Wednesday, 16 July 2025
Volume 785
Sitting date: 16 July 2025
WEDNESDAY, 16 JULY 2025
WEDNESDAY, 16 JULY 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. Amene.
[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 and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Visitors
France—Senate, Delegation
SPEAKER: I’m sure that members will want to join with me in welcoming three senators from the Senate of France.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK:
Petition of Lisa Er requesting that the House halt progress on the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a commission of inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment
petition of Robert Glennie requesting that the House strip Destiny Church of its status as a charity
petition of Sophie Liu requesting that the House urge the Government to change the Parent Resident Visa Expression of Interest process.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: 2025-29 strategic intentions for the Ministry of Defence.
SPEAKER: The paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement, May 2025.
SPEAKER: The report is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it the Government’s growth strategy to grow the number of New Zealanders leaving this country, with 191 New Zealanders leaving every single day and the number of young, qualified people desperately struggling to find a job?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our job in this Government is to make sure that we build a place where Kiwis can work hard and get ahead; that they can live in a community where they feel safe in their homes, their businesses, their communities; their kids get a world-class education, and their parents get looked after in healthcare. I just would say to members in the Labour Party and the Green Party that if you actually—it’s a bit ironic when you don’t support oil and gas and fast-track and construction and getting things done and built. And, actually, where do Kiwis go when they go to Australia? They go work in oil and gas and mining. Get on board: support mining, end the oil and gas ban—let’s get it done.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it good for the economy for his Government to have cancelled building of 3,500 State homes, shut down school and hospital and infrastructure rebuilds, effectively freezing the infrastructure pipeline and manufacturing sectors, leading BNZ’s senior economist to say, “The timeline for New Zealand’s long-awaited economic recovery just keeps getting pushed [out] further and further.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say is absolutely fantastic is that we have lowered the social housing wait-list by about 5,000 or 6,000 people, which is great. What is fantastic is that average rents—which I know that member often takes a lot of interest in—that previously went up $180 a week under the Labour-Greens Government, is now down $5. And importantly, we’ve taken 2,100 kids out of damp motel rooms, and they’re now in lovely homes and houses.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it good for the economy, for thousands of our talented young graduates and tradies, like nurses and engineers and builders, to be heading to Australia while his Government refuses to invest adequately in crucial health and physical infrastructure which would rapidly increase employment in this country—
SPEAKER: OK, sorry, I’m going to stop you there. Look, there are there are rules around questions. You can’t put into a whole lot of question suppositions; that might be the member’s view, but are not necessarily strictly a question. So have another crack at that.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Was it good for the economy that his Government chose to slash $45 million from innovation in the Budget, while the co-president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists has said, “We lose something like $11 from the future New Zealand economy for every dollar [we] cut [in the science sector]”—a sector crucial for driving employment growth?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the reforms that we have going on in the science sector. What we are doing is making sure that our R & D efforts—and all our research and development that happens at universities and businesses and with our institutes—is actually converting and having impact. We want all research and development, and activity in the science sector, to convert into economic growth. We make no apologies about that. We’ve looked at good examples around the world where we see R & D being converted into economic growth—that’s very important to us; embrace more science, innovation, technology to grow the economy faster.
Hon David Seymour: Is it good for the economy that his Government is progressing a Gene Technology Bill that will bring New Zealand into the 21st century, so young people in that field don’t have to go offshore to pursue their passion, and would he encourage all parties to get on board with it?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would. I think that’s an issue that has been a longstanding one for a long period of time, and I think we are following—we’re taking a very conservative approach to gene tech legislation, but I do acknowledge that the member, if she was really serious about climate change and solving emissions and actually being able to improve productivity in this country, you’d actually support it as a party, support the clean tech legislation.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the inherited debt crisis the Government inherited, would trebling the Government’s debt be of any help?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for a very insightful question, which is quite true—is that somehow, miraculously, the previous Government managed to triple the amount of debt from $60 billion to $180 billion. We as a Government now spend almost $9 billion in interest payments on that debt. That is more money than we spend on Police, Corrections, Justice, Customs combined. Thank you, Labour; thank you, Greens.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How many jobs has this Government created with its tax cuts?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as that member will be well aware, after Budget 2025 we expect the economy to grow in the order of about 2.7 percent on average over the next four years. And excitingly, there’s 240,000 new jobs about to be created over that period of time too.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it good for the economy for thousands of our young people to be forced to spend their days applying for hundreds of jobs, receiving only one to two interviews, leading them to see our country as a place with “No work. Shit pay. Why Stay?” [Holds up photo of protest sign]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Very odd question.
SPEAKER: No, no. Prime Minister, resume your seat. I’m not taking that question any further. No, I’m sorry, I’m not having that. I’ve had far too much criticism directed my way because some other member chose to use an inappropriate word, and I’m not putting up with that. Before I go any further, too, I just want to make very clear to the Government: I pulled up Chlöe Swarbrick for the content of one question; Speaker’s ruling 205/4 makes it very clear: you cannot bring other parties into the answers. I’m going to be a lot more attuned to listening to what people are saying in that regard.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: How are global events affecting the New Zealand economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Global events, of course, have a marked impact on the New Zealand economy. Around one in four New Zealanders derive their livelihoods from sectors that produce goods and services for export. Globally, the last few months have been particularly volatile. The United States announced new tariffs on imports from almost all countries, with rates being continually adjusted. Trade policy uncertainty is high, with little clarity on the final level of tariffs for particular counties when the current pause expires on 1 August. Conflict in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Iran, has added to global instability and uncertainty. Uncertainty almost always has a negative impact on economic growth, and New Zealand is no exception.
Catherine Wedd: How are tariffs expected to impact the New Zealand economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As announced in April, New Zealand would be subject to a 10 percent US tariff, although this has yet to confirmed. In terms of direct impacts, tariffs may affect New Zealand businesses that export to the US—such as beef and wine producers—but the biggest impact on the economy is expected to be indirect. Growth in our trading partners—some of whom face the prospects of much higher tariffs than us—is expected to slow, so they are likely, then, to purchase less from New Zealand than they otherwise would have. Trade policy uncertainty also has an impact on business confidence, with New Zealand firms less likely to invest. Unfortunately, those factors are negatively impacting growth, jobs, and wages in New Zealand.
Catherine Wedd: What is the impact of other global factors?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Recently, some other sources of uncertainty have diminished. In particular, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran has reduced global volatility, with oil prices returning to pre-conflict levels—good news. Other global factors are, in fact, positive for New Zealand. Prices for New Zealand’s goods exports are high, for example, with the ANZ Commodity Price Index up 15.5 percent over the past year in New Zealand dollar terms. As a consequence, the export sector is supporting New Zealand’s economic recovery. As I said yesterday, Treasury’s conclusion in its latest economic update is that conditions for growth remain in place as mortgage rates continue to fall, and optimism for the future lifts.
Catherine Wedd: What is the Government’s response to this global economic uncertainty?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is not a time to panic, as others have done when saying there is “absolutely a case for more spending to stimulate the economy.” On the contrary, the Government is sticking to its fiscal strategy which aims to get spending and debt under control, and the Government can help by giving businesses a reason to keep on investing. That is precisely what we have done with the new Investment Boost incentive, which makes new investment more attractive for businesses.
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he still stand by Nicola Willis’ promise of fewer lanyards and more hard hats on Lambton Quay; if so, why does the Builder Sentiment report show a consistent decline in demand under his leadership, resulting in 15,000 fewer construction jobs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I thank the member for his question and I acknowledge that he also has a responsibility there, given that he saw interest rates go to high levels that had a huge impact on the construction and building industry. But what I’m pleased to report is that there is $125 billion of projects under construction and there’s a pipeline worth $207 billion, and, right today, the good news is that if you’re from Christchurch, State Highway 76 and Brougham Street—we’ve just kicked that off this afternoon.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the building and construction sector is doing so well under his Government, why did the Government spend less on the things that he just mentioned in the last year than it did in the year before?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member that if he really cares about construction jobs, he would actually support fast-track legislation, wouldn’t he?—because that’s actually what you do. If you care about working people, you don’t just say it; you actually get rid of the regulations that are stopping them from getting into a house or stopping them from getting a road built, or stopping a hospital or a school getting built. So I’d just say to that member, I am looking forward to seeing if he wants to U-turn his repeal of the fast-track legislation or not.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which does he think is going to have the bigger impact on the building and construction sector: the promise of projects coming to market faster, or the fact that his Government actually took projects off the market, like new State house builds, school upgrades, hospital rebuilds, roading projects, and public transport projects, to name a few?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what will make a big difference is—what we are doing is getting spending under control to lower inflation and to lower interest rates, get the economy growing, and to get people into jobs. That’s how it works—that’s called macroeconomics. But the second thing I’d say is that if that member, again, really cares about construction workers, why are there three different public-private partnership positions from the Labour Party—eh?
Hon David Seymour: Is the Government’s objective to get more built faster, or to simply spend more money as if that’s somehow a solution and goal in itself?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Government’s objective is actually to build stuff and get things done. What we don’t believe in, on this side of the House, is what we call ghost projects. Some will remember something called “Auckland light rail”: six years, $300 million; nothing happened. But we’re up with Brougham Street, we’ve got the Hawke’s Bay Expressway up and running, and we’ve got Ōtaki to north of Levin. Those are real projects that are really happening; not ghost projects that are just pictures on A3 sheets of paper.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, is the chief executive of Engineering New Zealand wrong that his Government’s lack of infrastructure work has “devastated” the engineering profession?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, construction has been hit hard, but it’s been hit hard because of high interest rates. High interest rates happened because Government spending was out of control, and you let inflation get out of control. If you really cared about all of these issues, instead of the crocodile tears, why don’t you back the fast-track legislation? Do it today—do it today. Do the U-turn—do it right now. If you really believe in it, back our roads of national significance. If you really believe in it, back our Investment Boost. Go do that.
SPEAKER: Can I just say that while my vote is held in proxy by the whip from the party, I can, but challenging me in that way is not appropriate.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, that was inappropriate.
SPEAKER: Just think about the parliamentary language.
Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that since November 2023, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers have delivered 7,056 newly built houses, and that of the fast-track projects that have been applied for, they stand to deliver 12,000 homes, including one project that if approved this year, would have—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just hold on there—hold it. Questions are asked in silence. [Interruption] I beg your pardon?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: Nothing.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a speech, not a question.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s for me to judge, but when there was so much noise coming from the other side, it was hard to. The member will start again with the question, and make it a question that is not in the nature of a speech.
Hon Nicola Willis: Yes. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since November 2023, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers have built more than 7,000 new homes and that in addition to this, the fast-track projects promise to deliver more than 12,000 new homes?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can, and I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing on housing. The fact that this Government in 18 months has taken 5,000 to 6,000 people off the State house social housing wait-list that the previous Government created is, I think, very good thing. I’d just say to the member on the other side as well, though, that if you were really serious about it, why don’t we actually do real projects—
SPEAKER: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —not ghost projects.
SPEAKER: No—that’s fine.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he confirm that not one of the 7,000 houses just mentioned by the Minister of Finance was funded in Budget 2024 or Budget 2025?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can honestly say is the houses are getting built and the State house wait-list is going down, and isn’t that a good thing? That’s a great thing that 6,000 people have a house now and they’re not on that wait-list that grew over four times under the previous administration.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he so desperate to report progress that the only progress he can report is progress that was made under the previous Government, and why, a year and a half into his tenure as Prime Minister, will he not admit that things are getting worse for New Zealanders—particularly those in the building and construction sector—and not better?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s why I would like that member to come on board and actually reverse his position on fast track, on Investment Boost, on actual mining, and on a bunch of things in order to get things built, because you can talk about stuff or you can do it. We do it, on this side of the House.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Didn’t pay for a single one.
SPEAKER: When you’re ready.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: So desperate.
SPEAKER: Excuse me.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Absolutely hopeless.
SPEAKER: Do you want to leave the House?
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Not particularly, sir.
SPEAKER: Then be quiet between questions.
Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he stand by his statement that the United Nations letter regarding the Regulatory Standards Bill and its impact on Te Tiriti o Waitangi is “total bunkum” and “a waste of time”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think I’ve actually said all I want to say about that yesterday, but we’ve got a Minister of Foreign Affairs who’s going to reply very eloquently on behalf of our Government to that letter, and I’m going to leave that to him.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he also believe the more than 131,000 people who made submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill are “bunkum” and a “waste of time”, given most of them raised the same issues as the UN special rapporteur did in their letter?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just reject the characterisation of that question outright. I mean, the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to improve the quality of regulation that is passed in this Parliament by politicians, to make it transparent, to make sure that we have the rule of law upheld, and that we have property rights upheld. That has benefit, obviously, to Māori and to non-Māori.
Rawiri Waititi: How does he intend to repair the international reputational damage caused by the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of his Government, who described the UN special rapporteur as “insane” for raising concerns about indigenous rights?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think New Zealand should be very grateful that we have an outstanding Minister of Foreign Affairs, someone that is hugely respected around the world, someone that actually has left New Zealand and built and deepened relationships around the world and, I’d just say, knows the UN incredibly well, and I trust him to respond on all of our behalf.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, normally I’d let it go, but seeing as we have guests from the French Senate, can we please have it said “rapporteur”, not “repertoire”?
SPEAKER: I’m very sure a good number in the House are deeply appreciative of your correction and will put that in their vocab for future reference.
Rawiri Waititi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Point of order.
SPEAKER: Yeah, and we’ll hear it in silence.
Rawiri Waititi: The question was around the reputational damage made by the Deputy Prime Minister, not what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to do.
SPEAKER: No, I think the problem with the question is that it infers that there has been reputational damage without any particular—it might be the member’s view, but it’s not something we can work with, and the answer simply said this is a matter in the hands of the right honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he stand by his answer to the question on 31 July 2024 in which he agreed that “Article 2 of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi agrees Māori full and exclusive and undisturbed possession of their land, estates, forests, and other properties so long as they wish to retain them.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I fully respect article 2.
Rawiri Waititi: How does he reconcile his agreement with article 2 of the Treaty while also stating that he fully agrees with the content of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter to the UN?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we get letters from the UN. In this case, it raised a number of issues on four or five points. We’re going to respond to those. We don’t agree with that position, but I trust the Minister of Foreign Affairs to actually draft a reply to the UN to actually articulate our position and our counterpoints as to why we don’t believe with the content of that letter or the substance of that letter, and I trust him completely to do that job for us.
Rawiri Waititi: How are indigenous peoples in Aotearoa supposed to hold this Government to account for violations to our rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi with a Prime Minister who completely disregards the Waitangi Tribunal, select committee submissions, and now the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this is a Government that’s about outcomes and results for Māori or non-Māori. We’re working incredibly hard to improve the education of Māori, whether it’s in maths or reading by providing our materials in te reo. We’re making sure that we take many Māori kids that have been, sadly, consigned to emergency housing so that they get into proper, warm, dry houses. We’re focused on outcomes—outcomes for Māori and non-Māori.
Question No. 5—Health
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): To the Minister of Health—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: I haven’t called yet. We’ll have silence before questions are asked. Tim Costley—question No. 5.
5. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Health: What recent progress has been made on childhood immunisation rates?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Good news: new data released earlier this week shows that childhood immunisation rates at 24 months continue to rise across the country. This reflects our strong commitment to improving health outcomes for New Zealand kids. National coverage has climbed to 79.3 percent in the third quarter of 2024-25. That’s an increase of 2.4 percentage points compared to the same quarter last year. This result shows that our clear focus on health targets, combined with the efforts of our front-line health workforce, are delivering real improvements for children. When you focus on delivery, you get results.
Tim Costley: What progress has been made across the regions?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: The gains have been widespread and encouraging, with several districts showing strong improvements compared to the last quarter. Auckland’s lifted its coverage by 5.7 percentage points, Counties Manukau by 5.5, and Lakes by 5.2. Capital and Coast rose by 4.4 percentage points, while Whanganui achieved a 5.8 percentage point gain. In the South Island, Nelson-Marlborough saw a 5.2 percentage point increase, and South Canterbury delivered a remarkable 12.1 percentage point gain in that quarter. These results show that our investments in local services are working, and that our communities are stepping up to protect their children. However, there is still more work to do.
Tim Costley: Why is it important to increase immunisation rates?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Recently, we’ve seen cases of measles in the Wairarapa. This serves as a timely reminder of why immunisation matters. Measles is one of the most infectious diseases we face, and immunisation remains the most effective way to keep our children, families, and communities safe. We’re committed to giving every child the healthiest possible start to life, and that’s why we’ve brought back the health targets. These improvements are a vital step towards that goal.
Tim Costley: What other actions has the Government taken to lift immunisation rates?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re heading in the right direction, but there’s still more work to do, and that’s why, as part of our record funding boost for general practice, we’ve introduced performance payments for GP clinics that successfully lift childhood immunisation rates by up to 10 percent, or reach 95 percent of their enrolled population, with partial payments for partial achievement. We’re continuing to invest in community outreach, local services, and the workforce needed to lift immunisation coverage rates even further.
Question No. 6—Finance
6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “the reason people leave a country is because they think they can earn higher incomes somewhere else”; if so, why?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, I think that is a key reason people migrate, amongst others. Australia, for example, is a wealthier country than New Zealand and can pay higher wages, including in industries—such as mining and oil and gas—that members opposite have tried to shut down.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the minimum wage increases that are less than inflation enough to keep Kiwis working here when they can earn more pay in Australia?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and minimum wage earners were among the 1.9 million New Zealanders who benefited from tax relief that that member would have denied them.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why does she believe 47,000 people moved to Australia last year?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I outlined extensively yesterday, for similar reasons that a similar number left the year before, which is that the New Zealand economy has gone through an extremely tough period. We had a Government that drove inflation to record levels for an extended period; interest rates soared to control that. That has had a contractionary effect on our economy, and this Government is working hard every day to rebuild and recover the economy. I’m yet to hear from that member a single idea about how to do that.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why would construction workers stay in New Zealand when, today, the Certified Builders Association said, “half of those surveyed expected conditions to get worse, [and] forward workloads declined”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m also aware of the Builder Sentiment report that was released by EBOSS this morning. That report stated—and I quote—“The percentage of builders anticipating improving sector conditions has doubled on last year from 22 percent to 40 percent”, and it said, I quote: “This shift in sentiment reflects growing confidence and a more balanced outlook for the industry. … While a full recovery will take time, there’s a growing sense that the worst”—i.e., you guys—“is behind us.”
SPEAKER: No, no—sorry. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise to the House for that last statement.
Hon Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Nicola Willis’ statement in 2023 that Kiwis are “voting with their feet”; if so, does that apply now when migration outflows are even higher?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. As I said yesterday, one of my driving missions and reasons for being in Parliament is that I want this to be a country where more young people feel they can pursue their ambitions and aspirations. The reality of how that is done is that we have to strengthen this economy so that businesses have the confidence to create not only more jobs but better paying jobs. That is why we have a Going for Growth agenda that is all about removing the barriers that have held New Zealand back from its growth potential for many, many years. We are making progress. There is much more work to do. We will keep doing it. As history has shown, as this economy recovers, more New Zealanders will choose to live their lives here.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: When she said in 2023 that New Zealanders were fleeing, “a weak economy, and decaying public services”, why have 47,000 New Zealanders left for Australia under her watch?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have outlined, the New Zealand economy has been through a very difficult period. Now, there are some positive things—for example, the level of unemployment that was being forecast at the pre-election update in 2023 has not transpired under this Government. In fact, unemployment has come in lower than was being forecast under the plans of the last Government. So there are positive things happening; momentum will continue. The question for the member is this: do we think that more New Zealanders will want to live here if job creators, wealth creators, and savers are slammed with more taxes and asked to flee the place?
Question No. 7—Health
BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare. To the Associate Minister of Health: Is the Government on track to achieve the National HIV Action Plan’s goal of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa by 2030—[Interruption]—if not, why not?
SPEAKER: Sorry, there were people speaking during that question, so we’ll have the question again while the whole House listens in silence.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order, Mr Speaker. How did this question get approved by you or your staff when in the last few words, he mentioned a country that is not known in this world, nor was it recognised by the United Nations?
SPEAKER: Yep, an oversight on my part. Benjamin Doyle, ask the question again—[Interruption]—when the House is all silent.
BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Sorry, am I repeating the primary, Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: The whole primary question—yes.
BENJAMIN DOYLE: Thank you. My question is to the Associate Minister of Health: is the Government on track to achieve the National HIV Action Plan’s goal of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa New Zealand by 2030; if not, why not?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order, Mr Speaker. You have approved, in my view, wrongly—but you’re entitled to your decision—this question, and now it’s not being read properly from the script.
SPEAKER: That’s right, and I appreciate all the points that you make. Benjamin Doyle, one more time—as it’s written on the sheet.
7. BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is the Government on track to achieve the National HIV Action Plan’s goal of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa by 2030; if not, why not?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’m advised that the cases of locally acquired HIV continue to trend down from their peak in 2016. Based on the downward trend since 2016, there is no reason to believe the goal will not be achieved of effectively eliminating locally transmitted HIV in New Zealand by 2030.
Benjamin Doyle: Is she concerned with the findings of the HIV epidemiology group’s most recent report that “locally-acquired infections overall have only decreased by 31 percent from the 2010 baseline set by the National HIV Action Plan … which is well short of the 90 percent reduction target by 2030.”, and, if so, what action is she taking to address it?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The figures that I have had reported as the target is a 90 percent reduction on the 2010 total, which was 149. The 2024 figures are 59, and four cases unknown. In terms of the action that we are delivering as a Government, it is a full commitment to the HIV action plan, and we are making solid progress in that regard.
Benjamin Doyle: Is she concerned by the Government’s failure to meet the National HIV Action Plan’s goal to maintain zero cases of transmission at birth, with new avoidable cases of perinatal transmission occurring for the first time in almost 20 years, and, if so, what will she do to turn it around?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Unfortunately, as the member knows, the cases he refers to are about two individuals that travelled to New Zealand who were pregnant at the time. I don’t want to discuss further details of those individuals, but, as I have highlighted, we continue to be committed to the HIV action plan. There are a range of actions that have been committed, and the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand are working well in that regard.
Benjamin Doyle: What, if anything, will she do to address the growing inequity in rates of HIV acquisition amongst trans, migrant, and Māori populations in Aotearoa, as highlighted in the HIV epidemiology group’s latest report as “highly concerning”?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I can advise the member of the recent completion of a request for a proposal to expand innovative testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections to priority populations. Eight contracts are now in place, and two providers have commenced service delivery. Overall, these services will improve access and uptake of testing, and include a new national online service, community-based testing, and peer-led testing for priority populations. I can also advise that the other priorities include recruiting contact tracers to increase the capacity and capability of contact tracing for people newly diagnosed with HIV and other STIs, modelling HIV prevalence in New Zealand to better understand the burden of HIV and where further resources should be directed in order to better prevent transmission, and completing an audit on antenatal screening to identify gaps. The budget of $18 million, which was set in Budget 2022, is on track to be fully delivered.
Question No. 8—Infrastructure
8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Why are there more than 15,000 fewer people working in construction under this Government, and what impact does this have on the Government’s infrastructure pipeline?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure: The construction sector has certainly been affected by the economic downturn and higher interest rates. The construction industry is very sensitive to changes in interest rates as construction projects are heavily reliant on debt funding. So no wonder construction has been affected; interest rates have been high in recent years to fight inflation, pumped up by reckless Government spending. But the member is overegging the impact on construction jobs by using a data series that Statistics New Zealand says has provisional status. Stats New Zealand notes that the household labour force survey (HLFS) is the data source for official statistics about our labour force, and since we came into Government, the HLFS shows a more moderate decrease in construction jobs of around 4,000. So I reject the extent of the member’s claim. In relation to the second leg of the question, the Government’s infrastructure pipeline is strong. Over the next six months, we will be breaking ground on at least $6.4 billion worth of publicly funded infrastructure builds across this country.
Hon Ginny Andersen: How many construction companies have been impacted by the Government cancelling 3,500 Kāinga Ora homes, and what number of these companies have had to lay off workers?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, this is a to and fro with that member that it seems will never be resolved because the fact is this, and I say it again: since November 2023, Kāinga Ora and community housing providers have delivered 7,056 newly constructed homes, funded not with Labour’s money, not with National’s money, but with taxpayer money. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just wait until your own side give you the courtesy of silence in the House.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What does it say about this Government’s blueprint for the construction sector when 750 firms have gone under in the past year and half of those surveyed by the New Zealand Certified Builders Association say the conditions are expected to worsen?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I feel very strongly for any business that is unable to operate in a difficult economic environment, and it remains the focus of the Government’s activity to ensure that there are better business conditions and better settings in which businesses can thrive. In terms of the sentiment that is in the sector, I again quote the report I quoted earlier in question time, which has come out today, which shows that, in fact, sentiment amongst builders is increasing quite dramatically. I would also point to one very tangible action that the Government is taking that’s going to help a lot, and that is the fast-track legislation. There are up to 17 projects that have indicated they would commence this year if approved through that process, creating among them hundreds of construction jobs; jobs that the members opposite would cancel because they oppose fast track.
Hon Ginny Andersen: When will she accept responsibility for the fact the number of apprentices being trained is not enough to replace those who have left, given her Government cancelled the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I just reject that. What actually happened with Apprenticeship Boost was another of the fiscal cliffs left to us by the last Government, which is that they did the dirty; they said, “Oh, we’re funding this apprenticeship scheme, but oops, by the way, only for one year, not for the future.” Well, our Government came in, we rescued Apprenticeship Boost, and we found the funding for it. We continued that scheme. And, of course, we are now also bringing regional leadership back to training in our areas, rather than a nationalised Te Pūkenga that removes the ability of employers to have the influence that they want on things like apprentices.
Hon Chris Penk: Is the Minister aware of the report, the EBOSS survey, released today that included a reported nearly doubling of the increase in demand for builders doing building work, in addition to the statistic that she cited earlier in terms of the near doubling of those within the building sector who expect improved conditions next year?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Well, on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure, yes, the Builder Sentiment report released this morning by EBOSS confirms that while times are tough, sentiment is improving, recovery is under way. The report found that the percentage of builders anticipating improving sector conditions has doubled on last year to 40 percent, and there was also a drop in the percentage of builders concerned about the current economic climate, the cost of lending, and material costs. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for his very hard work to ensure that we remove regulatory barriers that have driven up construction cost in New Zealand.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the principal economist of Infometrics, who said, “If you’re a builder and want to keep being a builder, it may be Australia is the best option for you to continue being a builder for now”; if not, why not?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I agree that when New Zealand’s interest rates soared to extremely high levels, it made it very hard to be in our construction sector because it is very difficult to get finance for a project for which the interest costs are extraordinarily high. That is exactly why our Government has focused on doing everything we can to support inflation to come down and interest rates to come down. And the record speaks for itself. There have been more than two basis points of interest rate reduction since we came to office. Inflation is back on target. Those are the conditions that will allow for a healthy, sustainable construction industry.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the Minister admit that canning the Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering was a bad idea, her Government has no workforce plan, and her pipeline is a pipe dream?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.
Question No. 9—Education
9. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Education: What recent results has she seen about literacy and numeracy achievement for the NCEA co-requisite?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I was very pleased to see the latest results show a marked improvement in student achievement across all year levels. In numeracy, 57 percent of students achieved a significant increase, from 45.6 percent in May last year. In reading, this year, 61.2 percent, up from 58.7 percent last year. In writing, 55.3 percent of students achieved, holding steady from May last year. More than half of this year’s year 12 students who did not meet the co-requisite last year have now achieved it, moving the overall NCEA level 1 pass rate from 71.5 percent to 79.6 percent. More students are achieving in numeracy and literacy, meaning more young people are set up for success in the future.
Greg Fleming: What results has she seen for high-equity index schools?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: The results for students in high-equity index schools are the ones that I am the most proud of. Whilst there is still some way to go, significant improvements have been made, with positive gains in reading, writing, and maths. There was an almost 15 percent jump in numeracy achievement, from under 20 percent last year in our low-decile schools to 34.1 percent in May this year. For reading, it was 41.2 percent compared to 34.7 percent. And, again, writing held steady. We can see that the persistent effort and focus on the basics from our students, and the incredible hard work and dedication of our teachers, is achieving meaningful results.
Greg Fleming: What investment has she made to support schools with the co-requisite assessments?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: When we were made aware of last year’s results, we knew that we needed to provide additional targeted support for young people in literacy and numeracy. That’s why in 2024 we invested $2.2 million to support students in 141 lower-decile schools to get the foundational literacy and numeracy skills they needed to get across the line. Schools received targeted training and funding for teacher-release time to support teachers to directly work with groups of students in the greatest need. This is a Government of action that responds when there is a need, and we have a relentless focus on raising student achievement.
Greg Fleming: And how will the Government’s plans to teach the basics brilliantly enable students to continue to achieve success in the co-requisite?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: These early improvements are supported by a comprehensive reform package that is focused on lifting academic achievement. We’ve introduced a new year-by-year curriculum that’s internationally benchmarked in English and in maths. We’ve implemented structured literacy and structured maths and provided schools with hundreds of thousands of high-quality maths text books. We’ve trained tens of thousands of teachers in structured literacy and structured maths. We’ve implemented an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. And, today, we called time on open-plan classrooms. While these results are positive, there’s still a lot of work to be done, and that’s why this Government is unapologetically reforming an education system, with a focus on academic achievement.
Question No. 10—Justice
10. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand’s anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism regime?
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I recently announced a series of practical changes to the anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism regime to reduce red tape and costs for everyday New Zealanders. The current system is overly risk-averse, making it unnecessarily difficult and expensive for people to access basic financial services. It shouldn’t take a mountain of paperwork to open a child’s bank account or to buy a home. That’s why we’re reforming the system, introducing simpler customer due diligence for low-risk situations, supporting common-sense compliance for families and small businesses, and minimising costs wherever possible.
Todd Stephenson: What changes is she making to reduce unnecessary red tape for Kiwis using family trusts?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: The current rules make selling property held in a trust a bureaucratic nightmare. Sellers are required to provide extensive documentation about trustees, beneficiaries, and sources of wealth. I’ve announced changes to give businesses the discretion to apply simplified checks for low-risk trusts such as family trusts. This will significantly reduce paperwork, lower service costs, and make it easier for Kiwis to buy and sell homes.
Todd Stephenson: Will the changes the Minister makes allow more Kiwis to access banking services?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. Current rules have made it too hard for New Zealanders, especially children, to open basic bank accounts. As a mother, I know how important it is to teach kids early how to save. That’s why I’m changing the law to reduce the documentation needed to open low-risk accounts. In many cases, only a birth certificate and proof of a parental relationship could be required to open a bank account for a child. This will make it easier for families to start saving and help set their child up for a stronger financial future.
Todd Stephenson: What changes is she making to provide relief to New Zealand businesses?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Many small businesses are weighed down by rigid anti - moneylaundering regulations that slow their operations and increase their costs. For businesses that use accountants, the changes I’m introducing will simplify the compliance process. Accountants will only need to confirm that payments are consistent with the business’s usual activity, removing the requirement to apply the enhanced customer due diligence checks to every transaction. This reform will save time, reduce costs, and ease the compliance burden on small businesses and their clients.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Why is she considering using taxpayers’ money to give compensation to crypto traders for the loss of their crypto ATMs, which support organised crime, when ordinary New Zealanders can barely afford their groceries?
Hon NICOLE McKEE: I am a little surprised that the member across the way there doesn’t understand the process that we go through, as a Government, to determine whether or not compensation should be paid. This is some advice that I’m waiting on. Of course, whenever property is looking to be confiscated, there should always be advice on whether or not there is compensation that goes with the confiscation. I’m still awaiting that advice.
Question No. 11—Vocational Education
11. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) to the Minister for Vocational Education: How many jobs at polytechnics have been cut, or are proposed to be cut, since she took office?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): While I am not responsible for staffing numbers for the business division of Te Pūkenga—or polytechnics, as they will soon be referred to—I can confirm that since I took office, staffing numbers have reduced by 620 fulltime-equivalents, including approximately 150 less in Te Pūkenga head office. This has occurred as independent financial advisers have worked with individual polytechnics to develop their pathway to financial sustainability. I acknowledge how difficult that will be for those individuals, but this work should have been done more than five years ago. I will note, for context, in contrast, Te Pūkenga took almost 2½ years from when it was set up to produce their first long-term finance strategy and a short-term financial plan—and, even then, the Tertiary Education Commission noted that further work was needed before there was a credible plan to achieve financial sustainability.
Shanan Halbert: Point of order, Mr Speaker. While I acknowledge that the Minister answered the first part of the question, she didn’t bother to answer the second part, which was about the proposed cuts moving forward.
SPEAKER: Well, she did because she said she wasn’t responsible for those organisations once they become quite separate, so I think that’s a reasonable answer.
Shanan Halbert: Why won’t she assure the sector that all polytechnics will still be open in two years’ time under her watch?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because, unlike that member when his party was in Government, I don’t intend to run polytechs from Wellington. They will be run by communities. They will have councils that are appointed by communities that understand what is needed in their community, and so they will have accountability for ensuring they stay on the pathway to sustainability, which I’m very grateful for because, under the previous Te Pūkenga, they ran a deficit of $80 million in 2022, a deficit of $38 million in 2023, and budgeted a further deficit—had that previous Government still been in power—
SPEAKER: No. Look, you can talk about the facts, but don’t have a lash at the previous Government or the Opposition. It’s very clear and I warned people earlier today.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Budgeted for a deficit of $93 million for 2024, but instead—
SPEAKER: Good. I think that’s well answered the question.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —turned a surplus.
Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are proposed to be on the chopping block at Otago Polytechnic?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I don’t have responsibility for determining the staffing level. What I will say, though, is that it seems—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’m sorry, the member will stop. Look, that sort of just screaming out is unacceptable. Please carry on.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s absolutely imperative that this country has a vocational education and training sector that is viable, not running multimillion-dollar deficits each year. A viable network is how we will ensure there is provision in Otago—in every other region—for those people who need to gain the skills and the training to be able to gain meaningful, well-paid employment and contribute to the economy of this country.
Shanan Halbert: How many more jobs are proposed to be put on the chopping block at Toi Ohomai, Western Institute, UCOL, Whitireia, and NorthTec?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I continue to remind the member that I will not be responsible for determining—
SPEAKER: No. Sorry, I’ll stop you there. Speakers’ ruling 181/5 makes it very clear that although you might not be legally responsible for the entity, you are responsible for the portfolio. The questions that relate to it should be answered. Those entities themselves don’t get the opportunity to be accountable to the House. That’s why we have a Minister. So please rephrase your answer.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those are operational matters that the councils of those polytechnics will make decisions on as they decide what level of funding they need for the programmes that they deliver. I will, though, give you an example, if this is—
SPEAKER: No, no, it’s not necessary.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Not necessary?
SPEAKER: It’s taken a lot of time over these answers.
Shanan Halbert: How many jobs are on the chopping block moving forward at her old stomping ground, Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), and how does that compare—
SPEAKER: I’ll stop the member right there. He can’t expect me to be pedantic about the Minister’s answers at the same time as he’s starting a question with the various colourful descriptions in his question. Keep a straight question.
Shanan Halbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many jobs are on the chopping block—
SPEAKER: No, that’s the problem. You can’t possibly know that that is the case. So you can ask a question without those sort of, you know, colourful descriptors.
Shanan Halbert: Thank you. How many jobs are at risk at the Southern Institute of Technology and how does that compare with other polytechnics across the country?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That will be an operational matter for the council and the management of SIT. But can I just say, I would expect SIT to continue a long and distinguished history of running in a—
SPEAKER: OK—[Interruption] Stop.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —business-like manner with prudent attention to their financial situation. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Hon Dr Megan Woods: I said she’s shutting the Hornby campus down.
SPEAKER: Well, why are you interfering with the opportunity of your colleague to ask his question?
Shanan Halbert: Why won’t she share the financial information available to her to prove that her new model is in fact financially viable?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: What I’m very proud of is that for the past year we have had financial advisers working with each individual polytechnic to form a pathway to financial sustainability. We still have some work to do with four of the polytechnics, but they are well on the way to being able to achieve that. It isn’t appropriate to share that until they have worked through what is needed with their own staff, and I am very confident that we are well on the way with at least 10 to be able to stand them up to be financially viable, and it is the work that should have been done five years ago.
SPEAKER: One of the quirks of our Standing Orders and consequent Speakers’ rulings is that while Ministers will occasionally refer to a matter being operational that they don’t have any responsibility for, there needs to be a qualification around it. Ministers are responsible for the operational detail of the entities for which they have portfolio responsibility—Speakers’ ruling 182/3. So we’ll be watching for that in the future as well.
Question No. 12—Justice
12. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?
SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear, too, that while this question was accepted, there is a supposition in this that should not be there, and the question should not stand. I’m inclined almost to knock it out on that basis, but we will allow a very short answer.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Very well. Following changes to strengthen the sentencing regime and give Police more powers to deal with gangs, the Government announced further measures to restore law and order, strengthening trespass laws, and announcing changes to the Crimes Act to protect retailers from shoplifting, and strengthening criminal offences for assaults on first responders.
Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing changes to strengthen trespass laws and protect retailers from shoplifting?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because retailers—their staff and their customers—should feel safe in our shops and public places. Public confidence in our justice system in recent years has been eroded by rampant shoplifting and this Government says “enough is enough” by introducing an infringement regime for shoplifting to deliver swift justice. Additionally, we’re giving businesses extra tools—
Hon Ginny Andersen: Half a million in three months.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —oh, nonsense—to better protect their properties, keep offenders away, and stop them from coming back. Our retailers and their customers deserve to be respected and to be kept safe.
Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing to introduce new measures to protect first responders?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because first responders and prison officers are often the first to run towards danger on behalf of all New Zealanders, and they deserve the extra cloak of legislative protection. The Government, as part of this coalition agreement with National and New Zealand First, is introducing new offences to ensure that those who assault our first responders and prison officers spend longer in prison.
Rima Nakhle: What other new criminal offences has the Government announced?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we are introducing new specific coward punch offences to ensure perpetrators receive tougher sentences. Those cowardly attacks can cause lifelong brain injuries and death. Committing a one-punch attack and causing grievous bodily harm will carry a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. I want to thank New Zealand First for their strong advocacy on this issue.
SPEAKER: Each day after question time, I ask members who have to leave the House to do so quietly and without conversation on the way. That’s out of respect for whoever has to speak following their departure. So today, when you leave, leave quietly. Don’t engage in conversation, otherwise you may not be coming back.
General Debate
General Debate
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
“Te Tiriti is an opportunity for good for everyone in Aotearoa, and especially in the work of prevention of violence. It is a basis for belonging, a basis for equity, justice, and peace. Te Tiriti is an opportunity for both tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, and all people to achieve wellbeing.” That was actually a quote from the Family Violence Death Review Committee, not from a Māori organisation, not from a Māori group, not from a Māori person, but from an organisation who understands that at the heart of eliminating violence has to be Te Tiriti and upholding the relationship between Māori tangata whenua and the Crown.
It is therefore quite disappointing that I stand to speak today in support of the ministerial advisory group, Te Pūkotahitanga, to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, a group that I stood up in my time as prevention of family and sexual violence Minister. This current Minister has decided to discontinue that tangata whenua advisory group. That is another repeat example of this Government’s undermining of Te Tiriti and undermining of tangata whenua, but, most disappointingly, its undermining the work of Te Aorerekura, one of the most iconic violence prevention strategies, joined up with Government, community, tangata whenua—all groups of people working together over generations to eliminate violence properly with system change and community-led work.
Te Pūkotahitanga, the Tangata Whenua Ministerial Advisory Group, was born from an understanding that centring Te Tiriti was going to be key to interrupting the generational violence that exists in this country and to interrupt it for everyone. It was born out of a clear demand from groups across the sector, not just Māori, who knew that the only way to properly address violence was to both have a mana ki te mana relationship with the Minister and the ministerial advisory group, while also recognising that wahine Māori are more likely than any gender or ethnicity to experience violence, and therefore that requires mātauranga Māori, kaupapa Māori, and Māori relationships to be at the centre of the work for everyone. It also understood, as did the Family Violence Death Review Committee, that kaupapa Māori practice, in their research, had very clearly been upraised as effective and best practice for all people, because it was strength-based, because it is led with whole-of-whānau-and-community healing, and because it recognises that the Crown needs to take responsibility for its harm in violence, and that has been long and well established across decades.
The Greens would absolutely continue to highlight Te Tiriti as a positive chance for ending violence, continuing to fund a tangata whenua ministerial advisory group, and rejecting the playoff that the current Minister and her party are trying to instil—we’ve seen that be rejected, for example, just at the Regulatory Standards Bill oral submissions, where, across the board, at least 80 percent of the submissions that are opposed to that bill were clearly also upholding Te Tiriti as key to prosperity for this country, for everyone.
So I’m standing here to honour the expertise and leadership of the members of that tangata whenua ministerial advisory group, to give them voice and add my solidarity to the disappointment, so much so that they have reclaimed back the reo Māori names of both the department, formerly called Te Puna Aonui, and the group name Te Pūkotahitanga, as recognition of the breach of this Minister and her Government to their leadership, to their expertise, and to continuing the proper pathway and progression of eliminating violence, not just from Māori but from all of our country and from all of our generation.
So continuing to highlight and use Te Tiriti as a weapon against communities and groups in this country is completely against the spirit of what Te Tiriti has always meant, which has always been the promise of peoples to take the best possible care of each other. It is disappointing to see the end of the Tangata Whenua Ministerial Advisory Group—understandable that they have claimed back the reo use of their Māori names of the departments. The Greens would continue to support Tiriti-centred leadership, including in prevention of violence work, because that will be good for everyone. Thank you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): On this side of the House, we were busy during the most recent recess restoring law and order and restoring real consequences for crime. We’ve been concerned that New Zealanders should feel safe in their communities so we’ve built on the work that we’ve done ending the culture of excuses that we inherited from the previous administration by restoring three strikes, tougher sentencing laws, tightening up the sentencing laws to restrict the ability of judges to massively reduce sentences, and giving the police the extra powers that they need to take on the gangs. As well as that, we’ve ended permanent name suppression for convicted adult sex offenders—people need to be able to warn others—and we’ve also brought in legislation around stalking so that New Zealanders can feel safe from that.
On top of all those things, we’ve turned to the retail space and we’ve done a whole lot of things to help our retailers and their customers feel safe in the retail environment by introducing changes to the citizens arrest provisions to stop the ridiculous situation of people walking out of shops with a trolley full of food—being escorted to the car by the security guards—with nobody being able to do anything. We’re bringing in an infringement regime for shoplifting so that there is swift justice for those to deal with the rampant shoplifting that we’ve seen in our community so that people have confidence in the justice system.
We’re also bringing changes to the trespass laws, which haven’t been workable; many people in the sector have been encouraging us to make changes there. On top of that, we’re bringing tougher consequences for those who attack our first responders—the ambulance drivers, the firefighters, and the police. They deserve an extra cloak of legislative protection because they go into the scene of danger on behalf of the rest of society and they should be preserved. We’re also going to bring in some changes around the coward punch.
So what has been the response to all of that? I look over to the other side and, obviously, it got a little bit under the collar of our friend Mr Hipkins because he started ranting and raving about the “Tories” in the press as if there was something going on there and things were unfair—terribly sad about that. Then we had our friend Tamatha Paul from the Greens, who thought it was a good idea to bring up shoplifting in the context of the Greens and said that if people don’t have enough money to buy food, they’re going to go and look towards shoplifting things, as if there’s almost a green light from the Green Party that you should go out and shoplift if you haven’t got enough food. Well, there’s plenty of New Zealanders who have to work very hard and struggle to get through the week. Yes, it’s a difficult situation, but the vast majority of New Zealanders do not steal; society needs to send a strong and clear message. We certainly won’t be getting a strong and clear message from a Labour-Greens Government if, heaven forbid, there was one in the future.
When we look across the House to the justice sector, it does puzzle me, I suppose. I mean, the last new law and order policy announced by a Labour MP was announced by Kiri Allan a long time ago. We haven’t heard a single thing in terms of new policy on law and order from that side of the House. We’re now well over 18 months into the term. When we were in Opposition, we were coming up with ideas—new ideas—putting them before the public. It is the role of the Opposition both to oppose and to propose, and we haven’t heard a single proposal on the other side; they just seem to be sitting there doing nothing, not coming up with ideas.
I mean, are they going to bring back the culture of excuses? I mean, maybe that should be their policy. Well, at least they could actually say it so we could talk about it and know what they’re on about. Are they going to return to a sole focus on reducing the prison population—regardless of what’s going on in the community—by 30 percent? I mean, that might be one thing they’re going to do. They’ll certainly repeal our tough gang legislation because they prefer to give money to the gangs to do meth programmes, remember? Maybe they’ll be returning to the policy of funding gangs and gang associates to deliver meth programmes—that might be one of the things they’re going to do. I’m just not quite clear what the priorities are. I’m not even entirely sure who the justice spokesperson is in the Labour Party. It might have been that Reuben guy who gave me a cake a couple of weeks ago, I think, to acknowledge the great work that we’ve been doing on law and order. I thank him for that; my office enjoyed it immensely.
Ultimately, when we look at what the Government’s trying to achieve, first and foremost it’s about getting the economy moving so people have more money in their pockets and they can deal effectively—to look after themselves and their families and live in a prosperous society. So everything’s focused on growing the economy. Number two has been about restoring law and order. When we came into Government, it was a serious concern for many New Zealanders. The good news is that we’ve made great progress in the last 18 months. We had a target to reduce the number of victims of crime from 185,000 to 165,000 by 2029 and we’re already at 158,000. That’s still 158,000 too many. There’s much work that’s been done, but much more yet to do.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): At the beginning of this year, the Government launched a new tourism slogan, “Everyone Must Go!” The problem for the Government is that New Zealanders are taking that literally and everyone is going: 184,000 New Zealanders have simply given up on this Government. They have voted with their feet and they have left the country, because under this Government, despite all the promises, despite all the bold projections, despite the constant reassurance that things are turning the corner and everything’s starting to get better, for most New Zealand families things continue to get worse.
On a day-to-day basis, New Zealanders struggling to pay their bills are being told by the Government, “Oh, but it’s all better now.” and yet they know that it isn’t. When they open the mail and they see their rates bill, they know their rates are going up, and they know their rates are going up because of the decisions this Government has taken. When they see their power bill going up, they see once again the Government with a whole lot of steam about the electricity sector but doing nothing to fix it—in fact, a Government that’s doubling down on the most expensive source of electricity, which is fossil fuels. When they could be focused on lowering people’s power bills, they seem committed to pushing the price of power further and further up.
We see it in insurance bills. What’s the Government’s contribution to insurance bills been? Well, first of all, they are saying they’re going to abandon regions that have been affected by severe weather events caused by climate change, first of all by denying that climate change is happening and second of all by simply ignoring the consequences of it, which is what the people in Nelson and Tasman seem to be seeing at the moment: a Government that’s pretending that they’re just not there at the moment. But the reality is their one contribution to the insurance sector has been to hike up the Government part of insurance levies.
Across the board, New Zealand families are seeing that at every opportunity the Government has to cut costs for households, the Government is doing the opposite. Every levy, every potential tax aside from income tax that the Government could increase, they are increasing. Even the cost of registering your car has pretty much doubled under this Government—a new drivers’ tax introduced, effectively, by this Government, because it’s not that the cost of registering your car has gone up; it’s just that the Government wanted more money so they’re going to charge you more money in order to be able to register your car.
Everywhere New Zealanders look, they will see the cost of living going up and they will see it being exacerbated by this Government. Take those who use public transport every day. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders use public transport every day, and they see the Government actively saying to those operating public transport, “Charge people more.” That’s actually been a directive by the Government: charge people more for their public transport every day. So every time someone gets on a bus or a train or uses public transport, they are being told that their fares going up is because that’s what the Government have chosen for them.
Every day, New Zealanders see their prices going up and they see the Government celebrating that; they see the Government encouraging that. Instead of actually acknowledging the real economic pain that New Zealanders are feeling, we see a Government in denial. With 15,000 to 17,000—depending on which numbers you concentrate on—jobs disappearing from the construction sector, we’ve got the Government saying, “Oh, but everything’s getting better.”, and yet the builders are saying that things are getting worse. The people who actually do the work are saying that things are getting worse.
This Government is in denial about the consequences of the decisions that they are taking. When they choose to cut new State house builds, when they choose to cut hospital rebuilds, when they choose to cut school upgrades, when they choose to cut transport projects, they are putting people out of work and they are deferring the problems further and further into the future.
Today, I had the opportunity to speak to some young people here to learn about the Government’s Budget, and the most important point that I made to them was this: Government Budgets only record the cost of what Governments are doing; they don’t record the cost of what Government is not doing. It’s the young people sitting in front of me who are ultimately going to pay that cost, and that is what this Government are willing to do. They are willing to load up more and more costs on to the next generation of New Zealanders rather than actually invest in their future, and that is why young New Zealanders are giving up on this Government and leaving the country, because they see no future here under this Government. They simply see a Government determined to make their future darker rather than better, and that is what the Government should actually be focused on doing.
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): There is something that I know absolutely about vocational education and training, and that is that locals know best; local industries know best, local communities know best. And guess what! That member who just finished his speech didn’t understand that when he set up that failed institution Te Pūkenga, he didn’t understand it, and he disrespected those local communities. Let’s have a look how that went for him. Well, two and a half years after he set it up, that institution did not have a long-term financial strategy to get to sustainability. It didn’t have a short-term financial plan to get to financial sustainability. They didn’t do anything to help the financial sustainability of that sector.
Shanan Halbert: Where’s your financial plan?
Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That was one of the reasons why Mr Halbert’s boss set it up, and it didn’t work. Let me remind him that, in 2022, it ran an $80 million deficit; in 2023, it ran a $38 million deficit; and, in 2024, it forecasted a $93 million deficit. Thank goodness there was a change of Government! People who knew how to run a polytechnic came into power, and it was turned round to a $17 million surplus. Thank goodness! I think I might have said, at the time that it was being set up by his boss, that it wouldn’t work, because he didn’t know how to run anything. I doubted if he knew how to run his own bar, and it came to be true—it came to be true.
What are we doing? National is going to restore regional decision-making, communities are going to influence polytechnic operations, and the changes are being welcomed across New Zealand. I remember when Mr Halbert’s boss was setting up Te Pūkenga, and I said to him, “With the centralisation, how are you going to ensure that well-performing institutions continue to perform well if they’re cross-subsidising others?” His answer was, “Well, I suppose it depends how good a manager you are.” I knew, at that moment, we were in trouble. He didn’t understand how to run it. But that wasn’t the worst it got. It got even more divisive. There was a polytechnic that had this wonderful state-of-the-art virtual reality for nursing. It was great. They could see in front of them—the trainee nurses—how to cope with a COVID patient who was deteriorating. What did Te Pūkenga decide about that? This is state-of-the-art stuff. It’s absolutely cutting edge. What did Te Pūkenga decide? Not, “Oh, gosh! We should try and get this in all the nursing schools.” No. They decided that was far too competitive with the rest of the nursing schools and said, “Oh, you can’t upgrade that. We can’t have that happening.” It was taking everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
What are we doing to ensure that there is going to be access to vocational education and training across the whole country? Putting in place a federation. A federation? What a novel idea. It was put in the submissions to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins when he set Te Pūkenga up that a federation would be a good idea. Did he listen? No, he knew what was best. A federation will allow those smaller polytechnics, those ones with remote populations, to be able to have online learning, to be able to have access to blended delivery, to be able to deliver a wider range of portfolios of programmes and to be able to ensure that those areas that have got high numbers of unemployed youth have got a pathway to employment, a pathway to a meaningful job, and a pathway to good pay. They have got a pathway to get them out of being on the jobseeker benefit, and that is because we are putting in place a model that will enable access right across the country.
Locals know best. Local people, local communities, local industries know best, and we need builders and we need plumbers and we need nurses and we need mechanics and we need chefs across the whole country, and that’s what they’ll get from National.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a farmer, and my colleague beside me is also a farmer and there are a few farmers in the building. [Interruption] Thank you very much.
SPEAKER: Where’s your boots?
MARK CAMERON: I want to share an expression that is shared in rural New Zealand, if I may: “Can’t fix stupid, but I can feed one.” That’s commonplace in rural New Zealand; 56- to 60-odd billion bucks is made by rural people. Now, I am amazed when I come into this building that the advocacy on the left when it comes to the representation of rural New Zealand is missing in action; routinely not mentioning what we do so marvellously well, that I advocate for, that Andrew Hoggard advocates for, and that others advocate for on this side of the House.
In the world of equanimity—equal and opposites—how is it so many are fed by so few, my colleagues and I? I cannot for the life of me reconcile why it’s never mentioned or so seldom mentioned by the other side of the House. What, did they forget their meals, their breakfast, their lunch, the clothing they wear? I see, routinely, people wearing leather goods, shoes, handbags; reconcile where that is made and by whom. Yet, routinely, no comment, nothing shared. How is that so?
My colleague and I, we go out, 365 days of the year, we milk a cow, we shear a sheep. [Interruption] We are cognisant that not doing so would be our fiscal end. People laugh, but they are wearing my clothing, this man’s clothing. They are drinking our milk, eating our cheese, gracious me! But it’s comedic on the other side of the House. I don’t understand how quickly the left forgets where its breakfast was or the dinner the night before.
I grew up in the country—a fair amount of it—and things that we took as commonplace, I want to share with this House to try and bring some rural New Zealand to my townie kin. Now, routinely, Andrew Hoggard and I and Mike Butterick and others would talk about a shearing raised board, a gut, a wool press. What does that look like to a townie? They don’t know, but that’s what made your blessed clothing. How do you reconcile that? A cowshed, a cluster, a bowl, a receiving can—commonplace tools for everyday Kiwi folk. A ploughshare, a shear pin, a hock, a fetlock; all were terminology that we grew up with. And yet 60 billion bucks, I’m so sad, is routinely not mentioned by my colleagues on the left. How can you reconcile that when we, as parliamentarians—some of us—have, essentially, turned our back on rural New Zealand?
Now, I want to share an anecdote, if I may, for some in the public gallery, some of my parliamentarian colleagues. I’m brought to reconciling a period in my life on a Sunday morning when I got into drain, to put a snig chain on a cow. Sunday morning, July, August—doesn’t matter, give or take a bit. It’s blessed freezing. Now, I am pulling out this cow for fear that I would lose her life. So I run a bag into her. My hands are frozen; if you’re lucky, it’s 5 or 6 degrees. I’ve now tried six or seven times to get a needle into this poor, blessed creature to save her life. Now, bear in mind, a lot of people don’t know what that looks like, Sunday morning, 5 degrees, rural New Zealand. That is commonplace to us; we understand this. This is not unusual. It is growing your food. It is making your leather goods. It is growing the cloth, if need be, if it’s sheep or woolly jumpers, as we call them in rural New Zealand. Why is it such an anathema to the left?
Well, every day—and I know I speak to this at ad nauseam, at frequent volume. Why is it such a rarity for the left to share the same anecdotes. Well, I know why: because there’s no one on that side of the House, sadly, that understands this. If they did, they would, because I cannot genuinely reconcile—
Helen White: A little bit smug.
MARK CAMERON: —that $56 billion, Helen White, is so seldomly spoken of. Where are your farmers, I ask you? You do not know because you do not have any. I am saddened but I will advocate as long as I am in this House, with my colleague Andrew Hoggard, Cameron Luxton, and others, because rural New Zealand is worth fighting for.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I want to take this opportunity to call out an incredibly destructive narrative that has been perpetuated by members of the Opposition and that ignored reality for the benefit of sound bites and headlines. You might wonder why I would want to bring this topic up, given the storm of speculation that occurred, but I want to talk about it, because New Zealand First does not recoil from the fight. I would quote, “New Zealand is on the cusp of making history—soon to be one of the first truly smokefree nations.” These are not my words; these are the words of Emeritus Professor Robert Beaglehole, the founder and chair of Action for Smoke Free 2025—ASH.
This success is attributed to practical policy positions that New Zealand First has advocated for since 2017. It was our position to deliver a smoke-free New Zealand. Before 2018, there were moderate declines in smoking rates and, from 2018, massive declines. New Zealand First came to this Government with a clear and unwavering commitment to continue to do what we know works, not because of virtue-signalling catchphrases, but by delivering a clear, supported, reduced-harm pathway from smoking. There was success—great success—but rather than sticking to what works, the previous Labour Government wanted to wave around a banner of the smoke-free generation when youth smoking was not the problem. Our young people aren’t smoking and haven’t been smoking for some years. Under-17s were already recording a smoking rate of 0.6 percent—the good news being that we have a smoke-free generation.
In the last recess, I again met with the front-line quit-smoking workers who understand the challenge of the tools they need. That is what New Zealand First does. We meet with the front line, we understand the front line, and we form our positions by working with the coalface, who deliver the services—those that have skin in the game; those that know what works and know what truly is the situation. Let’s again reflect not on my words, but on probably the foremost expert in smoke-free action: Robert Beaglehole, someone who has himself worked for the World Health Organization and spent decades working towards eliminating the smoking harm that afflicts New Zealanders. He tells us the drop is steepest for Māori, with the rates having halved in six years. This progress is exceptional. It took Pākehā more than four decades to achieve the fall achieved by Māori since 2018.
We were fed statistics by the Labour Government. As the saying goes, they used statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. We needed to be illuminated to make sure we were doing what was needed. Labour told this country, to justify their positions, that Māori smoking rates wouldn’t be below 20 percent until 2045. It was below 20 percent in 2023, 22 years earlier than they were telling us. The dangerous misinformation stalled progress. It took us on the wrong path, and instead of implementing practical solutions and actions that invested in enforcement, that invested in regulation, that invested in tracking the activity of our front-line quit-smoking services, they told us what they thought sounded good, not what was good. We know that we have long-term, addicted smokers who need to be given the tools and support they need to quit, and that is why New Zealand First will continue to work as part of our coalition agreement to deliver Smokefree 2025. In amongst all the scaremongering, in amongst all of the noise, we will continue to deliver the practical, common-sense policy positions.
I will close with the final words from Mr Robert Beaglehole: “New Zealand is leading the world in reducing smoking. It’s time to recognise our success—not only to celebrate [it], but to protect our gains, strengthen our commitment and inspire others [around the world] to follow”.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to really congratulate the Hon Penny Simmonds. She is a fantastic MP for Invercargill, but also a fantastic Minister. What she has done with the polytechs is truly amazing. I know Nick Smith, my cousin Nick, would join me in congratulating you on bringing back Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) into local control. What you said about local control is absolutely right. I think the people of the top of the South are really invigorated by this change. I know what great work NMIT are capable of doing across the top of the South.
NMIT, for a bit of context, was established in 1905, and the property was given to NMIT by the Nelson City Council at that time. So this is how these polytechs grew up around the country: with local money given to those entities to get them going. Then that was all subsumed into one giant mess. Really, it was a slap in the face for the locals, and I think this has gone a long way to bring it back, to where we are today. It’s been well-governed in the past, and it will be well-governed in the future. It had built up a $12 million surplus that it had tucked away. Where that is now, I don’t know. I hope it comes back to where it rightfully belongs. But they’ve also got enrolments which are up 12 percent, and internationals in NMIT now are up 36 percent. That’s a phenomenal performance for a small polytech at the top of the South.
Why would you have a polytech in the top of the South? Well, over 85 percent of the wine production from New Zealand comes from the top of the South, and over 60 percent of the seafood production comes from the top of the South. They run courses in both of those areas, and they’re run and delivered in the local area, and delivered for what the industry actually wants. There’s also a strong aviation industry in the top of the South. NMIT has an agreement with Air New Zealand, who will take on some of the aviation engineers that they train. That is a hugely skilful job with a lot of responsibility, and it’s a well-sought-after course.
But I’d like to point out the words of Olivia Hall, who is the chief executive—if you’ll bear with me—she said, “Thanks to our efforts to grow income and achieve savings, we’re now forecasting a shift from an expected $2 million deficit to a surplus of $1 million by the end of 2025.” That is a phenomenal turn-around. She goes on further to say that “This follows over five years of annual deficits of up to $5 million.” So local control will bring the success of NMIT back into focus again, and it’ll be a great thing for the top of the South.
In the limited time I’ve got left, I want to shout out to the people who’ve been very badly affected by the floods in the top of the South. I know there’s a lot of farmers and foresters out there at the moment trying to repair damage, and a lot of damage to roads as well. The community in the Onamalutu valley on the north bank of the Wairau River are cut off, with the road only being open for a short time in the morning and in the afternoon. There’s been a tremendous amount of rain, following a former storm. That has really laid the ground work—a lot of trees have come down with the soft ground and then very strong winds. So it’s done a lot of damage. It’s done a lot of damage to hop gardens and vineyards and so on. So we’re thinking of all those people that are out there doing the hard work trying to restore those things. I’ve done it before myself. It’s pretty tough work, and it can be quite soul destroying. So our thoughts are with them. I am sure we’re looking forward to restoring all the roads back so that people can go about their business in their normal manner. So I really am thinking of them.
I’d also like to shout out to the road workers and the emergency services that actually were out there working hard during the event, and are still working hard today. So thank you to all of those.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know that New Zealanders want jobs, health, and homes. But right now, they also want some hope, and that’s hard to get under this Government. The cost of living is driving New Zealanders offshore in record numbers. We know the highest levels ever have gone offshore, not only to Australia but to other countries as well.
The sad thing is that those numbers mask the actual unemployment number. If those people had remained in New Zealand, we would have seen an unemployment rate even higher than the one we currently see. So that migration rate masks the existing unemployment rate.
The pain that people are experiencing right now is directly the fault of this National Government, even though they refuse to take responsibility for it. They have cut jobs, they have cancelled infrastructure projects, and they have driven up costs like rates, insurance, and public transport, just to name a few.
I would like to read, quickly, an email I have recently received from a constituent who is soon to lose their home to a mortgagee sale. They’re almost a year without a job after losing their job in one of the Government’s cuts. “We have tried everything: payment holidays, interest-only terms, even food bank support. I’ve reached out to family and friends and while their generosity has helped us to get this far, now we have hit a wall. Our bank is demanding $27,000 to clear the mortgage arrears and a return to $7,500 a month in repayments. Without this, we will be handed over to the lawyers for a mortgagee sale in the coming weeks. We are not just numbers; we are families, professionals, and community contributors brought to our knees by a system that has failed to protect its own.”
The hurt is real in our communities. People are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, and the very homes that they have scrimped and saved and used their KiwiSaver to purchase. They’ve threatened our future here in New Zealand and that is why we are seeing record numbers departing from New Zealand. Nicola Willis is in denial regarding those unemployment figures because she refuses to acknowledge that that number of people leaving directly means that the number is underrepresented.
The construction industry is an example that again we are seeing the Government duck and dive and not stand up and take responsibility for—15,000 jobs gone from the construction sector and that is reported on by Statistics New Zealand. Yet, still, we have the Minister of Finance denying the Statistics New Zealand figures for construction job losses are accurate, and that reflects that this Government is out of touch and not understanding the reality of what Kiwis find themselves in.
Just to continue on that theme of “out of touch”, I would like to briefly talk about homes. Christopher Luxon continues to talk about the great track record his Government has on homes when people are on the streets. We all know this. We see this in our own areas.
Then we have Mark Mitchell out in Rotorua, who has told the media, has told people, that people are on the streets of Rotorua because that is a “lifestyle choice”. He says that people are on the streets because they want to come together for a sense of community. That Minister is completely out of touch, and it, sadly, sounds like something out of a Charles Dickens novel that you have someone who owns seven properties, telling homeless people that they’re coming together for a sense of community. But no, this is this Government—this is the reality that they do not understand the difficulty that Kiwis are under.
We know that things are getting worse in New Zealand, not getting better. We need a Government that cares, and we need an economy that works for everybody. We in Labour believe that we should have hope. We want to give our children hope and a future and a job and a home here in New Zealand, not tell them that there is no opportunity here. We know that the only real opportunity is a change of Government because those opposite do not care about people; they only care about serving their own. That is destroying our communities and taking away jobs, health, homes, and even the hope that keeps our people going.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The former member, the Hon Ginny Andersen, talked about Charles Dickens novels; well, I think she just needs to go back to Sesame Street to learn that one and one equals two, because what we saw under that Government was outrageous expenditure going through the roof, a total lack of delivery, a lack of a clear plan for New Zealand. And what happened? We saw inflation go through the roof; we saw interest rates rise to try and counter that—that led to a recession across the country. We then saw homeowners—like the example the member just gave, and it is terrible for anyone in that situation—that, under that Government, could get cheap interest rates initially, and then the inflation took hold. They went up multiple percentage points, they lost equity, they were losing homes, and, unfortunately, those chickens were coming home to roost from the Labour Government’s poor management. That led to unemployment, that led to people leaving New Zealand, and it led to businesses failing.
I think it’s a bit rich for that side of the House to get up and try and blame the Government now for the horrendous situation that it inherited after six years of suffering under Labour’s leadership. It’s a simple disgrace, and they should be embarrassed. I think that’s why we see the nastiness—that’s why we see the bitterness coming out of that side of the House. It’s driven by frustration, because they can see now where they got it wrong. They can’t admit it, but they can see it. They can also see that this Government has a clear plan to restore New Zealand’s prospects—to get New Zealand back on track.
We can see that in the Waikato as well, and my electorate now is incredibly positive about the opportunities on the horizon. The food and fibre sector, of course, has been doing very well over the last year or so, leading the recovery again for New Zealand, like they typically do. Despite being bagged by the then Government of the day, the food and fibre sector stood up and delivered time and time again. I want to thank all of those farmers, all of those growers up and down New Zealand, but particularly in my electorate of the Waikato. I meet them every week; they are fantastic people doing fantastic work for their families, for their communities, and ultimately for the country. It is wonderful to see.
But our electorate suffered under the last Government, as well. We saw the cancellation of projects like the Waikato Expressway—a fantastic project that was much needed, a critical infrastructure project in our region—and Southern Links, as well. We saw the third medical school not supported by the last Government, as well. All of these things that would have led to opportunity being unlocked in our region, and as one of the fastest-growing regions in the country—in the Golden Triangle: Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga—our region needs to be supported to grow. The opportunity is there, the people are desperate for that support—and now, thank goodness, they are getting it.
I want to talk about Telephone Road. It’s a simple example, in my electorate, of just how bad it got under the last Government. This was a road that had been a State highway bypass initially, then the expressway was built. When that happened, that intersection was closed—it had a railway line crossing it, and it was deemed to be too dangerous. This speaks to the culture of “No” under the last Government, where everything was just too hard, and the simple answer was “No, don’t allow anything.” That intersection got shut. It impacted local families, it impacted the communities—it impacted farmers, their families, their schools—not being able to access that. And the Government of the day did nothing to stop it. After a long, hard fight, I am delighted now that with the support of the community—and the local council even got on board, as well—we have managed to get that reopened. It’s a fantastic outcome, and it speaks to this Government’s desire to see progress—to support good, community-led solutions that make sense to just get things done. I am so pleased that that intersection will now be operational again for that community.
It’s a simple example, but it just shows how meaningful it can be when you have a different approach, when you have a Government that is saying “Yes”, that is creating new rules, that is getting rid of the Resource Management Act, creating a whole sweeping change to our planning systems to allow progress to support development, innovation, economic prosperity, because that is how our country is going to succeed. That is how we are going to see the economic growth we need. That is how we are going to stop Kiwis that suffered under Labour, that have been leaving to Australia and beyond—that is how we will stop that; that is how we will attract them back, and that is how we will set this country up for success.
Finally, I want to end looping back to the food and fibre space. The Young Farmer of the Year contest was held recently down in Invercargill. Hugh Jackson won that, a fantastic young man from the Waikato - Bay of Plenty, but a fantastic competition showcasing brilliance in our food and fibre sector. Thank you.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Mr Speaker, thank you. It’s an opportunity to take a call in the House today to acknowledge the severe weather that hit the top of the South Island over the past few weeks. I just want to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of the devastation in my community and also to put on record my thanks to some of those who have been helping during this time.
From 25 to 27 June, severe weather hit the Tasman and Nelson region, with between 200 to 300 millimetres of rain recorded in some locations. For many of these areas, it was a one-in-100-year event, and many of our rivers were inundated at the highest level since records began. Properties and homes were devastated, many people were evacuated, rivers rerouted, roads chewed up, power out to thousands of homes, critical infrastructure—like water infrastructure—damaged, and many, many stopbanks destroyed.
Sadly, local hop grower Peter Lines was killed while cleaning up damage on his property. I know I speak for the whole House when I express our sadness at the loss of Peter and acknowledge his family and friends, who are feeling his loss significantly.
I also want to pay some particular acknowledgment to some of our local leaders. It’s always a bit risky singling people out, but there are a couple I want to single out in this speech today—people who have been providing significant leadership and support throughout this very difficult time for our region: Mayor Tim King, a good friend, who, despite having lost a member of his wider family, has been showing significant leadership in our community; his deputy mayor, Stuart Bryant, for his steady and wise leadership—it will be a sorry loss to our community when he leaves his role later this year—and the many Tasman District councillors who have been out and about supporting their communities at many events and visiting people.
I want to acknowledge the other MPs and other leaders who’ve also been supporting and a couple of the Ministers in particular who’ve been very communicative: Mark Mitchell and Mark Patterson; my thanks to you both. I also want to pay particular thanks to two of the Civil Defence leaders—Alec Louverdis and Briar Cook—who really have stepped up and led their teams remarkably over the last few weeks. It’s fair to say people are exhausted, and we are very grateful for the amount of support that has come in from outside of the region to support our teams locally on the ground. It has been an immense amount of support.
The photos and the footage on TV and social media don’t do justice to the damage that is visible on the ground. There are around 40 local roads that are still shut. Some of these roads are so badly damaged, the water has lifted and eroded massive chunks of the road so you can hardly even see where the road was. There are massive landslips on roads and properties and damaged infrastructure throughout the district—places like Tapawera, Ngātīmoti, Riwaka, Motueka Valley, and Mārahau to name a few.
We have a few asks, and I would be doing a disservice particularly to Nelson Mayor Nick Smith if I didn’t put this on the record today. We need a rain radar—we desperately need a rain radar—and also more integrated systems for helping to predict rain patterns. One of the issues that has cropped up in the Nelson floods in 2022 and in these floods was that it was very difficult for our local teams to accurately predict where the rain was coming, and we often only get it at a moment’s notice. That has made it very, very difficult. We’ve been making that clear to Ministers, and I’m making it clear on the record today that we desperately need these improvements and systems.
The other thing we need to sort out, which is an issue across the country but really showed itself, is the local road maps. We have two websites that don’t talk to each other: one showing New Zealand Transport Agency road closures; the other showing local road closures. If you’re stuck in somewhere like Saint Arnaud, trying to figure out how to get to Nelson, off your phone, looking at two websites, it’s an absolute pain in the butt— insert unparliamentary language here! That needs to be fixed.
The other issue that has really cropped up is the issue of support for our phone lines, our fibre, and our communications networks. I would not be accurate if I said we were completely happy with how that has been sorted locally. There is more to do in terms of legislation to require our lifelines to provide their plans to our local civil defence team so that we have better backups for things like the 111 system. It is something that needs to be addressed.
I could speak for a lot longer on this, but I just want to thank everyone who has helped to support our region—people, the first responders, everybody in the region, everyone from outside of the region. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of te iwi Māori as I consider the backtrack that we’re making in terms of hauora Māori and the current amendment that we have to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, which was to pave the way for both healthy, thriving individuals and healthy, thriving communities and whānau. Yet the amendments that are coming through the House right now are despicable, because they are turning the back on the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 2575—the recommendations that paved the way for the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act to create a new way of building a robust, healthy, community-focused health system. Yet now we have the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, we have relegated iwi-Māori partnership boards to solely whānau voice, we are going to see the health sector principles put in the rubbish bin, and we’re expecting a stressed workforce to try and work through serious concerns in terms of workplace safety. So what is the sector to think? What is te iwi Māori to think in terms of the way that the Minister is literally pulling the rug out from beneath the community, beneath te iwi Māori, and relegating our voice to merely whānau voice?
Let’s not forget that the Minister is elevating his ministerial advisory group, the hauora advisory committee, to be the sole voice of te iwi Māori to both the Minister and the new board of Te Whatu Ora: Health New Zealand. It is really frustrating, as somebody who is deeply connected to community, to see the way that we are seeing the stripping back of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act that was a guiding star in the vision of Tā Meihana Durie to be nothing. “Pae Mate” I would call it—“Pae Mate”. Because what is the good of focusing on patient only when you’re not considering community and whānau wellbeing, which is, of course, something that contributes to all of us as all New Zealanders. That’s the issue that we have: the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act is awesome, the intent was great, our communities were on board and so was the sector. But as we saw, the changes, the repeals, the way that the Government has continued to claw back and undermine the very building blocks of what the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act was intended to be, what are we to think? What are we to think?
And the iwi-Māori partnership boards, who are saying, “No, it’s not OK. You disestablished our localities, you swiped us out of having any local community voice, the intersectoral community voice that was bringing together councils, other Government departments, community, hapū, iwi, and then elevating up their recommendations to the iwi-Māori partnership boards, to take away strategic commissioning, take away monitoring, and relegating them just to whānau voice.” Where is the fairness? Where is the lens on equity? Because that’s what’s happening in Pae Ora. It’s not just Māori going to be impacted; it’s our takatāpui rainbow community it’s going to be our migrant community; it’s going to be anybody of difference, even like our whaikaha. Because when you take away the equity lens out of legislation, you’re turning your back on those most vulnerable in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Where can we as kaimahi in the sector look, because if it’s not in the legislation, it’s not a given that it’s going to happen—it’s not a given that it will happen? I want to raise that as an issue because we’ve seen with Local Water Done Well, if they don’t have to engage as council with hapū and iwi, they won’t, because they didn’t. They didn’t for Local Water Done Well. So if you take it out of the legislation for Pae Ora, is Te Whatu Ora going to consider equity? Is Te Whatu Ora really going to prioritise those that die the earliest in our communities, which is Māori—seven to eight years generally in community. But, in listening to our kaikōrero from Ōpōtiki/Whakatane on the weekend, when I addressed the Te Oranga Māori Medical Students’ Association, he shared that, actually, it’s 14 years—the age gap between Māori and non-Māori in Ōpōtiki/Whakatane. That’s horrific that we are losing Māori 14 years ahead of non-Māori in the Bay of Plenty district.
So what is the pathway forward for us? We’re going to fight as tangata whenua. We will fight alongside our health sector colleagues for better pay, for better work conditions, and for our focus on fairness and equity for all New Zealanders. Kia ora.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While I am the happy last speaker in this general debate, I’ll start by speaking to the House about the tragic burning down of the St Mary’s Catholic church in Avondale early on Monday morning. St Mary’s Avondale has been in existence for over 100 years, having been established in 1905 through 1906. St Mary’s Avondale is home to very many families; it is not unusual to encounter parishioners who themselves had attended church in St Mary’s when they were little and who have attended the attached primary school, St Mary’s primary, when they were little, and who now have their own children or their own grandchildren attending St Mary’s.
Nothing was left, and it is a very, very sad time for the people of Avondale and New Lynn and neighbouring suburbs. While this tragedy has meant that St Mary’s doors have closed for now, windows of joy and hope have actually opened: St Mary’s parishioners have had a renewal of their faith, united by this tragedy, and have been welcomed at the Christ the King parish in Ōwairaka, with open arms. We all look with hope to the future where St Mary’s doors will open again.
I also want to now bring into this general debate the thousands of parents throughout New Zealand who are working hard in their jobs and working very hard raising their young children. In a time where the cost of living is so high, it’s become difficult for families, the Government has taken decisive steps to lighten as best as possible their financial burdens. Key policies stand out, particularly the FamilyBoost, which started last year in July. At that time, it was a targeted and designed policy to give ease to the cost of living for families; 25 percent of the cost of early childhood education could be refunded up to $75 per week. But at the beginning of this month, our Government has updated this programme to do much more, and families can now be refunded 40 percent of their early childhood education costs up to $150 per week. This means that parents have a little more left over in their pockets. They can choose to save this money or to spend this money for their families. It equates to a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per year in their pockets. In New Lynn alone, 9,000 couples with children are going to benefit from this. There are 3,000 single parent homes in New Lynn who will also benefit from this updated FamilyBoost policy.
I also want to bring in the very many seniors throughout New Zealand, particularly in New Lynn, who are doing it tough—especially the ones on fixed incomes—and how hard it has been to keep up with increasing rates. The Rates Rebate Scheme of this Government, which started on 1 July, has updated the rebate scheme which supports up to 66,000 SuperGold card holders.
It’s a privilege to work for a Government that looks out for its seniors and looks out for parents who are hard-working and tries their best to help them out with the raising of their children. I am privileged to be able to speak at this general debate today. Thank you.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Bills
Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 21 May.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): I want to congratulate the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for her member’s bill. Sadly, on behalf of the ACT Party, we won’t be supporting the bill.
Rawiri Waititi: Oh, come on!
MARK CAMERON: Sorry, Rawiri Waititi, the sun is the centre of the solar system, and I follow science, if I could, kind sir.
Rawiri Waititi: It’s elementary, my dear “Watson”.
MARK CAMERON: I want to lay out some geological factoids that the member may be interested in. Albeit I see that the member is quite animated by the bill, there are a couple of things that I think we really need to lay out. We have 70 major river systems in New Zealand. The members may or may not be aware that there is 180,000 kilometres of mapped rivers or streams. Now, I was trying to try and reconcile what this looked like in New Zealand. The 180,000 kilometres I’ve just referenced is equal to 4½ times the circumference of the planet, and, apparently, bottling water and selling it overseas is a drama. I cannot quite reconcile that, and it is ideological, I would argue.
Now, I was also trying to square up some of the other mathematics—science, as it were—for the members on the other side of the House trying to contextualise rainfall in New Zealand. I was thinking that we have all these natural geological forces here in New Zealand. We have a full half-million cubic metres of rainfall every year in New Zealand and, somehow, by bottling water we are going to do ourselves a disservice in New Zealand. The last fact I want to share with the House, if I can, for the members opposite—and I don’t want to over-litigate the enormity of geological forces, but that is nine times what goes into Lake Taupō.
So I would argue, and I certainly would believe that this side of the House would argue, that we don’t have a shortage of water. Eight out of 10 parts end up in the blissed ocean, so, really, I think the justification for this bill is somewhat ideological, and I don’t want to be at risk of being unkind, but it does look like it runs rough shot over resource management, and assets and consents that have already been given to certain individuals or organisations—
Hon Rachel Brooking: When have you been opposed to running rough shot over the Resource Management Act?
MARK CAMERON: —and corporates in New Zealand. It really is overreach—Rachel Boyack. I mean, I cannot for the life of me see how it is not protectionist.
Camilla Belich: It’s “Brooking”.
MARK CAMERON: Please try and square away, if we can—sorry, Brooking; I beg your pardon. With eight out of every 10 litres going into the sea, are we really this worried about this? And if it sets a protectionist tone, what does that, as a precedent, look like for the rest of New Zealand, when we’re trying to find ways to get ourselves out of the economic doldrums?
I don’t believe and my party does not believe that there is any need for this bill. It appears to be ideologically driven. I would have loved to hear the member’s speech on how or why she saw a justification for it, and I apologise that I was in absentia, but it does lack justification. Where is the science? If there was science that would suggest that we are somehow going to be bereft in managing our freshwater assets if we do not push this forwards—which certainly does not appear to be the case—then I would have happily litigated this issue further with my caucus. It certainly doesn’t seem to be the case, so, again, I apologise to the member on behalf of the ACT Party, and, at the risk of overplaying my hand, we won’t be supporting the bill.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill. This bill has some parts in it that New Zealand First has actually explored through policy in the past, and it has around the country, in certain areas, been a very topical subject. There has been concern from communities around the extraction of water sources, and especially around the bottling of water.
New Zealand First, in, I believe, around 2017, considered introducing a royalty on bottled water exports, but we found that that was unworkable due to the numerous administration complexities and the limited benefits from that, but it still remains a concern. The problem here with this bill is actually the language that is used in it. We use a very strong term here, especially in resource management, when we use the word “prohibit”. If we’re going to go down the line of prohibiting, it is meaning that you can’t do it, and it doesn’t give anyone the opportunity—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Unless it’s in the fast track—then you can.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: No, we’re not going to be fast tracking. We’re going to be sensible here: where “prohibit” is used, you can’t actually be able to apply even for a consent, and that then becomes a concern, considering the economic benefit in all the different businesses that relate to water extraction that I’m going to talk about.
So there is, as I say, a number of different New Zealand - owned brands such as Pure One, the Pump water that we get through the company, and I think there’s up to, roughly—I just googled it earlier—about 52 different companies at the moment throughout New Zealand that actually have licences. It is a high-value export market for pure water, and, obviously, the regional jobs and the people that are employed in those companies is where the benefit is.
What we do find when we look at water extraction in the past is that the actual extraction amount of bottled water doesn’t even make 1 percent. It doesn’t even make 0.01 percent. It’s down to 0.00163 of a percent that is actually in the bottled water. The amount of water extraction in that is such a small amount, so to actually then prohibit that—is it actually going to make a difference, because water extraction is going to so many other uses such as horticulture, or just municipal use in cities and towns around the country, so this blunt approach also risks undermining innovation and growth.
As a Government, we are trying to increase economic growth. We want to see regional growth. So if we all of a sudden say no to this and if we’re going to prohibit any new water extraction, there will be no chance for growth, and we’ve got things like the iconic Kiwi brands like Charlie’s, Foxton Fizz, Pals, and Almighty. All of these would be unintentionally caught by prohibiting water extraction, and the worst thing is that as we’re trying to grow the economy, there would be no chance of extracting more. We would be prohibiting even the opportunity to ask for a consent, and New Zealand First believes that that is the wrong way to go.
We also know that bottled water provides a critical role in emergency situations. So we could have the very real situation, like the previous Government did with other things around our using our natural resources, where we’d be importing water into the country, and that would be just absolutely absurd. We do have that situation where we’re doing that with coal, and so the Opposition probably would actually agree with that, but we can’t get into a situation where we’re not using our own natural resources.
On that note, as much as there are some good intentions in this bill, New Zealand First can’t support it. We can’t see a way of actually fixing the wording. By using the word “prohibit”, it actually limits that possibility. So I don’t commend the bill for the House.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare, me ngā mihi ki a koe, e te tuahine, mō te kaupapa ki runga i tēnei Whare mō te rā nei. He kaupapa ki te manaakitanga o te taiao. Nā reira e mihi ana ki a koe e te tuahine, e Deb.
[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations to you, my sister, for the endeavour that is upon this House for today. It is an initiative for the care of the environment. And so I acknowledge you, my sister, Deb.]
This bill, the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill, amends the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 to make the extraction of fresh water for the purpose of on-selling in packaged form a prohibited activity. I was listening to the contributions in the House from across the way, and a couple of comments made me smile. Jamie Arbuckle talked about sensibility when it comes to the environment, and Mark Cameron said that—
Mark Cameron: Geography, my friend—geography.
SHANAN HALBERT: —this is a “rough shot” over the RMA. That’s incredible when we think about—
Mark Cameron: Well, I didn’t say the RMA; I said “geography”, mate.
SHANAN HALBERT: That’s what you said. It’s incredible when we think about what these Government members have done in such a short time. You know, they’ve designed their whole environmental policies and repeals to create rough shots over our taiao—our environment—in Aotearoa New Zealand, and fast track is a great example of how they have exactly run rough shot over the RMA. So members on the other side of this House need to get real, because when it comes to protecting this environment, it is not coming from that side of the House.
However, I might have digressed a little bit, but this bill targets only one specific use of water for export, even though other export users consume more water and would not be carrying out a prohibited activity under this bill—for example, water used for growing grapes or wine exports, water used broadly in agriculture for things like dairy farming, for kiwifruit growing, or for exported products. This makes the bill inconstant in its application to water use, but I do acknowledge the intention of this bill and the intention, in particular, to protect the taiao and the resources that we have. I look to examples of the last Labour Government and I think of things like the legislation—
Hon Member: Three waters?
SHANAN HALBERT: —for the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA). I think three waters was an excellent example of how we include Māori in decision making—
Andy Foster: Nobody else.
SHANAN HALBERT: —well, you didn’t read the piece of legislation, obviously, Andy—when it comes to our resources in this great country of ours. But when I look at this Government’s 100-day plan when those members came in and the hypocrisy that they present in this House, they repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act, both of which provided Māori with a greater role in decision making. I think about when the NBA required all persons exercising powers under the Act to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which I know each and every one of them across the House absolutely hates hearing about the importance of that, but I also think about the examples—and this makes them cringe, as well—of Te Mana o te Wai, which is ensuring, of course, that New Zealand legislation recognises the vital importance of our fresh water, whose health is integral to the social, the cultural, the economic, and the environmental wellbeing of communities.
The hypocrisy from across this House and the contributions just before mine are just incredible, and so I encourage the members from the Government to rethink their contributions in this House. But, lastly, in my final few seconds, is just to acknowledge the intention of this bill and to acknowledge Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege to speak on the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill in its first reading. It is here by the lucky draw of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and before I go any further, can I just acknowledge the loss of your colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp. We look forward to acknowledging that more formally in due course, as well.
It looks like this is the member’s second successful drawing of a bill, and I look forward to one day being a successful drawer, as well. So what does this bill seek to do? Well, essentially—
Hon James Meager: Oh, move on!
RYAN HAMILTON: No, this isn’t the “Move On Orders Bill”, but, hopefully, that’s coming—thank you, Mr Meager. This bill seeks freshwater management allocation and to try to protect Māori rights and interests in fresh water. These are things that we’d acknowledge are all key parts of the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform which we’ve got coming up over the next 12 months. We are already working with iwi and farmers and other key stakeholders in developing these proposals, especially as they relate to fresh water.
We acknowledge the intent of this bill, and there is a need to protect to some degree our fresh water. Where this bill falls a little bit short is that it is quite broad. It says that it is the extraction of all fresh water, everywhere, all throughout the country, and when I was doing a bit of research on this bill, I think the member was, I guess, inspired or catalysed by the extraction around Whanganui and the extensive water-bottling rate and scale. I do sympathise with that, and I think that, potentially, if this bill was a little bit more nuanced and might look at a cap, a restriction, or something like that, then perhaps we might be able to support it, but it’s just, unfortunately, a little bit too broad in its scope.
We’ve been very clear and explicit as a Government that we’re going for growth in terms of our agenda, and economic development is a huge part of that. When I just looked quickly at the water-bottling industry in New Zealand, it’s worth over $500 million a year, and that would be a massive cut. I mean, we get criticised for cutting jobs and for laying people off—no pun intended, but this would have a rather chilling effect on the water industry.
There is the ecosystem involved with water, and you can think of the plastic bottling, the glass industry, the couriers, the transport industry—you know, you’re going on a road trip to see the All Blacks in Auckland at Eden Park, or, potentially, going to Christchurch in a taxi to see the Crusaders, unfortunately, beat the Chiefs, and you want to go into a petrol station because you’re feeling a bit parched and you need a water bottle. You need some fluid, and I would definitely support buying New Zealand water, rather than importing water from other countries and things like that.
So this does have a lot of implications for the wider ecosystem of industry. That would affect a lot of people, and, as Jamie Arbuckle alluded to earlier, what about emergency services? That’s a very real situation in New Zealand. We’ve declared a state of emergency at the top of the South Island just last week, with heavy rain—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Speak to the bill, which is about exporting.
RYAN HAMILTON: This is about water, Rachel Brooking, and so I’m speaking about water. Anyway, if we were to ban this, it actually goes quite broad, Rachel Brooking. It says that it’s the extraction of water for bottling purposes, and it’s too broad. If in an emergency crisis we needed water for obvious services—for storage, for civil defence—we’ve got to keep it quite broad. We don’t want unintended consequences, so it’s very important we keep all options open.
It’s also about choice. We want choice for consumers, for suppliers, and for manufacturers, and, of course—as, again, Jamie Arbuckle referenced—what about the unintended consequences? What about if other drink providers or beverage consumers get caught in some legal loophole with the use of extracted water, because we know it’s in everything from ready-to-drinks, our energy drinks—even blue Musashis contain water, and, of course, we’ve got Wild Bean coffee.
The extraction of water is a vital part of our economy, and we can all acknowledge that, but we’ve got to have appropriate legislation around it. With our RMA reform, this will be an integral part of that going forward over the next 12 months.
So it’s with some sympathy that we won’t be supporting the bill. But I congratulate Debbie on her success in having member’s bills drawn, and I just hope that next time it’s one that we’ll be able to support. Thank you.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to just touch on what lies at the heart of this bill, which to my reading of it is two aspirations, and that’s the rangatiratanga of tangata whenua and the need to protect fresh water and keep it safe from pollutants, contamination, and over-extraction. At the heart of this bill lies these two things, and those are aspirations that we do support the aim of.
My colleague Shanan Halbert has pointed out some of the inconsistencies in this specific bill that mean that it’s difficult to support this iteration of it, but I do want to speak to the aspirations that lie in this bill. It was interesting to note that Ryan Hamilton, the member who has just resumed his seat, talked about the fact that the Government acknowledges the need to protect fresh water to some degree, he said, and I find that particularly interesting in light of the changes that the Government has made which don’t protect fresh water to any degree.
I wanted to speak specifically about the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act. I know that my colleague Rachel Brooking has pointed out that that was undertaken within the first 100 days of this Government’s plan, but that particular legislation would have required those who were exercising powers under that Act to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It would have introduced mechanisms specifically to enable iwi and hapū to be directly involved in regional planning committees. In fact, one of the main purposes of that legislation was to uphold the concept of Te Oranga o te Taiao, or the heart and the wellbeing of the environment. It integrated te ao Māori—Māori world views—into legislation. It was a good example of giving effect to rangatiratanga of tangata whenua and involving Māori in decision making in that way, and it’s a shame that this Government felt the need to repeal that Act.
Similarly, they then weakened the freshwater protections in section 107 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which was really a longstanding legal safeguard that sets that bottom line for freshwater quality. So we’ve seen the weakening of that. We’ve seen the blocking of Otago Regional Council’s land and water plan, which was done through a last-minute introduction by this Government to the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that retrospectively prevented Otago’s vote and didn’t allow it the ability to protect its own fresh water in that sense. Then, of course, there is their commitment in their coalition with Act to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai to, as they say, better reflect the interests of water users, but we say it is to weaken Māori involvement when it comes to decision making.
I don’t feel the need to labour the point. I think that other speakers on this side of the House have made these points. What I did want to point out is that it’s all well and good to stand in this House and say that your Government acknowledges a whole bunch of things, but it’s really in the actions of this Government that we see that they are taking us backwards as a country when it comes to protecting the environment more broadly, the work or the lack thereof on conservation, and definitely when it comes to protecting our fresh water.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to also contribute in the first reading of the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, this is a member’s bill in the name of our colleague across the House Ms Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and I’d also like to, please, just take a moment to acknowledge the passing of our colleague and our friend Takutai Tarsh Kemp. May her soul rest in peace.
I want to acknowledge you, Debbie, and I know that when you stand for something, you stand for it, and it’s all or nothing. [Interruption] Sorry, team, but I’m trying to make a speech here. Debbie, you stand for it a hundred percent, and I want to acknowledge your advocacy in this situation when it comes to freshwater issues, and also your fierce advocacy—as it was with Takutai, God rest her soul—with respect to Māori rights and interests. But, as you’ve heard in this instance, National, while understanding the intentions behind your passion here and this bill—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If you could not involve the Speaker—you could direct your further comments to the Speaker.
RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, my apologies—yes, thank you. Sorry, and my apologies, Mr Speaker. In this situation, National will not be supporting this bill.
I agree that fresh water needs to be managed carefully, but, respectfully, this bill’s approach—as we’ve heard from my colleagues—in this instance is oversimplistic. We also feel that it undermines the broader and more effective reforms already under way in respect of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and in respect of this Government’s kaupapa of growing our economy to benefit all New Zealanders.
I just wanted to say that I understand this from a personal point of view. My village in Lebanon, which I’ve mentioned a few times in the House—Ainata al Arz—is the highest village in Lebanon, and it’s got the purest water in Lebanon. For years, one of my uncles was trying to extract the water to sell it and to say that we wanted to make money for the rest of our cousins in our village. Many people were opposed to that for these same reasons, but eventually they came round, and many people in that very rural area of Lebanon—where the Government back there doesn’t care about them—are making some funds that can help their families. When we talk about benefiting rural areas and rural communities, that’s what I think of as well, from a very personal experience
We believe that if it is managed sustainably, fresh water has the potential, as I’m mentioning, to grow our economy and, like I just said, support, particularly, regional development. By supporting regional development, what we’re doing is lifting living standards for all New Zealanders.
Shanan Halbert: Not in Takanini.
RIMA NAKHLE: Just in—well, in Takanini, I went door-knocking the other day, unlike others, and they were telling me on the doorsteps to “Please keep going”, as they continuously tell me on the doorsteps. So to the list MP across the House—I don’t know if he goes door-knocking much, because he’s a list MP, but I go door-knocking very often and I hear what they’re saying on the doorsteps in Takanini, and they’re really, really looking forward to the continuous growth of our country to help them improve their lives and the lives of their children.
Now, as mentioned earlier, this member’s bill that was drawn out would, essentially, amend the Resource Management Act 1991. There’s a main provision that I’d like—if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker—to bring the attention of the House to, and it is the provision to amend section 87B: “Extraction of freshwater for the purpose of on-selling of the water in packaged form (whether the water remains in liquid form or not) must be treated as a prohibited activity.”
Coming back to the values of the National Party—and, indeed, this is a common value across the coalition parties—we really focus on how we are going to grow not only the economy but also enterprise, as well. We are making extensive, comprehensive RMA reforms, as has been touched upon by my colleagues. I’m really excited about these reforms because they are years and years in the making. We had six years of no reform, but just a lot of talk and no action, when it came to the RMA. There was maybe a little bit of action, but not enough action—not as much quick action as we’re doing in the areas that matter. Our reforms will focus on simplifying planning processes and strengthening environmental protections—side by side, as well—and part of that will be improving freshwater allocation systems, as well.
To my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, my apologies that we’re not supporting the bill this time. We understand the intention, but the RMA reforms we’re doing will, we believe, be very good.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The right of reply—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Thank you for the respect that has been afforded to this bill, and also a huge mihi to you all for the aroha that you have shown to Te Pāti Māori and the w’ānau for the loss of Takutai. When we come to talk about something like this, it’s really difficult because half our heart still hasn’t come back to be able to debate in the passion that this kaupapa requires. But what I will say is that incumbent on all of us is to remember what it is that we have the opportunity to do in this space.
I have been absolutely humbled by having the opportunity afforded by W’anganui and those of our w’ānau who believe wholeheartedly in our rights as tangata whenua and in the rights that our mokopuna have and our communities have to enjoy fresh water, and to enjoy the ability not only to drink in it but to swim in it. This is one of the ways—in a now moment; using the member’s bill process—that we were looking to do that, while acknowledging that big iwi, like Ngāi Tahu, are there in the courts, continuing to fight for our rights and interests that we have as tangata whenua and mana whenua in wai.
The thing with this bill—and I appreciate the arguments that were given, and I’d actually like to go straight to that. The fact that it’s an ideological approach to wai is—really, I think, the ideal of us all is to not allow a multinational to profit from the exploitation of our resources, and that is why this bill was contained solely to making sure that those who are trying to bottle and export our wai don’t get the opportunity.
There was an argument of science, and the hydrological science confirms aquifer depletion. This isn’t just about wai; this is about groundwater, and this is about those who, on many of our marae and communities, have to boil water. They have to actually use water and buy it in. So this was a situation in W’anganui—trying to preserve that very fact.
We have, sadly, a depletion that is continuing to impact our ecosystems, and whether we want to admit that or not, that is the situation we’re dealing with. So, for us, this was about trying to put through a proposition. We were able to go out to talk to our wider community. Ngāi Tahu support the fact that we should hold and prohibit—not just slightly, just prohibit—while we continue to fight for the rights and interests, and while we make sure that consents are contained. Ngāruahine and Ngāti Rangi—who have had at one stage all water from 22 watercourses, including four rivers, be retained and diverted to the Eastern Diversion power scheme—have actually come out in staunch support of this bill because they see every day the impact of the redirection and the depletion of their wai. These are communities who have been really outspoken about what it is that we’re trying to do.
We appreciate the support of te w’ānau a Kākāriki and will continue to give te pāti Labour the pūkana, because the reality is that both settler parties—legacy parties—have had the opportunity to preserve our wai, and none have been successful. If they were, we wouldn’t have to be here.
I also urge those who don’t want to address the issue of water to at least understand why it’s an issue, and to get into those communities and to talk to the people and remove ourselves from the privileged spaces that allow economic growth to take priority. One of the things that I do want to land on as a rural wahine and as a descendant of farmers is that there is this a misconception that this would stop economic growth. The reality is that the royalties are low and the profits are high. The contribution to the GDP does not exceed our environmental protections and our obligations to each other, so I think that those are red herrings.
Hoi anō, again, I want to say that it has been an absolute privilege to be able to come here and have our members’ bills pulled out of the ballot so that we get to have an opportunity that many in their time don’t have. I am going to say, and try to not say it in a whakahīhī way, that Te Pāti Māori—Rawiri and I—have had a 100 percent success rate on these members’ bills. The impact that they make for our communities and the opportunity we get to show why we’re here cannot be understated, and I really hope that those who are in this space take their obligation wisely and continue to do the best that we can for all of our communities, because all New Zealanders deserve to have fresh water and deserve to live here well. Kia ora rā.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 20
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Motion not agreed to.
Bills
Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I move, That the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
It is a privilege to rise in support of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill as it returns to this House for its second reading. This bill delivers what I believe to be long overdue changes to our Family Court system—changes that put the safety, the dignity, and the wellbeing of victims of family violence at the centre of the proceedings. If we are serious about standing with victims, then we should certainly support this bill. I want to acknowledge Dr Emily Henderson, whose expertise and commitment to justice for victims helped shape this bill, and who continues her work out there in the big wide world to make a real difference in this space.
At the heart of this bill is a simple but powerful shift: victims of family violence would no longer need to justify their need for protection when giving evidence in Family Court. Instead, there would be a presumption that they can give their evidence through alternative means, via screen, remotely, or using other protective methods. The responsibility to prevent further harm lies with the court, and not on the shoulders of those already harmed; it’s not a privilege that they must apply for.
The Justice Committee heard powerful and deeply distressing accounts from survivors and from advocacy groups and advocates, including The Backbone Collective, ECLIPSE Family Violence Services, Tautoko Mai, and the New Zealand Women’s Law Journal, to name just a few. They recalled stories about how victims had been forced to face their abusers in court—how they were subject to intimidation, coercion, and psychological abuse. One survivor described hiding in a bathroom—too afraid, actually, to enter the courtroom; and another described the calculated gestures, often subtle, that can be used in that environment to control and to undermine their testimony and their safety. So these aren’t rare stories; they are a reality for far too many people, and they actually demand action from this House.
While the select committee had to weigh up these urgent needs against the current operational limits of the Family Court, the adjustments that were made to this bill at select committee weren’t concessions of principle, per se, but practical steps to ensure that the bill can at least be implemented effectively and without any further delay, so that victims can have the opportunity to see some real change now, and not simply wait—as they have been—for some uncertain point in the future.
For example, while the initial proposal included pre-recorded video evidence, similar to what is available in criminal courts, there were concerns raised about the lack of infrastructure throughout our Family Court rooms in the country, and also about compounding what are already quite lengthy existing delays in the court system. So, given that evidence-in-chief is primarily presented via affidavit, we made the pragmatic decision to defer that provision at this stage. The bill also confirms that, again, affidavit evidence remains the primary mode of giving evidence in a Family Court—because it is. So it makes it very clear that just because of this bill, that doesn’t change, with oral evidence only required if a judge considers it appropriate, preserving those existing protections for victims.
The select committee also added a clear definition of “Family Court proceeding” and “family violence evidence” to ensure the protection that we’re proposing through this bill only applies to those who have experienced family violence directly, strengthening the intent of the bill and preventing it from unintendedly being misused—perhaps even by alleged perpetrators. We’ve also amended the Family Court Rules to align with the new definitions, ensuring that the protections of this bill are effectively embedded, therefore, into practice.
Some submitters called for even stronger protections, and I do acknowledge that, such as eliminating any form of visual contact between victim and abuser and reducing the 28-day notice period. These absolutely are worthy proposals and should remain on the table for future reform. But what we are delivering here today—hopefully—is a foundational shift, one that will meaningfully improve the safety of victims, and one that can do that right from the outset.
Labour is proud of its record on family and sexual violence. We introduced Te Aorerekura, New Zealand’s first national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence. We invested in front-line services and strengthened legal protections for victims. We also passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, which improved evidence protections in the criminal justice system, many of which were the inspiration for this bill. This bill is the next step in that journey; it brings the Family Court closer to the standards that are already in place in the criminal court system, and it reflects what I believe to be a clear and principled stance: that the justice system must serve victims and not retraumatise them.
I want to thank the select committee and all its members for their diligence in listening to the evidence and going through all of the points that needed to be raised and worked through. I’d also like to acknowledge the ministry officials for their guidance and for providing their expertise and answering all of the necessary questions. Most of all, I would really like to acknowledge all of the submitters, and particularly the people who dedicate their working lives to advocating for people—for victims and for people who experience family violence—in this space, and for all of the people who, on top of that, shared those personal stories. They did so for us to be able to make steps to improve what is the reality for a lot of people in this country—far too many people.
This bill represents what is real and meaningful progress. It’s a step forward that will actually make a difference in the lives of real people in a practical sense. If this House says it stands with those affected by family violence, then this bill is an opportunity before us here today to demonstrate that. It’s a real opportunity to make a positive difference. Labour and myself, we commend this bill to the House.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of the National Party and state our continued support for the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We supported the bill at first reading. We engaged proactively with the member in charge of the bill through the select committee process, and we feel that we have been able to work on this legislation as a unified, collaborative Justice Committee to enable the bill to be in a place that we think it could actually, practically, work across New Zealand. That’s why we continue to support it.
One of the changes that we recommended through the Justice Committee was actually, initially, a change to the name of the bill itself. As I started this speech, I said it was the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, but the proposed change that the committee made, along with a number of other proposed amendments, was to change the title of the bill to the Evidence (Giving Family Violence Evidence in Family Court Proceedings) Amendment Bill. We felt that the change of title would clearly describe actually what the bill seeks to do. That’s why the committee recommended it.
Congratulations to the member in charge of the bill, Dr Tracey McLellan, for her continued advocacy in this space and carrying on the work of her predecessor who initially did the work in the first place. After we went through the thorough examination by the Justice Committee, including from the 30 submitters who made submissions and the eight who presented orally to the committee as well, the bill does represent, really, in my view, a significant step forward in protecting victims of family violence when they give evidence in Family Court proceedings.
Currently, victims in Family Court don’t have the same protections available as victims in criminal proceedings, and that’s the intention of this bill. If you drill down to the intent of what we’re trying to fix here, that’s it: enable those victims in the Family Court to have the same protections that victims in criminal proceedings have. It creates an automatic entitlement for family violence victims to give evidence in alternative ways, rather than having to apply and hope for judicial discretion.
The real issue that we’re looking to solve here is that Family Court proceedings can be deeply traumatic for victims who actually have to face their abusers in person. Many victims—and we heard from some through the select committee process—are re-traumatised by having to give evidence in the same room as the person who hurt them. For me, having not been in that position, that’s a hard position for me to try and appreciate and understand. But when someone tells me that, for them, it’s really difficult to give evidence because the perpetrator is sitting in the same room with them, you take it and you understand it and you view it from their perspective and you say, “We believe you, we understand what you’re saying, and we’re going to work to try and change it so you never face that scenario ever again if you step into the Family Court.”
What has happened previously is by not having this available for people, it can lead to poor-quality evidence, victims potentially withdrawing from proceedings or being unable to participate effectively in the justice process. What the bill does is, instead, create an automatic entitlement for family violence victims to give evidence using screens or audiovisual links from another location.
There are five particular amendments I want to focus on that were made by the Justice Committee. The first was focused on actual victims. We clarified that only people who experienced family violence can use these protections, which we believed would prevent misuse by the perpetrators. Number two was practical implementation. We removed the costly video-recording requirements that would have needed around $20 million in court upgrades, and I appreciate the member’s support for that change as well. Number three was that we enhanced judicial discretion. Judges can now act on their own initiative to ensure proceedings remain fair, not just on application by other parties. Number four was protected existing processes. We made clear that this doesn’t replace affidavit evidence, which is already protected. Finally, there was the realistic time frame. We managed to work with the member in charge of the bill to get a 12-month implementation period, which allows proper preparation for judicial education, staff training, and, most importantly, the necessary court facilities across New Zealand.
One of those changes I talked about was the second point around the practical implementation and the potential $20 million cost across the courts in New Zealand. There were initial concerns about cost and implementation, but they are addressed by removing the expensive video-recording requirements, and I believe we’ve landed in a really good space with that.
One of the other queries we received was about ensuring that this bill maintained fairness, because we need to acknowledge that, in the court of law, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So what we needed to do was strike the really right balance of ensuring that the judge in charge of the trial and in charge of the court maintains their discretion to ensure that there are fair proceedings. That was really important for us to hammer home in the legislation.
This is simply about levelling the playing field, not giving victims an unfair advantage and not giving the perpetrators an unfair advantage as well. We believe this legislation levels that playing field to ensure the victims, when they come to give their evidence, have these options available to them so that they can feel safe during these proceedings and that they can contribute to the case that is before the court.
This aligns with broader justice system reforms, it complements the family violence operating model that’s already been trialled in Christchurch, it aligns Family Court protections with those already available in criminal proceedings, and it recognises that the Family Court is often where the most vulnerable families seek help. Why does this matter for our communities? Well, Family Court decisions affect children’s safety, custody arrangements, and family futures. We believe that when victims can’t participate effectively, everybody suffers.
The feedback we received through the committee process from victim advocacy groups talked about how they were strongly in support of these changes. Legal practitioners recognised the need for better protections and supported the committee’s amendments. And the judiciary has indicated their support for practical improvements. There were initial concerns, but we addressed those through the amendments process, which I discussed and outlined earlier.
I want to come back to the point of why National is supporting this bill. We believe, through the work that was undertaken through the Justice Committee, that we’ve now got the bill in a place that we think it can actually tangibly work across New Zealand and protect those victims when they come to give evidence. The committee process made the bill stronger and, we believe, more practical. This is an evidence-based policy that addresses a real problem with practical solutions, and we ensured that it protects the vulnerable while maintaining procedural fairness, as I discussed as well. I believe the bill strikes the right balance between victim protection and procedural fairness. It’s time to align our Family Court with best practice and our values as a compassionate society.
I echo the sentiments of the member in charge, the previous speaker, and thank the Ministry of Justice officials, the advisers, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the others who worked behind the scenes—which many of the general public don’t get the opportunity to see—to help move this bill into a place that we can continue to support it.
I thank those 30 submitters to the committee, the individuals and the groups and organisations, who took the time to share their views with the committee so that we could consider them. I thank those eight people who came and presented to the committee, either in person or online, for helping us make this a bill that is completely workable across New Zealand.
I want to ensure that we return back and, ultimately, remind ourselves of the real reason why we’re here doing this: we’re doing this because, currently, victims in Family Courts don’t have the same protections available to them that victims in criminal proceedings do. So, therefore, we’re changing the legislation through this bill to create an automatic entitlement for family violence victims to give evidence in alternative ways, rather than having to apply and hope for judicial discretion. This is a bill I wholeheartedly support. I commend the member in charge, and I thank the wider House for its ongoing support of this legislation as well. I commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill in its second reading. First, I want to acknowledge and mihi to the member Dr Tracey McLellan for bringing this bill to the House. It is an important piece of mahi and I am pleased to see us working together on both sides of the House to make this sound piece of legislation. Also, I would like to thank and acknowledge the whānau, advocates, and experts who we heard from at the select committee stage and who have long called for these very changes. Your persistence and vision are helping shape a more just and compassionate Aotearoa, and, for that, we thank you.
This bill seeks to extend the range of possible protections for parties and witnesses giving evidence of family violence in Family Court. This would closely follow the protections available to the similar complainants and witnesses in criminal proceedings. The bill would do so by amending the Evidence Act 2006 and would create an entitlement for a party or a witness to give evidence of family violence in court proceedings in an alternative way. For many survivors and victims of family violence, giving evidence in court is often traumatising. This move will make a real difference to the empathy and care we show in our Family Courts.
Currently, the formal structure of proceedings too often fails to account for the trauma, power imbalance, and the very real fear that survivors and victims experience. We’ve heard how terrifying it can be, not just on the day of giving evidence but in the lead up and in asking the court to make this allowance. This bill helps to change that. It introduces a presumption in favour of allowing evidence of family violence to be given in an alternative way, such as from a separate room, behind a screen, or via a video link, which is what already happens in criminal proceedings. Even though these options are technically available in Family Court now, they are rarely used. We are changing that here today. By embedding a presumption into the Evidence Act, we allow for that option to be more accessible and more easily used.
I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee in scrutinising this bill and strengthening its clarity and impact. We heard from a range of community stakeholders and experts, and I specifically want to shout out to Mana Mokopuna and the Disabled Persons Assembly. The key changes that were made and outlined in the select committee report include the title of the bill, changing the definitions around Family Court proceedings and family violence evidence, along with the removal of the entitlement to give evidence by a video recording made before the hearing. Specifically, I would like to draw attention to the changes to new section 106BB, inserted in clause 6, made by the select committee. It’s important that we are clear about why we made these changes. It was noted that due to the current constraints around pre-recorded video recording capability in Family Court rooms, it may impact on the timeliness and put further strain on the court system. We want to reduce this pressure on witnesses so that they can move forward with their lives.
While we recognise the reasoning behind these changes, the Greens remain committed to pushing for the resources required to ensure that in the future this option to pre-record evidence would be a workable option. This would ensure that victims are not retraumatised while giving their evidence submissions, which should be a goal for all of us.
I would also like to uplift the voices and concerns raised by the Disabled Persons Assembly at the select committee around ensuring that the use of live video links is accompanied by ensuring that disabled communities have their access needs met. Specifically, the assembly noted that the legislation should have closed captions and make sure that people have access to the information.
We acknowledge the intent behind the bill and welcome the improvements it brings. To the survivors and advocates and whānau and communities who have carried these experiences and pushed for change: this progress is a reflection of your persistence. To those who didn’t have this protection and were further harmed, thank you for your strength. We hope this brings you some solace in knowing that we are moving forward and making things better.
The Disabled Persons Assembly also talked about making sure we have access to New Zealand Sign Language interpreters, video captioning, and other forms of communication and accessibility assistance necessary to ensure full and equitable participation. This bill is a practical step forward towards justice that works for victims and survivors and, crucially, one that upholds their dignity. Far too often, we have heard stories of survivors being retraumatised in the very courts that they turn to for protection and for justice. We’re going to do better—that’s what today is about.
It’s an honour to be standing here after hearing all of the select committee hearings and reading through those submissions. I want all of those people to know that coming together as a whole Parliament was really important to our committee. We really worked together to make sure that we scrutinised this bill to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and it’s always a good day when Parliament comes together and moves our waka forward. I am proud to be part of that Justice Committee who did this hard mahi, and to all the officials and the people that have been fighting for this for years and years, today is that day.
We look forward to having this option available to people. When I think about who this affects, I think about the stories that I’ve heard, which I won’t retell now—they are personal stories that have been trusted to me. But the people who have been through this and not had the chance to give their evidence from a separate room or from a video conferencing call—I’m actually getting goosebumps thinking about how horrific that must have been for you. I really want to reiterate that, today, this is about you. I’m sorry that this wasn’t in place, but when we are looking forward, we are looking to the future, and knowing that this really sensible piece of legislation is going to be going through.
So, in closing, the Green Party is proud to support this bill. It makes a sensible and needed step towards a justice system that better reflects the needs of those affected by family violence. We acknowledge that intent and we welcome those improvements. Again, I say to you survivors, advocates, whānau, communities who have carried these experiences and pushed for change: this one is for you. We hope to see that this House will pass the bill and continue working towards a system that better serves all of those who rely on it.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in the second reading on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I just want to actually say I totally agree with the previous Green speaker, Kahurangi Carter, when she said we are going to be coming together, I think, to make some progress in this area. Often in this place, we focus on what divides us, and ACT actually believe that we have a common humanity: there is more that we have in common than is against us. ACT did support this bill in the first reading, because we actually did think it was a good idea. We could see there could be some advantages in making these changes. I think, as I’m going to talk about in a moment, the bill has been improved through the select committee process, but I want to acknowledge the member in charge, Tracey McLellan, for her advocacy and actually working very constructively with the Justice Committee as we worked through this process.
As we’ve heard, the Justice Committee did have a number of submitters, and some 30 submissions were received. I want to thank the submitters that gave oral submissions to the committee, seven of them, for giving up their time. Actually, a lot of them were practitioners in the court system, but also there were some people with personal experience that wanted to make their view known about how this bill would actually make a difference.
I think what we’re talking about here is actually a very, very sensible change that Dr McLellan has shepherded through, where we are actually just changing the onus and making these alternative ways of giving evidence in the Family Court when they relate to family violence and sexual violence, so that we actually are thinking about our victims, and making sure that the important process of them receiving justice is done in a way that suits their needs and doesn’t make it both uncomfortable and confrontational and actually turn people off from using our justice system. That’s actually what we want: people to feel able to bring these cases, to be able to speak their truth and put their perspective forward, and, hopefully, get the protection they need within our Family Court system.
Again, I’m very lucky, in ACT, to have a couple of Ministers in my caucus: the Minister for Courts, Nicole McKee; and the Hon Karen Chhour, the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. We actually had quite informed and robust discussions around this bill in our caucuses. We were looking at both supporting it in the first reading and as it came back to the House for the second reading. It’s really good to have colleagues like that, who you can actually have a discussion with about the important issues in this bill and make sure this actually is going to deliver it a difference. Again, I want to acknowledge the member for taking on board some of the suggestions that came through, because there were some things that were identified that wouldn’t have been workable, so some changes were made.
I think, also, the updates we are making to our court facilities to allow audiovisual link (AVL) from rooms adjacent to traditional courtrooms—again, I was lucky enough last year, I think, to tour the Christchurch justice precinct, and they’ve obviously got a very modern court facility in Christchurch. But they have what we would understand as traditional courtrooms where they may be having Family Court proceedings—the kind of courtroom I would have went to when I was a lawyer a very, very long time ago. But now we actually have these adjacent AVL rooms so that, actually, someone can give evidence via audiovisual link. I should actually say what it is: for people listening, that’s basically like a Zoom-type set up where you can be supported by your support person and your lawyer. You are separate from the court, but you’re actually giving evidence via a video link into the court next door or wherever it might be—it doesn’t need to necessarily be next door. But, again, these facilities are now more common across New Zealand and will continue to be more common. So, again, it’s sensible to allow that kind of evidence to be given in these cases.
The other thing we spent a lot of time hearing about—obviously, in the Family Court, a lot of the evidence is given by affidavits; so written evidence. So, again, we wanted to be explicitly clear that we weren’t actually changing what has served the Family Court very well—right?—which is where people provide affidavits and written evidence that the court can actually consider, which, again, is quite appropriate in a number of these cases, because, then, people are actually given time to commit their evidence to paper, go through it, make sure it’s right, and then it’s submitted.
So, again, we were explicit in the changes in the select committee that we weren’t trying to disrupt the Family Court in the way it operates. But where there is a need for someone to provide evidence in person, that should be accommodated in a way that makes that much more comfortable for them to do, is appropriate, and is not going to revictimise them, as some of my colleagues have said in their speeches. So, again, we were clear that we see this as actually enhancing the Family Court in the way evidence is given, not disrupting it.
Look, I want to say again, Dr McLellan is very clear in her advocacy around this, that what we’ve, essentially, done here is changed the onus. So, actually, some of the things in this bill could be done today in the Family Court, it’s just that you have to request it—it’s a bit of a process. Dr McLellan was very clear that, look, we’ve tried that for a number of years—many, many years—and things haven’t changed. So this bill really changes the onus so that it’s presumed that’s the way you’ll give evidence, and anything else has to be done, obviously, with the leave of the court. Look, I think that definitely a very strong argument was made, and I think that we on the committee accepted that and said “OK, things haven’t worked, practice hasn’t changed, so let’s do something different and actually place victims first.” So, again, I think that was a very well-articulated argument by the member in charge, and so we accepted that.
Again, as we work through this, there is some devil in the detail. Again, I want to acknowledge that the Green member Kahurangi Carter addressed the fact that we actually had to drop the video recording. Look, while initially it sounds quite easy, in practice it’s not, because what that provision would have meant is you could pre-record your evidence. But that actually is more complicated than it sounds, because you actually still have to have other lawyers involved, because even when you’re giving your evidence in a recording, your lawyer may be helping you give evidence, but then you have to be cross-examined and ask questions. So there’s quite a lot of complication to actually getting the parties that need to be there in one place, to do the recording, etc., there’ll be notice periods, etc. So I think it was sensible that we dropped that. We, obviously, also have heard from other members about how there could be some significant costs with associated with that. As I said, now with this kind of more—well, it’s real-time audiovisual link technology now available, we’re hoping that that actually will be the way through and that pre-recorded video evidence may not be necessary. But, again, I think we’re open-minded. If that becomes an issue in the future, obviously it could be revisited.
Finally, I just want to say that, again, I think some sensible changes were made around ensuring judicial discretion is maintained. So, again, I want to say we’re very much focused on people having to give evidence, victims, etc.—I think that’s very important. But we also must keep an eye on the fairness of our justice system and making sure that respondents’ rights, or the other parties, are also acknowledged. But a way of doing that, which I think is very sensibly done in this, is allowing the judge to make a determination there. So if there were some overriding reason why the parties actually needed to be together physically, or it was in the interest of justice, the judge could still do that. So, again, I think that was a very sensible decision that we changed it. It’s spelt out, and we made sure that we said, “Yep, very important that we make these changes for people giving evidence in the Family Court around particularly family violence and sexual violence. But if there is a need for the judge to do something different because it’s appropriate and in the interests of justice and making sure our justice system is maintained and fairness is upheld, then they can still do that.” So I think that’s a very important change.
Just in conclusion, we hope this will actually strengthen our Family Court system, and will actually continue to enhance the rights of victims and those having to give evidence in quite horrific circumstances. And, yeah, we hope that we’ve all played our little part today in making our justice system just a little bit better. Thank you.
Helen White: Mr Speaker. No?
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Yeah, I think we’ve got our order right there. Look, I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the member in charge of this bill, Dr Tracey McLellan, and the select committee for all the good work they’ve done. I’m not on the Justice Committee so I’m kind of filling in for both Jamie Arbuckle, who represents us on the Justice Committee; and also for Casey Costello, who would have otherwise spoken because she has, of course, extensive experience in a former life of those very, very challenging situations which we are describing here in terms of family violence.
Look, Mr Speaker, I think the first—Madam Speaker now—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is Madam Speaker now.
ANDY FOSTER: It is now Madam Speaker—you’ve changed!
DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ve changed—we do that to you.
ANDY FOSTER: Indeed, indeed. Madam Speaker, I think there are two things that I wanted to observe about the process that we’ve got here. First of all, it is great, as Kahurangi Carter said, to see the cross-party agreement here across the House, that everybody is working together collaboratively. If we could do that a bit more, that would be a fine thing.
The other thing to say is that it is great to see a select committee making changes—thinking through issues and making changes, and that is what the purpose of a select committee should be always. But sometimes it is not the way that it works, but that is the way select committee should work.
I wanted to reflect on the—I mean, family violence is something which is outside of my personal experience, but what I do know is that it is an extremely stressful, terrible situation, and I think we all acknowledge that that is awful, whether we have been exposed to that or not.
What this bill is about is trying to make that process a little bit less stressful, a little bit less painful for the people who are the victims of family violence. I mean, I can only imagine what a stressful situation it would be to have to be in a room and to face the person who you are saying is the person who has committed violence against you. It could have been a short period of time; it could have been for years. That will be a terribly, terribly difficult situation—terribly stressful situation. What this bill is about is trying to make sure that we are not revictimising the victims of family violence by exposing them to that situation. So it’s a sensible and pragmatic way of saying, “Look, we will try and make that process—painful that it might be—a little less painful and a little less stressful.” I think that is a very, very important move forward.
We often have protection orders. Now, why do we have protection orders? It is because there are people who do not want, cannot cope with, should not be exposed to people who’ve perpetrated violence against them. That’s why we have protection orders. Why, in that situation, would we then say, “Well, we’re going to put those people, the victim and the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator in the same room.”, essentially to revictimise the victim again? That, in a sense, is an illustration of what this legislation is trying to avoid doing.
Now, what’s really good is to see the bill is responding to significant calls from the legal professions, significant calls from people involved in family violence, significant calls from survivors of family violence to say that this is something which is an important thing to move forward on. I think that that is something we should listen to because it’s about ensuring both fair access and less stressful access to justice for the survivors of family violence, but also trying to advance, from our perspective, family wellbeing—the wellbeing of the victim.
As I look at the report back from the select committee, there are a number of important areas. I think Casey Costello spoke on our behalf at the front end of this, in the first reading, where the select committee has made very sensible and useful changes. I think that shows the value of the select committee process.
The first one of those is that, as introduced, the bill, essentially, allowed anybody access to be able to say, “Well, look, I want to present evidence outside of the court.”, you know, by video, or whatever it might be. There is an issue there about the ability to see the body language of a person, which is diminished by being in a video situation or in another room, especially when you’re going through the cross-examination process. That of course, effectively, as I understand it, would have meant that anybody, any witness, not the victim, but any other witness, even the perpetrator potentially would be able to say, “Well, look, I want to be able to give my evidence outside of the court.” That was somewhat problematic. The select committee looked at that, heard the evidence, and said, “Actually we want to change that”. We are talking about protecting the victims, not allowing this as a free-for-all for all the parties involved in giving evidence, because of course they’ve got to be able to be subject, in the process of natural justice, to being cross-examined.
The second area is that issue of—as it was introduced—the ability to be able to do that in advance. But as we’ve heard already in the debate, if you do give evidence in advance, then how is somebody going to easily be able to cross-examine you when you’re not actually there? So it’s got to be done live so there is that cross-examination, because, ultimately, we want to be able to get to the truth of the matter.
It is important that we do recognise that in most of these situations you might say, “Well, look, it’s probably going to be fairly clear.” But I note that when I looked up some numbers there, only in 46 percent of the situations involving family violence is the perpetrator identified—so just under half—and 42 percent, so most of those, end up going to prosecution. So nearly all of those who are identified end up going to prosecution. But the conviction rate apparently is only 13 percent; and the imprisonment rate, only 8 percent. So we need to bear those sort of things in mind in terms of natural justice as well. So that ability to be able to cross-examine becomes very, very important.
We’ve got provision now, which wasn’t there in the initial bill, in terms of judicial discretion. So the judge can say, “Yes, I will allow for this evidence to be given outside the courtroom in an alternative way.” or “I won’t.” They can make that decision and that is right and proper. So you can have that balanced thinking from somebody obviously who’s very, very experienced in these matters.
The fourth area of change is that one around affidavit evidence around the Family Court. Of course, that is because there is no face to face in that particular situation, but, arguably, the way in which the bill was originally introduced might have caught that up. I might say that what little experience I’ve heard of about the Family Court and the affidavit process and the kind of process that it has gone through there and given us the significance of those decisions that are made, which, essentially, sometimes, can be about access to one’s own children, that there might be some need to have a look at legislation in that space as well.
Just to finish off, I think most of the points that I have made I’ve covered already. But, look, I want to congratulate again the committee for really good work, for making the changes that it’s made, and again, to Dr Tracey McLellan for shepherding through this piece of legislation. Obviously it’s been done in a really collaborative way, and that’s really, really always very, very heartening to hear. 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): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Where do I start? I think this bill is a step in the right direction, bravely and—I don’t know about “timely”, having worked in this sector. Maybe I do want to comment on that a little bit too, as I go into the kōrero. As I’m listening to the speeches and seeing the cohesion of thinking and the acknowledgment of the finer points, in terms of how it will be applied, that sounds great and all very, very good. Finally—finally—here we are.
Family violence courts are a relatively new thing; they’ve not been around for a terribly long time. I remember that because I remember Judge Recordon in Auckland—we were all sitting about in chambers, and he said, “You know the biggest issue I have with this, Meno, is that what we’re going to have to assess we don’t know. We don’t understand the subject of violence. We don’t understand it. So me, as a judge”—Judge Recordon and others—“how do we understand what we’re listening to? How do we recognise, even just know, what we’re hearing, and how do we think about this?” This is great, what Tracey McLellan has done, Michaela and, tēnā rā hoki koe ki a ia, tēnā rā hoki koe [thanks certainly to her, really thank you].
These sorts of things might seem, when we’re talking about it, as “This is great. Finally we’re getting it done”, but what it’s taken to get to this point—I just want to mihi to her and to all that effort to bring it to today and to cause the kind of cohesion to agree with it. Anyone that doesn’t—I couldn’t imagine that was going to happen in this Chamber today, anyway. The sobering reality for us is that 58 percent of wāhine Māori are impacted by family violence, not because we want to be but because that’s what oppression does to you; it messes you up completely and you do some outrageous things. That’s very much part of what I want to share, but also we are 100 percent of the solution; we will be and can be, and so, in terms of our whānau and our mokopuna, all of those things, this makes good sense for us in terms of our own solutions towards our own mokopuna and our own whānau and our own women, Māori becoming stronger, more vibrant, and healthy, and living healthy Māori lives.
I just want to reflect back a little bit again: one of the situations that I came across, which is what sparked when I was listening to one of the speeches tonight, was not only what Judge Recordon said but I remember taking a woman into the police station to put in a report, and when she was giving her statement, she used the words, “It was excruciating because when he bent me over the back of the sofa, I couldn’t get up.”, and he said, “Could you use another word than ‘excruciating’ because I can’t spell it?” Then we went along to the GP and she was describing what had just occurred to her the night before and the GP said to her, in front of me, “What did you do to upset him?” The point of these remarks that I’m making right here, right now, with all the effort that Tracey’s put in, is that these attitudes haven’t gone away just because we’re making this decision tonight. They have not gone away. They are still very much in the homes and the houses of many, in the GP clinics or in the police stations. I love many GPs and police people, who I love and are related to me, but systemically that kind of attitude is still prevalent.
I want to make this point as we make our decision—and, yes, of course, I acknowledge that we’re making this decision, and we support it; the party supports it and I support it, but it is not that far away that family violence courts weren’t a thing. Family violence was just “Oh, well, that’s none of our business, Meno; that’s their business. You don’t talk about those things outside of your home, right? You don’t talk about it. That’s their business to deal with.” So continue with the bravery, is what I want to say. We have to keep moving forward on this particular piece of work, and it grows.
So, Todd, good on you and my mates on the left of me, even though they’re having a little giggle. I know they support this, and it’s a good thing—particularly men, tāne mā, me whakarongo koe [gentlemen, you should listen]. And Todd, to your kōrero, because, you know, you’re a cool guy; you stand up and you bring that kind of position, I know, as a guy—you’re a little bit tearful too, so that always helps, but to tell the truth as a man speaking into this space is really, really critical.
I’ve got 10 seconds, so we absolutely support it. It’s a great idea, with some great, great legs on it, but I just want to leave those points: “excruciating”—this was the word that she was asked to change because he couldn’t spell it. Those are the things I want to leave as memories in this House. Kia ora tātou.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I want to add to the support around the House for this bill, and I want to thank all the different members for their contributions on this topic. It’s good to see that we’re always quite aligned when it comes to the issues around family and sexual violence and making our courts safer and more accessible for people that choose to access them.
As everyone has already talked about, this bill is about making it safer for victim survivors of family and sexual violence to participate in the justice process in a way that protects their safety and their dignity. Our Family Court is one of our specialist courts here in Aotearoa, and as Mariameno was just talking about, it’s a relatively new concept. I’m a big fan of our specialist courts—our Youth Court, our drug court, our second-opportunities courts. They all are amazing because they take into account the specific nature and context in which events have taken place and where harm has occurred, and they look to different non-conventional ways of shepherding those complaints through the justice process.
I was glad to hear Mariameno’s anecdotes around this bill and why it is so important with that story around the word “excruciating”. It made me think about when I have people that come to me in my electoral office who have been assaulted or harmed in town or are in dangerous family positions. Often the first thing that we do is we talk to them about what the different avenues are that they can take and what justice might look like for them. For some people, justice looks like pursuing through police action and through the courts, maybe through the Family Courts or the District Courts or one of our courts and through our justice system. For some, because of the court process and because of the justice system, they choose not to go down that pathway, because they are afraid of the re-traumatisation that might take place within the proceedings, because they are afraid that they won’t be believed, and because it is just too hard for them to rehash some really harmful and hurtful times in their lives.
I did a bit of research into how many victims choose not to go down the justice pathway because of how re-traumatising our procedures can be. In 2019, a Ministry of Justice report found that only 11 percent of reported sexual violence cases ended in conviction and that only 37 percent of people chose to take police action against a perpetrator. In that same year, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey found that 94 percent of sexual assaults were not reported to police. There are many reasons for this. There are the obvious reasons of the shame that these kinds of events can elicit within a person. There are fears that this could lead to a further breakdown in relationships within families. There’s the doubt that proceedings would result in a conviction and the fear, again, of not being believed. But a big reason that people choose not to go down this pathway is because the process in itself is re-traumatising.
Sometimes, when we see especially some of the more high-profile proceedings around family violence and sexual violence and we watch victim/survivors giving their evidence, sometimes their behaviour is hard to make sense of. That’s because when people are traumatised, things, like space and time and behaviour and confidence, are severely inhibited.
I think that the parts of this bill that allow for some more flexibility and more feelings of safety for people who have to recount what they have experienced is really important, and this can lead to a reclamation of power, particularly for children who might have to give evidence about harm that they’ve endured as well. I know that these provisions will make it maybe not easier but will make the process a little bit—well, I guess the word is “easier”—to go through. It removes the kind of confronting nature that is often before you in a courtroom, and being face to face with somebody who has hurt you or that has hurt your family is an extremely challenging thing to do. It requires a lot of bravery and courage and strength that I don’t think should be required of someone who has, ultimately, been wronged and who is seeking some justice within our justice system.
We support this bill. We want to thank Tracey McLellan for all of her mahi on this and for bringing attention to the ways that we can improve our courts to make them safer and to pursue justice for victims and survivors of family and sexual violence. Thank you.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too rise in support of this bill, the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We’re in the second reading stage, and this bill is a bill in the name of our colleague, Dr Tracey McLellan from the Labour Party across the debating Chamber. What I got to see of Dr Tracey McLellan during this whole process is that at times when it looked like it may not go any further, there might be some people asking for it to be, perhaps, thought about at a different time, Dr Tracey McLellan just fought really hard for us to see, on the Justice Committee, how important it is for this bill to go ahead in its form, with the changes—we ended up making changes.
Of course, the intention of the bill is something that we all see is very important. Essentially, if we simmer it down, it’s a further layer of protection for victims. And granted, many times there’s alleged perpetrators in different proceedings, and so the victims fall under that category. But it’s no secret that I personally am someone that fights to a great extent—alongside my colleagues—for the rights of victims, particularly over the rights of criminals.
I think this conversation today is really important. It’s one of those conversations, again, that touches on some very confronting issues. This bill, what it seeks to do is add a presumption, as we’ve been saying, in favour of alternative ways of giving evidence of family violence in Family Court proceedings. By doing this, the overall aim is to reduce the stress and the trauma that victims have going through these proceedings, so that we can also improve evidence quality. When I talk about the confrontational nature of this bill, I want to acknowledge my beautiful young niece Rima Luti, who’s in the gallery. She’s travelled from Australia to spend a few days with me in New Zealand. She’s only in her teenage years, but she’s of that age where I talk to her about these confronting issues. I know that her mother, being a psychologist since she was young, has spoken to her about sexual abuse and about sexual violence, particularly because of what her mother hears from young people and people in their adult years that are trying to deal with, on a psychological level, the trauma associated with sexual violence, sexual assault. So this is why it’s important, and I’m happy that my niece is here to see part of this conversation take place.
If we go down to some basics on this bill, the first reading was on 6 November 2024, and it was referred to the Justice Committee—a committee that I am so privileged and so honoured to be part of. I say that very often, both within this House and in public, because what we see on the Justice Committee, both when we go into the public domain of the submission hearings or whether it’s behind those private doors, we see how we can work together to achieve better goals for victims. I know, particularly on the Government side, that’s always the laser focus that we have.
We received 30 written submissions. I want to really thank the people, the organisations that took time to give those submissions, because it helped us with making those little tweaks so that we can continue progressing this bill forward. Fourteen individuals, 16 organisations, and we heard seven oral submitters, and most submitters supported the bill’s intent. Quite a number of submitters recommended amendments as well. I’d like to just focus a little bit on those submissions and the themes, because the departmental report—and this is part of what my colleague Tom Rutherford, for the Bay of Plenty, was mentioning earlier. There’s so much behind-the-scenes work that takes place in bringing an idea to the form of a bill and then progressing the bill and, hopefully, passing the bill.
I do also want to tautoko the staff that helped take us through this stage, and also put together the various reports that we rely on, on top of and above the own research that we do. And thank you, Dr McLellan, for helping shepherd that as well, with the staff.
So if I was to just go back to the departmental report, which broke down the submissions in terms of themes, the first theme that it gave us a summary of was protecting victims from harm. This was highlighted in the overwhelming support from submissions for the bill—15 submitters, including the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges and The Backbone Collective. They emphasised, as we’ve touched on, how important it is that the family justice system doesn’t retraumatise—well, the fact is that the victims are being retraumatised when they go through the various stages of the procedure. They are exposed to intimidation or physical harm in some situations, and different organisations gave examples.
Indeed, I’ve touched upon, in the past, in the House, while I was studying law in Sydney, where I grew up with my whānau, I worked in the local court system over there, in different court systems. It’s tattooed in my memory, the times when I saw with my own eyes: victims very afraid to give evidence, to be cross-examined, because of many factors, but particularly the retraumatisation and also seeing the alleged perpetrator there in court. These submissions highlighted aspects like those and highlighted how many victims are forced to share physical space with abusers. So as we’ve touched upon—quite a number of us, including Tamatha Paul just before me—this leads a lot of victims to withdraw applications out of fear. That’s very sad, because imagine the ripple effect of that retraumatisation as well. The changes in this bill can help mitigate a lot of these concerns as well.
Another theme that was summarised was aligning family and criminal jurisdictions, and we’ve spoken about that. Submitters such as Community Law Centres Aotearoa and The Law Association of New Zealand, argued that the Family Court, as we’ve been saying, should provide the same support for alternative evidence as exists in criminal cases. Again, the victims face the same trauma as sexual violence complainants and so therefore they deserve equivalent protections. This is a major part of what this bill aims to achieve.
Another subject matter identified in the submissions was that—I’m not going to go through all of them, but addressing the systemic challenges, submitters called for broader systemic change in the Family Court. This is something that I know our Government—our focus is on victims. So I welcome a lot of the other changes that we’re making in the criminal milieu to make sure that victims are put first.
There were a number of concerns raised, as well. I particularly recall The New Zealand Law Society questioning the necessity of this bill, especially given the existing provisions that were available for people to, as some people shared before me, make an application to have their evidence heard in alternative ways. But what this bill says is that—submitters that I remember, I questioned one submitter in particular, I can’t remember exactly who it was right now. I asked them, “Look, have you made these applications and are they usually successful?” And the gentleman said, “Yes”, he’s never recorded a time that these applications were not successful.
So I’m glad I got to reiterate some of the submission themes, as my colleagues are talking about so many other points as well. I’d like to reiterate our vehement support for victims as a National Party, as a coalition Government. I know, as well, there’s many people across the House that always support victims.
This is a vital step towards the Family Court system prioritising victims’ safety and dignity. I want to again welcome my beautiful niece Rima Luti to the House; and thank you, Dr Tracey McLellan, for your work here. I commend this bill to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): First of all, congratulations and thank you to Dr Tracey McLellan and to Dr Emily Henderson for bringing us this work. I know, with regard to Emily, she’s worked in the courts for a number of years and she’s thought long and deep about these issues. I worked in a different field of law, but I started my legal career in a city office and—actually, at the Law Commission, across the road. I then went to a city office, and then I went out to Ōtāhuhu because I wanted a real law job. When I got there, one of the first cases that came to me was a woman who came in who had had a machete held over her head by her partner. I really had never encountered something like that in my life, and it will always stay with me that those experiences are ones that many of us just don’t understand the reality of.
I know that this legislation is an attempt to rebalance the law. While there is capacity to make an application to have evidence heard in a different way, what I understand from my interactions with people like that woman is how incredibly devastating those kinds of violent situations are to people’s confidence and their trust in any system whatsoever. It’s very easy, when you’re involved in a Family Court situation, to not really understand what it’s like for the person coming into it for the first time but also to forget that somebody has genuine fear for genuine reason, when you might be a little bit protected from that as one of the officers in that court—not particularly protected, but at least a little bit protected. I remember that last year there was an incident where one of the family lawyers was attacked in one of the elevators by somebody, who actually laid into them really physically. And there was an interview that talked about people coming into the court and bringing, in the back of their wallet, something that looked like a credit card but could cut people. So these are very real things in our society.
This bill has tried to balance the needs of the person who’s been through these experiences and the needs of people in the system to be treated with some natural justice. I think it’s done a good job of being both pragmatic and principled.
The last thing I really wanted to say about this is I don’t think the balance has been right, and I think that has actually impacted on the justice of the situation. There have been other people who talked about this, but, to reiterate, the issue is we do not have people coming forward in the current system, because it’s too hard, because it’s frightening. If you think about the woman I was talking about who’d had that kind of experience, we should be thinking about how we can make it possible for someone to come through a system who’s had that kind of experience. That should be one of the things we absolutely take into account, because if someone was prepared to do that to a woman, they’re prepared to do it to another one and they’re prepared to do it to their children. That’s the kind of thing we absolutely have to stop in its tracks, and so I hope this law makes a little bit of a difference in that regard. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand in support of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge and commend Dr Tracey McLellan for the work that she has done to bring this to the House. It is a very worthy bill; it seeks to achieve a lot of good points—firstly, to facilitate the process of the Family Court.
I think much can be said about situations where the perpetrators of family violence who are in the process of a Family Court proceeding can use the process to repeatedly come face to face with their victims, the people who themselves have received the family violence and the people who have actually witnessed the family violence—the children, people in the same home. Allowing for witnesses and the offended parties to be able to provide evidence in a way that they feel less threatened and do not have to come face to face with their abusers will facilitate their openness to get into the process and not be afraid of having to do an actual face to face in close quarters in court.
We can very easily, if we are far removed from family violence, not appreciate the extreme fear and anxiety that victims and people who witness violence feel. I deal with a lot of families in my law practice, and I have seen children extremely, extremely badly affected. It’s so easy to make a child afraid, and witnessing violence in the home is an extreme stressor to them. It cannot be described, actually, in words how they react to it. So facilitating the manner by which a victim may be able to provide evidence without having to go through, again, that face to face will surely facilitate the process.
The bill wishes to amend the current situation where the Family Court process mainly allows for the witnesses, the victims to present oral evidence in court after they have given their affidavits in support of their complaints. Even if there has been a facility to allow them to apply for an alternative process, or even if judges do have that opportunity to provide alternative opportunities to witnesses and victims, we understand that this is not often the case, and it’s more often that people do have to go through that face-to-face process. So the bill will make this opportunity automatic. The improvement of science and technology in the way video presentations can be done and calls can be made should really facilitate the opportunity to give witnesses and victims this chance to not to have to be in person in court.
The bill will achieve consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It will also allow for the Family Court process to more closely, especially in family violence situations—it will allow the court to go through a process very similar to a criminal process where witnesses and victims are afforded protections already. So it just aligns the Family Court process in terms of family violence with existing processes.
Also, it’s very important to note that the kind of evidence that needs to be presented and considered as eligible for a video conference or presentation by video is specified. The bill allows for what kind of evidence is able to be presented in video conference.
I finish by saying that technology and trained staff really are the pathways to making this happen, and the law that is now before us allows us to give reprieve and reduce the stress that many people face—many, many people face. With this in mind and the hope of improving their situations, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: 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 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, everybody. When the House adjourned for the dinner break, we were up to the second reading of the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We were up to call No. 10, which is a split call, and the Labour Party has the first five minutes.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make some brief remarks in support of this bill. Like other colleagues, I’d like to commend the member Dr Tracey McLellan and former member Dr Emily Henderson in terms of progressing the bill. I didn’t have the privilege of being on the Justice Committee to hear the submissions on this bill. However, I was here in the last Parliament when the genesis of this idea was initially proposed by Dr Henderson, so I’m delighted to be here to see it through this reading.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a former US Supreme Court judge, was quoted as saying, “This is a court of law, my boy, not a court of justice.” He was of course in, I think, the early 1900s in terms of his role on the Supreme Court, and he was very much focused on justice being limited to reading the letter of the law. If you travel around courts in the world, you’ll frequently see the same scales of justice and the blindfolded Justitia as the model for the law, and the people and what they bring to the courts are certainly not necessarily considered in that mix. But I think we’ve seen a shift over generations towards a model that does see people and that does recognise their personal context, as well as some of the more invisible barriers that limit who can even walk through the door of a courtroom. In my view, this is a bill that looks to bridge that gap between the law and justice.
Having said that, I also do feel that the select committee managed this bill really well in terms of not unfairly tilting the fine balance that colleagues have mentioned between both access and procedural fairness to the accused but also in terms of retaining the powers of the judge to be able to make decisions and refer back to what was the ordinary process. I want to acknowledge that there were submitters who wanted the bill to go further than it did, including the Law Association’s family law committee, who I thought made the valid point about the 28-day notice period for using alternative methods of giving evidence. They suggested that might not be appropriate in urgent cases where children or other victims needed immediate protection.
So I do think that there are aspects of this bill in terms of the issues that we should revisit in a timely way. But, for now, I do think that this is a proposal that is fit for purpose and that strikes the right balance, and I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
It is with great pleasure and a great sense of responsibility that I rise to take a call on the second reading of this member’s bill. It seems to me really like an age since the first reading of this member’s bill, for many reasons. The main thing that is—well, there are a few things that have happened significantly since the first reading of this bill. The first thing is, of course, we have had the select committee process. So I want to thank and acknowledge the work of the Education and Workforce Committee and the committee staff. I was a member of that committee at the start of this process and then have since left to another committee, but did participate in the discussion on this bill. I want to also thank the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who assisted us with the drafting of this bill. But, most of all, I want to thank all of those who submitted on this bill: the workers, the women’s organisations, the unions, the associations, the academics, the business people, and the members of the public—thank you.
The select committee was a very interesting process. From my perspective, there were four key points that really resonated from the select committee. The first was that the issue of pay secrecy and the lack of pay transparency is an issue in New Zealand that requires action. There were questions at the first reading of this bill as to whether there was a sufficient issue to merit legislative intervention. I was able to cite in the first reading reported cases that showed that this was an issue in New Zealand. But I feel that this select committee process, out of many others that I have been involved with, really did illustrate how much this was needed within New Zealand. So I really do want to genuinely thank the submitters who did submit on this bill.
The second issue that I think we learnt from the select committee process was that there are ongoing issues of unfairness in the workplace when it comes to pay. That’s not just issues of pay inequity between male and female dominated roles, which I expected, but also significant and unacceptable ethnicity pay gaps and, perhaps most surprisingly for me, people doing the same job and getting different pay—classic equal pay issues that I thought we legislated away in 1972. We heard on the select committee of people doing the same work and sometimes thousands and thousands of dollars of difference in their pay, and it’s just unacceptable.
We also saw, through this select committee process, widespread support for the action taken in this bill. I’ve been very clear: this bill will not solve all the issues of inequality and unfairness in pay in New Zealand. This is a small start and a small piece of the pathway that New Zealand needs to go down, in my view, in order to address some of the systemic unfairness in pay that we have in this country. But I was heartened to hear the support for this bill. As I said, 89 percent in support; only 4 percent opposed. So that, I think, clearly shows that the people of New Zealand have spoken in support of this.
The other thing we learnt is that there is much more work to do in this space. It was very important for us as a select committee to be able to hear the additional ideas and the additional steps that many submitters felt were needed in relation to addressing pay inequity and pay fairness. And many of the issues that they discussed, of course, were outside the scope of this bill. But I think, often when we’re in select committee, we should take the advice that we receive from submitters and actually take that forward in our work. So I really do hope that that is what is going to be able to be done with this particular bill. This is a small, discrete bill that helps in a small area, but what we heard in select committee was that there were considerable numbers of changes that need to be made, and I’ll speak to one of those more major ones later.
But I think also it’s important at this stage to go through some of the changes that were made at select committee. I also want to acknowledge the members of the select committee who, I feel, despite blowing somewhat hot and cold—if I can be diplomatic—on this issue, did constructively engage with improvements to the bill. I think we must all, as members of Parliament, try to do that when there are bills in front of us. So this is what happened in this particular bill.
So we changed the meaning of “detriment”—we made it consistent with the Employment Relations Act. We made sure that both the disclosee and the discloser of pay data or pay information were covered by this bill. We looked at the definition of “remuneration” and we made amendments to that to make sure that if you were a business owner, that particular information that might be privileged to the way that the business runs or was commercially sensitive was not included in that definition. So I think that gave colleagues confidence to be able to, hopefully, support this bill moving forward.
We also talked about who disclosures can be made to. We clarified the intention of the bill. The intention of this bill is that people can discuss their own pay with whomever they wish, without being disciplined. It really is that simple. The changes that we made at select committee make that even clearer. But we also talked about and we made sure that there wasn’t retrospectivity within the bill, which I think is always a good thing in a bill. We also clarified that there was no requirement to make a disclosure. That is very important. This isn’t about forcing people to do anything; it’s about recognising an existing practice where people talk about their own pay to their family members and to their colleagues. Sometimes that unearths unfairness. Sometimes when that unfairness is unearthed, you are able to address the unfairness which exists. That is all it’s really about. But there is absolutely nothing in this bill compelling anyone to say anything about what would be private information.
I acknowledge the differing view of the ACT Party and their statement that pay is private information. If that is the view of an individual in New Zealand, there is nothing in this bill that requires them to do anything different than to keep that information private. So I hope the ACT Party will change their mind and join with us, having received that assurance from me and the way that this bill is drafted.
It was a fulsome select committee process, but perhaps the most dramatic change that occurred since the last reading was, of course, that we had significant Government changes to the pay equity process, which this bill is very much linked to. We had a significant change in the legislative landscape: 33 claims cancelled, thousands of women having their entitlements to pay equity cut, and also their way that they can claim pay equity limited. This is stuff that we know, all done under urgency, all without notice. But it is my view that it was a shameful day for this Parliament and a huge step backwards for women’s rights in this country.
However, this bill is even more necessary due to those changes. The reason for that is because now we have a situation where the landscape in relation to pay equity has changed because we have a situation where we have, essentially, no existing pay equity claims. There is an even greater need for people to be able to discuss their pay to see if they have a need to make a claim—to see if there’s some injustice within their workplace. So although that was not my view and definitely not something I supported at all to see this change, I think it makes this bill even more necessary within the New Zealand context to allow those discussions to take place.
So this bill might be a small bill, it might make a simple change, but it matters. It matters to women. It matters to people who want to see progress on equality. It matters for fairness and transparency in the workplace. It is a small step forward when we have recently taken several steps back. I urge parties around the House to support it. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pride that I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I’d like to congratulate Camilla Belich for bringing this bill, for the luck of having it drawn, and for her tenacity throughout the process. Even though we’re no longer on that committee together, I enjoyed our time there together.
The bill seeks to ensure that employees can discuss and disclose their own pay rates to whomever they want, to others, without detrimental repercussions to their employment. The National Party supported this bill at the first reading and will continue to support it throughout the next stages. I believe that the time for this bill has really come. We’re not at the leading edge of societal change with this legislative action; we’re actually merely supporting what’s already happening quite commonly in businesses and within households across New Zealand. Younger New Zealanders are losing their inhibitions and their “ick” factor when it comes to discussing pay. They’re happy to discuss pay or pay equity or different analyses of pay, and 78 percent of under-35-year-olds say that they’ve already openly discussed their pay.
Information is power. An imbalance of information leads to inefficiency in markets, including the labour market. Some of the likely benefits of removing a barrier and potentially negative consequences of discussing pay would be things like empowering employees to negotiate further. It would lead, potentially, to a better fit of qualifications and people to roles and, overall, an enhancement in trust in the workplace. Trust and employee happiness in the workplace is directly related to productivity. If an employee sees that they are paid less for the same work as another person, and feels that they are not rewarded in the same way, they will be less motivated or they’ll withdraw, and they will not provide the same services. That has been demonstrated time and again in both psychological studies and even in animal studies. It is very clear that this is about productivity.
The National Party has a proud and strong history of reducing the gender pay gap—for example, under the last National Government, the gender pay gap went from 12 percent down to 9.7 percent by 2017, and since 2017, the pay gap has only gone from 9.7 percent to 8.6 percent. The Minister for Women has introduced the Gender Pay Gap Calculator, an app for businesses to voluntarily work out their own pay gap, and we encourage more people to do that. Also, we’re open to exploring this issue more and other ways to tackle it, because it is unacceptable.
Gender pay gaps are complex and they’re hard to calculate. However, they’re very real and they’re very stubbornly persistent. Research in New Zealand shows that lifetime earnings of women are $900,000 lower than a man’s, on average. The Retirement Commissioner’s recent research on KiwiSaver balances showed that the balances of 40- to 50-year-old women were about 36 percent lower than men, on average. Furthermore, international evidence from countries like the UK, Australia, Canada, and the European Union shows that when there is legislation that’s been enacted to improve pay transparency, there are measurable improvements and decreases in pay parity gaps. So those are very good. There was also a recent report after the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—or CEDAW. The reporters suggested that although New Zealand is a leading light in gender equity and equality overall, there is more for us to do, and one of those improvements could be improving pay transparency within New Zealand. Also, a report on human rights showed that greater pay transparency could also lead to a reduction in discrimination of all forms within employment, and therefore improve human rights within New Zealand.
As the previous speaker mentioned, the committee process was very thorough, and I would like to thank the clerks, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and our departmental advisers for all of their assistance on this bill. We received over 200 submissions on the bill, a majority in favour, and we heard from a wide range of people, from NGOs, businesses, employers, employees, and, of course, from unions. I want to thank those submitters, because they contributed really excellent ideas and advice for our consideration. However, many submitters thought that the bill was actually banning pay secrecy. It does not explicitly do that. However, the likely effect is that any pay secrecy clauses that do exist will be, effectively, unenforceable, and definitely not grounds for dismissal. One employer pointed out how incredibly helpful it was to the business to have gaps highlighted so that it could be resolved, adding, “I want gender and ethnic pay gaps to be a thing of the past and I endeavour to do what I can to close them”—and I still get shivers down my spine when I read those words, because I could not agree more.
People in opposition to the bill were in the minority. They expressed concerns about disharmony in the workplace, and, yes, we acknowledge that there may be some uncomfortable conversations. We know that not all pay differences are due to discrimination. There may be genuine reasons for justifiable differences. When it’s unjustifiable, though, that’s the point. A person might think that they are paid the same or do the same job as somebody else, but they might actually not understand the other person’s job. They might be doing something differently. Or the other person may in fact have other skills that the other person’s not aware of, or may have other experience or qualifications. That’s a justifiable pay difference. However, I would challenge employers—if they see a pay gap and they know that there is a pay gap that does exist, they should proactively look to change that themselves. When they know that that gap exists, work on it, action it; don’t just wait for employees, who may not be aware of that, to come forward and work it out and ask for the difference. Work it out yourselves. When this becomes more transparent and people start talking about this, would those employers be happy for their company to be named in this House, for it to be publicly aware? Would they be happy if their customers and their competitors knew that they weren’t paying a person the same just because she or they hadn’t asked?
Some submitters did express some concerns about privacy. However, this is about voluntary disclosure. It’s individuals. It’s not related to third-party disclosures between people. Employees can’t go to their accounts or pay clerks and ask them about somebody else’s pay. They have to have a willing conversation with a person. There can’t be any poor behaviour—there’s no coercion or any form of bullying. There must be mutually agreed and agreeable discussion.
As the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, discussed, we did make some clarifications and changes after all of that process. We further clarified adverse conduct definitions and what the word “detriment” meant, and we made sure that there was that broad application, because we think that that’s what’s happening in real life, in real homes, in New Zealand already. We decided that if there are legal challenges with this, there wouldn’t be retrospectivity. After all, we don’t want people to be in trouble for things that had previously been legally allowable.
As a member of the medical profession, I know that gender pay is a real issue. One of the largest gaps in pay exists in our publicly funded hospital system, between specialist doctors. It’s unacceptable. There is a single employer collective agreement that is the base rate. However, they are allowed to have individual negotiations, and that has led to massive variations not only within hospitals but across specialties and within single departments. I call on the profession to help here and to come clean. You no longer have the ability to hide behind pay secrecy clauses. If I have my way, you will all have your own pay on a full transparent basis, which will be open not only to your colleagues but to all of New Zealand to see, because I believe that transparency is a key part of reducing the gender pay gap, and when there are high rates of pay, that brings that percentage up and that number even higher. So I think it’s fundamental to New Zealand closing the pay gap that those highly paid professions take a close look at themselves, and that the Public Service in New Zealand takes a close look at itself.
This is a timely bill. It has been through the fulsome process of the select committee. We’ve given it thorough consideration by ourselves, submitters, and officials. This is an important action. We believe it will lead to a reduction in the gender pay gap and unfair treatment in general. I commend the bill to the House.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I basically agree with pretty much everything that’s been said by the past two speakers. I do want to begin by acknowledging Camilla Belich, who’s bringing yet another important bill before the House—through the member’s bill process as well—and the work that she has done navigating this through the House. That’s not an easy process, particularly in this particular Parliament, where we can get quite volatile, where we can get quite—how can I say it?—feisty on lots of issues but in particular on employment issues. So being able to bring something successfully through the House is something that should be commended.
This bill addresses the fact that in New Zealand, there are some contracts which include terms prohibiting employees from discussing or disclosing their pay to third parties, including other employees of the same employer, and sometimes even with family members. I do note that many of the submitters that did come to the select committee when I had the privilege of subbing in and listening to those submissions, did talk about the chilling effect of secrecy clauses. They talked about the impact on the work culture as well, and the surprise of some people: you show up to work, you’re doing the same job, and then you find out someone else is getting paid more than you—and often, the difference between the two people is gender.
So I do want to acknowledge the commitments that I’ve heard from that side of the House around addressing the gender pay gap as well, which in Aotearoa is 8.6 percent as of 2023—and, if you compare it with Pākehā incomes, the Pacific pay gap for men and women was 24 percent and 15 percent, respectively. I just acknowledge the work that was done by Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo, who did the Pacific pay gap work, and how important that work was for our Pacific communities, how important that work was for our Pacific workers, because it kind of shone a light on what we as a people were missing out on in terms of the pay gap, because that was a massive, massive pay gap. Maybe this won’t solve everything overnight, because there are a lot of employment issues happening at the moment, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
I think it does point to something that members around the House like about the member’s bill process as well, because this gives us an opportunity to actually dig deep and to really interrogate the different clauses and the different perspectives, and to not be so whipped—if I can put it that way—to not be so caught up in the dynamics of trying to react to Government bills. So I do acknowledge the work that the select committee has done, the work the clerks have done, and also the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I was there for, I think, most of the discussion around the voluntary disclosure part of the bill, where we talked about the fact that, actually, it’s important that people are able to disclose what they are being paid because then they can compare to see if they’re being ripped off or not, but they shouldn’t be forced to do so. So, once again, we noted that that was a big thing for the ACT Party, that perhaps they could have a think about that particular aspect, because no one’s being forced to actually share their pay details if they don’t want to.
All of this stuff is also happening in the context of a lot of change in the workplace space, as well. I was just out earlier—with, actually, Camilla Belich—with the Public Service Association, who were picketing the ACC because of the impacts on their workers of the negotiations that are happening for them, where many of their workers will not be being paid more than a living wage. Then to also reference the 33 pay equity claims that have been cancelled, and what that means for the workplace relations culture here within Aotearoa New Zealand. So there are a lot of things that are happening for workers that they don’t like. There are a lot of things that are happening for workers that we don’t like.
There are a lot of things that are happening for workers which means many of them have had enough; they’re going to jump on a plane, fly over to Australia, where they’ve got better workplace conditions and so on and so forth. However, it is good to see that on that side of the House, there are at least some members within the National Party who will actually want to see through the noise and want to be able to actually find a constructive way to engage with members on this side of the House, to actually get something over the line that workers support.
Nearly 90 percent of the submitters supported this bill. There were a small number that didn’t support the bill, but overwhelmingly it was about—well, pay secrecy creates chilling effects across the workplace. It has impacts on working culture and, as the previous speaker says, on productivity as well, because no one wants to find out that, actually, the person three rows down that’s doing the same job as you is being paid more because they’re a man, or they’re being paid more because of some other circumstance, as well. So it is encouraging, and I hope that bodes well for the future on that side of the House—that they will stop hitching their wagon to the ACT Party, who seem to be telling everybody what to do on that side of the House, particularly in the workplace relations space. So perhaps there can be more thorough investigations in terms of the impacts on workers’ rights—the impacts on those rights that I think everybody expects in this country. You know, you do a fair day’s work, you should get a fair day’s pay. That work should be respected, and you should have your full employee rights entrusted to you, as well. That is what people want: what they want is dignity and decent jobs.
So this is a step in the right direction. Finally, something good happened on that side of the House to enable that to happen. Of course, it’s a small step, but it’s a significant step. So, once again, I acknowledge Camilla Belich and her skill in navigating this through the House and getting at least one Government party to support something that the workers will wake up to tomorrow and celebrate. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT. The ACT Party is not supporting the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the reasons, I want to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Camilla Belich, and the work that member did on the select committee, and all the members on the select committee for their contributions. I also want to thank all submitters as well.
I acknowledge that the intent behind this bill is a good one. I’ve listened to the speeches from that member and members from the other parties as well. The topic that is being discussed here is pay discrimination, the gender pay gap. These issues are really important issues, and the ACT Party is the party that really believes there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender, on the basis of race. But if this bill did anything to reduce pay discrimination or a gender pay gap, we would have supported it. In our view, this bill is basically a token bill which will not do anything that is being talked about here.
In the select committee, we heard from the member in charge that this idea came from an inquiry that was done by the Education and Workforce Committee in the previous term. I ask this question: if this was such an important recommendation that came out of that inquiry, why, then—because it was a Labour Government then—didn’t the Labour Government adopt that recommendation and implement this as legislation? They didn’t because they knew that what is being done through this bill is not going to deliver what the bill says or what the member says. Now it’s become a member’s bill. It was in the ballot; now it’s taking up the House’s time as well. But it will not deliver anything that the bill implies it will deliver. I want to acknowledge everybody who supported and didn’t support the bill, and also all the submitters who kind of didn’t say if they fully supported or didn’t support the bill.
The way it’s implied that this bill is going to fix pay discrimination or the gender pay gap is not something that this bill will be doing. The issue here is this: if you look at this legislation, what it does is it says that the employer can have a prohibition clause prohibiting an employee from disclosing their remuneration, but then it’s not enforceable. What kind of message are we sending out to workplaces? You can go and sign an agreement, you can agree to some terms and conditions in your agreement, but then after taking that employment, after becoming part of the team in that company or business, you can breach that condition straight away.
What this bill says is that there should be no adverse conduct consequence for that. It is sending a very, very negative message out there to workplaces, and this is not the kind of message we would like to be sent to workplaces from Parliament, from any member of Parliament. Once you’ve signed something, you are supposed to oblige to the conditions that you have signed for. If you do not agree to something in the agreement that you have signed, then there is an opportunity for you to go back and renegotiate the terms and conditions that you don’t agree to. But you don’t just breach the agreement and say that there should be no consequences for that.
It’s very important to note that at workplaces when you sign an employment agreement, it’s based on the principles of values of integrity, values of trust. Where is that integrity of that employee when that employee goes and signs something and then comes out and doesn’t actually oblige the conditions that the employee actually agreed to? I don’t think many people would agree to doing that and that is what is being allowed through this legislation. This is actually quite dangerous and sending a very, very negative message. This is not going to fix what this bill intends to—as the member in charge of the bill has described.
On this side, we want to see that if people have agreements, they need to oblige. For breaching those agreements, there should be consequences for them, and it’s a matter between an employee and employer what to agree to. As I said before, they can renegotiate, but here in what this bill will allow, they don’t need to renegotiate; they can just go out and break the condition that they have signed for.
Second thing: it’s a voluntary disclosure, so it’s up to that employee if they want to disclose how much they are earning, what their remuneration is. So, again, what’s the point? So if we are leaving it to employees at the moment—and also the member in charge of the bill could not give exact numbers on how many cases of this we have seen here in New Zealand. That’s, again, another issue.
It’s a problem that doesn’t even exist. Employers and employees, when they agree to something, they’re happy dealing with it. The system is not broken, the system is working fine, so if it was so important, why didn’t Labour in the previous term, when they were in Government, adopt this and make it a Government bill and implement it? They didn’t because they knew this is not going to do anything. Especially, I’m really concerned about this component in this bill which sends a very wrong message to workplaces.
On this side, we want to stand with the voice that is grounded in reason, not a voice that is grounded in assumptions. This bill is making lots of assumptions that what it is doing—it allows people to breach the conditions they have signed for and just leave it as a voluntary thing, if they want to disclose or not disclose—will somehow fix pay discrimination and fix a gender pay gap.
I’ve repeatedly heard how many people submitted and supported this bill. Yes, there was support for this bill, but there were people who didn’t support this bill and there were some substantial reasons made why people didn’t support this bill. The reasons that came from those people were quite substantial and very, very noteworthy. The recommendation from one submitter was, “Leave it as it is. The system is not broken.” This submitter also said, “Employees’ remuneration has and should always be confidential between the employer and the employee. As a business owner, there are times when you may have your hand forced to pay more than the market rate to an employee for the sake of the greater good of your company.” So that’s a very important point here made by this submitter because sometimes an employee might be bringing that revenue that is needed to keep that company’s financials in a healthy state to also support more employment. So there is an indirect benefit that other employees are getting.
The other point this submitter makes is here: “Employees should be paid based on a range of factors: skill level” We have heard this thing again and again: skill level. Yes, of course, skill level should be compared, and people should be getting paid on the basis of their skill level. But then there are other things, like attendance. If there is one employee who is turning up to work on time and is diligently doing their work, whereas other employee of similar skill level is going on holiday every second week, not turning up to work on the same day, of course the employer will say that they want to pay more to somebody who is of the same skill level but is also diligent, is also turning up to work when needed—then the effort is also counted. Length of service is also counted. You might be working in that company for 10 years and somebody comes along just like that, and you expect that somebody who has been in that company, shown loyalty, should be paid more and employers should be able to decide if they want to do that. So these things matter, and these are the kind of things we believe are important to take into consideration.
Now, another submitter says that they recommend this bill does not go through. They said they believe that if employees are allowed to discuss remuneration, it would have a negative effect as all employees have different strengths and abilities which is reflected in their remuneration, just like the other submitter said. Then another submitter said, “Scrap it and concentrate on how we can improve the economy to keep people employed instead.” These are some of the examples of submissions that didn’t support this bill.
As I said, on this side, in the ACT Party, we support things that are grounded in reason, not grounded in assumptions. So, as I said, the intention is good, the speeches are good. Is it going to fix pay parity, pay discrimination, the gender pay gap? No, it will not; actually, it is sending a very wrong message to workplaces that you can go and sign an agreement and then breach that agreement that you have signed without any consequences—without any consequences.
What it does is it means that the adverse conduct consequence is not enforceable. If an employee goes out—despite signing that they are prohibited to disclose their remuneration, despite signing that as part of their agreement—and then discloses, now where will that employer get the trust on that employee for other clauses that the employee has signed? If an employee goes and breaches one clause that they have signed, then how will the employer get trust for anything else that’s part of that agreement that that employee is going to oblige to all that?
This is sending a very wrong message. To workplaces, trust and integrity are very important values, and this bill is actually about taking those two very important values away from workplaces. That’s why the ACT Party opposes this bill.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Can I start by commending Camilla Belich, the member in charge of the bill, who, as I think I referenced in my first reading speech, is running some sort of parallel Government over there, so many bills is she bringing before the House. She’s going head to head with Brooke van Velden in the numbers game—probably coming at it from a slightly different angle most of the time, it’s fair to say, but it is an impressive feat to get two bills into the House, and it’s looking like it’s passing as well.
As we get into the second reading and look at the select committee, I note the 225 submissions, which is a pretty good number for a member’s bill, so it obviously elicited quite a bit of debate and support out there in the wider community, which suggests that it is a bill that is worthy of this House’s time. Can I commend the Education and Workforce Committee for their diligent work on this, and from New Zealand First’s perspective they have improved this bill through that work. I know, through my own time in my last term in Parliament on the Education and Workforce Committee, it was a really interesting space to play in, and also you had that dynamic between the left and the right blocs that was often a bit of a flashpoint. So there were always some really interesting debates in there, but it looks like the committee’s worked pretty well in this particular case.
Right, in terms of New Zealand First’s position on the second reading, New Zealand First will be joining the ACT Party in not supporting this bill. We absolutely understand the intent, but this bill runs smack into the brick wall of New Zealand First’s belief in the sanctity of contract law. While this bill doesn’t prevent pay secrecy and that’s still able to be incorporated within a contract, it does limit an employer’s ability to enforce it, and that goes against what a contract should be. So it is more a technical—but an important technical—point of principle. As you could imagine, we’re led by a notable Privy Council lawyer as our leader, and things like that really matter to us and our party. So, whilst we agree with the intent of the bill, we did not feel that the magnitude of the benefits that it was purporting to bring overrode that important point of legal principle.
Of course, there may be very good reasons, based on merit primarily, why you may want to have a differential in a pay rate between two employees doing similar roles; that is as it should be. It should be merit-based at times. If you’ve got someone that is doing a superior job—working harder, more skill, and the like; showing more get up and go and more intent—then an employer should be able to remunerate that person better. There’s some equity in the workplace there where you don’t want to upset the apple cart too much, where everyone’s going around—it actually is of some benefit that people aren’t waving their pay slips around. There’s a reason why pay secrecy or, you know, some discretion around pay rates has traditionally been the norm in workplaces. It is not the case that there are nefarious reasons every time there is a pay differential. There are definitely merit-based reasons why you would differentiate pay.
That said, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t, you know, discrimination, and we have got this gender pay gap, but as the previous speaker mentioned, and as the member that introduced the bill has referenced, this isn’t the be-all and end-all in terms of that wider issue of—
Hon Jan Tinetti: It’s a tool.
Hon MARK PATTERSON: It is a tool, but it is a very modest tool, and it’s not a tool that has reached the threshold for New Zealand First of breaking the sanctity of contract law. There are other ways that we need to go about breaking down this gender pay gap, but we do not think this would have more than but a modest impact, if at all, and I think that’s been acknowledged from speakers around the Parliament tonight.
But I do want to congratulate Camilla Belich again. I think this is your second member’s bill. Last time, with the wage theft bill, we had the privilege of supporting it. We did feel that that was a bill that was worthy of passing into law. I know from that experience and the experience of dealing with this bill, it’s not the fact that you’ve brought bills that are substantive enough in nature to get genuine consideration but that you, from my experience, are as good as I’ve ever seen in terms of negotiating with other parties, trying to find where there might be some common ground, and being prepared to work with them. In this case, you have got the National Party over the line to get the numbers for this bill to pass. So it’s not totally on the merits of the bill, actually; some of it will be in the skill of the negotiation, so we do congratulate you on that. It is a fine achievement to get one bill over the line in a parliamentary term; to get two is a rather extraordinary achievement.
I feel like I’ve, essentially, laid out New Zealand First’s position on this. It is the sanctity of contract law that has trumped any benefit we may have seen through this modest clause in making it easier or with less ramifications around disclosing payment. That would be breaking an employment contract, there would be no ability for the employer to enforce it, and that is an important point of principle that New Zealand First cannot support. So, with that, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. First of all, I want to commend Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward. This is indeed a positive change, and she has been transparent with the House that this is not the transformation our workers deserve, but it is an important reform that will allow workers to actually be able to talk about their remuneration with each other, where people could identify potential gaps that may exist in the workplace and actually to normalise the conversations about pay. These things should not be a matter of shame or secrecy.
I think it’s really telling that New Zealand First continues putting workers last and that the ACT Party continues their completely delusional anti-worker agenda that is also completely misinformed. I can see why the National Party did not want the ACT Party speaker back when she tried to run again in Parliament, because she couldn’t even describe the bill accurately. She talked about people being obliged to disclose their wages—that’s not what’s in the bill. I can’t believe we’ve just been subjected—
Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand it’s against Parliament’s Standing Orders to impute a negative reference towards somebody’s character as that member Ricardo Menéndez March has to my parliamentary colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar. I would ask that that member withdraw and apologise for that imputation he made to my parliamentary colleague.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I do agree with the point of order. It was quite unparliamentary and you made an assumption about something, and I do think it’s worthy of an apology and withdrawal. Thank you.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. I withdraw and apologise, sure. But I stand by what I said. She was completely misinformed in her commentary.
Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, that’s completely unacceptable to “withdraw and apologise and stand by what I say”. That member should be forced to withdraw and apologise again, and commit to not repeating the allegation.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I withdraw and apologise for the comments I made in relationship to the National Party and the member; I stand by my comments in relationship to her comments on the bill. May I continue?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That’s fine. Carry on.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So the member was indeed misinformed in her views on the bill when she talked about people being obliged—
Stuart Smith: Point of order. I’m confused, I didn’t think the National Party had anything to do with what—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That is correct, and that was the point of the point of order. Ricardo Menéndez March clarified that, and that was what his apology targeted.
Stuart Smith: It wasn’t—I didn’t find it very clear.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK, I can clarify it for the member.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s fine. We can’t make allowances for other people’s ability to understand.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yep. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad you understood where I was heading.
Anyway, so the ACT Party member was mischaracterising the bill by stating that people would be obliged to, for example, talk about their wages. It’s appalling that she would have sat at the select committee and talked about being at the select committee and yet be completely ill-informed about the substance of the bill. I think it’s really telling that the ACT Party thinks that integrity is not being able to feel safe talking about how much you’re getting paid when we know that the gender pay gap and the ethnic pay gap continue to be issues in this country. People should not feel any level of shame of discussing this matter.
I think, once again, the sort of fake outrage and crocodile tears from the ACT Party just now speaks volumes to the fact that they’re far more offended about simple objective descriptions about, for example, their speeches in the House in relationship to the bill than actually how they treat everyday workers. The fact that they are far more concerned about the so-called integrity of secrecy around talking on remuneration than people having enough income to pay their rent, being able to afford to go to the doctor, and, actually, when the situation arises and people wish to discuss with each other how much they’re getting paid, that they’re able to do so without consequences.
I think that this reform is so common sense and it should be so bipartisan, that it says more about the political parties that are voting against it than the ones that are voting for it, because I think this is well overdue. I think most people actually will be surprised that they’re not supposed to be discussing this kind of thing in the workplace, even though it’s quite commonplace, that people do it anyway, despite knowing that they could face consequences for it. So when I hear members from the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party talk about the integrity of these contracts, we’ve got to talk about the reality that these workers who may choose to disclose their remuneration with each other are the ones that are propping up the businesses that these political parties claim to support. These businesses are nothing without their workers, and workers deserve—at the very least—to be able to discuss their remuneration to identify whether they’re being paid fairly.
The ACT Party member listed a perfect example of an issue that maybe workers may want to identify—for example, a worker being penalised for taking annual leave far too often. That should not be happening. And the fact that the ACT Party thinks that this is an issue that, you know, someone may choose to punish someone over and give better pay to someone else, when we have those legal entitlements that exist, such as sick leave or annual leave, says that we actually should allow workers to discuss these matters, because if I was in a workplace where I was being told that because I took my legal entitlements of annual leave I was getting paid less than a counterpart, I would be raising that issue with my employer, because that would not be fair. So I don’t think the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party understand the lived realities of many workers who currently struggle to have these conversations and raise legitimate issues around pay with employers.
I’m encouraged that the National Party supports this bill, and I want them to actually commit to putting in measures to address the gender and ethnic wage gap that exists in this country that means many women and ethnic minority groups are going without, despite doing similar—or, sometimes, the exact same—work as their peers. We should have a country where every worker is treated with respect and dignity and is free of discrimination. This bill will enable people to have conversations on their pay in a way that allows them to organise, which is something that they are scared about.
MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to address the House on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I would just start off, as a number of other speakers have, and congratulate Camilla Belich for the good fortune to have her bill drawn from the ballot.
I’ve been in and out a little bit of the Education and Workforce Committee, so I’ve sort of been involved with a part of it but not all of it. But I would just acknowledge the select committee in regards to—and it’s a shame that a lot of New Zealanders don’t get to see how we do actually get on at times in a constructive and respectful way while we endeavour to improve our legislation. So I would just acknowledge the select committee there.
I have thought a little bit about this bill and I was just trying to think what I was going to talk about. I’ve got four kids, and two of those are girls that work in predominantly male-dominated industries. As a father, I think it’s important for the girls as well, when one of our girls is at tradies night—local night at the pub—that she should actually be able to talk to fellow tradies and say, “Well, what are you getting paid?”, because she needs to understand that she’s being paid fairly based on her skill level.
Our other daughter is involved in the farming sector—again, it has traditionally been a male-dominated industry. If she’s down at the locals’ night at the pub—not always at the pub—she does need to be able to talk to other managers—
Hon Member: What’s wrong with the pub?
MIKE BUTTERICK: Nothing wrong with a pub.
Simon Court: Which pub?
MIKE BUTTERICK: Oh, we’re not going to go into which pub.
I think it’s not an unfair expectation and that she should be able to talk to other managers and ask what they’re being paid. They’ve got a good indication of where they sit in regards to their skill level and they can work out whether they’re being overpaid or underpaid, and that gives them the choice, if they’ve been underpaid, to go and talk to their employer and say, “Hey, mate, I think I need a better deal.” Or if that doesn’t resolve itself, they can go and look for another job as well where they are paid fairly.
I think it’s only a good thing that that happens. Also too, as an employer, I’ve employed a lot of people over the years and I constantly ask other employees, other shepherds, what they’re being paid, and I ask other employers what they pay their shepherds so that I can actually work out whether I’m paying the going rate and what I need to pay to retain and attract staff. It happens, so people should not be penalised for it because it’s a very normal function of being an employee or an employer.
This is a piece of legislation that, while simple in its intention, does carry implications for fairness, transparency, and the future of equity in our workforces based on competency throughout the country. I would comment that you don’t eat an elephant one bite at a time—all at once, sorry, you eat him one bite at a time. Sorry, I got that round the wrong way.
Tom Rutherford: We knew what you meant.
MIKE BUTTERICK: Yeah, yeah. Tonight, we are presented with an opportunity—an opportunity to stand on the right side of history and to address a barrier to equality in the workplace, which is pay secrecy.
This bill is about ensuring that no employee, regardless of their role or their sector, is prevented by their employer from discussing or disclosing their own pay. It is about removing the shroud of secrecy that too often contributes and allows pay inequities to persist, unchallenged and unseen. Right now there are employment contracts in New Zealand which include terms that prohibit—yes, that’s right: prohibit—employees from disclosing their remuneration, be it salaries, wages, or conditions to third parties, including their own colleagues, friends, and workmates. If an employee were to breach those terms, they might just find themselves on the receiving end of disciplinary action. This creates an environment of silence around one of the most fundamental aspects of work: how much we are paid for what we do.
This bill seeks to change that by removing any possibility for employers to enforce such prohibitive terms on their employees. This will allow open and honest discussions about what a person gets paid, free from any fear of retribution. So this is not just a technical change; it’s a cultural change. It’s a step towards greater transparency, which, in turn, is a step towards greater fairness.
Consider the case of a junior office worker who discovered that despite their excellent performance, they were earning significantly less than a colleague with the same role, experience, capability, or output. Upon attempting to discuss that discrepancy, they were reminded of the clause in their contract around sharing salary information and threatened with disciplinary action; or think about the factory worker who, despite having worked at the same establishment for a decade, remains unaware of pay disparity that might exist between themselves and newer employees on the proviso that they have the same capability and output, and their contract’s pay secrecy provision prevents that discussion that could reveal those inequities and prohibits the pursuit of a fair comparison.
In these situations, it’s all too easy for these practices to go unnoticed and unchallenged. And there will be many more examples which highlight the critical need for change. Don’t get me wrong, this bill is not about forcing employees to discuss their pay rates. This is about allowing them the choice and giving them the right to do this if they want to and without threat of repercussions.
Let’s be honest—when someone is asked to keep a secret or made to feel like something bad will happen if they open their mouth and talk about it, it’s quite likely that there might be increases of stress and anxiety that will—
Simon Court: It’s a contract; it’s confidential.
MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you, Simon Court.
The emotional toll of keeping secrets could be substantial, could lead to feelings of shame and guilt; more so if you’re not sharing the information with those that you are closest to. For many, the workplace is a second home. It’s where relationships are built. These relationships are based on trust and mutual respect and shouldn’t be undermined by an employment contract.
This bill introduces new provisions to make it clear that if an employer takes adverse action against an employee, this will amount to unlawful conduct. So this bill is very clear that adverse conduct includes dismissing an employee; refusing to offer the same terms, conditions, or opportunities as other employees, noting that reward for capability will and should always remain; or treating the employee badly because they’ve disclosed their pay. Transparency allows inequities to be identified and for these to be remedied. It creates an environment where employees can advocate for themselves and where businesses are held to account for the fairness of their pay structures.
In supporting this bill, this side of the House does so with a track record of advancing pay equity. We introduced mandatory pay gap reporting in the public sector, ensured superannuation payments for women, set up the Equal Pay Act and the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, launched initiatives such as Women in Trades and the Future Directors programme, and amended the Human Rights Act to protect women against discrimination.
Now, some will argue that pay secrecy clauses are necessary to preserve workplace harmony. They worry that open discussions about pay will breed resentment or disharmony, particularly when differences in pay may be due to factors such as experience, skills, or performance. Those are valid concerns, but they actually overlook the bigger picture. The purpose of transparency is not to erase all pay differences, but to ensure that those differences are justifiable—that they are based on merit and not on bias, conscious or unconscious.
Submitters have suggested that the bill include clauses clarifying that there is no obligation to disclose one’s pay and that there be protections against duress. Those are sensible suggestions. I support ensuring that the law is balanced and does not create new risks such as coercion or misuse. In legislating for transparency, we must always also safeguard privacy and freedom of choice.
Businesses have rightly pointed out that remuneration can reflect a range of legitimate factors, and some of those I have discussed—not least output, skill, and capability. However, without the ability to discuss and inquire, how can an employee know if their pay is fair? How can we measure our progress towards equity if the data is hidden behind closed doors? We take a step towards closing the gender and ethnic pay gaps that have persisted for too long. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll just note the member’s need to read his speech. Thank you.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to stand in support of this bill, and I too want to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleague Camilla Belich on her success in shepherding this bill through to its second reading here this evening. I too am like the previous member in that I was on the select committee for a short time as this bill was going through, and got the wonderful opportunity to actually sit and listen to many of the submissions, of which 89 percent expressed support for the bill, and only 4 percent expressed opposition towards the bill.
I have to say that if anyone was listening to the speeches here tonight and was wondering where they sat, they did only have to listen to the ACT member’s speech and they would be in agreeance with this bill by the end of that, because it was probably one of the most confused speeches that I have heard in this House in a very long time, and it was very obvious that the member was very confused about this bill and about what this bill would actually achieve.
At no point did any of the submitters, or indeed the member herself, say that this was the magic bullet towards changing and reducing that pay gap to zero. In fact, it has always been one tool in the tool box as part of a suite of changes. And that has been traversed here this evening, that many of those changes are things like a mandatory pay transparency scheme and mandatory reporting of the pay gap, which we do hope will be followed through on, as Labour did announce that in 2023 as an important part of absolutely reducing that pay gap that has sat stubbornly around 8 percent to 10 percent. This is an important part, and we’ve heard from some very confused speakers in ACT and New Zealand First that this would not make the difference. That is not what the research shows; in fact, this has been in place in Australia since 2022, and there is already research and work that is coming through to show that it is making a difference.
So for anybody that doesn’t think that this will make a difference, go and have a look and do your research, and don’t just spout the rhetoric around what they think it might do. Go and actually have a look and see what it actually does, and the difference and the speed at which we can see that it is making elsewhere in the world—and particularly Australia, since it came in in 2022.
There are a lot of people who were part of the last Government’s tripartite forums between Business New Zealand, unions, and the Government around what was needed in the pay gap area, and all three of those organisations were very supportive of this work. In fact, when Labour announced a mandatory pay gap reporting scheme and a pay transparency scheme, Business New Zealand stood very much proudly alongside the other two partners, saying that its time had come.
Well, time has come for pay secrecy to have the lid lifted on it here this evening, but I do want to just point to the chief executive of Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand, who recently wrote in The Post an opinion piece around the different areas that are needed to reduce that gender pay gap and said that another promising step is the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Introduced in March 2024 and reported back by the Education and Workforce Committee in May 2025, this bill aims to make it easier for employees to discuss pay openly, something that Australia legislated for in 2022. Another promising step towards reducing that gender pay gap. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Like many of the other members tonight, I would like to congratulate the member Camilla Belich for bringing this bill forward and, obviously, navigating it through and working very hard on the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d also like to commend the select committee for all of their hard work, of course, in bringing this bill through to the second reading.
Look, as we’ve heard tonight, this bill really does create more transparency in the workplace and it will make it safe for people to talk about their pay. That’s if they wish to, because, of course, as we’ve also heard, there are many people within a workplace that may not want to talk about their pay, that makes them anxious, and, of course, they want to keep that private and confidential.
Of course, there may be many employees who do want to talk about their pay, and those employees should have that individual choice to be able to talk about their pay in an open environment, whether that be in their workplace or whether that be at home. This is transparent, it’s fair, and they should not be punished for that. They shouldn’t be penalised for talking about their pay, which, of course, as we’ve also heard, can bridge the gender pay gap as well.
This bill will allow for those conversations about pay to happen at home and across workplaces. So if someone identifies some unfairness, they can raise that, of course, and that is fair. I mean, I believe that that is fair and that is what this bill is about, and that has been widely traversed across the select committee process.
The bill will remove the ability for employers to include terms prohibiting employees from disclosing their pay to a third party. So, currently, if an employee discloses their pay and is subject to a disclosure term in their employment contract, they will be deemed to have breached the terms and may be subject to disciplinary action. That just feels unfair. It is unfair and that needs to change, and this bill is going to drive that change. This bill will ensure that employees can discuss and disclose those pay rates.
Look, I am going to speak about the gender pay gap because, of course, that is an issue for us here in New Zealand. We have made a lot of progress over the years, but we have still got some way to go and this bill, of course, is likely to provide another tool in the tool kit to reduce that gender pay gap, and if we can get as many tools in that tool kit as possible to really make some inroads here and create some positive change, that is positive for women and female workers across New Zealand, Aotearoa. If we can move in this direction, that’s a good thing. So the National Party, on this side of the House, do remain absolutely committed to pay equity and addressing inequity in the workplace.
The National Party has a strong history, and it has already been mentioned this evening, but I would just like to put the spotlight on some of that work that has already been done, because this bill is about adding to that work and heading in the right direction. We introduced mandatory pay gap reporting in the public sector, really positive progress; we introduced superannuation payments for women; we introduced the Equal Pay Act; the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust; Women in Trades, another really positive move; the Future Directors programme; and we amended the Human Rights Act to protect women against discrimination.
The previous National Government reduced the gender pay gap from 12 percent to 9.7 percent in 2017, and, since 2017, it’s moved down to 8.6 percent. We want to see that continue to trend downward, because that is really, really important for us here in New Zealand. Our current Government has taken action to reduce the gender pay gap through development of a voluntary calculation tool that will see all businesses have access to the same measurement components to calculate their pay gaps. This is really healthy because businesses and employers should be taking action themselves to assess the gender pay gaps within their own businesses, and so this tool is about encouraging that. It’s about providing them, again, with the tools to be able to do that.
We know that many businesses across New Zealand are committed to closing the pay gaps and are already acting to voluntarily measure and report them, but we need to encourage businesses, employers, and companies to do more reporting. Of course, more transparency will bridge that gap.
Let’s move now to other jurisdictions, because it’s really important, when we look at a bill like this that’s going to take progress in this area, that we do look to other jurisdictions around the world and see what they’re doing. Many jurisdictions have moved to also prohibit contractual terms because they lead to pay secrecy and do not, obviously, encourage pay transparency between employees, and this can lead to discriminatory outcomes. This has been recognised internationally. This bill would align New Zealand with a lot of those other jurisdictions internationally around the world, with the laws in the UK, Canada, Australia, and some US states as well.
We need to align internationally on these very important issues when it comes to bridging that gender pay gap as well. So, although gender pay gaps are complex and they can be inconsistent when taking into account things like part-time workers and inclusion of bonuses and performance pay, there is absolutely no excuse for someone to be paid less as a result of their gender or ethnicity. That is absolutely unacceptable and as a modern, progressive country we should not be standing by and enabling that to happen.
Pay gaps have impacted women across New Zealand for decades, and we know there are significant pay discrepancies between men and women in New Zealand, and it is absolutely unacceptable that women, who are as productive and contribute just as much, in many professions, if not more, I might add—and they contribute significantly, of course, to our economy and our productivity and also, of course, make New Zealand a better place. We need to respect that, reward that, and recognise it. This is why we need to continue to drive change.
Trust and employee confidence is so important in a workplace. People will do a better job, as we’ve already heard tonight. We will also see better cultures within businesses and companies if we have that trust and that confidence and that transparency. Employers should have a responsibility to ensure pay equity across their businesses, organisations, and that they are moving in this direction to ensure that there is more pay equity.
This legislation is likely to show more transparency, which results in more pay equity. As we have heard internationally, more transparency makes a significant difference. Of the over 200 submissions that I understand were heard through the select committee process, 89 percent were in support of this bill, so that’s a real credit to this bill; only 4 percent were against it and opposed, and I understand some of those were relatively neutral, because most submitters believe that greater transparency will help reduce the pay gap. So, while there’s been positive progress, we still have inequities here in New Zealand for women. And, of course, I will just acknowledge that the gender pay gap is often more significant for Māori, Pacific, ethnic, and disabled women, and that is certainly something that we need to change here in New Zealand.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Can I congratulate my colleague Camilla Belich on what should be the successful passage of this bill at its second reading tonight.
It was interesting listening to the ACT Party contribution earlier, because the member made some assertions that this bill wasn’t required, and so I thought I might just bring an example to the House of when I’ve seen this exact issue play out in reality for women workers at a large retail store in New Zealand. This retail store has a collective agreement in place that lays out the wage rates across different parts of the business. However, it never actually stated the exact rate everyone should be paid at each level within the role that they held; it had some crazy definitions, including “the mid-point”. So whenever a negotiation occurred at bargaining, workers would be guaranteed that they had to be a certain amount above or below “the mid-point”. It wasn’t written into their contract, but the workers were told, under no uncertain terms by managers in that business, that they must not disclose their pay to each other.
They would raise this with me, and I would say, “Well of course you can discuss your pay with each other, just like you can tell somebody your birth date or your address or your weight or your height or your eye colour or the names of your parents, this is private information that is held by you. It’s not for anybody else to disclose on your behalf; it is ultimately your choice.” You can say “I am paid this.”, or you can say “I’d like to keep that information private to myself.” If you’re applying for a mortgage at the bank, they want to know how much you’re earning. You can’t really say to the bank, “Oh, I’m very sorry, but my boss told me I can’t tell anyone how much I’m paid.” It’s bizarre to think that, actually, what is basic, private information held by an individual can’t actually be disclosed on their grounds, on their choice.
There would be women workers at this large retail store sitting in a tea room, wanting to talk about pay because this business was known for having a bit of favouritism going on, and people would discover that someone was being paid more even though they’d only just started working there; didn’t have as much experience, but they were quite liked by the boss, so they got a bit of extra money. So a bill like this means that that transparency is allowed, and there’s no more kind of whispering or concern that someone’s going to get in trouble because, “Oh my goodness, I told my husband how much I earn.”
That’s the level of insidiousness that came through. People were saying, “I’m not allowed to tell you.” You know, they honestly thought they weren’t allowed to tell a single soul how much they earned—these women on low pay. It was really sad, but also they felt so empowered when I said, “Well actually, it’s your private information. There’s nothing in this contract that says you can’t tell the person how many hours a week you work, the name of your role, how many years you’ve worked there, and how much you’re paid.” So it’s a great bill, it will make a difference, and I commend it to the House.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s good that you’ve got a nice loud voice, Mr Rutherford, because there’s a lot of talking on your side of the House, and I’m hoping that your colleagues might listen to what you have to say.
TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I like to think my voice can carry through this House. But thank you very much, Madam Speaker—I’m still wondering if my colleagues have been listening to your advice or not, but we’ll see over my five-minute contribution. No doubt it’ll be enjoyable for them.
It does give me great pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to the member Camilla Belich for having the bill drawn in her name and for garnering the support across the House to have the bill progress through the process as well.
I’ve sat here for a little wee while and listened to the different contributions we’ve heard both from colleagues on the other side of the House, and my own colleagues in the National Party as well—Catherine Wedd with her marvellous contribution just before. But I just want to return us to the debate around the intention of the bill and what we’re actually striving to achieve here by amending this legislation. It removes employers’ ability to include pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts. That’s what this bill is focusing on. Currently, employees can face disciplinary action for discussing their pay with their colleagues. The bill ensures employees can discuss and disclose their own pay without fear of repercussions.
We in the National Party support it because we believe it promotes fairness and transparency in the workplace, and that’s why we supported it at first reading, supported it through the deliberations of the select committee as well, and are again supporting it tonight at its second reading.
What’s the problem that it’s addressing? Well, pay secrecy clauses prevent employees from discovering if they’re being paid unfairly. We in the National Party have a strong track record on reducing gender pay gaps. The previous National Government reduced the gender pay gap from 12 percent to 9.9 percent in 2017. I was just having a quick flick through as well, to see what had happened in the space of the gender pay gap in particular since 2017. Well, it only moved down from 9.7 to 8.6 percent, so there’s still work to do. But again, this bill isn’t solely focused on the gender pay gap, but that is a flow-on effect of this piece of legislation for transparency in the workplace.
We’ve taken action as a Government to reduce the gender pay gap through the deployment and development of the voluntary calculation tool that I know Minister Grigg has been leading as the Minister for Women. It will enable businesses to see and have access to the same measurement components to calculate their pay gaps. This is another step in the right direction around transparency in the workplace, not just for women—but that is an element of it—but for everybody in the workplace around transparency of what they earn and what they’re being paid for their work.
Let’s just address some of the concerns that have been raised both this evening and through the select committee process as well. This doesn’t force anyone to disclose their pay. There’s no enforcement of that. All it does is simply remove the ability for employers to prohibit it. So there is no forcing of people to disclose their pay. It just prohibits the employers from not allowing them to disclose it. Different pay rates can be justified by things like experience, skills, and performance, but transparency helps ensure these are the real reasons for differing pay.
This brings New Zealand into line with international best practice, and, again, I was having a look through to see what some of our friends and colleagues across the Ditch and across the world do, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. They have prohibited such contractual terms as it does not encourage pay transparency. So what we’re doing as a country is we’re bringing ourselves into line with what a number of other nations across the world do that we like to compare ourselves with. That’s a good thing for New Zealand. Australia’s legislation does include some of similar protections while maintaining employee choice.
We believe in fair pay for fair work regardless of your gender or ethnicity, and transparency is a tool that helps achieve that goal. This bill is about fairness, transparency, and ensuring all New Zealanders can negotiate, from a position of knowledge, about their worth in the workplace. So I commend the bill to the House.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I listened to the excellent speech by the National Party member Vanessa Weenink at the start of this debate. If you sort of squinted your eyes, put your head on one side, you could imagine a universe where there was some consensus in the House that workers should be treated with dignity and respect, where workers would be treated as adults, free to discuss their pay, free to discuss their pay with their workmates, not able for that to be prohibited as if they were in some Dickensian master-servant relationship; a world where the National Party didn’t reflexively seize every opportunity to drive down the wages of working people and undermine their bargaining position; a world where the mad, hard-right ideology of the ACT Party wasn’t allowed to run riot in coalition negotiations and subject the country to a procession of stupid, ideological, right-wing employment relations bills. So let’s just savour the moment of this alternative universe.
It still puzzles me why the National Party chooses to define itself as the party of low pay. Now, of course they protest. They don’t like that description. When they look in the mirror in the morning, they don’t like to say, “Oh, there’s the party of low pay.”, but I give you three exhibits. Fair pay agreements: they dismantled them with relish in their first few weeks after taking Government—legislation that was designed to help the country’s lowest-paid workers negotiate decent wages. They have cut the minimum wage in real terms since they’ve been in office. And exhibit three: the destruction of pay equity, 33 different pay equity claims, nearly $13 billion in the pipeline taken away to fund their tax cuts at the expense of low-paid workers—and, particularly, female workers.
Now, look, I seriously appreciated the fathers on the select committee who talked about their daughters, and we heard that tonight: fathers that don’t like the idea that their daughters would be discriminated against in the workplace. I like that. I respect that. But is it such a big leap to have some empathy, to put yourself in the shoes of a care and support worker, a security guard, a cleaner, a retail worker, a hospo worker, an early childhood teacher, and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who work multiple jobs with insecure hours, who drive across the city at all hours of the day and night because they don’t have the market strength to bargain for better wages, for decent pay, for a living wage?
Is there anything about conservatism as a political ideology that requires the members on that side of the House to always, always try to strengthen the position of the owners of capital and undermine the bargaining position of people who work for a living? I don’t think there should be. There’s no logical reason why that should be so, and yet we have a legacy of 40 years in this country of policy settings that have delivered a low-wage economy that tilts the playing field away from workers. It is the root of almost all of our social and economic problems as a country. Governments these days spend all of their time subsidising low wages and cleaning up the social mess caused by poverty.
Wouldn’t it be great if the National Party actually was serious and reflected some concern that they evinced in the House tonight for fairness, for equity, being in opposition to discrimination, and actually stood up for New Zealanders getting decent pay and conditions in the workplace? Wouldn’t that be a great thing? I reckon Kiwis would really like that.
DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to take the last call in this debate and to restore some decorum in this debate, after the drivel that we heard from that previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford. In that time—in that five minutes—he didn’t even talk about the bill; didn’t even talk about the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was expecting it in the second five minutes, but he didn’t take it.
DAN BIDOIS: That’s right. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Camilla has a word with him after this debate.
It is my pleasure to stand here and support this bill, on behalf of the National Party. I wish to congratulate my fellow Northcote constituent Camilla Belich for her courage and for bringing a real tangible issue and solution to this House.
I come to this debate as a son of a working-class mother, raised by a household of strong women, and married to an ambitious, smart, and talented wife. I also—
Hon Member: You’re a lucky man.
DAN BIDOIS: What’s that? I’m a lucky man. I also come to this debate as an economist. That’s my profession and that’s what I’ve devoted most of my working life to doing. I want to speak about the role of efficient markets and the role of transparency in efficient labour markets, because this is what we’re talking about here. This is a labour market issue. In fact, there’s a lot of research that looks at the role of transparency in market efficiency. It is all about leading to transparent pricing. Why is that important? It’s about making sure that supply and demand match and clear at a strong and efficient pricing. It’s all about making sure that there’s an efficient allocation of resources and talent across this country. If you don’t like what you’re getting paid, you can go elsewhere to a higher wage rate. It also leads to greater trust in labour markets. That trust leads to greater participation—and we’ve had lower participation rates for women ever since day dot. It also leads to greater outcomes in this country.
So this is an important bill for so many reasons. It’s important around equal pay, it’s important around participation, but it’s also a productivity problem. That’s what this side of the House is focused on—improving our productivity. That is why we are supportive of it.
I am surprised and dismayed at my friends in the ACT Party, who I thought valued free markets. I thought that they would not support such moves in this House. I would certainly encourage—and we’re going to through your dissenting view and I’m going to read it out. It’s the eleventh hour and I would encourage you to get on to your leader, David Seymour, and to change the vote, because I do think that the greats of the ACT Party—your Richard Prebble and your Roger Douglas and your Derek Quigley—I think they’d support this bill tonight, because they’d support it on the grounds of market efficiency. It is on that basis that I stand and support this bill.
The importance of transparency cannot be understated for efficient labour markets. We’ve got still some big issues around transparency and pay equity for women. This bill is a great example of a place where we can discuss pay. It’s probably the first time in this House that I’ve ever agreed with anything Ricardo Menéndez March has ever said. But, actually, even when it’s in contracts, people still talk about it—let’s be honest. There is nothing that can stop somebody from talking about their pay. It is a touchy subject, but it is something that we should encourage, because it’s all about making sure that there’s transparency for your current job, but also if you move up that organisation and you get a promotion, you want to make sure that that is a good, worthy promotion.
If I think of my own family circumstances, it’s also about moving to better jobs. You want to be able to talk with your future employer. And I’ll tell you what: one of the first things your future employer often asks during the interview process is, “Well, what do you get paid?” Just so they can understand what the ballpark of your current pay arrangements are. So it is so important for the lifecycle of anybody’s career to be able to disclose that.
I don’t think that there is any credible reason to be supressing and making pay a secret and not negotiable topic. It already happens anyway. I can guarantee it already happens. So that’s where we are and supportive of reducing the pay gap for women. But it’s not just about women; this happens with men too. It is all about making sure that, actually, pay increases because you should be paid what you are valued and contributing. That happens for all different types of reasons.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: There’s justified and unjustified reasons.
DAN BIDOIS: That’s right—non-justified reasons.
I do just want to again pick up on the differing view from the select committee from my colleagues in the ACT Party. I just want to talk about it, because, again, there’s just some nonsensical arguments here that I think a free marketeer would just shut down. Let’s talk about it. They talk about that it’s not needed; that it’s a private matter. Well, actually, no, it’s not a private matter. If it is a private matter, you should be to talk about it like a private matter. You shouldn’t be able to restrict what people say in private conversations.
Now, my colleague here talks about freedom of contract. I just want to say to that member that not everything of value is written into a contract and not everything in a contract is of value. I’ve been on both sides. I’ve employed people and I’ve also been a worker. I tell you what, the amount of times that I just cut and paste from a website, and there’s so much stuff that is in an employment contract that I just don’t really think is needed, but you put it in there because it’s a cut-and-paste job and you don’t want to overthink it. So there’s a lot of these types of scenarios where it just strikes me as bizarre.
Look, there’s no cost to this really for the State. I just think that what we want is a scenario where the true price is acknowledged and people are paid that price. So that is why I don’t support any differing view that says that, “Well, on the basis of good free-market economics, we cannot support this.” That just doesn’t stack up to me.
In terms of the select committee process, my colleague Vanessa Weenink ran through the comments and the changes that were made in the select committee process. I do want to say that National has a proud history, and New Zealand has a proud history. I’m honoured to be able to stand in this Parliament with you, Madam Speaker, in your role, and having the number of female Prime Ministers that we’ve had, having such distinguished colleagues all around this House, and not being able to take gender into account. I think that that is fantastic for New Zealand and it’s something that we should be really proud of. I’ve lived overseas in many different countries and I’ll tell you what, we are streaks ahead on gender issues compared to many other countries.
But we’ve still got issues to deal with. We’ve still got an 8.6 percent gender pay gap. Again, we’re not talking about just paying the same as men. We’re talking about getting paid the same as other people for work of equal value—for work of equal value. I think, actually, transparency of pay enables that price discovery to be realised and for that gap to be narrowed.
We’ve got some great things under way. We’ve got that Pay Gap Calculator that Nicola Grigg just implemented. I think that’s a really good initiative. But there’s actually a lot going on in the private sector. I just want to shout out to all our businesses across the country that are taking leadership roles to disclose for themselves to the public their gender pay gaps, and the work programme that they’ve got under way to help narrow those pay gaps. It’s not just up to the Government. In fact, I very rarely think that Government is the solution to anything these days. It is actually all of us in society that provide the solution for reducing gender or any other pay gaps for that matter.
So it is a fantastic bill and it is great to commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dana Kirkpatrick—is this the split call number six?
Dana Kirkpatrick: Yes please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dana Kirkpatrick
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great honour to come very late to the party in this and to come along and take this final five minutes for Camilla Belich’s bill, the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate Camilla for having this bill put into the ballot, for drawing it out and for, apparently, having great tenacity in the select committee process. But well done to the member; it’s a great honour to have a bill pulled out, and I commend you for it. The National Party could have looked at it and said, “Oh, it’s a Labour Party bill.” It’s something that we don’t really normally—you know, we would normally say, “Oh no, we won’t do that.” But when you think about the context and the actual principle of it, it made sense for us to support this bill. So I’m proud that we’re supporting it.
I was trying to think of some examples about where this actually plays out for us, and I could think of a couple. Firstly, I was a proud union card-carrying member in my misspent youth when I was a cadet reporter at the Gisborne Herald in 1980-something. I hesitate to admit it, but we actually were union members only because they gave us a really fancy card that said “Press”. That meant you could get into anything at all, pretty much. So that was the reason we did it. But what I was reflecting on was that all of our pay rates were published, and we were very clear about what you were as a first-year cadet reporter. I think I got $180 a week. I thought it was Christmas. It was just fantastic. You went up the scale from there, and it took a long time, but I was reflecting on that and thinking, “Well, there you are. There we have it. We were very clear about what we were paid. We didn’t need to discuss it with each other because we knew.”
It’s a similar kind of story, if you think about us here in Parliament where it’s exactly the same. We all know what we get paid. It’s published in the Speaker’s Directions and we have a very clear understanding of who gets paid what, up and down the scale from the top to the bottom. I think that speaks volumes in that why is there one rule for some and why are there other roles for others? It makes no sense. So I am fully in support of the member’s bill to amend the Employment Relations Act to promote pay transparency and fairness by protecting employees who discuss or disclose their remuneration.
Currently, the law allowing agreements to include provisions which prohibit workers from discussing or disclosing their remuneration with colleagues or third parties just doesn’t seem to make sense in a modern context. So I think it’s time we put that to bed, and we are very pleased to support this.
I know one of my colleagues spoke of his children and how they think about these things. I have two children in the workforce, doing their best work, and I wonder whether it would have ever occurred to them that they couldn’t discuss their pay, that they weren’t actually able to sit next to the person next door and go, “You do the same job as me, are you getting the same deal here, or what’s happening?” I think it’s important that we don’t marginalise people or that we don’t actually make it difficult for them to do that—so, you know, I think it’s really important.
I just was reading through some of the information here and it says “Why is the bill so important?” And it talked a little bit about the gender pay gap currently being at 8.2 percent. There’s been some great work done in New Zealand about the gender pay gap, where women earn, on average, 8.2 percent less than men. The time has come for that to finish. If this tool, this bill, is one way of making that happen, then I think that’s a step in the right direction.
In closing, I think that if the legislation is enacted it will profoundly impact both employers and employees. For employers, it will establish clear legal guidelines on how remuneration discussions should be handled, reducing confusion and potential legal disputes. For employees, it can promote open communication about remuneration. I think that that’s about all we’ve got to say.
I think, on our side of the House, we’re very pleased to be supporting the bill and happy that the member’s bill will proceed to its third reading and with support across the House. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 103
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.
Noes 19
ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill
First Reading
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I move, That the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.
Auckland expectant couple Manu and his partner bought a $600,000 two-bedroom home in West Auckland off the plan in April 2020, and it had a November 2020 completion date and a July 2021 sunset clause. These sunset clauses are common off-the-plan deals. They are meant primarily to protect buyers so that they can pull out at a certain date if a project is legitimately delayed—say, due to the supply chain constraints that we saw during COVID times. Manu got little communication and saw little construction, according to Radio New Zealand’s Phil Pennington, who reported his case. Eventually, 1½ years later, after he signed the contract and just days before the baby was due, the sunset clause was invoked. That meant the seller did not have to sell the house. Instead, with a freshly issued certificate of compliance—conveniently issued, in fact, just a day before the sunset clause was invoked—the seller could put the house back on the market, this time fully built and worth tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars more.
Manu and his partner did not have funds to legally challenge what had happened, and now, with new baby in tow, they face finding a home that, due to the heated market, would likely cost them $100,000 more. Shock, heartbreak, uncertainty, and a massive financial burden for Manu and his family; no impact to the seller, no reputational risk or legal issues—it was all done under the sanctity of the sunset clause. Radio New Zealand reported on three similar cases in Papakura, Christchurch, and the North Shore. I spoke to several lawyers, along with property law expert Joanna Pidgeon, who had between them been involved in dozens of similar cases involving people desperately trying to get on the property ladder, who get taken advantage of through these sunset clauses.
In February 2020, Stuff reported that a developer—Tawa LLP—cancelled the sale of some of its properties in Wellington under a sunset clause. It then relisted the properties for a higher price to reflect market-value increases, and this left many first-home buyers trying to recover their deposits. One of them was actually ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden, who was a political candidate at the time. Interestingly, she acknowledged that she had been a victim of dodgy development and market failure, saying there was no indication that the development would be cancelled, even after she had been advised to buy curtains for the new apartment. But despite being left out in the cold, she did not support a legislative fix. I’m not looking to the ACT Party to support my member’s bill, but I am looking to their more rational coalition partners for support this evening.
Many of the other affected buyers did call for more parliamentary action to protect buyers’ rights after the incident, and that has been covered in the media, via lawyers, via consumer activists, and including on Fair Go. Some cases they spoke of involved land deals being cancelled or contracted buyers being called on to stump up extra so-called contributions to keep a project on track, with the sunset clause weaponised as a threat to pull out of the deal if those contributions were not forthcoming. In one case, $100,000 was added to the purchase price and, when the buyer couldn’t pay it, the sunset clause was invoked. Once again, the house sold days later at a much higher price. You get the picture.
It might be a first-time buyers’ market now; however, only a few years ago, the property market was so hot, that commentators feared it risked collapse. In 2017, the average house price increase was 24 percent, and, in some spots, it was 30 percent. It is inevitable, in an, essentially, property-market economy, that it will sizzle again and we will see the same unconscionable behaviour by a small number of unscrupulous developers. It’s all very well for lawyers to say, “If you’re buying off the plan, and the contract includes a sunset clause favouring the developer, you should insist it’s removed.” It’s all very well to say, “Run a mile if that doesn’t happen.” Yes, contracts need sanctity, but not in a failing market, and this is a market failure regarding power imbalance and unethical behaviour. In tight markets, and when sunset clauses are increasingly common, there is a real power imbalance between the buyer and seller. Even when sunset clauses are crossed out of contracts, some developers still try to invoke them, according to one barrister I spoke with. And there’s bugger all the buyer can do unless they have money for lawyers.
Now, don’t get me wrong, many developers have every intention of finishing on time—they’ve costed their development and are acting on good faith—but it is unethical for any developer to cash in on a sunset clause because the property prices have increased since the contract was first signed. Unfortunately, the bad practice of a dodgy few developers has tainted the reputation of the sector. The legislative fix I am bringing to this House protects the good guys and gals from the reputational damage that has been caused to them by the dodgy few. It’s a win for purchasers and a win for developers.
The bill amends the Property Law Act 2007. Purchasers would have to give their consent if vendors wanted to rescind their sale and purchase agreement under a sunset clause, and this would rebalance the scales between purchasers and vendors, especially for first-home buyers, who often can only afford off-the-plan dwellings. It requires written consent of the buyer to rescind the sale agreement of an off-the-plan property where a vendor has initiated the rescission. The consent would have to be obtained at the time of the rescission. It allows vendors to rescind an off-the-plan contract under a sunset clause where a court determines that it would be just and equitable. There is a contestable element to it for vendors that feel that the permission has been withheld unreasonably, and it doesn’t affect any other mechanism a vendor has in their contract with a purchaser that would allow cancellation of the contract. It’s modelled on Australian laws. It has been enacted in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. They experienced similar unethical behaviour by some developers, and it has worked very well.
There may be times when ending a contract is the best way forward for both vendor and purchaser, and in these cases—as within Victoria and NSW—a sunset clause could be activated by the vendor with the written consent of the purchaser. A vendor, as I said previously, can go to a court to seek a court order under the factors of the new section 41C(2). Those factors are: “(a) the terms of the off-the-plan contract: (b) whether the vendor has acted unreasonably or in bad faith: (c) the reason for the delay in creating the subject lot: (d) the likely date on which the subject lot will be created: (e) whether the subject lot has increased in value: (f) the effect of the cancellation on each purchaser: (g) any other matter that the court considers to be relevant.” It really does enable the court to determine whether the developer is acting in good faith, rather than the current carte blanche assumption that it is so.
For a sunset clause to be valid, this bill requires that certain consumer information will be included in the contract, including that the purchaser has the right to consent to the proposed cancellation of the off-the-plan contract but is not obliged to consent. It includes relevant procedures that a vendor must undertake in order to legally cancel a contract under a sunset clause. It also allows for the court to make any other order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances, including an order for compensation for the purchaser. This will disincentivise any dodgy vendors from using the court process until and unless it can be justified.
Being a property developer does entail risk, but so does buying a home, and purchasing a home is one of the most significant decisions and sometimes risky decisions a family can make. New Zealand families deserve to know that, when they sign on the dotted line and entrust a vendor with the creation of that home, they will not lose out due to greedy behaviour rewarded through a technicality. The bill aligns with Labour’s values that support homeownership. It is simple. It doesn’t add red tape. It won’t make developers more risk-averse, because it is fundamentally narrow in scope. It only captures the actions of those vendors who use a sunset clause in an unjustifiable manner. It provides a safeguard for a developer, through a court order, where a purchaser unreasonably withholds use of the clause.
By changing the rules now, we can pre-empt the next wave of hot property prices and the considerable harm that can be done to families wanting to buy a home before it actually happens. This is a sensible bill, and I do hope that the sensible parties within the coalition Government will put aside party politics and do the right thing for New Zealanders and support my bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Unlike what some of my other colleagues might have done, and I could take my full 10 minutes and string the member along and hold her on to the hope that we’ll be voting in favour or opposed to the legislation, I’m not going to do that. We’re going to be opposing this legislation. Despite the member in charge crying out for the more rational side of the Government to come in to play, rational National won’t be supporting this legislation. To clarify for the member: the Justice Committee won’t be required to consider the bill, because it won’t be progressing to the Justice Committee without support from coalition partners and things on the bill, as well.
There are four problems I see with this legislation—
Reuben Davidson: I’m looking at more than four problems right now.
TOM RUTHERFORD: —and I’m going to outline them through my—what was that, I’m sorry?
Reuben Davidson: I said, “I’m looking at more than four problems right now.”
TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, very smart from Mr Davidson, very smart—very smart.
But there are four issues I have with this piece of legislation, and I’m going to outline them, but, ultimately, this bill does seek to change how sunset clauses work in off-the-plan property purchases, as the member in charge outlined. Sunset clauses currently allow each party to cancel if construction isn’t completed by a certain date, and I believe that this proposed change would actually create a one-sided sunset clause. These agreements are for two parties, but this bill would empower it for one side and one side only.
Number one: the first problem I have with this piece of legislation is that it’s a solution in search of a problem. The size and scale of this supposed issue is not well established. There’s limited evidence that developers are systematically misusing sunset clauses, and we shouldn’t be making major legislative changes without clear evidence of widespread problems. Anecdotal cases, as the member outlined in her contribution, citing, for example, the deputy leader of the ACT Party who was involved in one of these, as she outlined in her speech, but then she said herself, “But I don’t think we should have legislative change.”—that kind of verifies why there’s no need for this bill in the first place, and why it’s actually a solution searching for a problem.
The number two problem that I have with this bill is that it’s using the wrong legislative vehicle. The Property Law Act 2007 deals with property rights, leases, and mortgages, not consumer protection. Consumer protection in building contracts already exists under the Building Act 2004.
Miles Anderson: I thought so. Good point.
TOM RUTHERFORD: That’s quite right, Miles Anderson. That Act already protects consumers with information requirements, implied warranties, and remedies. If there is a genuine problem, it should be addressed through existing consumer protection laws, not property law. It’s the wrong legislative vehicle.
Problem number three is sunset clauses serve legitimate purposes. These clauses protect both buyers and sellers from unreasonable delays. They allow consumers to withdraw if they’re not happy with what is being delivered, and construction projects do face genuine uncertainties: resource consents—how long are resource consents taking at the moment across the country, for example?—and weather. We have seen literally over the last three weeks what some of the weather impacts are that our country faces on a rather regular basis, and they too can create uncertainty in construction projects. There can be supply chain issues and skilled labour shortages in some cases. It also removes flexibility that could make developers less willing to offer off-the-plan sales, reducing options for buyers. Now, the member in charge said, “No, that’s not going to happen. That’s not going to happen.” Well, actually, I would say the counter to that and say that it could be a genuine option that developers would be less willing to offer off-the-plan sales, reducing options available for buyers.
The fourth problem I have with the legislation is the unintended consequences for the housing supply. Requiring court approval adds cost and delay to property transactions. It can reduce availability of off-the-plan housing when we desperately need more supply, and it may push developers toward less consumer-friendly contract structures.
What I want to focus on is what we’re actually doing to address housing issues. Let’s have some real action on housing supply in this country. While Labour and their members focus on narrow regulatory tweaks that might help a handful of cases, we’re tackling the fundamentals of the housing crisis we inherited from them. New Zealand house prices are among the most expensive in the developed world. This is fundamentally a planning and supply problem, not a contract law problem. We’re replacing the Resource Management Act with a new planning system that makes it easier to build housing that New Zealand desperately needs. We’ve got six major legislative changes under way at the moment. We’ve got housing growth targets for councils, making them accountable for enabling growth rather than blocking it. We’ve got new rules making it easier to expand outwards at the urban fringe. We’re strengthening intensification provisions around transport hubs and city centres. We’re requiring councils to enable mixed-use zoning across our cities, abolishing minimum floor area and balcony requirements that unnecessarily push up costs, and streamlined consenting processes that reduce delays and uncertainty.
We need to be focused in this House and in this country on the fundamentals, not tinkering around the edges. It’s better to have more housing options available at lower prices than fewer options with slightly different contract terms. If we’re serious about helping first-home buyers, we need more housing supply and lower prices. That comes from planning reform and removing barriers to development, not adding more legal complexity to property purchases, as this legislation will do.
This bill could actually reduce housing options by making off-the-plan sales less attractive to developers. That could be the unintended consequence of this legislation. There are alternative approaches, if problems exist. We could strengthen disclosure requirements under existing consumer protection law. The Real Estate Institute could develop better industry standards for sunset clauses. The Commerce Commission already have tools to address unfair trading practices. Target any specific problems with precision, not a broad brush of a legislative change.
The economic reality is that housing supply is our critical challenge. We need more homes built faster, not more red tape. Adding regulatory complexity and mandatory court processes slows down development. This could discourage developers from offering off-the-plan purchases all together. Every barrier we add to housing development ultimately hurts affordability.
The National Party supports protecting consumers, but this bill is fundamentally the wrong approach. There’s no clear evidence of systematic problems requiring this level of intervention, and, ultimately, it’s using the wrong legislative framework when consumer protections already exist elsewhere. There’s a real risk of unintended consequences that could harm housing supply and affordability, so we oppose the bill and instead focus on the real solutions: planning reform, removing the barriers to development, and increasing housing supply. While the Labour Party tinkers around the edges with narrow fixes that might help a few cases, we’re solving the real problem: making housing more abundant and affordable for all New Zealanders. Good intentions aren’t enough. What we need in this country is evidence-based policy that addresses root causes, not symptoms, and this bill fails that test.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. To make it clear: we are supporting the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. We want to commend the member Ingrid Leary for bringing this to the House.
I think it’s rather rich of the National Party to claim that they’re not supporting something because of tinkering around the edges. If that was the case, I don’t think they would be supporting most of their own members’ bills, because that’s basically what they do most of the time.
The reality is that this bill is addressing an issue that has been reported by people as a detrimental factor and something that can cause hardship and stress. What this bill, effectively, does is it prevents developers from using sunset clauses to cancel off-the-plan property contracts, to sell at a higher price. While I don’t disagree that there are other areas in the housing space that will lead to greater affordability, what this bill does do is protect consumers. It adds a level of protection, and it prevents greedy property developers and multiple-home owners, that are basically raking over the housing market, from benefiting at the expense of everyday people. If the Government side of the House was so concerned about addressing the fundamentals, they would stop treating housing as a commodity to make a profit from. And if they were so concerned about supply, they would not be cancelling so many Kāinga Ora projects.
The truth is that the so-called supply they’re focusing on is in unaffordable housing that is out of reach for the people that they have made homeless and that they have sanctioned if unemployed. So it just falls in an incredibly disingenuous way, on this side of the House, because this is not what the Government is doing. They’re not addressing the fundamentals; they’re allowing landlords to get richer. Actually, they’re giving tax cuts for landlords, while we continue seeing more people going overseas. Even when we look at rent prices in places like Wellington, where this place is, the slight decrease in rent prices has been largely driven by people having moved overseas due to the job cuts and poor economic conditions that this Government has created. So I do think the Government may want to reconsider their position. If they genuinely believe in standing for everyday people, and potentially first-home buyers, people who’ve been locked out of having secure tenure, I think this this bill does go some way to addressing it.
I think even the previous bill we debated, the Government admitted that it wasn’t transforming—well, the National Party at least, because their coalition members were completely out of touch, admitted that it wasn’t transformational; no one here thought so, and yet they voted for it. I think this shows that, yeah, members’ bills have a place in finding discreet reforms that we can use to support our communities and specific constituents—it happens all the time.
I think that the bill that has been brought forward by Ingrid Leary will protect consumers. What it will, effectively, do is create, also, greater certainty when somebody is looking at purchasing a home, that they won’t end up being ripped off by somebody trying to, basically, make a greater profit by having that house increase its value, and selling it to someone else at an even more out-of-reach price.
So the Green Party supports the intent of the bill. We look forward to hearing from submitters, particularly people who have been negatively affected by this. So I am particularly looking forward to hearing from people who have been negatively affected by the existing provisions. I will be listening, and my colleagues will be listening, with a grain of salt to the people who are benefiting from the housing crisis. I hope that those are not the dominant voices at the select committee, because I think that the member who brought this bill forward raises a valid point around the lack of balance that exists between people who hold a huge amount of privilege and wealth, and those that are seeking to have just a bit of security of tenure in the housing market.
So we will be supporting this bill. We look forward to the select committee discussions, and we call on the Government members to reconsider their position and to not fool themselves into thinking that just because something tinkers around the so-called edges, it’s not worth supporting. Then again, that seems like most of their political agenda, unless it does seem to be leading transformative change to wreck our environment, to wreck workers’ rights, and to make the inequality crisis worse.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, I just had a question about laptops. Under Speaker’s ruling 19/5, it’s OK to have laptops on the desk when you’re using them to speak with, as long as they don’t have any logos on them. But when you’re using them and not speaking, they need to be in your desk and not on top. So that’s just clarifying a question that I’ve just been asked.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on this bill drawn in the name of Ingrid Leary—and well done, Ms Leary, for taking an issue that has affected New Zealanders and trying to come up with a solution. Unfortunately, this isn’t it.
The reason that it became an issue—if we think back to COVID times, I was but a humble builder working on site and wondering why the Government thought it was a good idea to be spending copious amounts of money, borrowing like crazy, the interest rates were going down—we were just in boom times. Shock, horror! When you print a whole lot of money, borrow a whole lot of money, it went straight into assets and asset prices went sky high. So the people in the early 2020s—so 2020, 2021, when this was an issue—they were raising it, and it was an issue that was brought about by profligate Government spending and an inability for the financial system to actually digest that spending.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Say it like you mean it.
CAMERON LUXTON: Instead it was going—oh, well, Dr Webb, I’m just a humble builder trying to explain the way it was on the ground dealing with the decisions that your Government had made.
Now, what we had was a poor planning system, as Tom Rutherford has laid out, which led to a shortage of housing. We had poor building products laws, which is another thing that this Government is getting on top of, to make sure the price of constructing a house doesn’t go blowing through the roof again as it did in the 2020s. What we had was an inflating house price that was completely devoid from what value there was. That was a monetary phenomenon and that is what this bill is seeking to address. Something that happened—an embarrassing part of what the last Government put on to New Zealand, but it is something that we hope we never see again.
Coming to the mechanisms in this bill—[Interruption]. Well, this is talking about—Dr Webb, I was trying to lay out the ground for your colleague taking such a decision despite being misguided. This bill will be removing—it was an interesting comment that Ms Leary made in there, saying there’s a risk in being a developer and a risk in buying a house. Well, risks have costs. So you could say we’re going to remove the risks on the purchaser by having the developer or the builder have no ability to mitigate those risks of increasing their costs. But all you’re doing is putting the cost on the upfront price. If you can’t say, “This building is getting more expensive,” because of delays through consenting delays, through products—if you, as a developer—
Hon Member: No, you can.
CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, you can, but you have to go and spend a whole lot of money, tens of thousands of dollars fighting it through the High Court. Yes, you can, but it’s creating legal uncertainty. It’s adding costs if it goes wrong, which means if a developer looks at that—and this bill, by some horrible turn of circumstance, actually passed—a developer would then have to look at that and then say, “OK, I’m going to have to price that up front because it’s a cost that I can’t mitigate.” That’s what would happen. We’d end up with higher costs. We would end up with fewer off-the-plan builds, which is what we need in this country to actually get some more supply into the housing market. We need off-the-plan builds. This bill, if by some crazy turn of circumstance actually passed, it would lead to less off-the-plan builds, therefore New Zealanders would go back to that old pastime of trading already built houses, which is one of the things that has held our economy back.
This will just be creating a “just and equitable” High Court test. It’s just going to insert unpredictability. It’s going to make New Zealanders who decide they want to go out there, who go out there and want to deploy their capital to build for other people, to have other human habitats for humans—just to try and get that word in—we’d end up being disincentivised to provide new housing. All this is going to do is perpetuate an issue that New Zealand has got, which is undersupply of housing. It’s going to create uncertainty. If this was to pass, it wouldn’t fix any of the problems that the member has identified. And it’s hard to do anything but say that we do not commend this bill to the House.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, first of all, I want to start off by thanking Ingrid Leary for reaching out around this bill. Congratulations for getting the bill drawn. I know that’s a lottery rather than a skill, but at least you got the bill in the biscuit tin, and it got drawn out.
Look, we understand the issues that you’re raising. We understand the stories that you’re talking about. The question is the question of balance. What are we talking about? We’re talking about sunset clauses. Why do we have sunset clauses? They’re there for the situation where a development that might have been expected to take a certain amount of time—18 months, 24 months, or whatever—takes a lot longer than that. The buyer might say, “Well, look, actually I want to be able to get out of that and be able to get on with my life, go somewhere else, and buy something else.”
It’s quite reasonable that a buyer would say, “I want to get out as well.”, but the developer may also have a problem. If it takes a lot longer, there are risks in this. What are the risks? Well, the costs may blow out or the consent may be hard to get. What we’re doing is we’re talking about situations where things are, by and large, bought off the plans, or it’s a new development. That means, by definition, there’s a whole lot of processes to go through. You’ve got to get the subdivision done. You’ve got to get the consent done. You’ve got to actually go and build the house or the houses.
There are risks there. We know what happens when you are committed to a project, come hell or high water, and you can’t get out of it if it takes a long time and the costs build up, because you can’t necessarily foresee everything at the beginning. Maybe you should say, “Well, you should foresee most of those things”, but you can’t necessarily always do that. It sounds a little bit like some of the major Government projects. We go in thinking that maybe a couple of ferries and a terminal might only cost us a few $100 million, and then, hey presto, two or three years later, it’s heading up towards $3.2 billion, and then, hey presto, it’s looking like $4 billion. Being committed, come hell or high water, even if you’re a Government, is a problem. If you’re a developer, it’s the kind of thing that will send you broke.
The sunset clause exists to allow both parties to be able to get out. The problem with the bill, as we see at the moment, is it’s quite one-sided, because it says that the buyer, the purchaser, can get out. In fact, there’s a specific out, which says the ability to get out is there for the buyer, but it is not there for the vendor. It’s not there for the developer unless—unless—the buyer says, “Yep, I’m OK.”, or unless they go to court. That, of course, is a risky process. [Coughs] Excuse me, Madam Speaker. [Coughs]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Take your time and have a drink.
ANDY FOSTER: I’ll do that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of water—just clarifying for the audience.
ANDY FOSTER: Yeah, no, I can assure you it’s water.
By definition, what we’re dealing with is a situation where there is no lot created. Possibly there is no contract to build the building. There is no building. There is a risk there for the developer. I guess what we’re hearing, particularly from this side of the House, is that the greater the risks are, what you start doing is you’re putting more barriers in the way of creating new housing. That, I think, fundamentally, is our concern as well, because the more risks you put in place, what it means is you’ve either got to price those risks in, upfront, or you might actually say, “Well, actually we’re not going to do that off-the-plan development at all.” That, of course, reduces the supply of housing. That, fundamentally, is one of our concerns because this is quite a one-sided piece of proposed legislation.
New section 41B of this bill says that the vendor cannot cancel once they have passed a sunset date without the purchaser agreeing or going to court and the court agreeing to that. We understand the problem, but we consider that, on balance, the potential harm to the building market is greater than the gains which are going to be there.
Look, I just wanted to say one other thing. If we do this to developers—if we force developers—what, effectively, we’re saying is we’re forcing developers to be more advanced in their development before they enter a contract, because it’s too risky to do it right at the front end. If we do that, how are developers going to be able to finance some of these developments? It’s going to be a lot harder, a lot more expensive, and that cost will flow through.
There are two other things I wanted to mention—while I’ve got 30 seconds left—because they were raised, which aren’t directly relevant to this, but they were raised in debate. One of them is that we keep getting, from this side of the House, concern about cancellations of Kāinga Ora projects. If you look at the cost of some of those Kāinga Ora projects, they were running 40, 50, and 60 percent higher than the market was delivering. That is why those things were cancelled. They were just not good value for money. That is what this side of the House wants us to keep doing, to keep building things which are not good value for taxpayer money.
Finally, Tom Rutherford said that the most important issue is housing. I think that it is productivity in our economy. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.