reducing the money of the employer in any unreasonable way; they were just pointing out that they had been going above and beyond for that employer and that kind of cooperation meant that they should have actually been paid more. If they’re doing that sort of thing, would you think that would come under the issue in the Wages Protection Act of an unreasonable deduction, and has that piece of legislation and that section been actually dealt with in this piece of legislation, even if to exempt this behaviour?

I’d also like to know about people on minimum wage, because what happens to someone on minimum wage if you deduct from that another 10 percent and you’re under the minimum wage suddenly? Is that OK with the Minister?

I’d like to know also—again in the Wages Protection Act—about the duty to consult. There is a duty to consult when you deduct money. Does this notice mean that there is no duty to consult in this case, and have the two Acts been reconciled in that way, or is it just to be read by a judge to suggest that is obvious—that there’s notice and therefore you can’t possibly have a duty to consult? Because you do for every other deduction.

Another issue there is the KiwiSaver contribution. People are on a wage and they’re earning a certain amount and they’re giving a certain percentage of their actual wage to the KiwiSaver and the employer is topping up. Is the Minister’s understanding of this that people would have their KiwiSaver reduced—their contribution and the employer’s contribution reduced—or just the employer’s contribution, or none? Is it actually that that’s well beyond wages in that sense?

Obviously, there are different treatments of commissions. So, again, we’ve got the same issue with commission workers. Is that something which would be reduced if their work was partially paid for by commission?

So I’ve given you a lot of questions, that I appreciate, there, but I hope you can see that they’re all very legitimate questions. They’re real-life situations, and it’s actually important even for the Hansard that you’ve answered the questions, because the first place that the employment lawyers are going to look is the Hansard, and they’ll want to know what the intention was of the Minister in those cases. So I’m not playing silly games; I would like those addressed. Thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her answers in relation to my previous contribution. I did have a follow-up question, though, in relation to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commissioner’s role.

If we refer to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), there was a significant amount of consultation that was done with the Public Service Commission and also work that was undertaken by the Public Service Commission with Public Service agencies in relation to collective bargaining—essentially, the drafters, which, I understand, were the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) of this bill, seeking to get and obtain data from talking to Public Service agencies about the usefulness of this particular type of provision, being as it was previously in force. Unfortunately for the House and the public, there was unable to be conclusive evidence provided in that.

But I did want to know if, during that engagement with the Public Service Commission, these specific parts and sections that we are discussing in Part 2 were canvassed; if that was feedback that was given by the Public Service Commission in the engagement that MBIE had with them, and also in relation to the Public Service Commission response from agencies, which was collected in relation to the RIS.

The reason that I would like to know that is I think it’s really helpful to the committee to know whether there was direct involvement from the Public Service Commissioner, who is given powers under this bill—I accept—similar to the powers that are held in relation to full strikes. But it would be interesting to know if specific feedback was sought on that.

The other question that I have in relation to new subsection 587(4A), added by clause 14(2), is that provision provides—and the Minister said that provision was, essentially, for the Public Service Commissioner to act as an employer. Now, that may be the advice the Minister’s been given, but it appears to me from reading that particular clause that this particular new subsection, (4A), gives the Public Service Commissioner, essentially, a power which is already provided to all employers earlier in the Employment Relations Act 2000, around section 95.

I wanted to know: for what specific reason was it necessary, especially if there are—as the Minister has said and I’ve got no reason to disagree with it—the existing powers, as has already been canvassed, in relation to full strikes. Why is it necessary, then, to specifically state—and they’re able to act as an employer—that they can make a specified deduction when the new clause 95, I believe it is, specifically states that—and we already established that the Public Service Commissioner is entitled to it—an employer can make this. It seems a superfluous addition to the Act, considering that power already exists. So I want to know: did it come from the Public Service Commissioner, and, if so, why is it specifically necessary for that particular clause to be included? As the Minister is aware, I have suggested deleting that clause, partly for that reason. I’m interested to know the Minister’s response to that.

Also, I don’t believe I have had a response to my question around the utility of new subsection 587(2) of the Education and Training Act 2020, added by clause 14, which states only one new piece of information as far as I’m aware, which is in 2(c), in relation to the specified deductions. The other parts, new sections 2(a) and (b), are already existing powers which would exist separate to the passage of this legislation, so why have those particular parts of that clause been included?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. Starting with an answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding whether or not there is an issue with the interaction of the change in the notice period for the strike notice in the Education and Training Act: there is no issue with the interaction of this bill and that change. The notice of the strike is the first step in the process, and this bill sets out what the employer can do in response to that notice.

In response to Ginny Andersen asking questions about the options I’ve pursued and landed on, the substantive provisions of the bill were debated under Part 1. This is Part 2, which is dealing with the consequential amendments to that part.

Helen White asked a question about making a deduction for strike activity that ended up not being a strike, or that someone believed was unreasonable under the Wages Protection Act. The provisions in the Employment Relations Act apply, meaning that people can recover an overpayment as long as it meets the requirements in the Employment Relations Act. The same thing applies in terms of the requirement under the Wages Protection Act, for consultation to recover a specified pay deduction. They need to meet the requirements in the Employment Relations Act, and so that’s the answer to your question.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take a call, specifically on clause 15 in Part 2, which is around section 589, about amending strikes in schools to be notified. My question is around clause 15, replacement section 589(2)(a)(ii) “whether or not the employees will continue to perform some work for their employer”. So I am interested to hear from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about her definition of what “some work” means.

I ask that question within the context of one of the submissions that came through in the select committee from the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, where they referenced when they took strike action and it was against the backdrop of a nationwide teacher shortage. It was related to the use of teacher non-contact time. So as part of the job as teachers—and if there are any teachers that are not doing any planning or lesson planning for their students tomorrow, kia ora, tēnā koutou katoa. But an important part of teachers’ work is actually making sure that there is time for planning, making sure that there’s time for preparation and for assessment. It’s an incredibly important part of the job.

But in that particular circumstance, what happened was that time was being swallowed up because there was a teacher shortage. I guess it kind of falls into the questions that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked about the interaction between this bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Because if you’ve got a teacher shortage in this particular case where teachers are actually being forced to not have that really specific and really important non-contact time, does that constitute as part of some work within the definition of this Act?

The other thing on top of that, as well—and it’d be good to get an answer from the Minister about this, because I know this is something that many teachers do. They put in a lot of work coaching basketball teams, rugby teams, doing all of that kind of stuff which actually falls outside of their contractual jobs and often is taken for granted. Does that stuff fall within the context of being part of “some work”? So I think it’s very important for the Minister to be clear so that teachers can understand exactly how this will impact them and the choices that they might have to actually make themselves. Do they take those extra hours—taking on children for touch rugby, for basketball—which will become voluntary hours, taking out kids in terms of preparing for different concerts and so on and so forth? Is that considered to be part of their work and therefore covered under this particular clause of the Act? Because it’s incredibly, incredibly important. Because what we need to be doing, actually, is encouraging an environment where teachers feel valued; where teachers feel that this Parliament, that this Government, values the work that they do.

But if you start to narrow things up and you start to say, “Well, actually, under this new clause, you’re supposed to be taking that basketball team, you’re supposed to be taking that soccer team, you should be out there taking our kids for all these different performances and so on and so forth, and that could be considered, and if you don’t do that, then you might be pinged for doing a partial strike.” That needs to be cleared up. Because it also points to the intention that this Government has towards all of these different professions and, in particular, all of those different unions who actually voiced these really, really important concerns at the select committee.

So just to recap for the Minister: my question is around clause 15, which replaces section 589(2)(a)(ii). It is around the question about, actually, what do you mean by “some work”? What do you actually mean by that? Is it all of these extra hours? If they’re not going to do it or they’re going to be discouraged to do it, who’s going to do it? So it would be good to get an answer from the Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m starting with an answer to Helen White, who asked what happens if somebody deducts wages off someone who is on the minimum wage. This was covered in Part 1 of the bill, and we are on Part 2. The next question from Helen White asked whether wage deductions mean that the employee will also have their KiwiSaver contributions reduced. KiwiSaver contributions are based on wages that are paid. If there has been a deduction, then that would also be accounted for.

Camilla Belich is asking why changes are needed to the provisions of the Education and Training Act. Section 587 of the Education and Training Act includes specific powers that the Public Service Commissioner has when acting as an employer, and so therefore the Education and Training Act needed to be amended to be clear that the Public Service Commissioner’s powers to act as an employer during collective bargaining also includes the powers in relation to specified pay deductions.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick questions. I know this question was somewhat addressed in your answers to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I’m slightly confused around—and I’m wanting to check my understanding of—the answer that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave.

I have a question around clause 11(3), inserting new section 6(3)(ba): “in the case of an overpayment that relates to a specified pay deduction, that notice—(i) is given no later than 10 working days after the pay day on which the overpayment was made”. I know that the Minister’s previous answer referenced the potential complexity around different employers and why that was changed from “5” to “10”, but my question is: if the overpayment was made across several pay days, which pay day is the day that’s picked for the purpose of that section?

My other question is around clause 14(2), inserting new section 587(4A). It says, “In any case where the Public Service Commissioner intends to make a specified pay deduction, the Commissioner may give a direction that a specified pay deduction is to be made.” I’m interested in the use of the word “may”. Is there any circumstance where the Public Service Commissioner would make a specified pay deduction where they wouldn’t give a specified pay direction anyway? Why use the word “may” instead of kind of prescribing that? Those are just some very quick questions.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question that was in relation to the consequential amendments to the Education and Training Act 2020, and specifically in relation to section 14. That relates to the section 587 amendment, “Public Service Commissioner’s powers when collective agreements are negotiated”, and I’d like some clarification from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to clause 14(2). It specifies here that “To avoid doubt and without limiting subsection (1),”—which is the replacement—“the powers referred to in that subsection include the power to—(a) lock out employees: (b) suspend employees: (c) make specified pay deductions.”

I just wanted to clarify if it was the Minister’s intention that a teacher or a teacher-aide would be able to be locked out if they were wearing a T-shirt. I think it’s quite important to understand if that’s what’s actually going to happen here. I think it’s important to note because freedom of expression and the ability to have statements about what you believe in—for our teachers to be able to do that. I just would like a clear understanding whether she intends for the way this legislation is going to be practically implemented within New Zealand; if teachers will be locked out of schools for wearing T-shirts. Because that does seem quite heavy-handed—with insignia, sorry, I should say. So with some union branding or a slogan that would be tied to a campaign that they were believing in, whether that be “Standing up for kids” or “Fair pay for women”, some of those statements.

I just wonder if she has understood that could potentially lead to higher-level industrial action that would be, in fact, more disruptive to students if that was taken, and whether she’d actually weighed up that, while the goal is—she said—to “restore the balance”, but the end output, if you’re just locking a teacher out for wearing a branded T-shirt, is that not going to just escalate those situations? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister considered if it was unfair, if the employer could just reduce pay during the work-to-rule with employees still performing their actual contractual duties. So if they’re still teaching, if they’re still doing those things, that doesn’t seem fair at all. Exactly how will it be estimated, that information needed to calculate those pay deductions? If they are kicked out for that, how is that exactly calculated?

I think, again, it would be good to understand how this would potentially lead to more disputes and increased litigation as parties test out this new law. It’s going to inflame things further. So I think it’s working against the very intent underlying this bill. It potentially means that employers’ notices of deductions could be worded in a way that potentially intimidated employees. So if you’re trying to restore the balance, if employees are intimidated about what they can put on their bodies as clothing in the morning to turn up to their job to teach children, is that qualifying as potentially intimidating people on their freedoms? We know that the Minister’s party is all about individual freedoms. So this bill would be looking like it’s significantly curtailing individual rights of freedom of expression.

Finally, the point I’d like to make is that some of these changes, they really concern how New Zealand’s going to operate, and whether that’s a fair way. So if the Minister was able to address that question and able to say if that is really her intention—that she is going to lock out a teacher from teaching kids in a school in New Zealand if they have a T-shirt on that says “Stand up for kids”? If that’s her intent, I’d really like her to explain how that brings us forward as a country.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. A quick response to Ginny Andersen. I covered most of that off in Part 1; it’s nearly all of that question related to stuff that was discussed in Part 1.

To Teanau Tuiono, the question was what is meant by “some work” in clause 15 regarding the notice requirements. “Some work” means that the person is working and not fully withdrawing their employment, which would be a full strike. So that is to help the employer know if it is a full or a partial strike.

In response to Camilla Belich, there was a question regarding why clause 14(2) is needed. This is needed because if the Public Service Commissioner couldn’t give a direction to make a specified pay deduction, the deduction would not be able to be made.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take another call, I’m going to say there is a huge amount of repetition happening now. Some clauses have been canvassed four times already. So, unless it’s very new, I will take a closure motion.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a new point to raise. The point that I have to raise is in relation to Part 2. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said, the Public Service Commissioner can make a specified pay deduction. Now, this is in relation to the Education and Training Act. The consequential amendments in relation to the Education Training Act are listed here in Part 2, but there isn’t a section which transfers the definition of “specified pay deduction” into the Education and Training Act, which I think is an error. I’ve looked at the Education and Training Act and I specifically looked at section 587, as referred to by the Minister, and I checked the powers that the Public Service Commissioner has in that section. As I thought, the Public Service Commissioner specifically has, in 587(1), the power to act as an employer in relation to negotiations. So, effectively, my question was: why are these sections needed? I was referred to the principal Act that’s being amended by the Minister, the Employment Relations Act. Upon reading the principal Act, I see that, in fact, the powers appear to already exist. So the Minister said, “Well, it’s for the avoidance of doubt.” Well, that just seems to be additional sections which appear not to add a lot of additional value.

Anyway, when I was going through that process, I was interested to see if the Education and Training Act did have a definition of a specified pay deduction, because it does have a particular meaning and it is defined in this bill, but it doesn’t. We look under “specified” in the interpretation section, and it doesn’t have “specified pay deductions”. So when we look at section 4A of the principal Act, we see that a very particular terminology is used in relation to a pay deduction. My question to the Minister is, firstly: is it a mistake not to transfer the definition into the Education and Training Act? I can’t see it here. I’m interested if colleagues can see that there. I cannot see that within clauses 12 to 15. If not, then what is the meaning of “specified pay deduction” within the Education and Training Act, and how will people know, when they’re just simply reading the Education and Training Act, to refer to this particular piece of legislation or the Employment Relations Act to find out the meaning of a “specified pay deduction”? It seems to me that it would have been better, if we are being clear and crossing all of our i’s and dotting all of our i’s, as the Minister has suggested, to include that definition within that section.

I know, Madam Chair, you’ve said that you are wanting new information. I believe that is a new question. I would like an answer to that, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Teanau Tuiono—I’ve given you the call, you probably can’t hear me.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m giving you the call but you probably can’t hear me.

TEANAU TUIONO: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is just a response and to get some clarity from the Minister in terms of her comments around whether or not a worker is fully withdrawing their work, or their labour; I’m not too sure exactly how she said it; she might want to clarify that for me as well. I want to try to understand about what exactly does she mean by withdrawing some of their work. The example that I gave earlier was where teachers should be having that really important non-contact time for assessment planning, lesson planning, and so on and so forth. But if there’s a teacher shortage and they’re being forced to take away that non-contact time, would she consider that withdrawing their work? So I’d like some clarity on that.

Just following up from that as well, the example around people coaching basketball teams, rugby teams, and so on and so forth—things outside of the work where sometimes contracts are not specific but there is an expectation that teachers will undertake other specific duties but it’s not actually kind of clear in their agreements. Does she consider that also as a part of their work, and, if she doesn’t, can she give the committee some clarity, give teachers some clarity, about how this particular section will pertain to them? Because I think it’d be really important, moving forward, that she’s clear about that.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you. In response to Teanau Tuiono’s question, I answered that in Part 1 of this bill and the debate.

Francisco Hernandez asked why it says the Public Service Commissioner “may” give a direction. This is simply giving the Public Service Commissioner the ability to issue a direction.

Camilla Belich asked: do the provisions in relation to the Public Service Commissioner come from the result of feedback from the Publish Service Commission? The Public Service Commission was consulted on the Cabinet paper that related to this bill.

Francisco Hernandez asked: if the overpayment was made over several different pay dates, which pay date does the 10-day time frame apply to? The 10-day time period applies to each pay period when an overpayment was made.

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

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3), new paragraph (ba)(i) of section 6(3) to replace “10” 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 (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 14 to delete subclause (1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 14 to delete new subclause (4A) 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 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come to the Schedule. The question is that the Schedule stand part.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the final debate, which is clauses 1 to 3. This is the title clause, the commencement clause, and clause 3, “Principal Act”.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to take some calls, hopefully, on the title and commencement. I do have a few amendments to speak to. The first one is an amendment to clause 2, which is to replace “the day after Royal assent” with “6 June 2026”. The reason that I have put that amendment forward is because I consider that there is not enough evidence on this being a good piece of law for it to be implemented so soon after this House has considered it.

The reason I say that is because, when we were at the select committee, we saw the vast majority of submissions were opposed to this bill. When we were in the House and we were scrutinising the bill and looking at the evidence provided by officials, we found there was no evidence to suggest that this bill, as it is currently drafted, will achieve any of the Minister for Workplace Relation and Safety’s aims. In fact, the evidence we heard at select committee was that it is more likely than not to result in full reduction of labour, a full strike as opposed to a partial strike, meaning that no work gets done. This means that this bill, in my view, is not fit for purpose. That is the reason we have consistently opposed this bill at every stage and the reason that we have put forward amendments to try and fix some of the problems in this bill.

That is why I consider that this bill should have a significant period of time where it is considered, and I have suggested a year after the committee stage was first started. I think that is a fair and reasonable amount of time to allow Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials, who do a good job no matter who is in Government, as neutral public servants, and you can see within their report, their regulatory impact statement, how hard they have tried to find some evidence or some direction that this partial strike bill will actually go any way towards achieving any positive aim at all for New Zealand workers or employers. And they have not been able to do so to date. I am sure, given a longer period of time in order to assess this particular Act, to look at some of the problems that potentially might arise under it, that come June 2026, it would be a much better time to either go ahead with this Act, if indeed it is possible to find any supporting evidence surrounding it, or to decide at that time for this Act to be withdrawn.

It is, in my view, a terrible Act. It doesn’t achieve a single objective. There is absolutely no evidence supporting it, and delaying commencement for a year would be a prudent and good decision in relation to this House and this legislature. So I implore the Minister to consider some of these changes to workplace laws that she has decided to bring through the House and, in this instance, to delay that so that the proper analysis and work can be done, so that we can be sure that the laws we pass in this House actually make a difference for New Zealanders, because, in my view, this one does not.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much. In response to Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to increase the time frame to 6 June 2026, the Government will not be supporting that. But I also note that the reason for why she’s put it forward seems to be different to what was on the actual sheet here, which was to give employers, employees, and unions the chance to understand and prepare for the changes.

Camilla Belich: That was going to be my second contribution.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That was going to be your second question? OK, well, in that respect, I’ll knock off your other two amendments too, which was to 6 December 2025, and an extension then to 6 June 2027. The same answer is that the Government will not be supporting those amendments.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Camilla Belich just signalled that she had another question.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Yes. Madam Chair, thank you. I do have another question. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is correct. Another good reason for supporting my amendments was the fact that it would give employers and employees a longer period of time to actually digest what’s in this particular bill and have policies in place. I do think that that is important. I do think often, in employment law, one of the disadvantages of implementing change is that as soon as a change is implemented—and I know this from my previous work—there is a long period of time where people need to get advice on what they need to do and what policies they need to change.

In this instance, this particular bill is mainly aimed at public sector workplaces, and you can see that from the regulatory impact statement, when it states that only some private sector employers would likely utilise this partial strike law, compared with the public sector, where the vast majority of these particular actions are predicted to take place. I do think that a longer period of time would be necessary. I do wonder whether the Minister considered the period of time that would be necessary before implementing these changes. That is not uncommon in legislation—to have a period of time where that can settle in. So that is my reasoning that I’ve put as an explanatory note, which I note is not mandatory for Amendment Papers, but I do think it is sometimes helpful, especially when we’re only talking about numbers and clauses—not in this particular instance, where it’s a bit clearer what the amendment does. But I do think the explanatory note is helpful, and that is why I’ve put that in there, because of the work that I know will have to be undertaken by human resources professionals, lawyers, and people who work internally within the Public Service in relation to any change.

It is a big change in relation to industrial action. There will need to be a lot of work associated with it. So, on that point, I did also want to raise that as a consideration for a delay. As the Minister has said, I have suggested different amounts of time that might be suitable for that, but I certainly think that they are more sensible and more pragmatic than the day after Royal assent, which could be next week, and that does not give people enough time to be able to make sure that they all understand the rules. I think, when we’re talking about deducting people’s pay, it’s a serious thing—prima facie not something that would be legal under common law—so something that should be taken seriously and should be considered without haste and with due consideration.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to that latest contribution, the Government supports it coming into force the day after the date that the Act receives Royal assent. And that’s twofold: the changes are not a surprise; as early as December last year, we signalled our intention to reinstate previous provisions, so there has been time for people to understand that this is coming. But, secondly, the bones of this are very similar to previous provisions that were in place, and so for unions to understand, they simply just need to go back in time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety around the commencement date, and, actually, I do appreciate the Minister answering the questions.

I want to just follow up with another question, which is: when we’re looking at the commencement date being the date of the Royal assent, were there assumptions being made? Like the Minister said, this has been something that’s been signalled before and now it’s being reinstated. Is the Minister planning on releasing anything on the day after the Royal assent to actually genuinely notify people, and everyone who might be affected? That would be really good to know because, like the previous speaker Camilla Belich has mentioned, there might be people who might be paying attention to this as things progress, but there might also be really small unions or, potentially, ones who may not know. So what is the Minister’s plan after the Royal assent to actually roll out an awareness campaign? That’s my first question.

My second question—and I know that this touches on the Schedule, but I want to talk about it in the context of the commencement date. So the commencement date is the date of Royal assent. This bill has been going through the House for a little while, in dribs and drabs, over a number of months. Because the commencement date is the date of Royal assent, that particular date was not fixed. It wasn’t a particular date, like, say, 1 August 2025, which would have meant that everyone was working towards that. So having the date of Royal assent could be very flexible, and now we’re nearly at the end of the committee stage and then there will be a third reading, and so—like the previous speaker said—Royal assent could be as early as next week.

I’m just checking in terms of understanding of what isn’t covered by this bill, and in clause 23 under new Part 7 of Schedule 1AA, to be inserted in the Employment Relations Act by the Schedule, it does say that “any period of a partial strike that occurred before the commencement of the 2024 amendment Act.”, but it doesn’t necessarily state that it needs to end before the commencement date. As I said, I wasn’t here, unfortunately, for the debate on Part 1, and particularly the Schedule. If this is something that the Minister has clarified, I do apologise, but I just wanted to check that reading.

Let’s say that there is a partial strike happening right now, and then there is Royal assent, but the partial strike is still in action. That, technically, fulfils the requirement that it’s a partial strike that occurred before the commencement date, but it hasn’t concluded when this bill comes into effect, and that means that that partial strike is not covered by this definition—is how I’m reading it. So I’ll be really keen to hear from the Minister with any clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Helen White—but just before I take Helen White’s contribution, there’s a lot of conversations going on to my right. Either speak more quietly or take them out in the lobbies, please.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to suggest a title that’s more appropriate to this bill, and I take this seriously in terms of the need for the title to actually express what the bill does. So I’m suggesting to the Minister that a more appropriate title would be “(Allowing Penalties to Curb Freedom of Expression by Workers in Bargaining)”.

Now, it’s a long title, but it says something really important. Because what it says—and it’s absolutely what happens here—is that if you’re wearing a T-shirt, then your employer can penalise you 10 percent of your wages for doing that. So your freedom of expression is curbed. So this is a penalty. It’s not something proportionate, as suggested occasionally by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that, actually, if you wore something at Air New Zealand, it would affect the brand and that would be worth 10 percent. It’s not that. It’s utterly arbitrary. It’s a penalty on a worker who does something the employer dislikes and embarrasses them. It doesn’t matter the context; they are going to lose that right of expression unless they’re willing to pay 10 percent of their wages to do so.

It’s a funny thing that we’re doing when, in fact, we have enormous ability in this House to express ourselves, including the Minister, who’s made some interesting comments in this House recently. So what I wonder is, yes, whether we could afford to actually tell the public what we’re doing here, which is we are penalising them for using their right of expression, which, up until now, has been one of the tools in the tool box. They have been able to tell the public how they feel, but apparently no more. What we’re going to do now is they’re going to have a 10 percent penalty on them.

Is the Minister willing to accept that that’s actually what this bill does? It’s curbing that freedom of expression because the Minister doesn’t like it. She doesn’t like that people can wear a T-shirt that says things like “equal pay for women”. That’s going to be a problem. She doesn’t like it if they are actually saying something against her ideology or in support of their wish to be paid more, which is an interesting thing to do to people, particularly because the Minister comes from a party called “ACT”, which is all supposed to be about freedom of expression. We hear a lot about it, but this is the talk in the walk, isn’t it? So the walk here is that this Act is going to penalise those workers. So I want to know from the Minister is: will she put her money where her mouth and tell the public what this really is—which is an attack on workers—a 10 percent penalty? It is disproportionate to many things.

Now, I put an example to the Minister—I have never heard the answer to it. I put the example of people who stop to use the toilet when they didn’t use to do that because they’d run around as a bus driver doing that, but that’s what they notified their employer they would do and they got locked out. What happened in that case—because they had to notify because it was an essential industry—is when it got out that the employer had locked them out for taking their toilet breaks, the Auckland public turned on the bus company, and it actually changed the whole nature of the dispute. Suddenly, the public was sympathetic to the bus drivers because they didn’t know that they weren’t being able to go to the toilet. They didn’t know the kinds of lengths that that employer was taking over them. So, actually, it did make a difference. It was a way of them actually expressing where they were, but not actually harming the public. It was a very moderate response. So that was an example I put to the Minister.

I appreciate that this goes beyond this and the title might have to be a bit longer if we’re going to incorporate taking actions which seem incredibly reasonable but having a disproportionate penalty attached. We could extend it a little bit, but, actually, I just want to know: will the Minister front-foot it on this and tell the public transparently what her bill does by giving it this kind of title? Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you. You know what I will front-foot, Helen White, is the fact that we’ve just heard more Labour Party misinformation tonight—that is, in your contribution. There’s a lot in that contribution. But the member suggested that myself and this Government are against equal pay for women; I would ask the member to stop peddling misinformation. This Government has never been against equal pay for women. The Equal Pay Act remains, and no woman has had their pay cut. Pay equity has changed, but it still remains. There is a difference between equal pay and pay equity, and so the member should stop peddling misinformation.

However, getting back to other points that people have made tonight, Helen White has also suggested a different title. The Government will not be agreeing to a different title because the bill is actually what it says it does, which is about pay deductions for partial strikes.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also had a question about if the bill applies to partial strikes before and after commencement. It’s actually quite a good question, so I thank him for it. That was covered in the debate on Part 1, however. But to clarify, the provision would not apply to the period of the strike that occurred before the commencement.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked: are there plans to notify parties of the changes? Yes, I plan to put out a press release tonight. But, also, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment provides updates on changes to legislation on its website, and they also utilise other channels to communicate with stakeholders on changes to legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Right, before I take any further calls, I’m going to make the point that we are on title and commencement and, sadly for people asking the questions, I was here through a large part of Part 1 where I did hear the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety clarify about T-shirts, so I don’t think we need to go down that track any further. And I don’t want to hear any more relitigating of Part 1 and Part 2; this is about title and commencement.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on the answer from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about alerting people on a press release and also on the website, could she give us some more detail there as well? My concern is you put these things out and then people just don’t know that they’ve happened, right? If that happens, then you leave people high and dry. I take her point that maybe people could go take a look at how it was back in 2018, but I think the counter-question to that is that the workforce has actually changed since then. The workforce changes regularly, and so you’ll have a cohort of people who are now in the workforce who would not have experienced what it was before 2018. I think it would be incredibly important for the Government to have very specific communications to let people know exactly how this will impact them, across all the different sectors, because there will be different impacts right across, given the particular changes that this will bring, particularly for that new cohort of workers that are now with us. I think it’s also really, really important for that to be communicated across the public sector, to teachers, and to everybody else that is impacted, so that their employers themselves can actually prepare themselves, because this thing will land on their desks and a lot of them will think, “How will this actually impact my workers? How will this actually impact my employees?”

Some of the answers that the Minister has given have, for me at least, been too vague. What does it actually mean—the definitions of “work”; that voluntary work and the examples that we gave around with teachers as well? What does that actually mean? There’ll be different arrangements. So there needs to be more specific clarity on how that will impact—in this case—teachers as well.

I think this is incredibly important. There are a lot of changes coming from this Government right across everything around workplace relations, and it is important, in my view, that this Parliament shows respect to those workers, shows respect across all the different sectors, particularly those that will be impacted, because we want these people to stay in the country. We don’t want them to wake up after—what is it?—26 June and think that they’re not being respected and that they don’t have the information to actually figure out how this will apply to them, because they’ll just jump on a plane and go somewhere else where they are more respected.

I hear that through my conversations with different workers all the time: “There’s all these different things coming out of this Government. There’s road cones.”—sector of so on and so forth. What we’ve got to do as a House is actually demonstrate to all the workers, to the people that look after our kids while they’re at school, look after our hospitals, and do all that really, really important work, that they’re actually valued—that there’s actually purpose and value from this House for those workers—and, at the very least—at the very, very least in my mind—is being able to communicate with them very clearly about how this impacts them and how their employers should be able to communicate these changes to them. Because if you don’t—if the Government doesn’t—then that will mean more workers jumping on a plane and leaving this country.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take a call from Camilla Belich, but we are getting to the pointy end of this, because I’m starting to hear more repetition, and repeating over old ground.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am grateful for the call but I do note that my colleague Ginny Andersen has not yet been able to take a call on this part, and I know she’s incredibly enthusiastic.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There is no guarantee that everyone will get a call, right?

CAMILLA BELICH: Noted, Madam Chair. I just wanted to advocate for my colleague as I feel slightly guilty having been able to take another call.

I do want to suggest some changes that have not yet been suggested to this bill in relation to the name. I think it is important, as we pass laws through the House, to make sure that they are as accurate as they can be. I have recently been chairing the Governance and Administration Committee, which has been looking at the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, and I’m convinced more than I ever was that that is a really sensible piece of legislation. One of the reasons for that is how important it is for so many different people within our society to be able to read and understand the language of Government. So I think it is really important, and not a trivial matter, to ensure we get the titles of particular pieces of legislation correct. So I have some suggestions to change the title.

At the moment, we have the title of the Act, in clause 1, as the “Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Act”. I want to suggest, and ask the Minister if she would consider, changing that title to the “Employment Relations (10 Percent Pay Cut Even If You Do 1 Percent Less Work) Act.” The reason I suggest that is because this is what this Act—as it soon will be if it’s passed—actually does. It means that people can in fact do 1 percent less work and receive 10 percent less pay. So I think that is a good suggestion for a name change.

I want to suggest another name change, which is the “Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Wearing a Badge) Amendment Act”, and the reason I suggest that is because that is exactly want can happen as a result of this soon-to-be Act. I want to suggest another title change, and that is the “Employment Relations (Pay Cut For Stopping Doing Unpaid Tasks Like Coaching a Sports Team) Amendment Act”, and that is because that is actually done in this Act as well.

This legislation institutes a number of particular provisions that result in genuine unfairness, and, in the committee stage, we did suggest sensible and pragmatic solutions to these changes. These were ignored and, regretfully, we’re left with an Act that does a number of things that I think many people in this Chamber, people watching, and the New Zealand public would not find acceptable.

I have another suggestion, which does not relate to the title and does not relate to the commencement.

Arena Williams: New material?

CAMILLA BELICH: It is new material, Arena Williams. It is in relation to clause 3, “Principal Act”. Now, this is the Employment Relations Act. I think that is correct and it should remain that way. What I want to suggest is whether the Minister would consider adding a more fulsome list of the Acts that are impacted by this legislation. For example, could we consider having clause 3, “Principal Act This Act Amends the Employment Relations Act and Makes Consequential Amendments to the Education and Training Act”—

Arena Williams: Does it?

CAMILLA BELICH: —yes, it does but it’s not listed—“and Makes Consequential Changes to the Wages Protection Act 1983”. These are the substance, as we’ve just discussed in Part 2. In fact, the entirety of Part 2 is discussing two Acts that are not mentioned in the title and commencement clauses in relation to the principal Act. So I want to ask the Minister whether, as she has suggested in other parts of the legislation, we need to cross the t’s and dot the i’s and make sure that we include all relevant information for clarity, including those pieces of legislation in those initial clauses.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take a very short call in response to that question. Look, I actually have a lot of respect for the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They do very good work and they take their job extremely seriously, and the bill does what it says it does because those very good people who write our laws made sure it does.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): 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.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 6 December 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement date to 6 June 2026 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 2 changing the commencement date to 6 June 2027 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 clause 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.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will reintroduce the ability for employers to make specified pay deductions in response to partial strikes, to help minimise disruptive impacts on the public. Providing employers with additional tools to respond to partial strikes will help incentivise parties engaged in industrial action to return to the bargaining table and reach agreement in good faith sooner. Intentionally causing disruption and refusing to undertake key parts of the job not only impacts the employer’s output but often it is the public who are heavily impacted and tend to lose out or are caught in the middle when partial strikes occur. That is why I am reintroducing these changes.

Since the previous Government took this option away in 2018, we have seen the impact of partial strikes on the public—for example, cancer patients receiving later medical scans and treatment due to prolonged waiting lists due to partial strikes; kids missing out on education, and parents’ ability to work was then disrupted; and train passengers left waiting at platforms.

Employees who are bargaining have the right to strike, but those actions affect the employer and sometimes the public, so that rights should not be without consequence. This is about fairness. Once this amendment is made, there will be a balance, with proportionate negative consequences for both parties, where the employees are losing some pay and the employers are losing out too. This provides an incentive for both parties to return to the bargaining table as soon as practical, while also minimising community impacts. We have canvassed all the arguments as part of these debates, and through the select committee process. I am confident that this bill will work well and promote more harmonious industrial relations across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): What a shame; here we are again, in a real attack against workers in this country. We have seen it so much over the last 18 months from this Government. It is an absolute disgrace to this Government and it is a disgrace and a shame for our country.

Let me just remind you of some of the things that have happened prior to this bill being passed tonight. We have seen fair pay agreements that were one of the first cabs off the rank, once again, scrapped—once again going through urgency, just as we are here tonight. At least this one had a select committee, but, again, we’re pushing it through under urgency for no reason that has been given. The scrapping of 90-day trials; an effective cut to the minimum wage rate, against official advice—against official advice; stopping the work on pay transparency and stopping the work on modern slavery, even though the Prime Minister campaigned on that and said that that was the one thing he would march in the street for. That is something that has not progressed under this Government.

Stopping the minimum wage for disabled workers—an absolutely appalling piece of work that hurts some of our most vulnerable workers, and yet this Government has pushed that through as well. Cutting 6,000 Public Service jobs—absolutely horrific for our workers and our hard-working people in the Public Service. Not only does that impact upon them, it impacts upon many industries. You only have to go and walk the streets of Wellington out here at lunchtime to know the impact that that has had on this city—but not only on this city, a New Zealand - wide impact. The banning of charter school employees being able to negotiate their multi-employer collective agreements awards, something that is a fundamental right. One of the most egregious—and what I think is the most egregious, and, actually, most of New Zealand thinks is the most egregious—errors and actions that have been taken against workers is, of course, the cutting of the pay equity claims and the cutting of the 33 claims in order to make a Budget work.

Here we are again, with another attack on New Zealand workers. We are seeing pay deductions for partial strikes. Actually, people might, on the other side of the House, have thought some of those name changes in the committee of the whole House might have been a bit frivolous, but they were not frivolous at all, when you know it’s not just partial strikes. The definition of “partial strikes” is absolutely broad in this definition. A partial strike could be somebody wearing a T-shirt to work. They don’t want to take time off; they want to be able to complete their job to the maximum, but they also want to have that ability to be able to show their discontent with what is happening in the industrial process at that particular time. That could be seen as a partial strike. We have heard the Minister say, the whole way through this debate, that this is about another act of restoring the balance, that employers have had that balance taken away from them over the last few years. Well, this isn’t about restoring the balance; this is about taking any power that employees have away from them. This is about making sure that our employees, our workers in this country, don’t have any ability to make a difference in the industrial space and in the industrial bargaining times.

This isn’t about stopping disruptions. In fact, we know from evidence, both here in New Zealand and overseas, that this has the potential to cause more disruption, because now you’re taking that right away and bringing in the partial deductions. Those deductions are at an abhorrent rate. It doesn’t make sense at all, and we haven’t heard anything, the whole way through this debate, that it makes any sense that, for a loss of 1 percent production there would be a 10 percent loss of pay. That makes no sense at all. Now that this is happening, workers will be more than likely—and that has been proven—to withdraw their labour completely. So, instead of having partial strikes, partial withdrawal of labour, now there is that ability. The workers can say, “We will take that away completely.”

This is something that is, again, as I’ve said, an absolute attack on the workers of this country, and that Government has shown their true colours around how they really feel about the workers in this country. They don’t care. They do not care about the people who are going along to work every single day and trying to do their very, very best and then trying to get their absolute best in that industrial situation. It is incredibly hard when the power balance is very much in favour of the employer, and that Government does not care about those people and their ability to be able to make a difference for their families, to be able to take home more, to be able to get the best conditions they can. They need every tool in their tool box. This was another tool they could have had in their tool box that has been taken away.

Now, there has been lots of debate over this, which I still haven’t got a clear answer on, and the Minister, even in the last part, when we were talking about Part 2, still couldn’t answer questions. I noticed that that was about the only question she didn’t answer, about giving notice to the employer when there was a piece of clothing or a badge being worn. We still didn’t get an answer around whether that notice had to be given. So I feel that there is something a little bit more underhand here, which really concerns me. The fact that we tried really hard to give the Minister a solution to that. She talked about wearing a T-shirt, and St John ambulance people having to wear a vest over the top, and that that wasn’t OK. I actually agreed with that; that’s not OK. But we said, “How about we put an amendment into that and we make an amendment around that that enables that to be within good working and health and safety conditions?” But no; there was an absolute flat “No”, which says that freedom of expression of our workers is being denied as well. Freedom of expression so that our workers can tell people what they value and what they stand for has been completely wiped away with the stroke of a pen, in this bill.

That is so surprising. When we get people on the other side of the House who say they stand for freedom of expression, that is not true, because they have shown, right here with this bill tonight, that they absolutely do not stand for freedom of expression at all, and they do not stand for our workers being able to stand up and tell people their values and what it is they stand for. Those protests in the past have been very effective, incredibly effective. They have not stopped productivity at all. They have kept the productivity up.

Hon Member: Pull the other one!

Hon JAN TINETTI: See, Madam Speaker, you hear that over on the other side, but they don’t understand that wearing a T-shirt with your values on it does not stop productivity. They think that absolutely does, and that just shows how they absolutely have no idea of the perspective and refuse to see the world through the lens of the worker—absolutely refuse to see the world through the lens of the worker—and that is incredibly disappointing. But make no mistake: they have shown their values, they have shown what it is they stand for, and they have shown that they do not respect the people who do the work in this country, who are absolutely turning up every single day.

This is an incredibly disappointing day, but not unexpected for the people here in this country—not unexpected, because, as I started my contribution, we have seen attack after attack after attack. In fact, I have a list of 20 actions that this Government has directly taken against workers. Some of them have gone unnoticed, but make sure that we know, from now on, every single one of those is going to be highlighted to the people of New Zealand. That shows that his Government has no regard for the workers in this country, and that will come back to bite them. I absolutely condemn this bill.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill. Let me start by saying that I think that everybody deserves dignity and decent jobs. I think that’s something that everybody around the House would agree on. I think, also, it’s important for workers out there to at least expect the bare minimum of respect for the work that workers do for us; the work that teachers do, the work that hospitality workers do—the work right across our society that they do to keep our communities functioning. We in the Greens also believe that we must uphold workers’ rights to secure an adequate income, to fair treatment and safety at work, and for workers to actually be involved in the decision making in their workplace, democracy, and collective organising.

But what we have seen over the parliamentary term is an attack on workers’ rights. From the repealing of fair pay agreements to the bringing back of 90-day trials, road cones the other week, loosening up of health and safety regulations—it’s been an ongoing onslaught. And, I guess, my question to the House is this: if you’re going to introduce so many different changes, you’ve got to be able to give people the decency and the respect for them to be able to digest these changes in a way that makes sense for them. Because there have been so many changes coming from this Government. As it has been mentioned before, we had the pay equity claims cancelled, 33 of those claims cancelled—and let me acknowledge the people: as soon as they found out about the cancelling of those pay equity claims, they were out the front there in a couple of hours—out there in the front in a couple of hours. The reason why they cancelled those pay equity claims was because that side couldn’t actually make their Budget add up. They couldn’t make their Budget add up, so what they did was take the money away from the poorest women workers. This is a disgrace.

There have been so many changes—negative changes—on workers in this Government. All I can describe it as is death by a thousand tax cuts—it’s death by a thousand tax cuts. My challenge to members opposite is this: we understand what the ACT Party is about; you can see it from outer space. I mean, if it was up to them, they’d turn this country into an overpriced mall which is owned by their corporate friends. But I think there is an expectation from the other two coalition partners that they would actually pause, that they would actually rein in their friends to the right, that they would rein in and actually give the workers a break. Give the workers a bit of a break from the myriad of assaults on workers’ rights.

What this proposed legislation, partial strikes will do is it’ll push more workers into taking full strikes. It’ll push more workers into taking full strike action. Just for people that are tuning in tonight as well: a partial strike could be something as simple as wearing a T-shirt; it could be something as simple as wearing a badge. It is a way for people to express when things have not been going well in the workplace. Some would call this freedom of expression, the ability to have one’s say, the ability to be able to express themselves. So why would this House want to curtail that? Why would this House want to stop the freedom of expression of workers, particularly when you look at the research and it shows that this is a way for people to actually have their say without going to full strike action. And so it was said a number of times within the debate that this will actually push people towards full strike action.

Let me just pick up some of the comments or lack of comments from the Minister through her speeches, but also through the committee of the whole House. When we asked her, “Well, what are you going to do to be able to communicate this with employers and with employees? How are you going to describe this? There are so many things coming from this Government that are impacting and stripping back workers’ rights, how are you going to explain this one?”, what she said is that she’s going to put out a press release. She’s going to put out a press release and she’s going to put something on a website. She’s going to put something on a website. No talk or mention about how this would impact all the different sectors out there—how this would impact teachers, how this would impact nurses, how this would impact collective action—let alone the new cohort of workers that are in the workforce at this particular point in time. What this points to is an utter lack of respect—an utter lack of respect on that side of the House for workers.

At the end of it, if this House keeps going down this track, if the Government keeps going down this track and the workers see what they’re continuing to do, what’s stopping them from getting on a plane and flying over to Australia, where there’s better work, pay, and conditions? When I’ve talked to workers across the country who are concerned about the myriad of changes coming from this Government, this is what they tell me. They tell me that, actually, “Maybe we should just get up and get out of here.” This is not what we want. We want people to feel that they are valued. We want people to feel that the work that they do is valued. We want to make sure that they feel appreciated. We want to make sure that for all of the workers, there is a career path for them as well. Where is the signal from this Government that that is happening? It isn’t. All we get is this kōrero all about “Growth, growth, growth.” What about the growth and pride for the workers? What about growth and pride for the work that these people actually do for us? We need to see more of that from this House, and it is sorely lacking, particularly from that side of the House.

So we oppose this bill. We believe it is the right of workers to collectively organise themselves to advance their interests, and we think it’s important that that is protected. It is vital that we uphold the right of workers and the unions to campaign for political, environmental, social, and work-related industrial issues, including the right to strike—including the right to partial strikes, right? We should be able to have a space there where you can actually express yourselves without going down the full strike path. As noted by many speakers on this side of the House, there is no evidence to show that partial strike provisions which existed from 2018 have encouraged more or longer industrial action. That is not what the research tells us. That is not what the submissions told us. There are a number of negative consequences to this bill, incredibly negative consequences of this bill, particularly when you look at it in the context of everything else that is happening.

The provisions from this bill can lead to manifestly unjust consequences, such as workers losing 10 percent of their pay—10 percent of their pay. Just say you might want to express yourself, just because something’s not happening that great in your work site; you might want to wear a badge, you might want to wear a T-shirt to express yourself, and your boss might be able to dock you 10 percent—10 percent. Not to mention the actual vague definitions that we actually got from this Minister of actually what constitutes “work” as well. Because we know that a lot of these workers do a lot of voluntary work. They do a lot of work which is actually attached to this work—and we have the example of teachers, who do a whole lot of other work on top of that. What happens when, actually, they’re being forced to be able to do that work as a part of this legislation?

The Greens absolutely oppose this legislation. We will continue to oppose this legislation, just like we oppose the smashing of the 33 pay equity claims, just like we oppose the repealing of the fair pay agreements, the reintroduction of 90-day trials. I would also warn workers out there, as well: there are changes coming down the pipeline where they are looking at loosening health and safety regulations, as well. So, again, I would caution members in the Government parties to actually rein in the ACT Party—rein them in. This is what they’re actually all about, but that’s not necessarily true of the others. This is too much. This is too much for the workers. There’s too much happening in this space. Workers need to have a breather, and by not giving them the decency to actually consider all these different changes that are happening day after day, week after week—what that shows is disrespect. What that shows is a lack of care. What that shows is a lack of duty of care for all those people that we are all—all of us across this House—elected to represent. It cannot just be about the bosses; it cannot just be about the employers. We’ve got to think about everybody. So we absolutely condemn this bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): What we’re hearing this evening is that the Opposition want to tell you how to run your business and run your life. If you are in a business—whether it be McDonald’s, Mitre 10, or an accounting firm—and you agree to a set of relationships, a set way of working, a uniform as part of that, you know what you’re signing up for. The Opposition want to tell you, as an employer or employee, what you can and can’t do, and we oppose that. On the Government side, we believe in the ability to contract and be held accountable to your agreements. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First always approach these issues of employment relations with a view to getting fairness and balance. On the matter of these partial strikes, we do believe the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is seeking to address a genuine imbalance. Employees at the present are, essentially, at liberty to take action impacting the functioning of a workplace with impunity. Despite the catastrophising of the Opposition, they are not losing any rights. They can still do all the industrial action that they’re able to before; it’s just that employers will have the ability to have a proportionate deduction to compensate them for their loss of productivity. It’s a sensible bill. New Zealand First support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what we are seeing with this particular legislation is this Government’s continued war on workers—continued war on some of the most hard-working parts of our population. We heard the previous speaker, the Hon Mark Patterson, talking about “Oh, this is the Opposition trying to tell people how to run their businesses.” Most of these are from the Public Service. They are people like teachers, they are people like your doctors, your nurses. They are the people who look after your children, look after you when you are sick, look after your parents, and yet you decided to kick them in the teeth with continued bills like this. You got rid of their pay equity. You would like to say you didn’t, but you did. You kept pay equity, but you basically said—it’s almost like running a race or if you’re in the Olympics. Suddenly, you’re like, “Yes! I’m going to get over to the finish line.” And they’re like, “Uh, uh. We’re going to just shift the goalpost. Start from scratch. You can still race, but start from the beginning. Actually, you know what, start from training.” This is what it feels like to the hundreds of thousands of workers that have been affected by the changes of the pay equity claims and by changes of bills such as this.

During the committee of the whole House stage, we’ve heard from the Minister on a number of things, but let’s be clear: the officials and the official advice that we have received—the impartial advice that we have received—says that this is going to create more risks. This is going to create the risk of more full strike action. This is going to affect your children. This is going to affect the treatment if you are sick. This is going to affect people being able to look after your parents. This is going to affect people being able to respond to you when you’re in an emergency. This is going to affect people more than if this bill was not brought to the House.

In addition, although the Minister said a lot of things, we still did not receive any clarity on the relationship between the employer and the employee on the definition of some of these elements, particularly when we were looking at what is meant when we say that some work is being done. I think that was a great question line in the committee stage from my colleague Teanau Tuiono. When we’re talking about teachers and when we’re talking about the complexity when there is negotiation or complexity of people’s workplace, this is not just simply a tick-box exercise. This is not just people who are sitting in an office, deciding on what to do. This is not Ministers sitting in their ivory tower of untouchable circumstances, telling people what to do and telling people how they should be acting. This is people’s real lives, and people’s real lives being affected.

When we were looking at situations when it comes to teachers, we have been given clear examples by people who work as teachers—not many people in this House can say they’ve stood inside of a classroom for decades. But we’ve heard from people who work as teachers, who talked about the complexity that this will create in terms of non-contact hours—how that will be considered. Are they doing work? Are they not doing work? Their contracts are complex. What is considered “some work”?

This bill, along with many other bills we’re seeing from this Government around workplace relations, is something that is simply pandering. I don’t even know who they’re pandering to, to be honest—but clearly they’re pandering to someone—because it is not the people of Aotearoa New Zealand who are affected by a suite of changes we see in workplace relations. So the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will absolutely not support this bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that outstanding contribution from the member Dr Vanessa Weenink on the opposite side! This bill, the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, docks the pay of nurses, it docks the pay of teachers, it docks the pay of police, it docks the pay of firefighters, it docks the pay of any essential worker if they ask for fair pay and better conditions—better pay and better conditions. That is what this bill represents. It’s a sad indictment on a Government that has already taken a complete assault on the rights of working Kiwis, through scrapping fair pay agreements, 90-day rules, and also what they’ve done with pay equity.

In a cost of living crisis, this Government has taken it upon themselves to make the workers hurt even more than what their changes are making. At a time when families are struggling to be able to afford food, when there is high and rising unemployment, when there are record numbers of people being laid off, this Government takes it upon themselves to further drive down the working conditions and the ability of workers to stand up for their rights. We condemn other nations for stopping the freedom of expression of people. Why does that make it any different for workers here in New Zealand? It’s a double standard, what this Government is doing to working Kiwis with this bill.

Partial strikes are an important tool to flag that there is something not right with the employment relationship before reverting to a full strike. The deep irony of this bill—and maybe that’s what the intention of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety actually is—is that full strikes and full industrial action will be more likely to ensue by removing the ability for workers to partially strike. It will be even harder for employers to be able to calculate how much they will deduct, and that was one of the key reasons, in the first place, that it was removed. So those calculations will be made far more difficult.

This legislation really seeks to introduce the ability for employers to dock the pay of workers that are clearly participating in the ability to work to rule and to exercise that right, where the employee does nothing more than carry out the duties that they are stipulated to do. And that is not fair. Under this bill, as we’ve heard, a worker can be financially penalised for simply doing their job properly. For fulfilling their contracted obligations and no more, they will be docked. For wearing a T-shirt that says, “I fight for kids. I stand up for children.”, they can have their pay docked under this. It’s freedom of expression, and it’s basic workers’ rights.

It’s not just bad law; it’s cynical lawmaking. This is a pre-emptive strike on the very public sector workers—teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers—who are expected to enter into collective bargaining in the coming years. It’s a deliberate move to weaken the hand of employees before they even get to the bargaining table. It’s punitive and it’s regressive, but those members opposite do not have an eye to what that is doing to employment relations in New Zealand. Let’s call this what it is: it’s an ideological crusade by ACT, who’s Batman, and National is Robin in this sad act, and it’s shamefully enabled by the National Party. It’s a dismantling of union protections and a tip of the balance even further towards employers. Let’s be honest: we’ve heard about that balanced relationship; it’s tipped, under this legislation, for the employer to hold all of those cards, and that’s exactly what they’ve set out to achieve.

Under the proposed amendment, employers will have the statutory ability to impose pay deductions on any employee engaged in partial strike action. That could be refusing, for example, to work overtime. It could be deciding not to take on duties outside what is already a contracted role. A clear example we’ve given a number of times is those lovely people that teach your children softball or netball or football or touch rugby and they do that after 3 o’clock on the school field. Well, that is outside of what their contracted employment relationship is, and if they refuse to do that, then they can have their pay docked. So you are pressuring and, really, standing over people to take up jobs for free without being remunerated.

All of these flaws with this legislation have been picked up by the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that we’ve been through. Let’s just take a moment to reflect on that, because if there was ever evidence that this bill is not backed by evidence, then the regulatory impact statement gave a pretty good case. It completely lacks any qualitative data. It relies on anecdotal and historical examples, and it makes completely untested assertions. It fails to outline how the Government intends to meet any of its Treaty obligations. The Labour Party considers it an absolute shocker to have no evidential basis to make such sweeping changes. In fact, I’ll quote from the RIS: “Neither the number of partial strikes and [the] full strikes, [nor the] number of persons days lost, show any clear pattern in relation to the ability of employers to make pay deductions during partial strikes.” There is no evidence that the previous law caused any problem whatsoever, and so what is the point of this bill? Why are we reversing it? The truth is it’s not about evidence; it’s completely about ideology.

In 2018, when Labour amended the Employment Relations Act to remove pay deductions for partial strikes, we did so to restore that balance and working relationships in the workplace. We recognised that industrial action is a fundamental right for working Kiwis in New Zealand. We understood that partial strikes are a legitimate and a proportionate way for workers to express their dissatisfaction without resorting to the full withdrawing of labour. This Government’s proposal will remove that option. It will force unions and workers into the binary choice: either stay silent or go full noise and strike. That is dangerous. It’s dangerous for working relations, but it’s also dangerous to productivity. I really fear that this will undermine New Zealand’s productivity down the line. It does not promote industrial harmony; it just escalates conflict. My concern is that is the intent of what this bill is there for.

The likely result of this law will not result in any fewer disruptions, and we’ve heard that. We heard that in the submissions. We heard it from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. One of their quotes I liked the most was “This will escalate disputes, it will tip the balance of power even further in favour of employers, and it will lead to more litigation and prolonged industrial conflict at the expense of both workers and also employers.” It’s absurd that a Government would introduce a bill that increases the risk of full strike action in the middle of a cost of living crisis and looming industrial negotiations.

I’d like to conclude by saying that, on this side of the House, we believe that workers deserve dignity, fairness, and the right to take reasonable proportional industrial action. We believe in collective bargaining. We believe that strong employment relationships should be grounded in respect, not fear. But this Government—they’re rolling back fair pay agreements, 90-day trials, and now they’re targeting unionised workers with legislation that will make it easier to intimidate and punish workers. Make no mistake, this is not the end; this is part of a wider pattern, a pattern that attacks the most basic protections that working people rely on. I want to speak directly to those workers watching this debate—nurses, teachers, emergency responders, cleaners, and everyone else who keeps this country running—we hear you and we see the work you do, and we know this law is not about fairness; it’s about control and it’s about weakening your voice. Labour opposes this bill because we believe in partnership. We believe that the employment relationship works best when there is trust, when there is dialogue, and when there is a fair playing field. To the Government—if they really wanted fewer strikes, they would be investing in good-faith bargaining and equitable pay and settlements, not this rubbish.

Let me close with this thought: the right to strike is not an inconvenience to be legislated away; it is a cornerstone of a democratic society—and, without it, there is no balance, no accountability, and no justice in the workplace.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): The principle is simple: a full day’s work equals a full day’s pay; a partial day’s work equals a partial day’s pay. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Well, it’s a pleasure to be able to have the right of reply after that speech, because basically everything that the last speaker, Grant McCallum, said was wrong in relation to this bill. It is not a full day’s pay for a full day’s work or a partial day’s pay for a partial day’s work. This particular piece of legislation means that even if you do a full day’s work, you can receive only 90 percent of your usual earnings, even if you do every single thing in your employment agreement. So that is totally wrong, Mr McCallum, and I think you’re aware of the fact that it’s not as straightforward as it seems, this particular bill.

This particular bill, as colleagues have said, has come after a myriad of anti-worker legislation that has been passed by this House. It feels a little bit like Groundhog Day. We’re here again, we’re nearing 10 p.m., we’re under urgency, and we are discussing backward legislation that only takes workers and employers backward in New Zealand.

This particular bill that we’re discussing tonight has absolutely zero evidence that it will work. I’ve read all the documents, I’ve read the departmental disclosure statement, I’ve read the regulatory impact statement, I’ve read the departmental report, and there’s absolutely nothing in there that says that this legislation will do anything other than inconvenience New Zealanders more and take pay away from hard-working Kiwis. That is all that we know, as a result of the select committee process and as a result of the evidence provided to us by officials, this bill will allow you to do 1 percent less work and receive 10 percent less pay.

This bill will mean that if you wear a badge or a T-shirt with a political message and still do all your work, your employer can deduct 10 percent of your wages, and those wages can be deducted by up to 10 percent even if you’re on the minimum wage. So this bill allows New Zealanders to be paid less than the minimum wage. The minimum standard we have for remuneration for adults in this country will be taken backwards, will be cut during a cost of living crisis at a time where things are tough for New Zealanders, when it’s difficult to even get a job. This Government is making those jobs worth even less for New Zealanders. It is a shameful act that they have done this.

You may say—

Arena Williams: Did anyone think this was a good idea?

CAMILLA BELICH: —and it’s a good question that my colleague raises: did anyone think that this was a good idea? Well, I went and I checked the departmental report, and I looked at the submissions that we received, and I can tell you that 97 percent of submissions received by this Parliament on this bill oppose this bill.

Arena Williams: That’s 606!

CAMILLA BELICH: So 606 submissions in opposition to this bill. Basically, no one supported this bill. It was not called on by anyone. It was brought into place by a Government that simply wanted to attack workers and give employers tools that they didn’t want, to hurt their employees more. It is totally retrospective. The Minister herself said that we’re going back in time, and we are. This is a backward step for workers, and it will result—and this is what we heard at select committee: we heard that it’s much more likely to result in a full removal of labour.

When we talk about the inconveniences of strike action—and strikes are meant to be inconvenient, that is the entire purpose of them. But when we look at what’s more inconvenient, a partial strike that people do because they know that they can do that and they can make their point and their wages won’t be touched, or a full withdrawal of labour, I know which one’s going to be more inconvenient when you’re talking about accessing medical services. I know which one’s going to be more inconvenient when I’m a parent wanting to drop my child off at school. This bill takes us backwards. It does absolutely nothing.

Before I end, I think it’s important that we recognise how retrograde this particular bill is by looking at the actual advice provided by officials on this. The officials themselves said that this bill will result in a disproportionate use in relation to low-level strike action. This was why the last Government repealed this legislation: “disproportionate use for low-level strike action”. This Government’s bringing it back. It will bring back unfairness and it will take workers’ wages down.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Restoring pay deduction provisions supports the Government’s commitment to improving public services and maintaining service quality during industrial action, so I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I’d like to give you a different example from one that I’ve used with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety at the start of my speech. It, again, comes from my background in employment law. One of my many clients was the midwives union. They had a situation with midwives where you know that we don’t have very many of them—there’s not enough. We’ve had issues with safe staffing levels of midwives. So we had a situation where those midwives were in a position where they couldn’t strike in the ordinary way of withdrawing labour, because they could not actually leave their post, because they had an obligation to staff safely.

What this legislation means, from what I can see, is that if those midwives want to take an action which is much more moderate than that—they want to wear a badge or they want to do some part of the job where they think, “This isn’t going to affect safety and so I can put that part aside and that can be my strike action”—they will have their pay deducted 10 percent. Midwives are people who work incredibly hard—we have enormous amounts of burnout. It’s a very stressful job. They have just been subject to the changes that the Government’s made in terms of pay equity—so we have compounded the problem of low pay in this area—and they have just had another way that they might be able to show their concern taken away from them.

We have strikes as part of an order of business. It’s not something that just comes out of the blue; it’s a built-up structure where we have strikes and we have lockouts and we have bargaining that happens within a certain time frame. So we have a time when you can strike and a time when you can’t. And because we are organised in the way we are organised, the whole population buys into something that would otherwise not work for us.

We’ve moved from a situation where there used to be random strikes and there used to be suits against people and businesses. We’ve moved from that situation to a well-organised situation where people give up certain rights at certain times so they can have those rights in bargaining; they can organise around it. What is happening here is that we are playing with fire.

If you take away the levers from people, what do you get? Well, the first thing that you get is that all the moderate actions that people want to take—and there’s a lot of us who would be hesitant to strike—they tend to be the people who have got less confidence. Your very confident, stroppy workers might strike; but your, often, female workers, low-paid workers, are less likely to. So you’re taking the power away from that very group that is the one you want to be able to progress a claim.

Now, I did talk about my bus driver case. I talked about these bus drivers—

Grant McCallum: Repetition!

HELEN WHITE: —who were—and it’s not fiction. It absolutely happened, sir.

I talked about those bus drivers because those bus drivers were actually being treated in a way I was shocked by. They already had split shifts. That meant that in the morning they worked because we all needed to get to work. They sat around for four hours in the middle of the day not being paid—and they got no money at that time and they were stranded in town for four hours because it wasn’t enough time to go home and come back in—and then they worked this shift after that, taking people home again. They were not being paid very much. At that time, my recall was it was about $18 an hour. That was what they were doing, and they weren’t taking their toilet breaks because this inconvenienced the New Zealand public because there was nowhere for them to stop. If they did that, it was going to delay the bus service and people weren’t going to get to work on time. That’s what they were doing.

They are the kinds of workers I want to protect. I want them to have ways to express themselves which actually engage with the public in their terms and conditions in making them understand. When we wrote the strike notice and they had to do that because any action—any action; that’s not a non-strike action, that’s an action—to say that you’re going to take your toilet breaks. So we wrote the strike notice about that. As a result of that, those workers were locked out. As a result of an inquiry by the New Zealand Herald, the New Zealand Herald understood that that was not fair on those workers and wrote an editorial which said it was not fair. As a result of that single action, the public understood these drivers needed to be paid more. That’s what happened as a result of a partial strike.

Now, tell me that that is not in the interests of the New Zealand public. It was so much better than a situation where the workers struck, had no money, the company blamed them completely for what had gone on, they ended up on the other side of things—and those workers would never have won that dispute in that way. They were smart, but they were also fair. They took the least possible action to inconvenience people for the maximum benefit. That’s smart and I’m proud of them for doing it, and it was one of those disputes that got sorted out and changed people’s lives. Actually, that’s what puts food on the table.

We hear from this coalition Government over and over again how they believe in giving people a hand up and people helping themselves. They don’t want charity. Isn’t that exactly why we need strong labour relations where people can take actions like this in this sort of situation? Because nobody wants charity in that way. They want to earn a decent living, and they need to be able to do it by using this tool in the tool box. This tool is a good tool in the tool box. What is going to happen now is that this Government—because it’s fanatical about unions and it’s got no sense of the actual value of workers—is going to stop this happening, and there’s going to be an unintended consequence. The unintended consequence is that people will have no other option but to strike in a complete way.

The other unintended consequence is that people will lose faith in Government. They will totally lose faith.

And the third unintended consequence is that people will get poorer. People at the bottom end—who haven’t got much power, who are hesitant to strike fully—those are our low-income workers; those are our people without a lot of confidence. They will be the ones who become poorer. In this country, we have a problem. We have a problem of poverty. It’s going to be an unintended consequence that affects our children.

We already have a report out in conjunction with our Budget which says the levels of child poverty are going up in this country, not down, under this Government. We already had that happening and, on top of it, we lay another law—another law to crush anybody who wants to wear a badge or a T-shirt or express their view or take their toilet break or put a button on because they’re a midwife who is already under the pump.

None of those things is allowed anymore because this Government, which said it was going to help people in a cost of living crisis, has other priorities. It wants to ignore the reality of people’s lives and pretend it’s all part of a beautiful trickle-down situation. I wish I could say that I had any faith in that view; that it’s all going to come down to people, but it’s not. Our job is to make sure that we do our job; that we help people from our seat. And this abandons people to poverty.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I commend the bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, and what a disgraceful bill this is.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a split call from the previous round—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a split call for—

Dana Kirkpatrick: —so it should be a five-minute call, not a 10-minute—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A five-minute call—a split call. That will be why it’s saying it’s five minutes up there.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I seek leave for an extra five minutes, for a 10-minute call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Guys—guys.

Well, more disgraceful behaviour from this Government, which doesn’t even want to listen to the views of anyone who opposes them, not even the workers who are trying to raise legitimate issues in their workplace. They will have to pay for that now. Like me being denied the ability to speak for another five minutes, the young people in businesses around this country will not be able to raise their concerns. In fact, they will have to pay for it—pay 10 percent of their wages—if they want to have a say.

This is ACT Party ideology at its worst, and it’s a race to the bottom. This is a Government that says it’s going for growth. Does it call growth the suppression of the wages of young people and vulnerable workers? Because that is exactly what this bill does.

Young people will bear the brunt of this because the minimum wage is the de facto wage for young people in any advanced economy. The minimum wage is what young people make when they are in their first job, and this minimum wage will be further cut. It will be cut from the minimum legal wage for adults and young adults if they are trying to raise their concerns.

I want to tell you a story, a story about my best mate, Melissa Cosgrove, who—

Grant McCallum: Is it an exciting story?

ARENA WILLIAMS: She was a Timaru meatworker in her first job—you’ll like this one, Grant McCallum. She worked at a meatworks close to the heart of many a community in the mid-Canterbury region. She didn’t have the worst job in the factory, because her dad was also a meatworker—and that’s how it works in the industry. You’ve got to stick with your line of work in the families, and the Cosgroves from Timaru are a meatworkers’ family. They’re a well-unionised family, as well.

She wasn’t on the slaughterboard or on the chains, Mr McCallum, but she was in the offal room, which was considered a good job, and much better than the yard. So she was lucky to get that job, and she worked really hard. For two summers, she had that job, as a teenaged young woman, and it was pretty hard in those jobs. There aren’t many young women who work in them. But of those who get into the job because their family are in that line of work—and it pays pretty well, especially when you’ve been doing it for a bit. Especially if you’re a young person in a training opportunity, or you’re going to university and trying to put a bit of money away in your summer that you can then cover your costs, this is a good line to be in if you’re a young person.

But the thing was that, for her, over two successive summers, in the job that she was working in with the other young women in that factory, the line that she was working on with those young women—because they were separated from the other workers—was really, really far from the women’s changing rooms. You can imagine that when you’re working in the offal room, you’ve got your big gloves on, you’ve got your white boots on, you’ve got your apron, you’ve got your covering over the top—a little apron over your shoulders—and then you’re using your hands all day.

It’s physical work and it’s back-breaking work because you’re standing on your feet all day, so when your tea break comes up, you are thrilled. As a 19-year-old, you are going to race back to your locker way down the other end of the room, and you are going to get out your little Snap Lock bag with your bickies and your hot flask and you are going to have such a good break.

But for these young women, they were up the other end. Their changing room was way down one side because there were not many women working there at all, so in their 15-minute break, they would make their way from the chains. The bells would go, and they would make their way down the other side. It took about three minutes to get there in their gumboots. They’d take off their gumboots, take off the gloves, take off the top, and leave the apron on, even though you’re covered in muck—you’re covered in absolute, literal muck from the offal line, and I won’t repeat what was actually on it. Melissa would like to have a shandy and tell us all about it, but I won’t tell you tonight because it would gross some people out.

But she’d make her way down there, get her kit off, and by the time she’d gotten her kit off, it was about eight minutes—that was as fast as she could possibly do it, and this was by moving really quickly. She would then go into her bag, bring out her lunch, eat it as quickly as she possibly could, and then go to the bathroom, and the problem was that these young women had absolutely no time to go to the toilet. If they were menstruating, they had no time to deal with that situation for themselves in the only break that they had.

So, for about a week, every time she would go back to the line, she would take an extra five minutes, and her boss told her—this 19-year-old woman, who had fought really hard for this job that is better than being in the yard and is better than what her dad had for seven years when he worked at that meatworks—that she was striking. She was 19 years old and she was doing her best, and she had a boss that was taking advantage of her because she was a vulnerable worker. This bill would mean that her pay was cut, too.

This bill is a race to the bottom for young people who don’t know that they’re being abused by their crap bosses. It’s about people who are just trying to get ahead to put a bit of money away for their university degrees. The National Party should not be standing for a race to the bottom on wages for young people.

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

Bills

Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I move, That the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to be leading this bill through its final stage in the House. I particularly want to acknowledge the bravery of victims who have shared the personal experiences that have shaped this bill. Our Government has been clear from day one that when it comes to law and order, victims are our priority. It underpins all the work we do to achieve our two key targets: 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029—something we’re currently tracking ahead of—and a 15 percent reduction youth offending, which we know we’re closing in on. This bill further builds on our plan, which we know is working.

I’d like to briefly outline the issues under the current law and how this bill addresses them. The purpose of this bill is to improve the experience of sexual violence victims who are participating in criminal justice proceedings. Specifically, it addresses two issues these victims face during proceedings. The first issue is deeply disturbing. Right now, under the Crimes Act, it is possible for victims to be questioned in court about whether they consented to or even enjoyed sexual abuse that happened to them when they were under 12 years old, as part of deciding whether that abuse was a crime. This experience is unacceptable and is especially harmful if the complainant is still a child during proceedings.

The second issue is that the current settings for name suppression are confusing and out of step with what most people would expect. In too many cases, victims do not automatically get interim name suppression, causing victims additional distress. The current settings can also end up silencing victims who would like to talk about their experiences, because the court has the final say on whether to supress the offender’s name. This situation leaves victims unable to speak out or warn others, even though the offender has been convicted. That is not justice. That is a system that protects silence over safety and, once again, takes choice away from the victims.

The bill addresses these problems by making it clear that the age-specific offence of sexual conduct with a child must be used when the person was under 12 at the time of the offending, aligning the maximum penalty for sexual conduct with a child under 12 with the maximum sentence for sexual violation: 20 years imprisonment. Clarifying the process for victims lifting their own name suppression by including the process in the criminal procedure rules; extending victims’ automatic interim name suppression to all crimes of a sexual nature, including offences related to intimate visual recordings; only allowing permanent name suppression for people convicted of sexual violent offences if the victim agrees.

Two additional changes were made by select committee to clause 6A to clarify that victims’ agreement to name suppression orders is only applicable for permanent orders and not interim orders, and require that all reasonable measures are taken to contact the victim to seek their views on the offender’s name suppression. I want to thank the members of the Justice Committee for their work on this bill; and the victims, their support people, and their advocates, who shared their experiences and insights. Your input has been key to the development of this bill.

The Government has heard from victims and their advocates that name suppression settings have disempowered victims, prevented victims from speaking out about their experiences, and prevented victims from warning others. We have also heard that the way children are questioned in court is not acceptable to New Zealanders. This bill responds to those concerns. The changes we are making are about one thing: protecting and empowering victims. This bill makes it crystal clear that children cannot consent to abuse. This bill empowers victims with choice and it makes sure their voice is heard loudly and clearly. Children under 12 years old cannot consent to sexual activity, full stop. It should never be a defence to say they enjoyed it or agreed to it.

These changes will better protect some of our most vulnerable victims who are being brave enough to come forward to talk about their experience in a courtroom. The changes to name suppression are a powerful step forward. They restore dignity, choice, and control to those who have had it taken away from them. Let me be absolutely clear: these changes do not force victims to decide whether their abuser’s name is published. If they don’t want to make that decision, they don’t have to. The bill doesn’t impose it; it empowers.

The bill will come into force four months from the date of Royal assent. The Government’s message is this: it is abhorrent that the law allows questions about whether children enjoyed or agreed to sexual activity. We are fixing that. It is unconscionable that victims feel silenced by our laws, especially when they have braved the scrutiny of the court process to prove their case. We are fixing that too. This Government firmly believes in centring victims, and it is my pleasure to be here today, championing these much-needed changes. I commend this bill to the House.

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

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I was not in the select committee process for this, because I’ve just picked up this portfolio. It’s one of those portfolios that you pick up and your heart is heavy with it immediately. You know the weight of it because it is such a serious issue in our society. Lots of us know people who have been impacted by this kind of violence towards them. It’s a terrible ride; it’s not an easy process through our justice system. We absolutely have to do more to address the way that we treat victims. We also have to, I think, look beyond our justice system, in terms of how we treat those victims, because court is a small part of what we probably need to do.

There’s a lot of work to be done, I think, on first picking up this portfolio, in the area of education. We have some pretty strange views out there in the world about consent and what is acceptable. One of those views is the view that people could enjoy or consent to this behaviour at a very young age, and, unfortunately, it’s not something that has happened occasionally; it has happened habitually—that people have used this kind of defence when they have abused a child. That is something that has come to the attention of many of us in the legislature because people have come and complained about the old law.

I remember talking to a group about this, who were explaining this issue in the law to me and how the way that the matter was prosecuted had different penalties in it, one of which was lighter than the other. If the matter was prosecuted under the lighter law, it wasn’t necessary to prove the consent issue; so it was being chosen. Effectively, the person was getting a lighter prosecution, a lighter sentence, because those prosecuting didn’t want to put a child under this extra scrutiny and have this extra defence raised. That was an unacceptable situation, and I’m very pleased to see this law amend that today. That’s a really important thing that’s happening today, and the Labour Party is supporting that change.

With regard to name suppression, I do see the issue with regard to automatic name suppression tending to feel, often, like a disempowering act to a victim. I think that is an absolutely valid point of view. But the issue is more complicated than that, because the sad reality is there are often more victims than one. There are often more victims than one. If this has happened in a family, it may be that there will be two sisters, and one sister will be the person who has asked about the suppression issue, but the other one will be equally impacted by the result of it. There may well be two different views in that situation. So it is a much more complicated thing, and hence you’ll see, in the report, the Labour Party take a more nuanced view on this issue. It is a difficult matter. It’s hard to reconcile that issue.

One of the things that I think we need to remember is that we also place a lot of weight on someone, particularly someone young, making a choice like that. Because they live in a community, there is real weight attached to such decisions, and there is also going to be family pressure. All of those issues are going to be difficult, and so it may well be that this part of the law doesn’t necessarily have the impact that we hope to see by it; hence the reservations that have been expressed by the Labour Party members who were part of this select committee.

There were real concerns from the Law Society about this aspect of the bill. I always take real notice of those submissions, because I think that you have people giving submissions in those circumstances who’ve worked a long time in an area and they’ve seen a lot of different scenarios. I don’t think that the arguments they’re putting up are academic ones that we should dismiss; I think we should respect anybody who works in these areas long term, because they bring all those layers of experience in. I don’t believe there’s a kind of dichotomy between listening to the victim and listening to the people who have been expert in those fields. It’s very important we do listen to them. I take on board that there will be people out there who’ve got serious reservations about this aspect of the law, but today we’re going to support this law going through, and it is very much part of something that, I hope, will be a much bigger focus on sexual violence in New Zealand and trying to eradicate it and support those who have experienced it.

I just wanted to talk, lastly, about the seriousness of that situation. I went to something today which was on the marae just down the road, and it was about sexual and family violence. It was a group of people who are being disbanded that were advising the Government. One of the people spoke up in the group and said that sexual violence was misunderstood in this country—that people didn’t have a clue how bad it was; how most New Zealanders would be horrified if they knew how prevalent it is. I have to agree. I think we’re moving into a society with new dangers, with regard to this, one of which is the area of digital development, where kids are playing games that involve sexual violence and it’s changing and making them less realistic. It’s changing their norms. I think we will have to think about sexual violence more widely and differently than we have. It is going to matter, not just to do things like this but to think very widely about how committed we are to eradicating this problem in our society and spend some money on educating our kids about what’s wrong with it. We are entering a new world and people don’t know.

What that man made me think today was that it’s not just our kids; it’s a society that has thought, in the past, it was appropriate to argue that there were people liking this who were under 12. It’s that society; it’s throughout our society. It’s our children, but it’s also our adults who need to understand just how bad this problem is and how harmful it is. We really need to spend some money on it. We really do. We hear a lot from this Government about wasted spending. Well, I hope I never hear those words used about this. I just wanted to remind this House that there was no money spent for the Minister who was in charge of family and sexual violence work—no Budget bid, no extra money this term—and I hope that that gets reviewed. Thank you.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in strong support of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, an incredibly important piece of legislation designed to enhance the legal safeguards for victims of sexual violence within our justice system. This bill is a testament to our collective commitment to ensuring that survivors of sexual violence are treated with dignity, with respect, and with autonomy when navigating the complex and often retraumatising legal processes.

The key aspect of the bill—well, there are a few parts of this bill. We’re looking at the impact of sexual violence on children. We’re looking at strengthening those legal protections for all victims of sexual violence, and empowering victims to have control over name suppression, and ensuring a fair and consistent process for those name suppression applications. Then, of course, it’s where to from here? How do we prevent this violence from ever happening? We have some really amazing cross-party, cross-agency work there with Te Aorerekura, which was, of course, stewarded by the Hon Marama Davidson.

A key aspect of this bill is the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961, which introduces a crucial change regarding the offence of sexual violations for victims under 12. Oh, I know that we all feel this really heavily when we hear that “for victims under 12”. It seems so obvious, and I’m glad, today, we are bringing our legislation, our laws, into line with what is right.

The bill’s new definition is “sexual connection with a child”, ensuring that the legal processes better reflect the vulnerability of young victims. This change acknowledges the profound harm caused to children. The reason that we’re doing this is to reduce the risk of subjecting them to those invasive and distressing and retraumatising questions around sexual consent in court, including, in some cases, being asked disgusting questions like, “Did you enjoy it?”—absolutely appalling. I’m so glad that we are protecting those victims who are 12 and under.

It is an important step in protecting our tamariki and aligning the maximum penalty for this offence with that of sexual violation towards adults by removing the possibility of victims under the age of 12 being cross-examined in court around these very invasive questions and this questioning, and we send a clear message that our justice system is committed to prioritising the safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable in our society, our tamariki.

In addition to these changes, the bill also addresses critical issues around name suppression. This was a key theme that came through in the submissions in select committee. I do just want to take the time to thank everybody who submitted and who went back over their own trauma and the people who are working with these traumatised people and survivors. Thank you for taking the time to write in submissions. Thank you also to the people who came in and gave oral hearings. It was so important for us to really strengthen this bill and make it really workable in our justice system. I do take my hat off to the Justice Committee as well for working together on this bill.

One of those key themes that came through, of course, was around name suppression. Currently, automatic name suppression is only provided for victims of certain sexual offences, leaving victims of other sexual crimes, such as intimate visual recordings. This is inconsistent and creates a situation where some victims may be exposed without their consent or even awareness. For many victims, the fear of being publicly named can be deeply, deeply distressing and contribute to further trauma, and we want to reduce that. That’s why the Greens strongly support the extension of automatic name suppression to all victims of sexual violence. We know that being publicly named can cause further trauma, and we want to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

During the select committee stage, we heard very clearly that an equally important provision in this bill is one that gives victims greater control over decisions regarding that name suppression. This bill will promote that the victim’s view will be paramount when considering the suppression of a convicted defendant’s identity. No permanent name suppression could be granted without the victim’s agreement, except in cases where the victim is unreachable or unable to engage. We think that this is a really important change because this empowers victims and acknowledges their agency in determining how they wish to engage with the legal process. This is something we heard, over and over, really strongly from a range of submitters in select committee.

Another one of the themes that we heard at select committee from our submitters was around the fair and consistent processes. That’s what this bill is aiming to do. It is aiming to create more consistent and transparent processes for lifting that automatic name suppression. This aligns to ensure that victims who wish to lift this name suppression can do so more easily and, in a way, that’s consistent with rules that are already in place. This is about good lawmaking; it’s about listening to our communities, listening to the people who have been the most affected, and ensuring that our laws are in line with the realities faced by people who have been victimised and assayed.

I want to acknowledge, again, the extensive and really important work of the Justice Committee, which scrutinised this bill and worked really hard together to enhance the legislation. I’m really proud of the work that we have done together. It’s been a critical contribution to improving the framework within these legal protections.

Of course, in concluding and talking about the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, it’s an important and necessary step and reform that will improve our justice system. We want to make sure that we are strengthening those legal protections for our vulnerable victims and survivors. We also must recognise that there is still so much more work to be done. That’s where things like Te Aorerekura come in, that prevention of family and sexual violence. Te Aorerekura is about eliminating family and sexual violence. That’s why it is a cross-agency initiative that works together to ensure that prevention work is happening across the board. We want to continue to see the Government put its money where its mouth is and really invest in prevention and in the community services and community providers who are ensuring that there are these programmes and that there is education out there and support wrapped around these whānau. We must continue to work together to create a future where survivors and victims are supported and prevention is at the heart of our efforts.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on the third reading of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. As has already been said tonight, we’re proud to be part of a Government that actually is victim focused, and we’ve actually put a target on reducing victimisations in New Zealand. What this bill does is—really, it is about improving the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, particularly those victims of sexually based offences, which are particularly heinous and unpleasant. It makes two really important but simple changes. It makes sure that the victims of sexual offending under 12 are appropriately treated in the criminal justice system, and we’ve heard some talk about that tonight. So we’re making sure that those vulnerable children are appropriately protected as a prosecution is happening. It makes these really important changes around name suppression, and, particularly, allowing victims to speak out if they want. That’s the key thing: empowering victims to be able to speak out if they want, by clarifying the process under which they can lift name suppression. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. The introductory Minister has given an outstanding outline of what this piece of legislation is. It is important we get this into law, and we commend the bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This is something that we do support from the Green Party because of the fact that although they are considered reasonably minor, they make really meaningful changes to people’s lives and to people who should not be subjected to additional trauma or be put through repetitive traumatisation as a result of something like this.

So just two particular elements of this bill that we wanted to address. The first one is, rightfully, when we’re looking at amending the Crimes Act 1961 so that the offence of sexual violation cannot be charged if the victim is under 12 years old, which then would reduce the risk that the child would undergo questioning about certain content when giving evidence in the court. I think this is something that even during the committee stage was something that the House broadly had clear consensus over.

I think the other thing when we are looking at the second part of this bill, again, we wanted around the automatic name suppression for complainants in sexual cases—we want to draw back to the work that could be done and the work that is intended to be done by Te Aorerekura, the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. Again, that particular action plan and documentation is something that is going to move towards addressing this really concerning and systemic issue here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

So, specifically, one of the things that we looked at during the committee stage is around some of the details and potentially some of the improvement or consistency that’s been met as a result of this. I think, for Part 2 in particular, when we were looking at the Criminal Procedure Act, which talks about the automatic name suppression for complaints cases, that we have heard from survivors and victims and from complainants that they do not need to have such protection and find that applying to lift the suppression can be a slow and difficult and expensive process, which, again, reinforces the idea that we are looking at people who have suffered a lot—and are potentially retraumatised—as a result of this process.

I think—again, I know I mentioned it in previous speeches as well, but I really want to draw the House’s attention again to Gisèle Pelicot, who bravely lifted her name suppression against her husband in France and is able to bravely talk about her story and experience, so that way it raises a nationwide campaign, highlighting the concerns around sexual violence in France. I think this is a really, really good example of different people wanting to get through and reclaim themselves and feel a sense of empowerment in different ways, and name suppressions may not be able to achieve that.

We did, however, ask the Minister a couple of specifically nuanced questions and we did manage to get some responses from the Minister around what happens when there are two complainants and one decides to lift name suppression while the other doesn’t. Those are kind of the things that potentially may play out in situations and may not be anticipated as a result of the regulatory impact statement or the introduction of this bill. We are quite happy with the way that the Minister conducted themselves and being able to respond to our questions.

So, again, overall, the Green Party is supportive of this bill, as we have been supportive of other bills that strengthen protection against the most vulnerable communities and the most vulnerable parts of our communities. It could be this, it could be litigant abuse, it could be other forms of family violence that we’re looking at, but ultimately these are kind of the things that we really need to be looking more towards when we’re introducing bills to this House—how we can have equitable treatment, being victim-centric, and have better access to justice. So, with that, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will support this bill.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m just going to take a short call on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This is a rare occasion when the House comes together on an issue that is really important. I’ve personally, and I know many other members have also, acknowledged the courage of the submitters. I think many of them had a lot of courage in talking about it. Dr XuNan just talked about a case in France, but only just last weekend, 21 June, we had our own case being revealed in the New Zealand Herald about two daughters who’d been abused by their father. They were taking the opportunity to be clear and open about what had happened to them, and I think this is a bill that helps them stand up for their rights. That is why it’s such a great occasion to be standing in this House, talking about this bill, and to see it passing the legislation very shortly. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. So this bill does two different things. It clarifies law in the area where there are sexual crimes, and there’s two separate offences specified where it makes an offence to have sexual connection with a child or a person defined as under 12. Consent is not relevant under section 132(1), but under section 132(2) it explicitly states that consent is not a defence, which means harmful lines of questioning are less likely to be pursued.

However, despite the age-specific offence being available, rape or unlawful sexual connection with a child is often charged as sexual violation under section 128B, inserted by clause 4, and under this section, lack of consent and lack of reasonable belief and consent are key elements that may be proved. Therefore, children could be cross-examined about whether they wanted, asked for, or even enjoyed sexual activity. So what this legislation does is it makes sure that sexual violation carries a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment, whereas sexual connection with a child had only 14. So it brings them into line and it stops children being asked if they consented to sexual abuse or rape. So this was first looked at by both Camilla Belich and Emily Henderson when we were in Government, and they relentlessly pursued this with the Minister of Justice at the time, to the point where they finally agreed to put it in a bill. So it’s a good example of backbenchers taking up an issue and relentlessly pursuing it to see a legal change.

The second area that this covers is the area of name suppression. Before I go into that, I’d just like to quickly relay a personal story from when I first started working at New Zealand Police. One of the areas I was working in, a senior adviser to me lay out a roll of paper and it was about three A3s altogether. So it stretched right out. They rolled it out and they said, “That is a rape trial, Ginny. That’s a timeline from the point of charging to conviction of a rape trial.” That’s still the case in New Zealand. It takes years to go through a rape trial. Women are still questioned about details of their life and retraumatised through the criminal justice system to the point where it prevents people from reporting sexual violence because the process of holding the offender to account is so traumatising that it actually puts people off from reporting and enabling justice to happen.

So this is a small step with these provisions. These are small steps to try and make that traumatic process slightly less traumatic. But we have a really long way to go to enable a system which enables victims to want to come forward and to give evidence and be treated fairly before the court, but also to have their dignity retained through that process. I would like to acknowledge everyone who’s had to go through that process. It is a very difficult one indeed. I’d like to acknowledge that there had been some good changes made in terms of the way Whangārei and the court they run up there, in terms of how the courtroom is set up, how victims are treated, how evidence is given, and enabling victims to come forward and tell their stories in a way in which they’re not traumatised.

We already made changes; what would happen is someone would be questioned about their sexual history, about their promiscuity around what they were wearing. Those sorts of questionings were able to be made. So there’s already been changes made around that to be more in line with the UK. So some of these changes are just a few of the ones that we made when in Government. This is actually the last couple of bills that I introduced as the Minister of Justice, that are getting their final reading now.

We do have some concerns with the provisions in and around name suppression, and there’s been some excellent examples given of cases where—whether it’s France or I think of the Mama Hooch cases in Christchurch—victims stepped up and were pleased to be able to hold their offender to account publicly. They have every right to be able to do that. But that is their choice and their ability to do that. We, along with other advocates in the sector, have raised some concerns about the pressure being placed on victims to have, effectively, a veto right on whether name suppression will be provided or not to the accused. So those reservations have been highlighted.

The one in particular is that there is more stress or pressure because of the weight of that decision and that there could be victims that are exposed from other family members who have a vested interest in getting a conviction of the person in the dock. There’s no bottom age limit in this bill where victims could be consulted, which could potentially result in children being given the decision power despite potentially not fully understanding the consequences. So there are some concerns there.

There’s also an issue in and around multiple victims. It is unclear what would happen in the situation where there is intergenerational sexual offending. There are cases where this occurs, where there is a small community in New Zealand where there is a known sexual offender who has committed sexual offending against three generations. There’s been instances where that has occurred. So while some of those older victims of that sexual offending may well want that sexual offender’s name to be made public, there may be younger members who are still at school who have the same last name and don’t want that to occur. So that’s a real concern as to how that would be weighed up, because there’d be some strong views that they should be called out, but as long as the interests of all those victims are being weighed up, we really hope that that occurs. We would really dislike for this to prolong the trauma of sexual violence within our justice system, which is already—as I’ve explained—incredibly traumatic for victims of sexual violence.

The policy process of developing the name suppression amendments in this bill was quite concerning, and part of the reason why this bill has come halfway through this Government’s term, when it was introduced by our Government back in 2023—it is because the Minister of Justice took quite a bit of time to take a look at name suppression and to make those changes. It was held up for close to a year while he did that. So we still have some concerns around that policy process. I felt it was important to put it on the record, about what was the process to arrive at this decision. It’s well and good to say that you support victims and you’re doing this for victims, but we should talk to victims and the people who work alongside of those people and take into account those views.

The officials in their advice to the committee stated that the Minister directed us to consider adding the proposal to the bill that, before the court can grant a permanent name suppression to a person convicted of sexual crime, it must have the agreement of the victim of that crime. They state that: “We did not have access to a fully detailed problem definition.”—this is problematic—“We have discussed the proposal with the Minister to better understand his intention, and to more clearly define the problem. However, we were not able to obtain full context or clarity.” This is after they spoke to him—“We have therefore made some assumptions in our assessment of the proposal.” So it’s great that you’ve clearly done something to help victims, but the officials themselves have stated that this was not done with a clear problem definition.

So, yes, we support this bill, but we have some real concerns that it hasn’t been done with a full, thorough analysis of what the problem is you are solving, which, to be honest, is quite typical of this Government.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very good piece of legislation, and I would also particularly like to acknowledge the courage of the submitters. I would commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s disappointing that we’ve got an important bill here about matters that are important and we’ve got a Government that’s putting this to the House and its members have got fundamentally—Mike Butterick had nothing to say. It’s just really disappointing.

Look, this bill raises difficult and challenging issues. The bill as it was presented to the select committee was relatively straightforward in making it clear that, essentially, consent should never be a defence when there is sex with a child. That’s a good amendment. We entirely support it. Then halfway through the process, an Amendment Paper was introduced and put to select committee, which introduced a pretty significant change. That was what can best be called the right of a veto to name suppression by a victim. At first blush, that looked very like a very good idea; that, if you’re a victim of a sexual offence, you get to choose whether or not the perpetrator gets name suppression. In many cases, that will work and that’s all well and good.

But as Ginny Anderson has just said, life can be a little more complex than that, and when we’ve got multiple victims, some of whom are of age and some who are not, it becomes a lot more complicated. When we’ve got offending across family members, where not all family members accept, sadly, that the perpetrator is the wrongdoer, life becomes a lot more complex. The difficulties, the possibilities of pressure being brought to bear of the victim’s life being made more difficult by this reform is real. We think that this is a blunt approach. We support this bill because overall, in sum, it’s a good reform, but we have reservations around that particular aspect of it.

The other challenge is this: it’s a philosophical challenge in some ways, but it makes the victim the judge in terms of the perpetrator, in that they get to decide what the punishment is, because name suppression or a name being published is recognised as part of the punishment. One of the aspects of the rule of law is that judges decide punishments and that between the victim and the perpetrator we have the State to decide those things, because judges can impartially balance the competing interests of parties in such situations. But this very blunt tool—the right of veto of name suppression that was introduced at a very late stage by the Minister—doesn’t recognise that. It says to the victim, “Well, you decide.” That’s actually a dereliction of duty. The State is not doing its job.

I accept that name suppression rules need work, that we haven’t struck the balance perfectly and that better direction could be given by this House to the courts, but a carte blanche to victims to say “You decide.” is putting the victims actually in a very invidious position. So that’s why we don’t support that part of the bill, but we will be voting in favour of it for the wider purposes.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a great day that we support across the House this piece of legislation. It’s been a long time coming, as previous speakers spoke about. Therefore, I’d just like to commend it to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call and speak to this very important bill that actually has some history in the House. While I’ve been out of Parliament for 18 months, I do remember the introduction of this bill to the House when it was first introduced in its first iteration, which was that first section or the first part of the bill in regard to the consent issue when it didn’t have the name suppression issue attached to it. But I didn’t leave the issue there when I left the House. I went back into legal practice and I was also involved in a project that was led by the wonderful Hon Anne Tolley and Dr Emily Henderson, who the House will be very familiar with. They, with others, were and are working on a project to identify the gaps in our legislation and policy in regards to sexual violation and sexual assault. Part of what they were working on was consent law reform, and as part of those conversations, we certainly had a lot of feedback on this issue.

So what I’d like to touch on today are the parts of this bill which we do agree with and some suggestions that were made by those who submitted to the select committee. I wasn’t there to receive those submissions, but I’ve read those submissions, some of which, I think, contain some excellent suggestions that the House must turn its mind to in due course. I will also talk about parts of the bill that we disagree with, which the Hon Duncan Webb has spoken to as well.

Part 1 of the bill amends the Crimes Act so that a person cannot be charged with the offence of sexual violation if the victim is under 12 years old. Instead, the charge would be sexual connection with a child, and this would, as other speakers have said, reduce the risk that a child must undergo questioning about sexual consent while giving evidence in court. The bill would also increase the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to align with that for sexual violation.

There are many submissions on the bill that reference the need for the bill and HELP Auckland is one of those submissions where they talk about research from the office of the Chief Victims Advisor in the report called That’s a Lie, which demonstrates that some defence lawyers have accused children of having consented in spite of presentations to the contrary, and that kind of questioning and accusation can obviously have quite serious consequences for the young person. So we do support that section of the bill.

However, HELP Auckland and YouthLaw Aotearoa also mention in their submission that there is a gap in terms of this particular issue. The YouthLaw submission says, “As a related issue we have concerns about consent still being argued in relation to young people between the ages of 12 and 15, particularly in cases like R v Christian which involved a teenage girl and a significantly older man. The maximum penalty for sexual connection with a young person is still 10 years, so that’s half of that for sexual violation under section 128(B)(1), which means that those young people in that higher age group can still be questioned about consent.”

I think that some of the submitters acknowledge that there is a policy question here in terms of young people who might be in a relationship with someone who’s just slightly older than them but older than the statutory bar, and that it is something that may involve the need for police discretion in terms of which charge is more appropriate. However, it is important for the House to consider that issue, which hasn’t been addressed in this bill.

The other issue that was raised by YouthLaw in their submission was the proposing of a review of consent more broadly and looking toward adopting a positive definition of “consent”. Now, this isn’t a new issue for us in the House. It was something that was actually raised in 2019 in a Cabinet paper on improving the justice response to victims. It was also a submission that came to the 53rd Parliament though the petition of Layba Zubair, who presented to us along with a number of experts. She was interesting. She didn’t argue for a precise change; she argued that we needed to consider whether the law of consent needed to change or not. I would certainly argue that it’s timely that the House starts to look at that.

There is an academic called Anna Hide, who is working with the Hon Anne Tolley and Dr Emily Henderson on this project, and she argues for consent law reform so that we have proactive consent. She talks in some of her writings about the fact that, in case law, judges are more willing to accept that you need proactive consent for the most part. However, we have the case of R v Christian, which, on appeal, the Supreme Court declined to read an affirmative consent standard and they said that being passive plus an X factor meant that consent could be presumed. At this time, I’m sure the Government members listening are wondering what that X factor could be. Horrifyingly, it can be that you have a history of being in a relationship with the person. So you can imagine in circumstances of domestic violence that if this were to come up in front of the court, we still at least have some case law where silence plus X, plus something like being in a relationship, could be seen as consent. So my sense is that there have been some really valuable submissions, not only on specific issues on the bill but what the bill doesn’t cover in terms of this area of sexual assault, as well.

I just want to turn briefly to the Labour members’ dissenting view, and Dr Duncan Webb has covered this in detail, but I wanted to recognise the submission of the Law Society which raised very valid concerns about the rule of law. They actually very helpfully made some proposals for a residual discretion where the judge could still exercise discretion to grant name suppression. My colleague Helen White proposed during the committee stage quite a narrow residual discretion on the basis of some of what the Law Society said. She proposed that where the identification could result in hardship or danger to the family of the victim, including whether sexual offending has occurred within the family, or where the identification could result in hardship or danger to the family of the offender, there ought still to be some residual discretion.

I was a little bit alarmed that the Government members didn’t really seem to be considering those very valid residual options that had a focus squarely on the victim. They were not the full set of proposals that the Law Society had suggested. They were focused very squarely on the victim and actually also on the offender’s family. But I thought that they were very helpful, very pragmatic suggestions that, unfortunately, were discounted.

Interestingly, some of the submitters who work in the sexual violence space also believe—well, some of them—that there should be some flexibility in this space, and I’d encourage members who have an interest to go back and read HELP’s submissions. They proposed changes such as that for young people under 16 who are complainants in those circumstances there should be automatic name suppression and that they should be able to decide later down the track, because they would face, potentially, a lot of pressure in those circumstances. Of course, as my colleague Ginny Andersen has said, where there are multiple victims that can also be a valid space for there to be residual discretion.

Finally, I just suggest to the House that this is one of those issues where it may be well worth our time to return to some of these issues in due course and just really be sure that they are working, that they are fit for purpose, and that those who are working on the front line truly believe they’re serving the needs of complainants but are also fair in terms of the rule of law.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I’m the last person to speak in the third reading of this bill, the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill; a bill that really tugged at many of our heartstrings as we listened to the submissions and we considered what so many of our tamariki have had to go through in the past. This is a child-protection-first - approach bill. This is a victim-protection-first - approach bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise as a member of the Labour Party who has worked extensively in this space to ensure that good legislation is brought to this House, to ensure the empowerment and also the voices of victims of sexual violence, as has been traversed from my colleagues on this side of the House, in terms of how this came to being in this Parliament from the previous term, and as our conversations have been had over the evening, through the committee stage, through the select committee stage, around the importance of traversing the complexities of what can be done in terms of supporting victims of sexual violence and strengthening legal protections.

Now, we have an issue in this country when it comes to sexual violence, and we need to continue working on that and we need to continue fighting that. This legislation is something that takes us a step closer and further to a nation that does what is right by victims but also doesn’t allow sexual violence to be something that’s ever condoned or accepted, but also ensuring that it’s not just something that’s hidden away, which often can be done when it comes sometimes in families who protect family members, when it comes to things like name suppression. We can do better, and I’m glad to be part of a mostly robust and engaging Parliament and lawmaking community that can actually make changes for the betterment of victims.

As I was looking through the legislation and thinking about what I could say this evening, it’s interesting to look at the changes that are being made. So we look at Part 1, that would amend the Crimes Act 1961. Think about that just in terms of the dates and what has happened and changed since the 1960s. We live in different times and this place should always be a place that is always moving and stretching and keeping up with what modern society is doing. So the fact that this legislation would amend the Crimes Act 1961 so that the offence of sexual violation cannot be charged if the victim is under 12 years old—instead, the charge would be sexual connection with a child.

Now, this would reduce the risk that a child must undergo questioning about sexual consent while giving evidence in court. We know that there’s been a track record in this country when it’s come to this process with under-12s. So it is good to make some moves and move forward in this space. The bill would also increase the maximum penalty for the offence of sexual connection with a child to align with that for sexual violation, and that is a good thing.

Secondly, as we look at Part 2, that other colleagues have talked about, it’s around amending legislation from 2011. When I was looking at that and thinking back to the culture and the time of 2011, I think of social media and the difference that time was to now, and the fact that social media was something in 2011, but it was something that was far less and far more engaged than it is now. So the fact that we look at legislation like the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which relates to name suppression, it is a good thing for us to look at working on and changing.

It’s around protecting victims. It’s around protecting their privacy, while supporting also their autonomy to have name suppression lifted if they wish. I think that is important for us to sit with: that a victim has a choice and a victim has a voice. Being someone who’s worked in this space with offenders and victims over the years, I know the fact that to have a voice and to be able to speak up as part of the healing, part of working through trauma, is the fact that you have the power restored in you.

So my colleagues have spoken about some of the challenges that we had through the select committee stage around things that we thought could be done better to improve this. But, on the whole, we think it is a good step forward for this House and for this country, and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I present a legislative statement on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I move, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 October 2025.

This is my first piece of legislation in the House, and I had a rather dramatic, flowing 10-minute eloquent speech all ready to go. But given the hour is nearing midnight—it’s 20 past 11, and we all want Reuben Davidson to get a good night’s sleep—I will curtail my first reading contributions to get to the crux of it, and that is that this bill further supports our Government’s view that the hunter-led and community-led conservation effort is the key to improving and protecting our nation’s biodiversity.

The Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill proposes a small but significant amendment to the Game Animal Council Act 2013. This amendment will provide certainty and will clarify that a herd of special interest designation can be made within national parks, as originally intended by the Act. Herds of special interest are simply herds of game animals on public conservation land that have been formally designated by the Minister to be managed for hunting purposes. The designation enables certain valued introduced species already present in a specific geographic area to be managed for qualities prized by hunters, such as the size and quality of individual animals. However, there is some ambiguity in the current legislative framework.

Specifically, Subpart 3 of the Game Animal Council Act allows the Minister to establish a herd of special interest within national parks. Now, managing a herd for hunting purposes includes maintaining a sustainable population of healthy game animals by targeting cull stags and hinds and does, and allowing strong, healthy older stags and bulls to propagate. This creates a smaller but healthier herd as having less browsing pressure and better genetics results in better, healthier animals, bigger trophies, and larger sources of protein. However, section 4 of the National Parks Act 1980 requires that introduced animals “shall as far as possible be exterminated”. It is, therefore, arguable that you cannot manage a herd of game animals for hunting purposes by completely exterminating them.

The legislation for herds of special interest needs to be clear and unambiguous in order to provide certainty around their designation, particularly those in national parks. It is our view that in passing the Game Animal Council Act back in 2013, this House was clear in its intention to be able to designate herds of special interest in national parks, and so what we are doing today is giving effect to that intention.

To address this inconsistency and to clarify that the final decision to designate a herd of special interest rests with the Minister, this bill will make a single amendment to the Act so that the National Parks Act requirement to exterminate introduced species does not apply to herds of special interest. These herds will, therefore, be able to be sustainably managed, alongside improving our conservation outcomes. The legislation will retain all the requirements for herds of special interest to be consistent with New Zealand’s wider conservation framework. This means that a herd of special interest must be consistent with, amongst other things, the preservation of indigenous species, habitats, ecosystems, and natural features, and, in fact, the wapiti case study proves this to be so.

The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation has been successfully managing red deer and wapiti populations in Fiordland National Park for decades. Not only do they undertake regular culling of deer and wapiti and manage the increasingly popular wapiti ballot during the bugle; they also maintain our huts and our tracks, and they carry out thousands of hours of trapping to better protect our vulnerable native species like the whio / blue duck on behalf of the Department of Conservation. The sustainable management of wapiti within Fiordland National Park has undoubtedly led to greater conservation outcomes than the alternative, which would be to have no involvement from hunters at all.

I could go on at length about the great benefits that our hunting population adds to our conservation sector, and I could go on at length about how the wapiti herd descends from the generous gift of American President Teddy Roosevelt in 1905, but all I will do is go on to say that this legislation provides clarity to the real champions of conservation in the deep South to continue doing what we all need them to do. I’ve met with the wapiti foundation, I’ve met with hunters across New Zealand, and I can tell you now that they love their local environment. They do what they do to ensure that it will be available for generations to come, and today I’m proud to take one more small step in the right direction to support them on that journey. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether James Meager has been to Fiordland National Park, one of our last wilderness areas—10 percent of New Zealand covered in prehistoric forest—and did you know that it’s a world UNESCO heritage area? Here is what UNESCO has to say about it: “Invasive species are the biggest impact on the property, despite their impacts being restricted to small areas of the property. Population increases of red deer as well as impacts from other browsing mammals such as wapiti, fallow deer, goat, chamois and tahr have caused severe damage in some parts of the property,”.

So here we have the area of New Zealand which we most pride ourselves on as the most pristine part of New Zealand, and what does this Government want to do? It’s, basically, putting New Zealand up for sale again, because, let’s face it, what this is about—it was in the Minister’s own speech, and I don’t think he’s been to Fiordland National Park—is trophy hunting.

I know, because I was speaking to someone recently, that there have been studies into what the economic benefit of trophy hunting is: it’s trivial. We have a treasure, and it is those parts of our beautiful natural environment which remain largely unaffected by introduced species. We have a mandate to say that where that exists, let’s keep them unaffected by introduced species, but this Government says no.

I’ve got no problem with hunting. I’ve got—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, the other side can scoff, but if you want to come hunting with me, just let me know. They speak a big talk, but I suspect that most of them have never picked up a rifle.

Hon Peeni Henare: Exactly.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah. Scott Willis and I will happily take you hunting any time you like. But for you city folks—for you North Islanders, and for the so-called Minister for the South Island—let’s get out into the wild and see what we really value. Those truly unaffected areas are so rare, and yet here we have a bill which is part of a programme to, essentially, say, “Let’s set up a hunting park in Fiordland so that we can make sure that wapiti are always there, because we like the idea that people can go out and hunt them.”

Well, look, I think that if you look at Fiordland and if you look at its true majesty—the beauty of its primeval state—then we should absolutely preserve that, and the idea that that is tradable with trophy hunting for wapiti defies belief. But we have a Minister for the South Island who is happily selling off some of the most valuable jewels of the South Island in order to say, “No, no, it’s fine. Let’s have a grazing park for wapiti so that hunters can come down and shoot their trophy beasts.”

Now, look, I want to say that I appreciate the work that hunters do in keeping the herds as low as they can be, and I appreciate that many hunters go out there to get kai for their whānau. That’s a good thing, and it’s great that they can do that, but Fiordland is a treasure and we should absolutely keep that in its pristine condition. The idea that we can have a herd of national significance which rampages through our forest and damages our indigenous species is entirely unacceptable, and that shows how much the so-called Minister for the South Island is actually interested in the South Island. The answer is not at all, and the Minister for Hunting and Fishing—without a budget, without a real portfolio—needs to buck up and get a proper idea.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Mr Chair—Mr Speaker, thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, it’s 11.30 at night, and I get it.

SCOTT WILLIS: Ha, ha! Well, firstly, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation. We know that they do work on maintaining huts, tracks, and the pest control. That’s really valuable stuff and is protecting our native species, but it is also providing meat to people who need it from wapiti that have been harvested. I think we can all acknowledge that the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation has been successful in showing that hunting and conservation can coexist and can be complementary, and that’s often the case. Many hunters are conservationists. That’s something we should all acknowledge.

I’m a proud hunter. I love going out into the bush. I also want to hear the bush and I want to hear the birdsong in the bush, and one of the things I have noticed when I’ve hunted on a little block near where Mark Patterson lives, actually—there’s a hunting block that I go to. Part of it has been fenced off. When you go through the gate into that fenced area where all the deer have been removed, you can barely move through the bush. For the rest of it, you can spot the deer everywhere because it’s mud and mature trees. There is no understory because the deer have taken it away.

This bill makes me sad—sad because it openly states that our national parks should become sanctuary for pest populations with special protections when we face a biodiversity crisis, and sad because it undermines the conservation goals of the National Parks Act—and it’s unnecessary. That’s the tragedy of it. Because the work that has been going on has been successful, this bit of legislation will actually create division, and it doesn’t need to be that way.

National parks exist to protect our national heritage of taonga species, and hunting isn’t about simply protecting trophy herds of deer in national parks; it’s about respecting ecosystems.

Grant McCallum: You’d have taken the trophy—if you’d shot the trophy, you’d have taken it.

SCOTT WILLIS: Yeah, it’s true that I’m not a trophy hunter. I hunt for meat and I hunt to take animals out of the bush. This should not be about keeping imbalance in our ecosystems in our national parks. It’s giving priority to invasive species over our nature and over our native biodiversity.

National parks exist to protect that biodiversity; not to preserve trophy herds for international or domestic hunters, and this is where I just can’t understand where we’re going to get economic growth from this. It’s minuscule—it’s minuscule—and what are we losing? What are we losing? We’re losing something really, really special, which is our unique place, and it really does demonstrate that the alliance between hunting and conservation doesn’t count for this Government, because it is turning a blind eye to all the concerns that all of us who care about the environment have for the natural places we go to—the places we find really, really special.

It opens the door not only to wapiti in Fiordland, so why not whitetail in Rakiura, why not tahr in the Southern Alps, and why not sika up here, in the North Island? That’s what it will do—it will ensure that we destroy our biodiversity—and, quite simply, there has been no engagement with iwi, no assessment of biodiversity, and no good public consultation. It would have gone some way to maintaining relations, even if this bill proceeds, but there hasn’t been any.

This is opening a door to greater division and to losing the justification that hunters have for working with conservationists. The Green Party policy is that we should, where possible, remove or eradicate large, non-predator, invasive species in the areas where they threaten important ecological values, and if this bill proceeds, any eradication efforts in national parks would not be authorised.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, given the hour, I will save my soliloquies about how much hunting means to so many people in this country, including my good self and many others in this House. Look, I will just say quickly that in two parts of this country and two islands, we’ve got the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Sika Foundation doing amazing work, showing what can be done when hunters have a chance to actually have a decent say about the way our conservation estate can be managed and can be run, and about the way we can support our ecosystem and allow a whole lot of good things to be happening in our ngahere.

It’s time we stop treating our valued introduced species like pests by default and started treating them with the value that they have, with some wise management for both conservation and for the connection that hunting gives us to our land. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many of us experience our conservation estate and enjoy that in many different ways. For several decades, there’s been obvious disagreement and debate between conservation groups and hunting groups about the place of introduced animals. This bill is about trying to resolve some of those anomalies between the National Parks Act and the Game Animal Council Act, and I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support this bill brought to us by our second ever hunting and fishing Minister. I would like to congratulate James Meager for bringing this very practical bill before the House. It backs our hunters and our amazing conservationists, and, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): What a bizarre situation that we face tonight in Parliament here. The so-called parties championing the rights and the values and the aspirations of our rural community are now supporting the protection of an introduced species that is at the core of both bovine tuberculosis and the destruction of our indigenous flora and fauna, and they’re going to spend a whole lot of money and effort not only in Parliament here tonight but in actually setting up protection for an exotic pest—that’s what it is.

I can’t understand the logic. Look, I have been West Coast - Tasman MP and I appreciate—not only from a regional perspective but from a rural perspective and a national perspective—hunting and its value as a recreational activity. We have a whole lot of people who go out every weekend or every night and they hunt possums or they hunt goats or deer, and they do a great job. But they’re actually failing, because we have big issues with possums, and if it wasn’t for the utilisation of 1080, we’d be overrun with possums.

We are now facing increasing numbers of red deer and other deer across our rural network, and farmers are asking what the Department of Conservation (DOC) and the Government are going to do to knock down these deer numbers, because not only are they eating our grass and impacting on our bush—and many farmers want to protect their local indigenous flora and fauna, right? So they’re asking what is the Government doing, because a lot of these animals come from the DOC estate. In Parliament tonight, let the farmers be clear that that this Government is protecting deer—protecting deer, which not only eat grass on farms around this country but also actually contribute, potentially, to the spread of bovine tuberculosis, and they are not an indigenous or native species.

There are a couple of questions I’d ask of the Minister. In passing this legislation, what’s next? Because there will be a group—and I know there are people who like to go out and hunt possums and they like to go and hunt goats or pigs. So will the Minister bring to this House a piece of legislation that will protect wild pigs? Is he going to do that?

Wild pigs, sika deer, fallow deer—are they going to be protected as well by the Minister’s proposals, and what do the farmers think about that when they are spending millions and millions of dollars to knock down deer numbers and keep on top of bovine tuberculosis? What’s the Minister going to do? He doesn’t know. Well, we’ve had three more farms with outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis in Hawke’s Bay because, arguably, there hasn’t been enough pest control in that area. Is it the possums, or is it the deer?

The Minister is saying, “Oh, this is just about Fiordland and it’s just about a unique species.”—actually, no. The legislation enables this Minister to be able to designate any species, anywhere, as a protected species. Well, let’s push the boundary out. Will it be rats—is he going to protect rats?

Hon Peeni Henare: Stoats.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Stoats? [Interruption] Oh, no, no—that’s OK. Well, it’s good to get from the Minister that he won’t protect rats or stoats or weasels. What about possums? There are people who say that, actually, the possum population is quite valuable for fur.

This piece of legislation is completely bizarre when we have a Government that claims to protect and advocate for the rural community in this country. The single biggest threat—not the single—one of the largest threats to the rural community and the rural industries is bovine tuberculosis, and this Government and this Minister is bringing in protection for deer, which spread TB across this country. It is a bizarre piece of legislation at a time when this country doesn’t need it.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): This is a blue-green bill which strikes a perfect balance between hunting and conservation, and I commend it to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): I never ever thought I’d hear the day that a Northland MP would say he was blue-green. I think it’s absolutely rich of Mr McCallum to say that he is a blue-green man when every Northlander knows the saying of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, which is that “Discretion is the mother of all injustice”. What this bill does is carve out a wee piece to say that “It’s OK to do this, but guess what! At some point in time, we might open the door to other things.”, and that’s the problem here.

The Minister for Hunting and Fishing stood up and he said, “Oh well, in 1905, blah, blah, blah.” The point is this: once upon a time, possums were OK. Once upon a time, these things were OK, and all of a sudden, they’re a pest. All of a sudden, they’re a huge cost for the Department of Conservation, and Mr McCallum knows the cost of having possums on his own farm.

Grant McCallum: We kill them.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Exactly. Now, that’s the point about discretion, and I want to say to the Government that when they look towards carving out little exemptions here and a little exemption there, it can only lead to something that is going to be a tidal wave that they can’t stop.

That’s why we oppose this bill, and I want to say to the Minister—he said it was his first bill, and I congratulate the Minister for having the gumption and the opportunity to present a first bill before midnight during urgency, but we’ll talk about that later. Ultimately, what we know about this particular bill is that once you start doing this, you cannot put a finger in the dyke in the hope that it will stop flooding the land.

Grant McCallum: Oh, yes, we can—all the deer in Northland are going.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Well, Mr McCallum might say that, but what he can’t say is that the possums are going.

Grant McCallum: Well, enough of them are going—we’re working on it.

Hon PEENI HENARE: No, no—that’s the point of my kōrero here.

Grant McCallum: Shall we go hunting?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The minute you open the door—and, yes, I’m happy to go hunting, because I can guarantee that having grown up on a farm in Northland, I’ve held a gun more times than a number of members on that side.

Grant McCallum: Oh, not me, mate.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Oh, Mr McCallum, definitely not you because you’re twice my age—but that’s the point.

So I just want to say here that this particular bill, we won’t be supporting, and we hope that in the Minister’s new role, he will he will engage with more communities than just this one. I take the point of my colleague Dr Duncan Webb that this particular part of New Zealand is one of the most beautiful parts of the world, and, in fact, when we look towards how we can grow tourism numbers, I suspect that this isn’t going to quite land it.

I can tell this House that eight months ago, I did a dive and hunt in this exact region. You go out on the boat, you dive for pāua and crayfish, you spearfish—everything; it’s amazing—and then two days later, you find yourself in the hills hunting, and, over five days, you can come home with a bounty that is the envy of everybody at home. But that will not be protected if we continue to let exemptions come into this consideration for the protection of our wildlife and the protection of our beautiful places such as Fiordland and other places in the country.

In the final minute and a half, I want to say this: where is the Minister of Conservation? Where is Mr Tama Potaka, who stands proudly on marae and places right across the country and says that “The Department of Conservation is going to do this and it’s going to look after this and it’s going to do that.”, while, ultimately, they’ve sent in a junior Minister—Minister Meager here—to present a bill just before midnight and try to present to this country that this is a good thing for this country. I say to the country, please go into it with eyes wide open, like we are.

We oppose this bill, and we implore the Minister to come back here with something far more substantial. Stop doing carve-outs. Let’s do something that actually makes a difference in this country and that (1) allows those who enjoy hunting to have a good hunt, and (2) allows the protection of our land, which is more important than anything else, because it is the number one thing that international visitors and international tourists look to when they come to New Zealand. So I say to Mr Meager that the next time he wants to stand in this House and present a bill like this, he should just table it and be done with it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, I look forward to members bringing that bounty to the House and sharing it around.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): First of all, I’d like to congratulate my colleague Minister James Meager for putting his first ever bill into the House, because we can see that he is going to work very hard to keep improving New Zealand. But more good news—

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to point out that the timer hasn’t been started, and I want to give the member the full five minutes to, obviously, contribute. So I just wanted to make sure that that’s correct.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): All right, the timer is going.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Yes, because there’s more good news for everyone here. First of all, I’d like to congratulate everyone at the Auckland City Football Club for the remarkable result at the FIFA Club World Cup today against Boca Juniors. They never give up, and their fighting spirit shows exactly what this cup stands for. Thank you for making us proud and for representing our communities. This result will go down in history. It is a great day for Mt Roskill, and a great day for New Zealand football. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the success in the issue that the member has raised, I seek leave to put a motion before the House congratulating the Auckland City Football Club on its success, and maybe we could have a debate on it right now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): There was already a question before the House, so we can’t do it now. But you might want to suggest it at another time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the point and the issue that was raised in the House in a timely way, I guess that this is the first opportunity to congratulate the Auckland City Football Club on what is a remarkable achievement, and I seek leave for us to have some speeches in the House congratulating the club on its achievement, acknowledging the great work that they have put forward on behalf of New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I can put leave for that motion after we’ve finished the business that we have at the moment.

The question is, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to Environment Committee

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): I move, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 October 2025.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I do seek leave for us to have a motion in the House congratulating the Auckland City Football Club for its achievement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): We still have a question live on the floor, and I’ll put that question.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 30 October 2025.

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.

Points of Order

Auckland City Football Club—FIFA Club World Cup

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for intervening too early, but I seek leave of the House to have a debate in the House here congratulating the Auckland City Football Club for its amazing achievement on behalf of New Zealand and Auckland, of course, in what has occurred offshore, and I seek leave to have the debate right now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

That concludes the business of urgency. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

The House adjourned at 11.52 p.m. (Wednesday)